Important Editor's Notes:

1 FOR EDUCATION - This article is an overview of a more comprehensive report, "Focused Mentoring and Teacher Content Knowledge", describing the research done by the author. Contact information for her is at the end of the article in case you wish to reach her. Those IMA Members from education settings will be glad to see this research report. However . . .

2. FOR ALL OTHER SETTINGS - The members of IMA come from all kinds of settings so some might consider this article's focus to be less than useful for them. NOT SO!! That is why the Editors have placed additional notes next to the author's text. These notes will both point readers to more general applications for all settings, and point to best practice implications of the text for all users.

3. THE SIDE COMMENTS - Do not see the Editors' comments in the right column as a criticism of the article, the study design, or the Focused Mentoring Program. The study and the mentoring did exactly what they were designed to do. On the other hand, the article does not claim to present best practice, but merely what was done in one setting to meet their own needs for better information to guide decision making.

However, the IMA's focus IS on best practice and so these side comments are added to help members with that additional issue, and to help those in other settings than education to gain maximum value from this article.

The focus of this article is on increase in protege content knowledge, which is always a significant starting point for performance improvement.

However, most IMA members will know, as the CBAM, Bloom’s taxonomy and other great research tells us, improvement comes from implementation of knowledge. It is in helping a protege implement what they have learned that mentoring and coaching support is so ideally suited and so essential to improving actual practice.

For more on this issue, go to the IMA website article on “The Bridge”.

Goal for the Research

This study was carried out to learn how implementing the Focused Mentoring Program affected teacher content knowledge as gauged by a subject matter test.

For ALL Settings - The value of this research for you is that every protege needs content knowledge as a foundation for effective performance. This study provides a starting model for you to design ways to evaluate whether your proteges have the knowledge foundation they need, or if you need to implement training to increase protege knowledge.

If results show you a broad pattern of need for improved knowledge, use organization-wide training to deliver it, not mentoring.

Use a mentoring program to ensure that what was learned in training is actually implemented in practice by each individual.

This study used mentors to deliver knowledge, a practice which the Editors do not generally recommend. When a whole group need knowledge, it is often less effective to use an individualized learning support system to deliver it.

---------

Also, for those from other than educational settings, substitute in your mind as you read the word "protege" for the word "teacher".

That the participants of this study were chosen by the center directors sets up the results of the research - the Control Group were more experienced, better trained proteges than the Treatment Group.

It makes sense that directors would choose to only provide mentors to those proteges with less experience and training, especially if mentoring resources are limited.

For clarity, a "child care" situation is not intended to be educational. A "preschool" program is, by definition, a preparation-for-school program. That is why preschool teachers need solid content knowledge.

The study indirectly intended to learn if mentoring was the best tool for delivering training in content knowledge to less experienced proteges. The Editors' comments above and the results attained in the study both address this issue.

Hypothesis
Using the Focused Mentoring program will increase preschool teacher content knowledge in the areas of Mathematics, Science, and Literacy.

Research Results
Literacy
The mean test scores show a large discrepancy between the control group and the treatment group. On the literacy section of the pretest, the mean score of the treatment group is M=38.8571, and the mean score of the control group is M= 85.8571. On the literacy section of the posttest, the mean score of the treatment group is M=57.0000, and the mean score of the control group is M=85.7143. This shows that the scores of the treatment group changed more than the scores of the control group. The mean literacy score change in the treatment group is M=18.1429

Mathematics
The mean scores in the mathematics section of both the pretest and the posttest are similar to those of the literacy section. On the mathematics section of the pretest, the mean score of the treatment group is M=47.7143, and the mean score of the control group is M=69.1429. On the mathematics section of the posttest, the mean score of the treatment group is M=71.4286, and the mean score of the control group is M=83.2857. The scores of the treatment were higher in mathematics than in literacy. The scores of the treatment group again changed more than the scores of the control group. The mean mathematics score change in the treatment group is M=23.7143

Science
The mean scores in the science section of both the pretest and the posttest are lower than those in literacy or mathematics. On the science section of the pretest, the mean score of the treatment group is M=22.4286, and the mean score of the control group is M=61.1429. On the science section of the posttest, the mean score of the treatment group is M=45.0000, and the mean score of the control group is M=65.2857. The scores of the treatment group again changed more than the scores of the control group. The mean science score change in the treatment group is M=22.5714, and the mean science score change in the control group is M=4.1429.

Overall Scores
While the scores in the individual sections are interesting to look at, the overall scores provided even more information. On the pretest, the mean overall score of the treatment group is M=35.7143, and the mean overall score of the control group is M=70.7143. On the posttest, the mean overall score of the treatment group is M=60.0000, and the mean overall score of the control group is M=77.1429. The scores of the treatment group again changed more than the scores of the control group. The mean overall score change in the treatment group is M=24.2857

Results in General
The control group had higher mean scores on the pretest than those of the treatment (mentored) group. The overall scores on the pretest for the control group ranged from 45% to 90 %, and the overall scores on the pretest for those in the mentor program ranged from 10% to 65 %. The scores on the posttest showed change in both groups. The overall scores on the posttest for the control group ranged from 55% to 90 %, and the overall scores on the pretest for those in the mentor program ranged from 20% to 80 %. While these posttest scores did not prove to be statistically significant, these changes in overall scores were statistically significant at p< 0.05.

A review of the literacy and math sections of the test revealed no correlation between the posttest scores and being in the mentoring program. There are mediating factors that need to be taken into account when looking at these results. Many of the teachers who participated in this study also received math training from their district also with imbedded literacy training in order to be able to utilized ELAS (Early Learning Assessment System) to record literacy growth for their students. These extra trainings may have skewed the results. Further testing would be required to prove correlations between these trainings and the posttest scores. However, the scores in the science section of both the pretest and posttest showed significant correlations between the increased scores and being in the mentoring program.

A caution for non educational applications of this specific information. The article is not describing the protege's own level of literacy. Rather it describes attempts to increase the protege's ability to help others become more literate. The same must be said regarding math and science scores.

If in your setting, you are concerned with employee ability to educate others (their direct reports, their dealers or distributors, their customers, etc.), then this information is critical for you.

If in your setting, you are concerned with youth mentoring, then this information is crucial for you to consider related to your mentors' literacy and other content knowledge. That can inform your mentor selection process, and your mentor training and evaluation of their impact. They cannot give what they do not themselves possess.

Remember, the control group were the more experienced and better trained proteges.

The scores were not significant, but the score improvement was.

Science score were correlated since neither control nor treatment protégés received prior science training. The improvements were likely the sole effect of mentoring or not.

Research Method
This study utilized a quantitative research design to test the hypothesis, with a quasi-experimental design, allowing the directors of the preschools to select the teachers who will participate in the control and treatment groups.

The teachers in the control group were the more experienced teachers who were willing to show their knowledge. They had a range of experience in teaching from one to eleven years and have either Associate Degrees or Bachelor Degrees. They are all comfortable with the curriculum used by their schools.
The teachers in the treatment group were less experienced, chosen by their directors because the directors thought they could use some assistance in implementing more content knowledge into their lessons. These were newer teachers with a range of experience from one year to five years.

The pretest was administered to both groups to determine a baseline of teacher content knowledge. The treatment group then received five extra months of mentoring from a mentor with whom they are already familiar. Then, a posttest was administered to both groups to determine changes in teacher content knowledge. The pretest and posttest were the same test. This test was designed based to focus on the teachers’ knowledge of literacy, mathematics, and science; it was based on the objectives set forth by The Creative Curriculum and the State of New Jersey Expectations.

This study was carried out to see how implementing the Focused Mentoring Program affected teacher content knowledge as gauged by a subject matter test. Each individual's overall scores on the pretests and posttests were examined in relationship to each other, and the scores were then broken down by section: literacy, math and science. The scores were then grouped by those in the mentoring program and those in the control group; pretest and posttest scores were then compared.

"Quantitative" relates to the pre-post test differences. "Quasi-experimental" relates to the use of control and treatment groups.

Conclusions and Implications for Further Research
There was a statistically significant relationship between being in the Focused Mentoring program and the changes in overall scores. There is also a positive relationship between being in the mentoring program and science scores. A review of the literacy and math sections of the test revealed no correlation between the posttest scores and being in the mentoring program. There are mediating factors that need to be taken into account when looking at these results.

• This initial study was done on a very small scale with no randomization. A larger, more randomized test of the Focused Mentoring program is necessary to truly see what results this program could yield. This would give more generalizability and validity to the study. It would also give schools a better idea of how this program could be used in their school.
• A follow up study should be done to see how increasing teacher content knowledge through Focused Mentoring affects student content knowledge. This should be done using growth-based assessments to gauge student content knowledge in order for the study to maintain integrity within the context of Early Childhood education.
• Professional development can influence teacher content knowledge and this impact warrants further investigation. Since teachers are required to attend around one hundred hours of professional development each year, there should be visible and significant changes in teaching strategies and practices. The knowledge gained from professional development should become apparent in the lesson plans of the teachers and the answers they give to student questions. By studying this change, schools could learn what kinds of professional development significantly influence the teaching and content knowledge of those who attend.

Randomization effectively eliminates bias and other mediating factors, and allows easier and clearer attribution of results to the treatment (mentoring).

Those in non educational settings can draw the conclusion that mentoring which targeted protege content knowledge was found to be effective.

The Editors' considerable experience and our own research has shown that these results ARE valid and CAN be generalized to apply to mentoring in other settings.

Further study of how increased knowledge relates to desired results is always crucial. This directly relates to earlier Editor comments regarding use of mentoring to increase implementation of knowledge into practice.