Page 15 - 2024_Jour_90-5

• How did participants identify and assign mentor teachers?
• Which mentoring model would work best for the district?
• What supports could be provided to mentors and interns?
Decisions made by participants aligned with research from induction support,
mentoring models, and school climate and culture. These factors were important as
they considered implementing the model in the future and determining what success
meant in regard to decisions made toward implementing the program.

Factor 1: Induction Support
As defined by the Georgia Department of Education, an induction phase teacher
is “any teacher . . . hired into a new permanent position in any Georgia school
. . . [and] considered to be ‘induction phase’ until they successfully complete the
district induction program” (Georgia Department of Education, 2020b, p. 9). Two
themes, transitioning from intern to teacher and success of the program, exemplified
induction-support decisions. Induction-support programs in Georgia vary by school
district and state mandates. Although participants in this study did not directly discuss
induction supports, analysis of the interviews provided clues to the supports interns
received, considered pre-induction support. Participants in the study identified
examples of professional development, frequent communication with supportive
personnel, and common planning times with other teachers of the same subject
(Georgia Department of Education, 2020b; Ingersoll, 2012).
University support included the provision of university supervisors in two cases
and a university mentor in one, aligning with findings by Reitman and Karge (2019),
who found induction-phase teachers received onsite visits from university faculty.
However, only two university participants described how they tailored their site
visits to the unique needs of interns in their partner districts. University 1 decision-
makers tailored their support through the university mentor who supported both the
school-based mentor and intern. Mrs. Taylor said, “There is a liaison for this program
at the college. So, Mrs. Westbrook, … she is the mentor.” Before the pandemic,
Mrs. Westbrook went into classrooms supporting mentors and candidates in a non-
evaluative manner. During the pandemic, she held virtual meetings. She observed
interns and debriefed to help them implement new strategies into their practice. Mrs.
Westbrook communicated with mentor teachers and provided the pair additional
support. University 2 participants described a specific example in which their
university supervisors and faculty supported a struggling intern by having a faculty
member provide professional development. Dr. Berry stated, “We had a student last
year that has some concerns around classroom management.” Ms. Roberts followed
Dr. Berry’s example: “I think that was a good example of how our faculty really got
involved, too.” Examples from both University 1 and 2 participants aligned with
research illustrating induction-phase teachers needing professional development and
supportive processes to meet individual needs (Garcia & Weiss, 2019; Reitman &
Karge, 2019).
Whereas Universities 1 and 2 provided university faculty as external support, two
universities provided only the university supervisor. In Stricker et al.’s (2016) study,
a university supervisor was one “charged with evaluating the teacher candidates
based upon a series of observations the supervisors conducted each semester” (p.
30). University 3 and 4 participants described roles aligned with the traditional role
of supervisor, where they evaluated interns and supported them. Sarah described
her university supervisor as someone who “has really worked with me . . . really

Promoting Professional and Personal Growth of Educators and Excellence in Education 13