Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10-1108 - 20466851211231602 Mentoring and Coaching Educators in The Singapore Education System
10-1108 - 20466851211231602 Mentoring and Coaching Educators in The Singapore Education System
www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-6854.htm
IJMCE
1,1
Mentoring and coaching
educators in the Singapore
education system
24 Pak Tee Ng
Office of Graduate Studies and Professional Learning,
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the practice of mentoring and coaching in the
Singapore education system, to show the difference in philosophy in which these two concepts have
been applied and to discuss the issues and challenges involved in their implementation.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper reviews the mentoring and coaching systems in
Singapore through literature review and a critical analysis of the mentoring and coaching philosophies
and schemes for the different levels of educators.
Findings – This paper shows that mentoring and coaching are implemented in many areas of
the professional development of educators in Singapore. These include mentoring for trainee
teachers, beginning teachers, training school leaders and beginning school leaders; and coaching
in the performance management system of all teachers and school leaders. However, there are
inherent tensions in having an appraisal connotation in some mentoring and coaching platforms
in Singapore and in encouraging critical reflective learning and innovation in mentoring and
coaching.
Research limitations/implications – As this paper is based on literature review and analysis, it
recommends empirical research around mentoring and coaching in Singapore. In particular, it
recommends research in examining the impact of particular mentoring and coaching schemes within
different contexts and the experiences of the participants in such schemes. It also recommends
research to address the questions of whether there will be enough coaches and mentors to meet the
emerging demand for mentoring and coaching in schools, as they struggle with their multiple roles in
school; and whether the mentoring and coaching system in Singapore is too formalized to encourage
innovation.
Practical implications – This paper encourages practitioners to reflect on the inherent tensions in
having an appraisal connotation in some mentoring and coaching platforms in Singapore and to
embrace critical reflective learning and innovation in mentoring and coaching.
Originality/value – This paper is one of the few papers (and the most current) that review the
mentoring and coaching systems in Singapore. It forms a basis for future empirical research in this
area.
Keywords Singapore, Teachers, Mentoring, Coaching, School leadership, Appraisal
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Mentoring and coaching are important concepts in the professional development of
educators. However, there are many definitions of each term and each term is
sometimes confused with the other. Between them, there are many areas of overlap or
International Journal of Mentoring similarities in both concept and practice. They are sometimes used interchangeably
and Coaching in Education
Vol. 1 No. 1, 2012
and at other times used together as a “unified package”. This paper examines the
pp. 24-35 practice of mentoring and coaching in the Singapore education system, showing the
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2046-6854
difference in philosophy in which these two concepts have been applied and discussing
DOI 10.1108/20466851211231602 the issues and challenges involved in their implementation.
Literature review: mentoring and coaching in education Mentoring and
In general, both mentoring and coaching are professional development practices coaching in
involving one professional helping another in a mutually enriching manner (e.g.
Anderson and Shannon, 1988; Clutterbuck and Ragins, 2002; Ng, 2005) to foster Singapore
learning and development based on an established relationship, premised on mutual
trust, respect and openness (Orland-Barak and Yinon, 2005; Timperley, 2001; Jeruchim
and Shapiro, 1992; Stowers and Barker, 2010). In actual practice situations, Douglas 25
(1997, p. 83) observes that “although the mentoring/coaching process varies in different
organizations and across different relationships, it typically involves a relationship in
which an experienced manager provides help, advice, and sponsorship to a junior
manager”. Properly implemented, mentoring/coaching can have a positive impact on
the performance and well-being of educators (e.g. Ng, 2005; Onchwari and Keengwe,
2008; Tolhurst, 2010).
Ng (2005) takes the position that although both concepts are very similar and are
underpinned by professional learning, there is a slight difference in emphasis.
Coaching is more concerned with learning for performance and takes a short- to
medium-term perspective. Mentoring is more concerned with learning for professional
growth and takes a medium- to long-term perspective. The skills, techniques and tools
are similar. When one professional helps another, he or she may play the role of coach
and mentor at the same time, shifting in emphasis depending on developing situation.
For example, if a department head is helping a junior teacher with classroom
management, he or she is adopting a coaching stance to help this junior teacher
improve immediate performance. If this department head is asking the same junior
teacher to reflect on his plans for professional development, this department head is
adopting a mentoring stance to help this junior teacher in his longer-term growth. This
aligns quite well with Yariv’s (2009) position on the main distinction between coaching
and mentoring – coaching is where one primarily aides another in task-specific
improvements through reflective enquiries and guided instructions for the benefit of
the one being coached; mentoring involves advice-giving and mind-set conditioning.
From this angle, mentoring then is considered a broader concept than coaching,
since the emphasis of coaching is on job-specific tasks for improvement of skills and
performance (Simkins et al., 2006). However, while it is possible to position mentoring
as a broader concept, with coaching positioned as a tool for improving immediate
performance, it is also possible to position coaching as a more immediate concept, with
mentoring as a logical extension for long-term growth. This paper uses the term
“mentoring/coaching” (M/C) when the concepts are used together and the terms
“mentoring” and “coaching” individually when it is necessary to split them for
discussion. There are a few salient points of M/C to note that are relevant to our
subsequent discussion, namely:
. M/C should not be considered as a panacea for all problems in an organisation;
. M/C is effective provided the mentee/coachee is willing to learn;
. M/C applies to all levels of personnel, not just classroom teachers; and
. M/C is not just about imparting knowledge and skills, but also about gaining
organisational awareness and enhancing psychosocial well-ness.
First, M/C should not be considered as a panacea for all problems in an organisation.
In particular, M/C should not be “applied as a solution in a problem department or to a
IJMCE problem employee nor solely as an orientation activity” (Donnelly and McSweeney,
1,1 2011, p. 271). There is a lot more to making the M/C relationship work but some
organisations assign staff to one another “with the assumption that a common
workplace will be enough to make the relationship work” (Donnelly and McSweeney,
2011, p. 271). It is also true that M/C can emerge organically without being part of a
structured programme (Carter and Francis, 2001). Through the case study they
26 conducted, Carter and Francis (2001) observed that mentoring relationships, although
not formally designated by the school, emerged among beginning teachers and non-
beginning teachers who were teaching and collaborating on similar subject areas.
Furthermore, with the aim of providing “guidance mixed with professional space”
(Carter and Francis, 2001, p. 255), the kind of mentoring relationships that developed
over the course of the year were characterised by strong mutual respect and
commitment. The beginning teachers in the study attributed their survival and success
in their first year of teaching to such mentoring relationship traits.
Second, for M/C to be effective, the mentee/coachee must be willing to learn. The
learner’s acceptance of responsibility for his or her own progress is the key to the M/C
process (Ng, 2005; Tolhurst, 2010). According to Ng (2005), having good mentors/
coaches satisfies only half the equation. The other half of the equation to make the
process fruitful for both parties is to have responsible and self-motivated learners.
A good learner is intrinsically motivated and not driven by an external party. He or she
is an active participant in the M/C process of learning and is always “present”.
Mentees/coachees who merely depend on their mentors/coaches to “dispense wisdom”
and tell them what to do are not going very far. A positive attitude on both sides is a
key ingredient to successful M/C.
Third, M/C applies to all levels of personnel, not just classroom teachers. Leaders
benefit from M/C. Robertson (2009) suggests that approaching leadership in a
synergistic and trusting partnership in M/C nurtures in organisations a culture that is
open to challenges and change. The concept of partnership implies “entering the
relationship as an equal learner” and that it “requires a willingness to listen, to change
and adapt, and to connect and engage others in the learning journey” (Robertson, 2009,
p. 40). This will involve a number of different leadership development tools to maximise
effectiveness (Blackman, 2010). Moreover, M/C is not restricted to an experienced person
helping an inexperienced one. In particular, peer M/C can be a very effective tool for
professional development (e.g. Ng, 2005; Rhodes and Beneicke, 2002; Le Cornu, 2005).
Fourth, M/C is not just about imparting knowledge and skills. In a person’s
professional development, M/C actually helps him gain organisational awareness (e.g.
how the organisation operates culturally and politically) and psychosocial well-ness
(e.g. personal support, professional identity, role-modelling) (Beech and Brockbank,
1999). This helps him make significant transitions in knowledge, work or thinking
(Clutterbuck and Megginson, 1999). Moreover, through role-modelling, the mentor/
coach affects the attitudes and beliefs of the mentee/coachee (Ng, 2005).
Methodology
Mentoring and coaching are practised in the Singapore education system as part of the
professional development of educators. This paper is guided by the following research
questions:
. What are the platforms for the practice of mentoring and coaching in the
Singapore education system?
. What are the differences in philosophy in which these two concepts have been Mentoring and
applied? coaching in
The next two sections examine and present the platforms of mentoring and coaching in Singapore
the Singapore education system. Mentoring and coaching are separately examined to
show the differences in philosophy in which these two concepts have been applied. The
examination involves a review and critical analysis of published academic papers and
key government statements and documents on the policies and practices of mentoring 27
and coaching. The major findings are now presented in the next two sections.
Pre-service teachers
Pre-service teacher education in Singapore is based on an “Enhanced Partnership
Model” (NIE, 2009, p. 40) characterised by the tripartite relationship between NIE,
MOE and Singapore schools. These three stakeholders work closely along the whole
continuum of teacher education. This model taps on the proven strengths of NIE’s
university-based approach while emphasising a close collaboration with MOE and
schools, in order to strengthen the theory-practice link. It also specifies accountabilities
for each stakeholder, which may be more prominently weighted at different points in
the teacher education continuum, starting from initial teacher training to the early
stages of a teacher’s career and further in their professional development (NIE, 2009).
An integral part of the pre-service programme is the practicum, where trainee teachers
practise their teaching at schools over a ten-week period on average. Mentoring is critical
to the success of the practicum. Each trainee teacher is assigned a cooperating teacher
(CT), who is the mentor and whose class the trainee teacher will teach. The CT also
IJMCE inducts the trainee teacher into the school at the beginning of practicum, sets expectations
1,1 for professional behaviour and guides the trainee teacher in improving his or her teaching.
Because each school in Singapore usually takes in a number of trainee teachers each
time, the school actually appoints a School Coordinating Mentor (SCM) to oversee the
mentoring process for all the trainee teachers in the school. As group mentors, SCMs
are expected to establish rapport, provide encouragement and support the trainee
28 teachers in their professional development. An integral part of the mentoring process
is to provide support for the trainee teachers and this involves constant communication
with the trainee teachers to share, discuss and help resolve personal and professional
concerns. The SCMs also act as the liaison persons between NIE and the school. These
SCMs work closely with the CTs to monitor the progress of the trainee teachers and
immediately address emerging concerns and issues between the CT and the trainee
teachers, coaching and mentoring both the CT and the trainee teachers in the process.
This is an interesting feature of the mentoring process for trainee teachers.
To prepare the mentors and strengthen the theory-practice nexus, the Structured
Mentorship Preparation Programme by the NIE has a staged developmental feature
that builds the mentoring competencies of the SCMs, addressed in stages to match the
corresponding needs of the trainee teachers. This includes (NIE, 2009, p. 67):
. familiarisation with NIE programmes, including terminology and concepts
derived from educational research;
. helping SCMs make explicit their implicit understand of their own practice, and
reflecting on the adequacy of those understandings;
. mentoring skills;
. organising and facilitating learning community discussions, e.g. Professional
Learning Inquiry Sessions and Professional Learning Communities; and
. scaffolding of classroom observation and feedback techniques.
Beginning teachers
After the pre-service teacher education at NIE, the MOE provides the Structured
Mentoring Programme (SMP) for beginning teachers the moment they start work in a
local school. Literature has shown the importance of mentoring to the learning of
beginning teachers (e.g. Carter and Francis, 2001). Launched in 2006, the SMP aims to
provide systematic guidance and support for beginning teachers, by providing
continuous training in different areas of teaching such as basic counselling, classroom
management, reflective practice, student assessment and parent-teacher rapport.
In this two-year programme, beginning teachers attend six core-learning components
that are practice-oriented follow-ups from their pre-service teacher education. They
also attend yearly dialogue sessions, around April and September, organised at the
zone or cluster levels. Experienced teachers who serve as mentors are provided with a
training programme from MOE to equip them with mentoring skills. To provide a
platform for mentors to network for mutual learning and support, professional sharing
and learning sessions are organised regularly by the MOE.
Conclusion
In summary, this paper shows that M/C is practiced in the Singapore education system
among professionals at various levels and there are good structural provisions for such
practice. Educators in Singapore benefit from M/C but there is tension in the close
association of M/C with performance appraisal and reward system, in a system that
exhibits a high level of performativity. While this paper has examined the philosophies
and implementation of mentoring and coaching in Singapore, there is a paucity of
empirical research around M/C, in particular the impact of particular M/C schemes
within different contexts and the experiences of the participants in such schemes.
There are also questions of whether there will be enough coaches and mentors to meet
the emerging demand for M/C in schools, as they struggle with their multiple roles in
school; and whether the M/C system in Singapore is too formalised to encourage
innovation. There is therefore considerable scope for further research work in the use
of M/C in the professional development of educators in Singapore.
References
Academy of Principals (APS) (2006), “New principals get additional support with mentoring
scheme”, available at: www.aps.sg/subpage.asp?p¼26 (accessed 22 December 2011).
Anderson, E.M. and Shannon, A.L. (1988), “Towards a conceptualization of mentoring”, Journal
of Teacher Education, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 38-42.
Beech, N. and Brockbank, A. (1999), “Power/knowledge and psychosocial dynamics in Mentoring and
mentoring”, Management Learning, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
coaching in
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (2003), “In praise of educational research: formative assessment”, British
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 623-37. Singapore
Blackman, A. (2010), “Coaching as a leadership development tool for teachers”, Professional
Development in Education, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-41.
Bullough, R.V. and Draper, R.J. (2004), “Mentoring and the emotions”, Journal of Education for 33
Teaching, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 271-88.
Bush, T. and Chew, J. (1999), “Developing human capital: training and mentoring for principals”,
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Carter, M. and Francis, R. (2001), “Mentoring and beginning teachers’ workplace learning”,
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 249-62.
Chong, K.C., Low, G.T. and Walker, A. (1990), Mentoring: A Singapore Contribution, Singapore
Educational Administration Society, Singapore.
Chong, K.C., Low, G.T. and Walker, A. (1993), “Emerging principalship collaborative style:
towards research in mentoring”, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 66-72.
Clutterbuck, D. and Megginson, D. (1999), Mentoring Executives and Directors, Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford.
Clutterbuck, D. and Ragins, B.R. (2002), Mentoring and Diversity, Heinemann, Oxford.
Donnelly, R. and McSweeney, F. (2011), “From humble beginnings: evolving mentoring within
professional development for academic staff”, Professional Development in Education,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 259-74.
Douglas, C. (1997), Formal Mentoring Programmes in Organizations: An Annotated Bibliography,
Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, North Carolina.
Elliott, J. (1991), “A model of professionalism and its implication for teacher education”,
British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 309-18.
Elliott, J. (1993), “The relationship between ‘understanding’ and ‘developing’ teachers’ thinking”,
in Elliott, J. (Ed.), Reconstructing Teacher Education: Teacher Development, The Falmer
Press, London, pp. 193-209.
Hargreaves, A. (2000), “Four ages of professionalism and professional learning”, Teachers and
Teaching, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 151-82.
Harvey, E.L. (1995), “Separating employee development from salary systems”, The Human
Resource Professional, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 3-5.
James, M., McCormick, R., Black, P., Carmichael, P., Drummond, M.-J., Fox, A., MacBeath, J.,
Marshall, B., Pedder, D., Procter, R., Swaffield, S., Swann, J. and Wiliam, D. (2007),
Improving Learning How to Learn, Routledge, London.
Jeruchim, J. and Shapiro, P. (1992), Women, Mentors, and Success, Fawcett Columbine, New York, NY.
Leaders in Education Programme (LEP) (2011), Handbook for Participants, NIE, Singapore.
Le Cornu, R. (2005), “Peer mentoring: engaging pre-service teachers in mentoring one another”,
Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 355-66.
Lee, C. and Tan, M.Y. (2010), “Rating teachers and rewarding teacher performance: the context of
Singapore”, paper presented at APE Conference on Replicating Exemplary Practices in
Mathematics Education, Koh Samui, 7-12 March.
Leithwood, K.A. (1998), “Conditions for fostering organizational learning in schools”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 243-76.
Leithwood, K.A., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2008), “Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 27-42.
IJMCE Lim, L.H. (2005), Leadership Mentoring in Education: The Singapore Practice, Marshall
Cavendish International (Singapore) Private Limited, Singapore.
1,1
Lim, L.H. (2007), “Illuminating the core of Singapore school leadership preparation – two decades
of in-service experience”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 433-9.
Longenecker, C.O., Gioia, D.A. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1987), “Behind the mask: the politics of
34 employee appraisal”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 183-93.
Louden, W. (1991), Understanding Teaching: Continuity and Change in Teachers’ Knowledge,
Cassell, London.
McNerney, D.J. (1995), “Improved performance appraisals: process of elimination”, HRFo-cus,
Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 4-5.
Ministry of Education (MOE) (2005), Enhanced Performance Management System,
MOE, Singapore.
Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (1995), Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,
Organizational and Goal-Based Perspectives, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
National Institute of Education (NIE) (2009), TE21: A Teacher Education Model for the 21st
Century, NIE, Singapore.
Ng, P.T. (2005), Grow Me! Coaching for Schools, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Singapore.
Ng, P.T. (2008a), “Developing forward looking and innovative school leaders: the Singapore
Leaders in Education Programme”, Professional Development in Education, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 237-55.
Ng, P.T. (2008b), “Educational reform in Singapore: from quantity to quality”, Educational
Research for Policy and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 5-15.
Ng, P.T. (2008c), “Quality assurance in the Singapore education system: phases and paradoxes”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 112-25.
Ng, P.T. (2010), “The evolution and nature of school accountability in the Singapore education
system”, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 275-92.
Ng, P.T. and Tan, C. (2009), “Community of practice for teachers: sensemaking or critical
reflective learning?”, Reflective Practice, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-8.
Onchwari, G. and Keengwe, J. (2008), “The impact of a mentor-coaching model on teacher
professional development”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 19-24.
Orland-Barak, L. and Yinon, H. (2005), “Sometimes a novice sometimes an expert: mentors’
professional expertise as revealed through their stories of critical incidents”, Oxford
Review of Education, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 379-402.
Rhodes, C. and Beneicke, S. (2002), “Coaching, mentoring, and peer-networking: challenges for
the management of teacher professional development in schools”, Journal of In-Service
Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 297-310.
Robertson, J. (2009), “Coaching leadership learning through partnership”, School Leadership &
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 39-49.
Sergiovanni, T. (2000), The Lifeworld of Leadership, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1996), Leadership for the Schoolhouse: How is it Different? Why is it Important?
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Shoho, A.R. and Barnett, B.G. (2010), “The realities of new principals: challenges, joys, and
sorrows”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 561-96.
Simkins, T., Coldwell, M., Caillau, I., Finlayson, H. and Morgan, A. (2006), “Coaching as an
in-school leadership development strategy: experiences from leading from the middle”,
Professional Development in Education, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 321-40.
Smith, K. and Tillema, H.H. (2003), “Clarifying different types of portfolio use”, Assessment and Mentoring and
Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 621-44.
coaching in
Stowers, R. and Barker, R. (2010), “The coaching and mentoring process: the obvious knowledge
and skill set for organizational communication professors”, Journal of Technical Writing & Singapore
Communication, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 363-71.
Tan, C. (2008), “Globalisation, the Singapore state and educational reforms: towards
performativity”, Education, Knowledge and Economy, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 111-20. 35
Tan, C. and Ng, P.T. (2007), “The dynamics of change: the decentralized centralism of education
in Singapore”, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 155-68.
Tharman, S. (2006), Speech by Minister for Education and Second Minister for Finance,
Tharman Shanmugaratnam, at the Teachers Investiture Ceremony”, Nanyang Auditorium,
Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang, 11 July.
Tharman, S. (2007), Speech by Minister for Finance and Minister for Education, Tharman
Shanmugaratnam, at the 10th Appointment Ceremony for Principals”, Shangri-la Hotel
Island Ballroom, Shangri-la, 28 December.
Tillema, H.H., Smith, K. and Leshem, S. (2011), “Dual roles – conflicting purposes: a comparative
study on perceptions on assessment in mentoring relations during practicum”, European
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 139-59.
Timperley, H. (2001), “Mentoring conversations designed to promote student teacher learning”,
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 111-23.
Tolhurst, J. (2010), The Essential Guide to Coaching and Mentoring, 2nd ed., Longman, Harlow.
Walker, A. and Qian, H. (2006), “Beginning principals: balancing at the top of the greasy pole”,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 297-309.
Yariv, E. (2009), “The appraisal of teacher’s performance and its impact on the mutuality of
principal-teacher emotions”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 445-61.
Young, J.R., Bullough, R.V., Draper, R.J., Smith, L.K. and Erickson, L.B. (2005), “Novice teacher
growth and personal models of mentoring: choosing compassion over enquiry”, Mentoring
and Tutoring, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 169-88.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000), “Attaining self-regulation, a social cognitive perspective”, in Boekaerts, M.,
Pintrich, P.R. and Zeidner, M. (Eds), Handbook of Self-Regulation, Academic Press, San Diego,
CA, pp. 13-40.
Corresponding author
Pak Tee Ng can be contacted at: paktee.ng@nie.edu.sg