Sempowicz, T., & Hudson, P. (2011). How can a mentor’s personal attributes and pedagogical knowledge develop a
preservice teacher’s behaviour management? International Journal of Learning, 18(1), 303-314.
How can a mentor’s personal attributes and pedagogical knowledge
develop a preservice teacher’s behaviour management?
Tracey Sempowicz and Peter Hudson
Queensland University of Technology
Introduction
This study presents the importance of a mentor’s (experienced teacher’s) personal attributes
and pedagogical knowledge for developing a mentee’s (preservice teacher’s) teaching
practices. Specifically, preservice teachers can have difficulties with behaviour management
and must learn management strategies that help them to teach more effectively. This paper
investigates how mentoring may facilitate the development of a mentee’s behaviour
management strategies, in particular what personal attributes and pedagogical knowledge are
used in this process.
Literature Review
More than 20% of beginning teachers leave the profession within the first five years (Ewing,
2001). Early-career teachers, including preservice teachers, claim that classroom management
can cause significant apprehension (Lewis, Romi, Qui, & Katz, 2005; Putman, 2009).
Managing student behaviour is high on the list of priorities for teachers (Australian Education
Union, 2006); particularly as unsuccessful student management can produce teacher stress and
early burn out (Martin, Linfoot, & Stephenson, 1999). Of particular concern to preservice
teachers is managing “relatively low level behaviours” (Crosswell, 2009, p. 42) such as
students calling out, being off task or refusing to follow instructions. Burden (2003) states,
“classroom management involves teacher actions to create a learning environment that
encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation” (p.
3).
With a growing focus on school-wide approaches to positive behaviour support
(Rogers, 2007), early-career teachers need guidance from experienced and respected teachers
and leaders (Sugai & Horner, 2002). Experience is not the only deciding factor, particularly if
some teachers who have had decades of experience continue to have classroom management
2
problems. Teachers who have developed classroom wisdom learn that mutual respect plays a
key part in working with students towards facilitating positive learning environments (Sprick,
2009). When learning how to implement positive classroom management practices, mentor
teachers who have learnt effective behaviour management strategies are well positioned to
model these practices and explain school-wide programs to their mentees (Snowman, Dobozy,
Scevak, Bryer, Bartlett, & Biehler, 2009). In addition to the support and guidance provided by
the mentor, a preservice teacher can develop classroom management skills by being a
reflective practitioner (Arthur-Kelly, Lyons, Butterfield, & Gordon, 2007; Larrivee, 2009;
Schön, 1987). On a systems level, the Australian National Framework for Professional
Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) emphasises continuous critical reflection on
teaching practices as a way for improvement. Observing, practising, reflecting and improving
on classroom management practices during field experience can assist the transition from
university theory to effective teaching.
Unal and Unal (2009) outline three dimensions of classroom management to include
managing instructions, people, and behaviour. Behaviour management has long been
recognised as a way to support the teaching and learning processes. Unal and Unal further
discuss how effective behaviour management requires proactive planning of expected
behaviours to prevent such behaviours. Behaviour management measures may include non-
interventionist, interactionist and interventionist approaches. Although preservice teachers
tend to use interactionist approaches where they manage students’ behaviour in the moment,
management strategies can change with more knowledge of the students and more experience
in the classroom. Nevertheless, it is important for preservice teachers to develop competency
in behaviour management as efficiently as possible, which can be facilitated by university
coursework and teachers, in their roles as mentors, within school classrooms.
The literature has grown significantly in the area of mentoring, and empirical evidence
has been gathered to present effective mentoring practices for guiding a preservice teacher’s
development. Developmental theories of mentoring and humanistic approaches tend to focus
on mentor behaviours and actions as part of relationship building with the mentee to facilitate
the mentee’s development (Ehrich, 2009). Many perceive learning as a one-way flow of
information from mentor to mentee with unequal power balance (Clutterbuck, 2004), while
Ehrich explains that there is a power exchange in effective mentoring processes. Indeed,
successful mentor-mentee relationships develop and change whereby the mentee constructs a
professional teacher identity (Rippon & Martin, 2006). There can be difficulties in mentoring
(Long, 1997), with great variation from one mentor to another in the level of mentoring (Beutel
3
& Spooner-Lane, 2009). Guiding the mentoring process needs to be thoughtfully implemented
for the mentee to maximise learning opportunities. However, there is little or no literature that
shows how a mentor can guide a preservice teacher specifically in the development of effective
classroom management. A five-factor model for mentoring has previously been identified in
the literature, namely, personal attributes, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge,
modelling, and feedback, and items associated with each factor have been statistically justified
(see Hudson, Skamp, & Brooks, 2005). This model had associated attributes and practices,
which provided a theoretical framework for gathering data around mentoring, and two factors
will be used specifically for understanding the mentoring towards effective classroom
management (i.e., personal attributes and pedagogical knowledge; see Hudson, 2010).
The research question was: How can a mentor’s personal attributes and pedagogical
knowledge develop a preservice teacher’s behaviour management practices?
Context
This study is located at a satellite campus of a large Australian university. The campus is
situated in a low socio-economic area and, as a result, the campus strategic plan promotes
community engagement such as practicum and internship for advancing preservice teacher
education. The campus was successful in a grant application titled Teacher Education Done
Differently (TEDD), with an aim to enhance mentoring practices for preservice teachers. In
consultation with school site co-ordinators, principals and teachers, a mentoring professional
development program was created to promote effective mentoring practices for mentors
(supervising classroom teachers).
Thirty-eight preservice teachers enrolled in a field experience program were placed in
their schools in week 4 of semester one, and completed six one-day weekly visits to learn
about the students in their classrooms, and the school culture and infrastructure. During this
period, the preservice teachers were also undertaking coursework at the university; a key focus
was to develop their abilities in applying behaviour management techniques for primary
students. The weekly school experiences were designed to allow them to observe the behaviour
management practices of their supervising classroom teachers. These weekly visits were part
of the TEDD project for creating school-based experiences for preservice teachers to assist
them in making the links between theory and practice. These preservice teachers then
completed a four-week block practicum.
There were two main participants in this qualitative study. The mentee, 19 years old,
commenced her Bachelor of Education Primary degree immediately after completing
secondary school and was in her second year of university study. This study focused on her
4
first field experience held within a Year 2 class. The mentor had 20 years teaching experience,
mentored 8 preservice teachers throughout her career and taught in 7 different primary schools.
Data Collection Methods and Analysis
An initial meeting was conducted in the week prior to the field experience with the mentor and
mentee to negotiate the process for data collection and gain consent for this study. This
interpretive case study (Hittleman & Simon, 2006) used a number of data collection methods
and instruments over the four-week field experience. These were: researcher written
observations and recorded sessions of mentor-mentee dialogue (5 formal video-recorded
sessions; 8 informal audio-recorded sessions); 7 audio-recorded teaching episodes; 6 formal
mentee-written lesson plans and 15 written reflections; 3 mentor-written “Feedback on
Teaching” evaluations; 4 formal lesson observations; a formal individual interview with the
mentee and then the mentor; and the mentee’s Interim and Final Field Studies reports. The
recorded dialogues generally occurred immediately prior to or following a lesson taught by the
mentee for the purposes of forward planning or reflecting on lessons.
A school requirement was for the mentee to design formal lesson plans before teaching
either a small group activity or a whole class lesson and to write follow-up reflections. The
mentee was guided by university coursework on how to write lesson plans and reflections. For
the purpose of this study, all lesson plans developed by the mentee, (with the exception of one)
and written reflections were provided. In the reflections, the mentee included aspects of the
lessons that worked well and areas that needed further improvement. The mentee was formally
observed by the mentor and given written feedback using the “Feedback on Teaching”
documentation provided by the university. The form gave the mentor a choice of formats using
ticks (checks) against select criteria or providing detailed written feedback.
The final interview conducted with the mentee (19:30 mins) then the mentor (18.27
mins) was guided by 13 semi-structured questions providing additional evidence in this study.
For example, questions asked included: “What personal attributes did your mentor demonstrate
that assisted you in your first field experience?” and, “Specifically, how did your mentor help
you to develop your repertoire of classroom management strategies? The interview was audio-
recorded as an accurate account of the responses (Yin, 2009).
In addition, the mentor’s interim and final field studies reports identified progress in
line with Standards One, Two, Seven and Ten of the professional standards (Queensland
College of Teachers, 2006), which were deemed appropriate for second-year preservice
teachers by the university. These included a focus on designing and implementing engaging
5
and flexible learning experiences for students in safe environments as well as a commitment to
ongoing reflective practice and professional development.
Interpretation of data sources involved cross-checking and triangulating data to gain a
rich description of the mentor and mentee interaction during the field experience (e.g., see
Hittleman & Simon, 2006; Stake, 2006; Yin, 2009). Observations, archival documents,
transcriptions of audio and video interviews were analysed against the personal attributes and
pedagogical knowledge practices contained within the five-factor mentoring model, as noted in
the following descriptors (see Hudson, 2010).
Personal Attributes: In relation to classroom management a mentor’s personal
attributes includes being supportive of the mentee, comfortable in talking about teaching
practices and attentive listening to the mentee. It also involves being sensitive to the mentee’s
needs, being caring and nurturing and having a sense of humour (Jonson, 2008). The mentor’s
personal attributes are used to encourage the mentee’s reflection on behaviour management
practices, and instil confidence and positive attitudes in the mentee for managing the
classroom.
Pedagogical Knowledge: The pedagogical knowledge practices were investigated for
understanding mentoring practices that facilitate effective classroom management. Indeed,
effective mentors articulate how to plan for teaching; they timetable or schedule lessons for the
mentee. Preparation for teaching needs to be discussed, particularly with the location and use
of resources. Teaching strategies are essential for effective lesson delivery for which an
effective mentor can provide experienced perspectives. A mentor needs to check on the
mentee’s content knowledge (e.g., key concepts) to ensure it is in keeping with the system
requirements and appropriate to the grade level. There are incidental problems that arise during
lessons for which the mentor can assist in explaining how to problem solve. Mentoring in
classroom management includes managing student behaviour, especially as the classroom
teacher (mentor) has insights into the various student personalities and behavioural traits.
Effective teaching requires astute questioning skills for which a mentor can discuss higher and
lower-order questions along with distributing the questions in equitable ways. Lessons have a
structure and so an effective mentor can discuss the implementation processes (e.g., ensuring
key learnings or concepts are apparent in the introduction, body, conclusion of a lesson).
Mentors can provide pedagogical knowledge about assessment and viewpoints about effective
teaching practices that link curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. As a theoretical framework,
data will be gathered around these pedagogical knowledge practices in relation to classroom
management.
6
Results and Discussion
Analysis of the data showed that mentors of preservice teachers choose to focus their
mentoring for developing specific pedagogical areas. In this case study, classroom
management was given priority. The following discussion analyses and interprets the data in
relation to the mentor’s personal attributes and pedagogical knowledge and how they
positively influence the mentee’s understanding of effective classroom management practices.
Personal Attributes
The mentor demonstrated specific personal attributes that the mentee claimed enhanced her
understanding of proactive classroom management procedures and strategies. In the interview,
Anna (mentee) described her mentor as supportive in the classroom, stating “she’s helpful in
the way that she’ll calm the kids down if they’re not going to listen to me”. Although this may
be considered as interfering with Anna’s position as a teacher (e.g., Long, 1997), she
appreciated this action as a supportive approach. Anna explained in an interview that her
mentor modelled positive attitudes for teaching, was “always on time” and very reliable and
this instilled similar attitudes in her, which she believed impacted positively on her classroom
management. Grace (mentor) shared in her video-recorded dialogue that she believed an
effective mentor needs to be comfortable with talking frequently with the mentee, to give
advice, explanations and “a range of strategies” to assist in classroom management. Anna
claimed in her interview that her mentor always listened to her ideas, allowed her to try new
things and helped her reflect on the outcomes.
In determining the personal attributes of talking and listening within this mentor-
mentee relationship, the video-recorded dialogue sessions revealed that the mentor spoke more
than the mentee. In the majority of the video episodes, the mentor’s talking time ranged from 4
to 14:11 minutes while the mentee’s talking time ranged from 1:10 to 4:20 minutes (Table 1).
Further analysis of talking time showed that in all video dialogue sessions, with the
exception of one, the mentor spoke more about classroom management strategies than the
mentee. However, the focus on talking about classroom management for both the mentor and
mentee was between 3.1% and 28.1% compared with the total talk time across the five sessions
(Table 1). The intention of analysing mentor-mentee talk time was to determine who was more
active in the dialogue. The frequency and balance between mentor and mentee’s cogenerative
dialogues suggested that while Grace articulated more knowledge about teaching practices, she
was also willing to listen and provide opportunities for the mentee to speak more freely as her
confidence grew (see Roth, Tobin, & Zimmermann, 2002).
7
Table 1: Video-recorded Data of Mentor and Mentee Talk Time
Dialogue
session
Day of
practicum
(20 days)
Session
length*
Total talk time
(mins and secs)
Classroom management talk
(subset of total time)
Mentor
Mentee
Mentor
Mentee
1
2
15:33
14:11
1:10
0:29
0:00
2
5
7:22
4:00
3:21
0:24
1:00
3
10
11:15
5:22
3:51
0:50
0:46
4
12
13:29
7:32
4:20
2:58
0:49
5
17
11:55
8:28
2:40
1:04
0:22
* Talk time in minutes and seconds
Attentive listening by the mentor was more evident in the audio-recorded dialogue
sessions, where the mentor spoke less than the mentee (in 7 out of 8 dialogues), indicating that
Grace provided Anna opportunities to share and discuss her lesson plans and reflections (Table
2). In the majority of audio-recorded episodes, the mentor’s talk time (questions, suggestions,
confirmation, praise) ranged from 55 seconds to 5:38 minutes while the mentee’s talk time
ranged from 1:46 to 8:26 minutes. Surprisingly, in only one audio session (session 6) did the
mentor’s talk (5:38 mins) exceed the mentee’s (2:56 mins), when Grace offered many
suggestions for teaching a full lesson on a new topic, as well as classroom management
strategies (e.g., settling students after lunch breaks, refocusing strategies with students on the
carpet, transitions to group work, managing noise level; e.g., see Arthur-Kelly et al., 2003;
Snowman et al., 2009). One such example was when Grace stated, “It’s always important after
the breaks to have a settling down activity ... that’s why I have the modelled reading”. During
this session the mentee responded with short “ok” responses to all the mentor’s classroom
management suggestions, however, her tone of voice and quick return to talk about content and
pedagogy (e.g., questioning techniques) demonstrated that she was keen to seek clarification
on these elements in her lesson plan prior to teaching. Similarly, in the final session (8), the
discussion focused on the content of a new lesson and appropriate pedagogy rather than
specific classroom management strategies. Data indicated that when content was new and
lessons were more complex or lengthy, the dialogue focused to a greater extent on content and
pedagogy. When the teaching episodes were shorter, less content-driven and more activity-
based (e.g., sessions 4 and 5 - science experiments) or at specific times in the day (e.g., after
lunch) greater attention was given to classroom management strategies.
8
Table 2: Audio-recorded Data of Mentor and Mentee Talk Time
Dialogue
session
Day of
practicum
Session
length*
Total talk time
(mins and secs)
Classroom management
talk (subset of total time)
(20 days)
Mentor
Mentee
Mentor
Mentee
1
2
3:51
1:17
2:15
0:15
1:02
2
2
6:07
1:30
3:35
0:21
0:46
3
4
4:55
0.55
3:33
0:17
0:49
4
5
7:36
1:45
4:36
0:27
2:13
5
7
10:59
3:12
8:26
0:33
2:03
6
7
8:54
5:38
2:56
1:00
0:05
7
12
5:56
1:25
1:46
0:04
1:18
8
17
4:51
1:16
3:21
0:00
0:00
* Talk time in minutes and seconds
Pedagogical Knowledge
The mentor guided the development of the mentee’s pedagogical knowledge and helped her to
make a direct link to positive classroom management. Lesson plans and observations revealed
that Anna adopted the mentor’s advice when planning the content of her lessons to assist
students to develop effective language skills through repetition. As Vygotsky (1986) posits
targeting student’s zone of proximal development can engage a student in tasks; hence using
age-appropriate content and language can assist to facilitate this engagement. In the final
report, Grace stated, “Anna modelled effective personal language, literacy and numeracy skills,
particularly assisting those students needing intervention”. This further highlights that
appropriate language, content knowledge and curriculum differentiation can engage students
and minimise behavioural problems.
Further observations showed that relating new concepts to students’ real-life
knowledge and experiences engaged them during the introduction of a new topic or lesson and
minimised off-task behaviours. This was evident in a mathematics measurement lesson where
students had to sort household objects into groups according to the most probable measurement
capacity (litres or millilitres): “Have you heard of measurement and liquids before? Has mum
said when you go to the shops that you need to get two litres of milk?” Students were engaged
through her technique of questioning and responded with desirable behaviours and responses
(see Horng, Hong, Chan Lin, Chang, & Chu, 2005).
9
Anna explained in the interview that she learnt teaching strategies from Grace that
differentiated learning for the range of students in her class, which helped to engage the
students and minimise disruptions. Gifted and remedial students require strategies to
differentiate their learning, which helps them to gain focus (Gagné, 1995; Subban, 2006). In
Anna’s case, these strategies included: note taking for slower writers to get them started, using
pictures in addition to words on worksheets, providing individual assistance when required,
and presenting relevant extension work for early-finishing students. Observations of Anna
using these proactive strategies showed that students, who may have had behaviour
management problems, were highly engaged.
Observations conducted in the final two weeks of the field experience revealed that the
mentee was practising a range of effective management strategies that had been either
discussed in mentor-mentee dialogue sessions or modelled by her mentor. These included
giving clear instructions for activities and experiments, for example, “if someone drops a
paintbrush on the floor we stop, raise a hand and wait for assistance”. Anna also scaffolded
students’ work using step-by-step demonstrations followed by guided practice which further
emphasised acceptable behaviours in the classroom. In addition, she used “learning buddies” to
develop students’ responsibility for their own learning and generate ideas. She also reinforced
the purpose of the lesson or activity throughout the lesson and used positive reinforcement
strategies in line with Program Achieve, such as praise, stickers, and encouragement. Anna
demonstrated psychologically-acceptable strategies such as positive reinforcement and
developing in students a sense of self responsibility to ensure effective classroom management
(e.g., see Woolfolk & Margetts, 2010).
In the interview, Grace discussed her conscious decision to develop Anna’s classroom
management strategies. She stated, “this is the first time I’ve had a first year (preservice
teacher)” and conceded that she tended to treat her mentee as a second or third practicum
student, based on her previous mentoring experience. She explained that she realised she
needed to “step back a little bit” and concentrate on providing her mentee with:
...a lot of classroom management things that I thought that she would need in her
lessons rather than bombard her with a lot of things that she’ll learn in the next few
prac’s. I tried to make it hands-on, practical, more so than theoretical.
Anna’s lesson on “Hard Working Pigs” as a part of Program Achieve showed how this
approach was put into practice. Video and audio-recorded dialogue carried out prior to the
lesson, formal lesson observation, and the mentee’s lesson reflection, revealed that Anna took
10
on board the mentor’s advice. Anna used a range of attending strategies (Woolfolk & Margetts,
2010) while students were sitting on the carpet (direct questioning, scanning for attentiveness,
relocating one student, praise for listening, standing up for “wiggle time”, and restating
expectations). She emphasised key concepts outlined by the mentor, such as using and
reinforcing relevant terminology, and extending students’ thinking about “persistence” while
acknowledging “good manners”. She gave quick, clear instructions for moving to table work
and motivated students with the promise of a “gotcha” reward for speedy readiness and
productive working.
Prior to this lesson, Grace had emphasised the importance of explaining to students
acceptable noise levels for different types of activities. In her lesson reflection Anna stated,
“using the sound gauge which was discussed at the start of the year settled the children because
it was something they had previously learnt”. Hence, when she explained to students that
“level 3 noise” was acceptable for this activity (i.e., “working and whispering voices”),
students knew what was expected and responded appropriately. Anna gave clear instructions
for the activity and monitored the engagement time for discussion with “learning buddies”.
Consistency of matching teacher statements to “promised” rewards appeared significant to
student behavioural responses (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2010). For instance, she praised and
acknowledged students who were working well and provided the promised rewards, hence
supporting her statements with actions.
The mentee explained in the interview that she appreciated the suggestions made by her
mentor prior to this particular lesson. During the lesson observation and from the mentee’s
written lesson reflection, it was clear that the dialogue prior to the lesson boosted the mentee’s
confidence, established the foundations for successful learning to occur and improved
opportunities for assessing student outcomes. Anna reflected on her mentor’s guidance and the
lesson implementation:
I found that even though it was the last lesson of the day, the students were really well
behaved and kept on track which made me feel really confident. It was great going
through my lesson with (Grace) before I actually ran the lesson because I added some
really important stuff into the lesson and it also made me feel more comfortable
running the lesson and having an idea that I was on the right track.
It was evident from the dialogue sessions conducted prior to each lesson, that Grace guided
Anna through a problem-solving approach to classroom management, asking pertinent
questions, giving her “think time” and opportunities for her to implement solutions. Grace
11
described herself as organised, having good “pre-emptive thoughts” about what generally
works or does not work in the classroom. As a result, throughout the dialogues, she encouraged
the mentee to pre-empt problems and plan ahead by asking open-ended questions followed by
periods of attentive listening.
Conclusion
This qualitative study explored mentoring practices aligned with an empirical mentoring
model. Specifically, it focused on the development of a mentee’s classroom management
practices as a result of the mentor’s personal attributes and pedagogical knowledge. Although
this case study presents a limited perspective on mentoring to develop classroom management
practices, it provides practical examples in which a mentor can positively influence and
develop a mentee’s practices.The mentor in this study was supportive of the mentee by
providing quality time to talk and listen to the mentee on developing classroom management
practices. This support along with instilling confidence in teaching showed that the mentor was
prepared to cater for the mentee’s development of classroom management practices in positive
and constructive ways. Even though the mentor was not selected specifically for this mentee, it
appeared as a positive pairing arrangement as both the mentor and mentee were comfortable
with the mentoring provided (see also Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009). The
system requirements (e.g., Program Achieve) presented a contextualisation for the mentee to
focus on her behaviour management strategies with the mentor’s guidance.
Pedagogical knowledge was articulated at various points during the mentee’s field
experiences, mainly during planning, preparation, and implementation stages. The mentor was
willing to share the dialogue but also provided advice on how to be more effective in
classroom management. These strategies were not limited to rewards and consequences only,
instead the strategies extended to developing a positive teacher-student rapport and
differentiating programs to cater for individuals. This differentiation included asking
appropriate questions to ascertain students’ prior knowledge, working with individuals and
small groups as well as using “learning buddies” to facilitate student success and engagement
(see also Hall, 2002; Tomlinson, 2000) . This study showed that the mentor articulated
knowledge about implementing the advocated “Program Achieve” to assist the mentee’s
understanding of the strategies. Consequently, many of the strategies advocated by the mentor
were transferred to the mentee’s classroom management practices. Furthermore, the mentor
showed how to use age-appropriate language and make concepts understandable so that
students were engaged in lessons and not off task, which were also adopted as practices by the
12
mentee. Indeed, the mentor’s personal attributes and articulation of pedagogical knowledge
associated with the five-factor model of mentoring assisted in developing the mentee’s
classroom management practices, in what was recorded and reported as a successful teaching
experience.
Further research can include using the five-factor model for exploring other
pedagogical knowledge practices such as planning, preparation, teaching strategies,
questioning skills, assessment and so forth. For example, how can a mentor facilitate a
mentee’s development of teacher-student relationships or how can a mentor facilitate a
mentee’s reflection on practice? More studies are needed to understand how quality mentoring
can enhance a mentee’s pedagogical development, and gathering empirical evidence on how
mentors specifically use their knowledge and skills can aid the development of more effective
mentoring programs.
Acknowledgements
This work was conducted within the Teacher Education Done Differently (TEDD) project funded by the
Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR).
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the DEEWR. We would like to acknowledge Sue
Hudson (Project Leader) and Jenelle Edser (Project Officer) and Dr Michelle Murray (Research
Assistant).
References
Arthur-Kelly, M., Lyons, G., Butterfield, N., & Gordon, C. (2007). Classroom management:
Creating positive learning environments. South Melbourne, Vic: Cengage Learning
Australia.
Australian Education Union. (2006). AEU national beginning teacher survey results 2006
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved 2 August, 2010, from
http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/Btsurvey06.html
Beutel, D., & Spooner-Lane, R. (2009). Building mentoring capabilities in experienced
teachers. The International Journal of Learning, 16(4), 351-360.
Burden, P. R. (2003). Classroom management: Creating a successful learning community. (2
nd
ed.). New York, United States of America: John Wiley & Sons.
Clutterbuck, D. (2004). Everyone needs a mentor: Fostering talent in your organisation (4
th
edition). London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
13
Crosswell, L. (2009). Classroom management: Developing your own approach to managing
the classroom. In J. Millwater & D. Beutel (Eds.), Stepping out into the real world of
education (pp. 41-68). New South Wales, Australia: Pearson.
Ehrich, L. (2009). Much ado about mentoring: Some learnings from the field. In: J. Millwater
& D. Beutel (Eds.), Stepping out into the real world of education (pp. 171-187). New
South Wales, Australia: Pearson .
Ewing, R. (2001). Keeping beginning teachers in the profession. Independent Education,
31(3), 30-32.
Gagné, F. (1995). The differentiated nature of giftedness and talent: A model and its impact on
the technical vocabulary of gifted and talented education. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103-
111.
Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction: Effective classroom practices report. Retrieved 26
October, 2010, from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstructudl.html
Hittleman, D. R., & Simon, A. J. (2006). Interpreting educational research: An introduction
for consumers of research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning
teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1),
207-216.
Horng, J.-S., Hong, J.-C., Chan Lin, L.-J., Chang, S.-H. and Chu, H.-C. (2005), Creative
teachers and creative teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
29, 352–358.
Hudson, P. (2010). Mentors report on their own mentoring practices. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 35(7), 30-42.
Hudson, P., Skamp, K., & Brooks, L. (2005). Development of an instrument: Mentoring for
effective primary science teaching. Science Education, 89(4), 657-674.
Jonson, K. F. (2008). Being an effective mentor: How to help beginning teachers succeed. (2
nd
ed.). Calfornia, United States of America: Corwin Press.
Larrivee, B. (2009). Authentic classroom management: Creating a learning community and
building reflective practice (3
rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lewis, R., Romi, S., Qui, X., & Katz, Y. J. (2005). Teachers’ classroom discipline and student
misbehaviour in Australia, China, and Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,
729–741.
Long, J. (1997). The dark side of mentoring. The Australian Educational Researcher, 24(2),
115-133.
14
Martin, A., Linfoot, K., & Stephenson, J. (1999). How teachers respond to concerns about
misbehaviour in their classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 347-358.
Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA).
(2003). A national framework for professional standards for teaching: Teacher quality
and educational leadership taskforce. Canberra, Australia: Author.
Putman, S. M. (2009). Grappling with classroom management: The orientations of preservice
teachers and impact of student teaching. The Teacher Educator, 44(4), 232-247.
Queensland College of Teachers. (2006). Professional standards for Queensland teachers.
Retrieved on 2 August, 2010, from http://www.qct.edu.au/standards/index.html
Rippon, J. H., & Martin, M. (2006). What makes a good induction supporter? Teaching and
Teacher Education, 22(1), 84-99.
Rogers, B. (2007). Behaviour management: A whole-school approach. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.
Roth, W. M., Tobin, K. & Zimmermann. A. (2002). Coteaching/cogenerative dialoguing:
Learning environments research as classroom praxis. Learning Environments Research.
5(1), 1-28.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Snowman, J., Dobozy, E., Scevak, J., Bryer, F., Bartlett, B., & Biehler, R. (2009). Psychology:
Applied to teaching. Milton, Qld: John Wiley & Sons.
Sprick, R. S. (2009). Discipline in the secondary classroom: A positive approach to behavior
management. United Kingdom, Guernsey: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: a research basis. International Education
Journal, 7(7), 935-947
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive
behaviour supports. Child & Family Behaviour Therapy, 24(1), 23-50.
Tomlinson, C. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. Clearinghouse
on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Retrieved 26 October, 2010, from
Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC) database. (ERIC Document No EDO-
PS-00-7)
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. London, UK: The MIT Press.
Woolfolk, A., & Margetts, K. (2010). Education psychology. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.
15
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
California: SAGE Publications.
