Naqvi Nust Journal Article

7/29/2019 Naqvi Nust Journal Article

1/37

INQUIRY INTO INDUCTION SUPPORT FOR ELT FACULTY AT

PAKISTANI HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Swaleha ShigriNUST Business School,

National University of Sciences & Technology (NUST)

Islamabad/[email protected]

Abstract

In Pakistans science, engineering, medical and management universities, English

language programs/courses perform a service function in that they are generally excluded

from the degree granting and research generating raison dtre of most academic units

(Pennington, 1992). Being consigned to the academic periphery means that the programsin question are routinely shortchanged in a number of important areas, of which faculty

training, support and development is one. In most cases, tertiary faculty selection criteriafavor subject qualifications and work experience over formal teacher training. Thus, post

induction support and development appears to carry even greater significance for faculty

who generally lack specialized preservice teacher training vis--vis those counterpartswho have the advantage of formal preservice training. This small-scale and exploratory

study investigates current induction practices in the higher education (HE) sector and

assesses the viability of faculty mentoring structures as compensatory configurations

aimed at overcoming the challenges created by inadequate tertiary faculty preparation.Questionnaire and interview data collected from tertiary faculty members working at a

number of Pakistani universities were analyzed to identify existing induction/supportpractices and participant preferences in faculty support. The results confirm that tertiaryfaculty induction is at best informal and arbitrary and at worst non-existent, and provide

evidence of widespread support from participants for culturally appropriate mentoring

models as an induction tool. The findings indicate that in order to establish mentoringsupport structures at universities, bodies such as Pakistans Higher Education

Commission (HEC) and tertiary institutions would need to collaborate in selecting and

training mentors from an existing pool of experienced faculty as well as in ensuring

financial compensation as incentives for prospective mentors.

KeywordsInduction, teacher development, faculty mentoring, tertiary teacher education


2/37

A draft of this paper was published in the Proceedings of INTED 2009 Conference.

9-11 March 2009, Valencia, Spain. ISBN:978-84-612-7578-6

INTRODUCTION

With the growing pursuit of excellence in tertiary teaching worldwide, universities today

have become increasingly conscious of the need for effective pedagogy and the teaching

effectiveness of their faculty members (Hativa, Barak and Simhi, 2001). At the outset, itis important to clarify what is signified by the term tertiary within the context of this

study. According to Campbell & Rozsnyai (2002), tertiary education follows the

successful completion of the secondary level, and can encompass both certification-based

vocational post-secondary education and degree-based higher education. However, withinthis study, the use of the term tertiary teaching is confined to teaching taking place in

higher education institutions such as universities. Although tertiary teachers spend many

years in formal education learning the subject matter of their academic area, they spend

negligible time in getting formal training in the skills they need for the teachingprofession. The training of faculty in other areas, such as publishing, designing

examinations, assessing students, participating in faculty governance, or establishing aresearch agenda, receives even less attention (Luna and Cullen, 1995). Tertiary level

teachers of English are further disadvantaged because English Language Teaching (ELT)

is frequently marginalized within academic practice and scholarship (Pennington, 1992).Such marginalization occurs inspite of the fact that growth in teaching is an incremental

process that needs to be fostered over a course of time so that teachers attain professional

development rather than mere survival skills. (Elliot & Calderhead, 1993). The Pakistani

educational sector is a case in point. Currently, it is beset by a lack of a comprehensivevision and policy on teacher education which can elevate teaching into a full fledged

professional status (ITACEC, 2004). The absence of an agreed national minimum

criteria for teacher education at various levels of education (ITACEC, 2004) and the lackof a system for accreditation or for the regulation of teacher standards within and across

provinces (ITACEC, 2004) also mean that the teachers receive little relevant training.

Hence, quality teaching and learning in educational contexts across the country remainsseverely compromised by the existing lack of vision, policy, criteria and accreditation. In

response, Pakistans Higher Education Commission (HEC) has begun to undertake

reforms, which include a special focus on English language teaching, learning and

research in degree awarding institutions. In Pakistan, English, which has the status of anofficial language, serves not only as the language of governmental correspondence but

also as the language of education and of the professional sectors. The fact that English is

the lingua franca of international communication, commerce, science and technology andeducation and has an official status within Pakistan has created an imperative for HEC to

improve the quality of HE English language instruction and learning. The major themes

for the plan of action for National Committee on English emphasize faculty development(HEC, 2006).

As Pennington (1989) points out, the heart of every educational enterprise, the force

driving the whole enterprise towards its educational aims, is the teaching faculty, and it


3/37

is this faculty that to a large extent determines the unique character of any language

program (my italics). Since tertiary ELT professionals, largely work at the institutional

periphery, post induction faculty development cannot succeed unless it incorporates anongoing process of evolution of the faculty as a functional unit within the larger

organization of the program as well as the realization of potentialities and goals of

individual faculty members.(ibid). While English language teaching reforms by the HECare a laudable top down initiative at addressing what is essentially a large scale problem

across HE institutions in Pakistan, it will take a considerable amount of time, resources

and efforts to improve the situation recognizably and for the effects of this change effortto filter down to most, if not all, HE institutions,. The study on which this paper is based

explores a small-scale and more local approach to dealing with the problems of declining

teaching standards, learner disempowerment and professional atrophy at HE institutions

in Pakistan by investigating the viability of using HE faculty induction to support/developELT professionals through compensatory mechanisms such as mentoring. While the

scope of this issue is very broad, the paper restricts itself to identifying the nature of

available faculty support/development structures and the kind of support participants

perceive to be important. In the long run, the issue of faculty support ties in with thequality of supplementary English language programs at Pakistani Higher Education (HE)

institutions.

FACULTY INDUCTION AND MENTORING

There is a general view that the induction process is central to the development of new as

well as experienced faculty. According to Mager (1992), for example:

induction is an effort to assist new teachers in performing..toward the end of

being effective. Through induction, new teachers continue to form and refine their

images of themselves as teachers in terms of their competence, performance, andeffectiveness

Mager cautions that induction should not approximate to any of the following: practicefor remedying the deficits of preparation programs, means of teaching the entrant

everything in one go, instrument for socializing new teachers to the institutional culture

or as a way of screening the entrant. Induction theory further allows for the interpretation

of the experiences of veteran teachers who experience difficulty in making transitionsfrom one teaching assignment to another (ibid). Induction is understood to be a process of

synthesis and adaptation for both individuals and institutions (Schempp, Sparkes and

Templin, 1993). Fabian & Simpson (2002) contend that it is too important to be left tochance. Yet in most cases teacher induction is flawed because the means for

acclimatization to the complexities of teaching (Hatwood-Futrell, 1988) are missing.

Cuddaph (2002) highlights another aspect of this problem in pointing out that unlikeother professions, which scaffold entry and transitional processes, teaching is an

unstaged career in that novice and veteran teachers essentially have the same work

responsibilities (my italics). This discrepancy between work assignment and existing

experience is compounded by the fact that the complex and changing nature of teaching


4/37

renders ineffective, technicist or formulaic solutions. Literature on teacher development

and induction indicates that practitioner reflectivity is one way of gaining a better

understanding and handling of practice. Reflectivity in practice has been influenced bythe work of Donald Schon (1983) who notes that

when someone reflects-in-action, he becomes a researcher in the practice context.

He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, butconstructs a new theory of the unique case thereby allowing reflection in action

to proceed, even in situations of uncertainty or uniqueness, because it is not

bound by the dichotomies of Technical Rationality

Thus learning from reflecting on ones own teaching, from researching ones own

practice, from creating teaching portfolios, from interacting with colleagues for critical

peer feedback, mentoring and participating in teacher networks, are all regarded as waysin which teachers build up skills and acquire knowledge. This perspective also reflects

the prevailing educational philosophy of constructivism, which holds that knowledge is

actively constructed through social interaction (Goker, 2006) and that learning can be

facilitated by experts modeling problem-solving strategies, guiding learners inapproximating the strategies while learners articulate their thought processes (Kerka,

1998).

The concept of mentoring

In addition to mentoring, Neal (1992) identifies four other common forms of teacher

development activities: peer relationships among teachers, staff development programs,

instructional supervision and traditional evaluation. While the aim of these activities is

the professional development of teachers, it is peer relationships such as peer coachingwhich appear to parallel mentoring in most respects. Goker (2006) describes peer

coachingas the process of two teachers working together in and out of the classroom to

plan instruction, develop support materials, and watch one another work with students asone such strategy for teacher development (ibid). However, this study confines its focus

to one particular strategy or process i.e., mentoring because existing faculty support at

Pakistani HE institutions tends to take the shape of an experienced colleague guiding thenew entrant for a few weeks or so or variations on this model, in which a person of

greater rank or expertise teaches, guides, and develops a novice in an organization or

profession. Although much has been written on the subject, the mentoring literature is

distinguished by a lack of a comprehensive definition for the mentoring process (Bogat &Redner, 1985). Mertz (2004) views the absence of a shared, stipulative definition of

mentoring and of boundaries for distinguishing mentoring from other types of supportive

relationships as a major barrier to achieving a shared understanding on the mentoringphenomenon and to maximizing the benefits of mentoring relationships. The concept of

mentoring has been appropriated for implementation within a wide swathe of contexts but

the appropriation has not always entailed a consistent conceptualization. Leaving asidethe contentious issue of a shared (ibid) definition of mentoring, most mentoring

literature makes reference to mentoring as being rooted in Homers Odyssey in which

Odysseus entrusted the education of his son, Telemachus, to his friend and counsellor,

Mentor, thus securing the assistance of an older and wiser person for his inexperienced


5/37

son (Hativa et al, 2001; Sands, Parson & Duane, 1991; Little, 1990; Healy & Welchert,

1990; Tolentiono, 1999; Hadden, 1997; Aldred & Garvey, 2000; Siskin & Davis, 2000).

The mythological reference is reflective of a relationship dynamic that is common tomost mentoring relationships, which rest upon guidance and assistance given by the more

experienced to the less experienced. At a less abstract level, Head, Reiman & Thies-

Sprinthall (1992) comment that the heart and soul of mentoring is an outgrowth of beliefin the value and worth of people and an attitude toward education that focuses upon

passing the torch to the next generation of teachers. Within this description can be

discerned a number of elements that would seem to constitute the mentoring process as itis widely understood. Experienced colleagues who undertake to provide a supportive and

developmental environment for the new generation of teachers attempt the empowerment

of new teaching professionals. Within this scenario, we can also detect the working of

Eriksons (1963) concept of generativity, which helps the mentor to realize thedevelopmental milestone of transcending the self in serving others and the future through

the protg.

Kelly, Beck and Ap Thomas (1995) argue that self development is rarely successfulwithout the support of other people. Asystem of mentoringoffers that support by

providing individuals with someone who can give feedback, question, share, discuss,challenges, confront and guide one through the learning cycle. (my italics) The

keywords here are a system of mentoring. The provision of systematized faculty

support can not only enhance the effectiveness of language courses but also ensure themaintenance of a quality teaching and learning environment. Mentoring can be

rationalized in terms of the fact that new teachers require support as well as ongoing staff

development to become effective teachers. Mentoring serves as an effective induction

strategy benefiting the mentors, protgs and institutions alike in the process itself(Newcombe, 1988)

Definitions of mentoring

Although there exist many definitions of mentoring, (Healy & Welchert, 1990;

Alleman, Cochran, Doverspike & Newman, 1984; Anderson & Shannon, 1993; Roberts,2000; Bryson, 2001), the one that seems most appropriate for the present study is

suggested by Garvey (2004) who describes mentoring as a relationship between two

people, with learning and development as its core purpose which involves certain human

qualities and attributes such as trust, commitment and emotional engagement andincludes the use of certain skills such as listening, questioning, challenging and

supporting.

This definition highlights a quartet of elements that are important to the implementation

of durable faculty support/development in the Pakistani HE context, namely: relationship,

purposes, qualities and skills. It is possible that the resource-constrained HE sector inPakistan can benefit from using an induction tool that involves the building up of a trust-

based, learning relationship between mentor and protg because it requires relatively

less investment than expensive preservice/inservice teacher training programs, embeds


6/37

itself in the workplace thus pre-empting the need for faculty downtime for training

purposes and that mimics relationship dynamics that are culturally familiar.

Models of mentoring

Bryson (2001) speaks of three prevalent models found in the literature on mentoring:

The apprenticeship model which consists of working alongside an experienced

practitioner who also serves as a model for the trainee

The competency model which consists of the mentor acting as a systematic trainer

providing training according to a list of pre defined competencies

The reflective practitioner model in which the mentor takes on the role of co enquirer

with

the trainee

The models enable the visualization of the kind of mentoring teachers may need at

particular stages in their careers. As always, the cultural fit of an idea and anorganizational climate fostering innovation (Klein & Sorra, 1996) account for the success

or failure of an innovation within the implementation stage. For sociocultural reasons,

Pakistans HE context is characterized by high power distance (Guidroz et al, 2005: Ali

et al, 2010) which allows for power differentials to be viewed as legitimate and

normative as well as for the employment of a top down style of management. Hence,

these characteristics make Brysons apprenticeship and competency models of mentoring

more appropriate than that of the third model which presupposes a less directiverelationship between the mentor and protg. It is considered suitable for protgs to

model their professional conduct, encompassing work responsibilities as well as

behaviour, on that of experienced and seasoned practitioners. In most cases, institutionsalso prefer inductees to develop predefined competencies with the help of a trainer, as

these competencies are more quantifiable and therefore easier to assess.

Brysons list of six types of mentors helps to identify the kind of mentoring relationship

that may exist within a particular context and that has the potential to take root in a

particular institution. These six types of mentors have been conceptualized as traditional

mentors; supportive bosses; organizational sponsors; professional mentors; patrons; and,invisible godparents. Viewing things a little differently, Clutterbuck (2004) differentiates

between the sponsorship focused model which is predominant in literature emerging from

North America and which functions on the premise that it is the mentors ability to dothings on behalf of someone more junior that drives the relationship and the

development focused model which sees the mentee as the main driver of the process.

The developmental model, which encourages mentees to be more proactive in their owndevelopment, may prove less likely to thrive in the Pakistani HE context, where Jaworski

in Halai (2001) contends education is situated in a hierarchical power structure and

where societal culture encourages deference to older, wiser and more eminent members

of the society.


7/37

Benefits and drawbacks of mentoring

by not mentoring, we are wasting talent. We educate and train, but dont nurture.(Wright & Wright, 1987)

Faculty mentoring helps to create new incentives and career opportunities and eases thetransition of new faculty into the professoriate to a great extent (Kanuka, 2005) and

serves as a strategy to personalize individual faculty development and to empower

entrants as well as veterans within the teaching profession through strong supportive

relationships. Its benefits include the advancement of organizational culture, provision ofaccess to informal and formal networks of communication and provision of professional

stimulation to all faculty members (Hativa et al, 2001). Mentoring is also supportive of

professional growth and renewal (ibid) and promotes faculty productivity, advocates

collegiality, and encourages a broader goal of attracting, retaining, and advancing facultymembers (ibid).

The benefits of mentoring extend beyond the protgs. Kanuka also discusses Reich as

reflecting that mentors are in a position to gain satisfaction from assisting new

colleagues, improving their own managerial skills, and increasing stimulation from brightand creative new faculty members. While recognizing that literature largely supports the

use of mentoring as a developmental tool, the aim was to look at whether the advantages

transfer across to the Pakistani HE context by examining existing practices and

practitioner perspectives on the use of mentoring for faculty development. Whilementoring has great utility it must not be considered a panacea for all problems in a

department, college, or institution (Hativa et al, 2001). Mentoring is as susceptible to

dysfunction as other supportive relationships and fallout from counter productivementoring interactions can include exploitive relationships, stagnation, and conflicting

personalities or value structures (Kanuka, 2005). Notwithstanding the declining quality

of faculty in Pakistan (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2005), Pakistani universities interested inmentoring would have to be sensitive to the challenges inherent in using this as a faculty

development strategy.

In short, mentoring can be expected to thrive only if both mentor and protg are willingparticipants, if the interaction is based on mutually desired outcomes, and if the requisite

institutional support is available. Mentoring needs to be viewed as an evolving

phenomenon, rather than a static one, because it pivots on human interaction and humanrelationships, highly susceptible to change, taking place within a profession that

continues to develop rapidly. In an article marking the new millennium, Hargreaves and

Fullan (2005) have commented that the growing complexity of the teaching professionhas meant that teachers have had to deal with a diverse clientele, face increasing moral

uncertainty and contend with the vested interests of diverse groups. Their argument that

mentoring, as an induction and support mechanism has to be seen as centralrather than

adjunctto the task of transforming the teaching profession itself, holds multiple


8/37

implications for a HE context such as that of Pakistan, where the dominant form of

faculty development hitherto has been the facilitation of faculty members in acquiring an

increasingly greater number of formal academic qualifications rather than the creation ofdevelopmental relationships within the teaching community itself. However, the

changing dynamics of the teaching profession imply that formal academic qualifications,

while offering tangible evidence of institutional investment in faculty members, cannotreplace the day to day, individualized development and support mentoring has to offer.

Insofar as mentoring itself is concerned, Hargreaves & Fullan contend that it has to

change from being the source of hierarchical dispensation of wisdom to being the catalystfor shared inquiries of wisdom and has to become instrumental in creating strong

professional cultures involving all teaching professionals, and not just the new teachers. It

is worth noting that while Hargreaves & Fullans view that mentoring should lead to

shared inquiries of wisdom has potential, the fact that the Pakistani HE context is moreconservative than most may make the development of a nurturing or training relationship

into one of shared inquiry somewhat difficult, although not impossible, to realize. Indeed,

while faculty mentoring is a powerful induction and development strategy, Luna &

Cullen (1995) point out that if it is to serve the purpose of faculty development, suchschemes must fit the culture and environment of the educational institution, and faculty

must be involved in the design and implementation of strategies and plans for mentoring.This point has great bearing on the use of mentoring as an induction tool within the

Pakistani HE context and further discussion will take note of the need for the cultural fit

of mentoring.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Participants

While representative samples allow the obtaining of information from a segment of thepopulation for the purpose of generalizing back to the entire population (Ruane, 2005),

the constraints involved in acquiring data from tertiary level teachers working at different

institutions throughout Pakistan necessitated the employment of purposive sampling(Black, 1993). Such considerations led me to choose purposive sampling which Bryman

(2004) describes as an essentially strategic approach allowing for a good

correspondence between research questions and sampling and which enables the

researcher to discover, understand, gain insight from a sample from which one can learnmost (Merriam, 1988). Hence, purposive or purposeful sampling was chosen as a

strategy for this study because it could enable a particular setting (Pakistans HE sector),

individuals (Tertiary ESL tutors), or events (induction) to be deliberately chosen for theimportant information they could provide, otherwise unobtainable from other choices

(Maxwell, 1997; Neuman, 2006).

The participants of the research were 7 university level teachers teaching/working at

selected institutions and universities in the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad as

well as Lahore in Pakistan. A number of considerations governed the selection of the


9/37

universities/institutions from which the participants were drawn. Given that teacher

training and formal teacher support mechanisms are resource and time intensive

initiatives, I wanted to look at faculty induction and support provision in Pakistaniuniversities that a) had a self proclaimed as well as publicly perceived reputation for

being open to and proactive in the implementation of best educational innovations and

practices and b) had the financial wherewithal to fund and sustain the implementation ofsuch initiatives. The purpose of this study was twofold: to understand if effective teacher

induction and support was taking place under the most optimal of conditions; and if this

were not the case, to gain an insight into how teachers were inducted and how theseinduction practices were perceived.

Universities/Institutions Type of University/

Institution

Participants

Surveyed

Participants

Surveyed &

Interviewed

University A Semi governmental 4 -

University B Private - 01

(Interviewed in

person)

University C Private

-

01

(Interviewed viaemail)

Institution D Government Ministry- 01

(Interviewed via

email)

Fig.1: Details of Institutions and Participants surveyed & interviewed in the Study

Survey Participants

The male and female participants surveyed were faculty members drawn from UniversityA, University B, University C and Institution D. Engineering, technology,

management sciences and medicine are some of the core disciplines offered at University

A. University B has two schools: a business school and a School of Arts and Sciences

which offer graduate and post graduate programs in management sciences and incomputer science, computer engineering, mathematics, Law and Economics respectively.


10/37

University C offers programs in medicine, teacher training and development etc. One of

the participants was an English language specialist, with many years of tertiary level

teaching and administrative experience, employed at a government ministry (InstitutionD) dealing with educational policies in Pakistan. The teachers who participated in the

survey were experienced ELT professionals and therefore well placed to provide the data

needed for the study.

Interview participants

For the interviews, the participants were drawn from amongst the survey participants

working at 3 out of the 4 universities/institutions surveyed. The interviewees were

Pakistani ELT professionals with extensive experience in teaching at university level and

knowledge of curriculum design and development. Two of the interviewees were basedin Pakistan, and working at University C and Institution D respectively. The third

interviewee, employed at University B, was in the process of completing her PhD at a

UK University. Here it is worth mentioning that although interviews could not be secured

with participants at University A, the interviewee from Institution D had substantialexperience teaching at University A prior to her employment at the government

ministry thereby providing opportunities to tap into her induction experiences atUniversity A as well.

While justification has been provided for the selection of the universities/institutions,there are implications of this selection for the study itself. Any recommendation based on

the findings of the study would have greater significance for similarly placed (in terms of

progressive vision and funding) universities. Hence, the recommendations may not be

open to adoption by universities or HE institutions structured and funded differently.However, it may be noted that the aim of the study was not to come up with sweeping

generalizations valid with reference to induction in a whole swath of HE educational

institutions in Pakistan, but to pursue understanding (Richards, 2003) of a phenomenon ina particular context so that the readers would be enabled to perceive the similarities to

their own contexts and to judge the relevance of the findings to their own practice

situation (Meyer, 2000) and apply them accordingly.

Instruments for data collection

Questionnaire

Because the research location and the research subjects were at considerable geographicaldistance and circumstances disallowed travel to the site to collect data, questionnaires

were used, as these have the advantage of being economical and convenient and open to

dissemination over a wide geographical area (Neuman, 2000). Questionnaires were alsoselected because data could be collected in the same, replicable way from a large

number of informants thereby making comparison of the results easier and the

conclusions clearer (Wray, Trott and Bloomer, 1988). Drawing on literature (for e.g.

Bryson, 2001), the survey framed questions about participants educational background,


11/37

work experience and experience of mentoring and faculty development (Appendix 1).

Most of the questions were closed ended and fixed response although in relevant

sections respondent views/opinions were solicited through open ended questions(Neuman, 2000). Both closed and open format questions were used because research

literature shows that while responses to closed questions are easier to collate and

analyse, one often obtains more useful information from open questions (Nunan, 1992).

To conduct the research, a faculty questionnaire was designed, piloted and emailed to the

Director Human Resources at University A for onward distribution to their EnglishLanguage Faculty. One of the participants was already present in the UK so the

questionnaire was administered to her following an interview. The data were analyzed for

common and divergent themes using these focus questions:

What form did induction and faculty support/development take at Pakistani HE

institutions?

What were the participants views on faculty support/development in the light of their

experiences? What kind of faculty support structures were favored by the participants within their

particular cultural contexts?

Questionnaires were administered to all the participants of the study and the response rate

was 100 %. The questionnaire data was examined for information on existing inductionpractices and views on faculty development structures and then considered alongside the

data emerging from the interviews.

Interviewing

Because questionnaires can be limited by a low response rate, the researchers lack of

control over the conditions under which a questionnaire is completed or the inability ofthe researcher to observe the setting or the respondents reactions to questions (Neuman,

2000) and because they are best used in association with other types of data elicitation in

order to develop a fuller picture of the data (Wray et al, 1988), interviewing was chosenas a supplementary data collection instrument. In the conventional view the interview

conversation is framed as a potential source of bias, error, misunderstanding or

misdirection, a persistent set of problems to be controlled (Holstein and Gubrium, 1997).

However, it is the interactional nature of the interview situation that gives it theadaptability (Bell, 1999) that can enable the researcher to gain information that a

written response would conceal (ibid). Hence, interviewing was seen as a substantially

useful instrument for data collection within this study.

My study was aligned to broad categories of inquiries about participants perceptions

about and experiences of mentoring and faculty support structures. Hence, I wanted to

hear about the participants personal experience and perception of mentoring or facultysupport and the kind of support actually available within their respective institutions.

Before interviewing, I prepared a list of questions drawing on the literature on faculty


12/37

support structures and mentoring. A number of these questions arose from the emerging

themes in the questionnaire data, my own experiences and those of my peers in the initial

years of teaching. However, as the face-to-face interview I conducted with the UK basedparticipant was semi structured, the list of questions guided the interview while allowing

me to follow leads provided by the participant. The interview was begun with a grand

tour question that was meant to be global enough to allow the participant to describesomething in her own terms so that she could then set the direction of the interviews

allowing me to follow the leads that emerged (Ary et al2009). Generally speaking, three

kinds of questions were employed during the discussion: these consisted of mainquestions which served to scaffold the interview and to translate the research topic into

terms the participant could relate to, follow up questions that were specific to participant

responses and probes to keep the discussion flowing while providing clarification (Rubin

& Rubin, 2005). The laddered question technique, which consists of employing aframework that describes questioning in terms of different levels of inquiry consonant

with wider social ways of understanding (Price, 2001), was also used as it allowed the

initiation and conducting of the interview noninvasively. The interview was recorded on

an mp3 player with a recording function and then transcribed. As this inquiry wasconcerned largely with the interpretation and generation of meanings from data

(Halcomb, 2006) rather than with linguistic or discourse features, I was more interestedin the content and significance of participants responses rather than how these responses

were uttered and therefore did not seek to produce a naturalized transcript (Oliver,

2006). However, bearing in mind that extracts from interviews should be contextualizedin the interests of the reliability of subsequent analysis (Rapley, 2001), I transcribed not

only the participant responses but also my own questions to provide the background to

what the interviewees were saying. Further, I also transcribed response tokens such as

Hm, Ok, Um, Uh huh given their ability to indicate agreement, acknowledgement orrepair within the interview conversation (Oliver 2006: 11) and contribute to the meaning

of participant responses.

Email Interviews

Interviews with the Pakistan-based participants had to be conducted via email asavailability for online interviews was a major problem in view of the time difference

between UK and Pakistan and the professional commitments of the interviewees. With

the advancement in web-based technologies, an increasing number of people have accessto and use email for personal as well as for professional reasons. The use of email has an

interviewing tool has been examined in some depth by James & Busher (2006) who have

looked at the methodological concerns that surround email interviewing in the context of

two separate research studies. The major difference between email interviewing in thosestudies and the study under discussion in this paper is that in the case of the former,

interview questions were emailed one by one and mimicked in some ways an ongoing

conversation or dialogue whereas in the case of the latter, interview questions were sentin a single email and also answered collectively in the return emails. Nevertheless, the

findings of the paper (ibid) do have a bearing on the use of email within the present

study. Drawing upon field literature and their own experience of interviewing through themedium, James and Busher conclude that the method has the most to offer when face-to-


13/37

face contact between researchers and participants is either unnecessary or impractical,

and when snappy responses to research questions are not required thereby providing

considerable justification for the use of email interviewing under conditions such as theones governing this study and involving issues of time, resources and distance.

Analysis

The analysis of the questionnaire data allowed a picture of the kind of induction each

participant had experienced (or not) to be formed. A comparative analysis of theresponses across the different participants suggested themes from which the interview

questions could be drawn. The data collected from the interviews were compared with the

questionnaire data to a) to confirm whether or not interview responses were consistentwith questionnaire responses b) to gain an overall perspective of the situation in

Pakistans HE institutions. As the interviewees had considerable experience in both

educational administration and in teaching, the data from the interviews was of

considerable use in understanding the state and place of mentoring and faculty support in

Pakistani HE culture.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to look into examine faculty induction of ELT professionals at

Pakistani HE institutions. The focus was on faculty mentoring as a way to enable the new

faculty member to become a vital and productive member of the professoriate (Cawyer,Simonds & Davis, 2002). The interpretation of questionnaire and interview data

suggested that faculty induction is at best informal and arbitrary and at worst non

existent. This study also revealed that mentoring programs following culturally

appropriate models were well supported as an induction tool for new teachers.

Faculty questionnaire

The areas addressed by the questionnaire provide interesting information on the research

focus of this study. The responses have placed in broad categories and, in cases where

applicable, insights (in italics) gained are appended to the relevant response.

a) Gender, Age, Career & Professional Qualifications

Because women faculty tend to show different trajectories than do men (Bronstein and

Farnsworth, 1998), the fact that the survey was answered by almost an equal number of

female faculty as male faculty generated multi perspectival data. Fairly representative ofage and career level, 42% of the participants held an MA qualification whereas 2 of the

participants had additional qualifications in the form of MA TEFL and MBA. Another 2

were in the process of completing research degrees. The minimum teaching experience at

HE level was 3 years and the maximum 33 years. Again the variation in the length oftime spent teaching at tertiary level was helpful as it provided the insights of faculty


14/37

members who were fairly new to the profession as well as mature professionals well used

to teaching at universities.

b) State of preservice/inservice training

The participants described their preservice/inservice teacher training and only oneparticipant indicated that he/she had not received such training at all. Two of the

participants had completed training imparted by the Educational Branches of Pakistans

military services as these participants had at one point served in the Air Force and Navyrespectively. University A and the Pakistani military services jointly run several of the

Armed Forces institutions hence serving officers with the requisite subject expertise are

at times seconded to University As colleges.

c) Nature of training received

It was also revealed that inservice/preservice training usually consisted of workshops,

certificate and diploma courses. The participants indicated that they were wellexperienced in teaching English. The training for each participant appeared to depend

on individual circumstances and institutional imperatives.

d) Administration of the English language programs/faculty

Interestingly only in 42% of the cases were the English programs run by the Department

of English; in the case of an overwhelming 71%, the Humanities and Science Division

had a greater role in the running of these programs. Since the Humanities and Science

Division cannot aspire to the kind of subject focus the Department of English may have,this fact alone has great bearing on how English programs and faculty, especially where

they are subsumed within administrative structures that are not directly relevant, may be

shortchanged in terms of expertise, resources and faculty development.

e) Status of English as a subject

English was considered both a core as well as a support subject by 57% of the

participants respectively. Here it must be understood that by core the participants do not

mean that English is taught as a main subject such as for e.g. object oriented

programming but that it is taught as a subject that must be passed in order to progress tothe next semester. None of the participants worked at institutions offering English as a

degree subject. The substantial percentages affirm the importance of English as a

subject, whether support or core, in Pakistans HE sector. All the participants had taughtundergraduate students whereas 42% had also taught at the postgraduate level and the

courses that they taught were all graded using the same pattern as the other subjects in the

university.

f) Awareness of mentoring programs


15/37

Only one participant indicated that he/she was aware of a formal mentoring program in a

Pakistani university, whereas the remaining six answered not sure or no to this

question. While this did not prove the non existence of formal mentoring programsacross the board in Pakistans HE institutions, it did suggest 1) a certain degree of

unawareness about mentoring as a form of faculty support amongst faculty members and

2) the possibility that formal mentoring programs were not a prominent feature of the HElandscape surveyed. However, the latter can only be confirmed or disconfirmed through

further research on mentoring programs in Pakistans HE institutions,

g) Existing induction and form of faculty support

Only 42% pointed out that their institutions had some kind of faculty induction policy. A

similar percentage of participants explained teacher support structures as taking the formof understudying a senior colleague, guidance from a senior colleague or peer

development strategies. The variation in the forms of teacher support structures cited

confirmed the supposition that faculty induction is a less than an organized or

standardized activity in most universities in Pakistan. When asked to describe mentoringsupport the participants may have received, 57% cited guidance by senior colleague and

weekly departmental seminars, post induction collegial support, one to one counsellingrelationship with HoD and unstructured modelling of ones teaching behaviour on that of

senior colleagues.Again what is striking is the variation in the form of support

experienced and the absence of an established and systematized induction program for

faculty members.

h) Faculty perception of support structures

Significantly, 57% participants strongly agreed and 42% agreed that course

effectiveness can be increased if faculty is supported through support structures such as a

mentoring program (faculty questionnaire). The need for faculty support was evident inthese responses.

i) Preference for mentoring programs

The participants overwhelmingly favoured mentoring programs.Faculty induction in

Pakistan was seen to depend on collegial initiative as uniform induction policies and

programs across the universities were missing.

j) Perception of benefits of faculty support

All the participants indicated that faculty support structures would enable inductees to

benefit from the experience of more experienced teachers, a lower percentage of

participants (71%) believed that it would also help in adjusting to institutional culture andthe sharing of knowledge.A range of responses indicated that the participants believed

that experienced teachers could guide and coach new teachers and share their

knowledge and experience with them and also facilitate their adjustment in the new

environment.Other participants wrote that such structures would help in making the


16/37

whole environment more congenial and in understanding the needs of the students at

different levels. Another respondent wrote that these could serve as starting points for

teachers and help them to fill gaps in own skills and knowledge. Key words in theseresponses were guide, coach and help in adjustment to the new environment.

k) Preference for relationship based support structures

It was also notable that participants tended to view support structures as relationship-

based, which is the underlying rationale for mentoring programs. These views confirmedthe need for a well-planned, relationship-based induction program.

l) Ideal mentoring combination

71% of the participants chose traditional mentors and supportive bosses as the ideal

mentoring combination. The choice was unsurprising, as culturally Pakistan is a country

known to favor hierarchical organizational structures, which encourage top down

initiatives and solutions. As one participant put it, the matrix of existing socialrelationships between inductees and senior colleagues makes a mentoring model

combining supportive boss and traditional mentor appropriate for faculty members inPakistani universities. The participants views affirmed the need to have a culturally

appropriate mentoring combination for successful program implementation.

m) Attribution of mentoring functions

An audit of mentoring functions by the participants revealed that 85% of those surveyed

viewed the Director and Dean as being responsible for assessing. The assessment role forthe HoD was recorded at a lower percentage (57%) but interestingly the management role

was recorded at the same percentage (71%) for Director, Dean and HoD. The HoDs role

was considered the most supportive (71%) followed by that of the Dean and then theDirector. This revealed that mentoring functions do occur within the exiting contexts but

are not performed at the same level by the same individual, again highlighting the

variation in induction practices.

Faculty interview responses

In order to triangulate the results, interviews were carried out with three participants. Dueto constraints related to interviewees availability and the time difference between UK

and Pakistan where interviewees 1 and 2 were based, the interviews were conducted via

email. Hence the questions were more structured. This was not ideal but a substantialamount of relevant data was still elicited through these interviews.

Interpretation of the faculty questionnaire results suggested that almost none of theparticipants knew of mentoring programs at Pakistani universities and that faculty

induction was either non existent or informal. The interview questions for respondents 1

and 2 were designed to confirm these results and to achieve further understanding of

participant perspectives (Respondent 1 heads the Centre of English Language at


17/37

University C in Pakistan and Respondent 2 works as a consultant at the Institution D).

Responses relevant to the research questions have been excerpted to provide insights into

mentoring and induction at Pakistani HE institutions.

The interviewees were asked whether the establishment of faculty support

structures would make course implementation more effective.

R1 acknowledged faculty development to be essential for the growth of departmental

programs and added that in her institution, support is continuously extended to allfaculty through long term Faculty Development Awards for higher studies. Faculty are

also encouraged and supported for attending short courses, and seminars. R2 said that

support structures were necessary as the faculty was generally untrained. She saw

support structures as facilitating faculty development. She added that the implementationof courses (was) not a one way process but needed to be supplemented by such support

structures.

The interviewees were asked whether faculty support structures such as Mentoringprograms and/or peer coaching could help faculty members receive the kind of

support they needed for teaching a course more effectively.

R1 agreed with the establishment of mentoring programs and peer coaching relationships

as these could provide the cutting edge to successful programs. She added that herdepartment was also making an effort to set up a mentoring program for departmental

use. R2 also agreed with the need for such programs and went so far as to say that

mentoring by seasoned senior members and peer coaching (was) much more valuable

than taking up courses on teaching that generally qualifi(ed) teachers with a mere grade.In both cases, the interviewees seem to share the belief that faculty development is

important and that supportive relationships can be a major contributory factor in making

language programs successful. The interviewees comments are in keeping with Motts(2002) appraisal of mentoring which allows it to play an important role in negotiating the

challenges of discontinuities, transitions, and new roles undertaken in the developmental

process through the encouragement, counsel, and shared experiences of a moreexperienced person who can share perspectives, ask critical questions, and provide

opportunities for reflection and growth.

Respondent 3, who heads the Department of English at University B, was able to throwfurther light on this.

R3 was questioned about faculty support structures.

Commenting on faculty support structures, she observed that it was common practice for

her universitys faculty to collaborate on designing courses. As HoD, she had made it apoint to invite junior colleagues/inductees to observe her classes. She also mentioned that

incidentally a lot of the inductees who had taken her up on that invitation were people

she had known professionally or had taught at one point or the other and hence already

looked on her as a mentor of sorts. However, she admitted that University B did not


18/37

have a formal mentoring program although a lot of the mentoring functions were

performed informally.

The existence of even informal support structures bodes well for new faculty members at

University B but formal support structures have the advantage of being durable and

less dependent on the initiative of a particular individual and hence more lasting.

The importance of relationships that help to assimilate and orientate is emphasized by

Cawyeret al(2002) who point out that how easily a new faculty members adjusts andadapts to life in the professoriate is often dependent on the types of relationships that the

newcomer establishes with colleagues and on the willingness of veteran faculty members

to assist newcomers as they learn the ins and outs of the academy.

R3 was asked if formalizing certain procedures and making them coherent would

help all Pakistani tertiary institutions.

Initially R3 equated this with prescriptive measures imposed by the Higher EducationCommission and observed that this would be counterproductive as it would endanger

teacher autonomy. However once the question was clarified to mean putting in placebetter needs assessment and course evaluation procedures and support structures so that

inductees could find it easier to implement curriculum, R3 agreed that this would be very

helpful as there were few trained teachers at tertiary level in Pakistan. Analysis ofquestionnaire and interview data provided insights into how induction currently works in

Pakistani universities. While facilitating a better understanding of tertiary teacher

induction in Pakistan, this analysis also identified possible ways to improve and

strengthen post induction support for ELT practitioners in Pakistani HE sector by meansof support and development tools such as mentoring. These are discussed in greater depth

in the following section

RECOMMENDATIONS

Within the section on Faculty questionnaire responses, subsection c highlights the

circumstance driven rather than policy directed training imparted to faculty members that

compounded by the substantial practice of subsuming English faculty and programs

within indirectly related departments (d) has the potential to work against facultydevelopment and effectiveness, an outcome not at all feasible in terms of the importance

of English as a subject tin Pakistani HE institutions (e). Currently, divergent support

structures (g), indicating less than standardized forms of faculty support are likely tolead to divergent faculty support/development outcomes in the HE sector in Pakistan (g).

Subsections hthrough to l, in particular, provide support for customized mentoring

based on a culturally appropriate mentoring combination. These insights which aresupported by the interview data suggest that in lieu of mandatory teacher education

programs for tertiary ELT faculty in Pakistan, customized mentoring is one of the best

options to ensure that new faculty members negotiate the challenges of induction and

teaching as constructively as possible. Because faculty mentoring engages mentor and


19/37

mentee in a relationship where the mentee is able to learn from the lifelong experience of

a seasoned professional, there is greater cultural resonance for this kind of a support

arrangement in the Pakistani HE context. As long as these programs are designed withthe Pakistani institutions in mind, positive outcomes can be anticipated for the

participants. Bodies such as the HEC would do well to encourage such programs but the

onus of implementation would be on individual universities as top down directives tendto become diluted once they reach intended participants. The ITACEC Teacher Education

position paper (2004) points out that mentoring in Pakistan has failed to take root

previously for the following reasons:

Low or no administration support to ensure quality of the program

Bureaucratic rules obstruct incentives and honorarium to mentors seen as irregular

Teachers Associations construe this as an additional duty, raising expectations withoutadequate compensation

Lapses in professional refreshers for mentors resulting in lack of continuity in the

learning process

AKU-IED dependent program for expert pedagogical support. Cannot depend on oneuniversity or institution for pedagogical support---development of onsite expertise must

Ways to overcome insufficient or non-existent administration support

The lack of support for a faculty development initiative such as a mentoring program can

result only in failure. Drawing upon their structured analysis of over 300 research-based

papers on mentoring across three discipline areas, Hansford, Ehrich and Tennent (2004)

suggest that mentoring is a highly complex, dynamic and interpersonal relationshiprequiring, amongst other things, strong support from educational or organizational leaders

responsible for overseeing the program. They also point out that in order for a mentoring

program to be effective, participating staff need to know that the initiative is activelysupported by senior management. Planners also need to be aware of the research

literature on mentoring and prepared to provide program support at various levels.

Administrators also need to be cognizant of the importance of mentor training, the carefulselection of participants as well as responsive to be responsive to the need for ongoing

evaluations. If resources are to be invested in mentoring programs, those responsible for

planning and implementation must be willing to commit time, resources and energy to

such ventures. These recommendations, offer a sound point of departure for tertiaryinstitutions in Pakistan wishing to establish viable faculty mentoring programs.

The centrality of mentor compensation to mentoring success

In reflecting on bureaucratic reticence over mentoring honorariums as one of the root

causes of the failure of mentoring schemes initiated thus far, it is worth noting that whilethe Pakistani HE context, like that of other developing countries, may suffer from

(Bloom, 2000) entrenched bureaucracies having the potential to thwart even the soundest

of initiatives with their traditional and excessive reliance on rules and procedures (Hoy

and Sweetland, 2000), there is evidence within literature to suggest that bureaucracy can


20/37

perform a more enabling role by using rules and regulations as flexible guides to help

solve problems rather than as constraints that create them (ibid). Pakistans educational

bureaucracies would do well to note that research supports the need for mentorcompensation. It has been argued that although the majority of mentor teachers would

undertake mentoring gratis yet the relationship between compensation and commitment

cannot be overlooked. Indeed, programs that provide mentors with a stipend makeimportant statements about the value of the service and its significance in the educational

community (Rowley, 1991). Consequently, honoraria or an incremental bonus system to

motivate tutor/mentors to go the extra mile can often mean the difference between asuccessful mentoring program and an ineffective one (Page, Loots, and du Toit, 2005).

Should the matter of mentor compensation be accepted as legitimate by Pakistans

tertiary educational bureaucracy, then there is strong likelihood that teachers

associations would also be more than amenable to members participation in facultymentoring schemes thus dissolving another barrier to successful mentoring.

Lack of continuity in mentor training and development

This has been identified as another problem area by ITATEC vis- a- vis the successful

implementation of mentoring schemes in the Pakistani context. In an eponymously titledpaper, Rowley (1991) points out that a good mentor is one who is able to model

continuous learning through a variety of means that include learning from colleagues as

well as from mentees and pursuing professional development through participation inworkshops, developing and experimenting with new practices, writing and reading

articles in professional journals and sharing new knowledge and perplexing questions

with their protgs in a collegial manner. Such learning must, by needs, enable mentors

to develop knowledge that encompasses elements of the propositional, practical, tacit andknow how (Webb, Pachler, Mitchell and Herrington, 2007), thereby enabling them to

acquire a measure of self reliance and knowledge in effectively mentoring inductees

(Riggs and Sandlin, 2002).

Hence, for effective mentoring in the Pakistani HE context, relevant training and

development activities would need to be provisioned to new as well as establishedmentors.

AKU-IED dependent training

A well-known tertiary institution in Pakistan, the Aga Khan University (AKU) has been

responsible for setting up the Institute for Educational Development (IED). While theadvantages of such a centre are manifest, there are a number of disadvantages as well.

Every institution has its own professional culture and hence its own training needs;

having to depend on AKU IED may compel institutions to subscribe to training schemesthat may not translate well into their own environments. Further problems could be of

access and cost. Dependence on AKU IED would require the intermittent release of

mentors for participation in IEDs training programs. Not only would this necessitate the


21/37

physical relocation of the mentors to AKU entailing the readjustment of ongoing teaching

but also would require the paying of considerable training fees.

One solution may be the establishment of in-house and onsite expert pedagogical

expertise and development opportunities for mentors, thereby mitigating the problems of

cultural dissonance, dependence, access, and recurring cost. However, a shared inquiryperspective based on collegial collaboration, which views learning as a social and

participative experience taking place in communities of practice defined along the

dimensions of joint enterprise, mutual engagement and shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998)rather than as a purely individual endeavour, may also be drawn upon for the

development of in-house mentor development at Pakistani tertiary institutions. The

foregoing discussion supports the contention that only through comprehensive planning

addressing the root causes of the failure of mentoring initiatives undertaken thus far, canHEC and tertiary institutions make optimal use of an induction tool such as mentoring.

CONCLUSION

The study found that faculty induction at Pakistani tertiary institutions is either informaland arbitrary or non- existent thereby leaving the support/development/retention of new

faculty to chance. Within the context of the Pakistani organizational culture, which tends

to rest upon norms of deference to older and more experienced members within thehierarchy, the participants of the study confirmed a corresponding preference for faculty

mentoring provided by traditional mentors and supportive bosses. The findings imply that

customized and culturally apt faculty mentoring programs may not only compensate, to

some degree, for the lack of mandatory preservice teacher education but also enable newteachers to negotiate the challenges of induction as well as to further their professional

development onsite. With ELT tertiary educators in Pakistan having to navigate the early

years of teaching largely without preservice training or comprehensive induction, thegrowing importance of establishing mentoring schemes, whereby seasoned practitioners

can support/develop new faculty members, calls for immediate rather than deferred

action. It is recommended that HEC and tertiary institutions should take facultydevelopment forward by embracing viable and durable change that goes beyond the

present emphasis on the acquisition of advanced subject qualifications, to incorporate the

development of sustainable mentoring based on collegial relationships at the institutional

level.

In terms of limitations, the study on which this paper was based could have benefited

from a larger scope as the problems related to faculty induction/development are commonto all levels of education as well as to disciplines across the spectrum. However it would

not have been practical to investigate the situation in its entirety. Although data were

collected from teachers and students in Pakistan, because it was not feasible to travelpersonally to Pakistan for data collection and because most of the institutions were on

summer break, it was not possible to involve as many participants as would have been

desirable. At the end, it is important to point out the contributions this small-scale,

tentative research into faculty induction and mentoring makes: First, it highlights some of


22/37

the issues surrounding tertiary faculty induction in Pakistan, an area that remains under

researched within the Pakistani context. Second, by giving voice to some of the

experienced educators and professionals at leading Pakistani HE institutions purposivelyselected for the breadth of training, teaching and professional experience they represent,

the study garners valuable first hand accounts of tertiary faculty induction that add to the

bigger picture of faculty support and development in Pakistan and elsewhere. Byresearching faculty support structures from the perspective of those who are the primary

beneficiaries of such arrangements, this research provides a small but important extension

of the existing knowledge on tertiary faculty induction and how it may be improved.Additionally, as the beginning years of teaching are an important period of development

for all teaching faculty, it may be concluded that the findings of this study can be used as

a departure point for investigating faculty mentoring at different levels and in different

discipline areas with a view to improving faculty support/development practices withinPakistan as well as in similar contexts elsewhere.

References

Aldred, G., & Garvey, B. (2000). Learning to produce knowledge-the contribution of

mentoring.Mentoring & Tutoring, 8(3), 261-272.

Ali, I., Rehman, K., Ali, J. F., Ahmed, S., & Waseemullah. (2010, January).Effects of

National Culture on Organizational Performance: An Empirical Analysis Paper

presented at the International Conference on Business, Technology and Education,

Islamabad, Pakistan.

Alleman, E., Cochran, J., Doverspike, J., & Newman, I. (1984). Enriching mentoring

relationships.Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62, 329-332.

Anderson, E. M. & Shannon ,A.L. (1995). Towards a conceptualization of mentoring,

Issues in mentoring, In T.Kerry and A.S. Mayes (Eds.), London: Open University

Ary, D., Cheser Jacobs, L., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. K. (2009).Introduction to

Research in Education. (8th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing

Bell, J. (1999).Doing your Research Project: A Guide for first time Researchers in

Education and Social Sciences. Buckingham: Open University.

Black, R. (1993).Evaluating Social Science Research: An Introduction . London: SAGE.

Bloom, D. 2000,Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise, The

World Bank Report


23/37

Bogat, G., & Redner, R. (1985). How mentoring affects the professional development of

women in psychology.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16(6), 851-859.

Bronstein, P., & Farnsworth, L. (1998). Gender differences in faculty experience of

interpersonal climate and processes for career advancement.Research in Higher

Education , 39(5), 557-585.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods. Oxford: OUP

Bryson, J. (2001).Effective Mentoring Manual: Assessing Competence and Improving

Teaching through Mentoring. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Campbell,C & C.Rozsnayi (2002) Quality Assurance and the Development of Course

Programs In L.C.BarrowsPapers on Higher Education, Bucharest: UNESCO

Cawyer, C., Simonds, C., & Davis, S. (2002). Mentoring to facilitate socialization: The

case of the new faculty member.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in

Education, 15(2), 225-242.

Clutterbuck, D.,(2004). Mentor competencies: a field perspective. In D. Clutterbuck. &

G. Lane(Eds.), The situational mentor:An international review ofcompetences and

capabilities in mentoring, Aldershot, England: Gower:.

Cuddaph, J. (2002, April). Supporting New Teachers Through Mentoring Relationships.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, New Orleans, LA.

Elliot, B. & Calderhead, J., (1993). Mentoring for teacher development: Possibilities and

caveats, In D.McIntyre, H.Hagger, and M. Wilkin (Eds.),Mentoring: Perspectives on

school-based teacher education, Kogan Page: London

Erikson, E.H. (1963) Childhood and Society,New York: Norton

Fabian, H., & Simpson, A. (2002). Mentoring the Experienced Teacher.Mentoring &

Tutoring, 10(2), 117-125.

Riggs, I.M & Sandlin, R.A. (2002). Professional Development of Mentors within a

Beginning Teacher Induction Program: How does the Garden (Mentors) Grow?Annual

Meeting of the Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA

Garvey, B.,(2004). When mentoring goes wrong. In D. Clutterbuck. & G. Lane(Eds.),

The situational mentor:An international review ofcompetences and capabilities in

mentoring, Aldershot, England: Gower


24/37

Goker, S. D. (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in

TEFL education. System, 34(2), 239-254.

Guidroz, A. M., Kotrba,L.M & D.R.Denison (2005-2009). Workplace Diversity: Is

National or Organizational Culture Predominant? The Linkage Leader

Hadden, R. (1997). Mentoring and coaching.Executive Excellence, 14(4), 17.

Halai, A. (2001). On becoming a "Professional Development Teacher": A Case from

Pakistan.Mathematics Education Review, 14, 31-42

Halcomb, E.J. & Davidson, P.M., (2006). Is verbatim transcription of interview data

always necessary?Applied Nursing Research: ANR, 19(1), 38-42.

Hansford, B. C., Ehrich, L. C., & Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in

education and other professions: A review of the literature.Educational Administration

Quarterly , 40(4), 518-540.

Hansman, C. A. (Ed.). (2002). Critical perspectives on mentoring: Trends and issues

(Information Series No. 388). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and

Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354386

Hargreaves, A., & M, F. (2000). Mentoring in the new millenium. Theory into Practice,

39(1), 50-56.

Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledgeand beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies.Journal of Higher

Education, 72, 699-729

Hatwood-Futrell, M. (1988). Selecting and Compensating Mentor Teachers: A win- win

scenario.. Theory into Practice, 27(3), 223-225.

Head, F.A., Reiman,A.J & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1992). The reality of mentoring

complexity in its process and function. In T.M. Bey and C.T.Holmes (Eds.),Mentoring:

Contemporary Principles and Issues, Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators

Healy, C., & Welchert, A. (1990). Mentoring relations: a definition to advance research

and practice..Educational Researcher, 19(9), 17-21.

HEC website. (2006) http://www.hec.gov.pk/new/QualityAssurance/LI_ELTR.htm#3

Holstein, J. & Gubrium,J. (1997). Active Interviewing. In D.Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative

Research: Theory, Method and Practice, London: Sage
http://www.hec.gov.pk/new/QualityAssurance/LI_ELTR.htm#3http://www.hec.gov.pk/new/QualityAssurance/LI_ELTR.htm#3


25/37

Hoy, W., & Sweetland, (2000) S. R. School Bureaucracies that Work: Enabling not

Coercive.Journal of School Leadership, 10, 525-541.

ITACEC research paper. (2004)From Teacher Education to Professional Development:

a draft position paper. http://www.itacec.org/research/Teacher%20Education

%20Paper.doc

James, N., & Busher, H. (2006). Credibility, authenticity and voice: dilemmas in online

interviewing. Qualitative Research, 6, 403-420.

Kanuka, H. (2005). Does mentoring faculty make a difference? Teaching and Learning

in Higher Education, 39, 1-3

Kelly, M., T. Beck, & Ap Thomas, J. (1995). Mentoring as a Staff Development Activity,

In T.Kerry and A.S.Mayes (Eds.),Issues in Mentoring, Buckingham: Open University

Press

Kerka, S. (1998). New perspectives on mentoring,ERIC Digest No. 194

Klein, K.J & Sorra,J.S (1996) The challenge of innovation implementation, The Academy

of Management Review, 21 (4), 1055-1080

Little, J.W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching.

Review of Research in Education, 16, 297-351

Luna, G. & Cullen, D.L. (1995).Empowering the Faculty: Mentoring Redirected and

Renewed. ASHE- ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3. Washington D.C.: The George

Washington University. Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Mager, G.M. (1992). The Place of Induction in Becoming a Teacher In G.P DeBolt

(Ed.),. Teacher Induction and Mentoring: School based collaborative Programs,New

York: SUNY

Maxwell, J. (2008) Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman and D.J Rog (Eds.), The

handbook of applied social research methods, (2nd Edition), Thousand Oaks CA: Sage

Publications

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A qualitative Approach. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Mertz, N.T. (2004). Whats a mentor anyway?.Educational Administration Quarterly, 40

(4), 541-560

Meyer, J. (2000) Evaluating action research,Age and Ageing, 29, 8-10


26/37

Mott,V.(2002). Emerging perspectives on mentoring: fostering adult learning and

development. In C.A.Hansman, (Ed.), Critical perspectives on mentoring. Trends and

Issues Information Series No. 388. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational

Education. Center on Education and Training for Employment.

Neal, J.C. (1992). Mentoring a teacher development activity that avoids formal

evaluation of the protg, In T.M.Bey and C.T.Holmes (Eds.),Mentoring: Contemporary

Principles and Issues, Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators

Neuman, W, L. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative And Quantitative

Approaches, Boston; London: Allyn and Bacon.

Newcombe, E. (1988).Mentoring programs for new teachers. Philadelphia, PA:

Research for Better Schools, Inc.Nunan, D. (1992).Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Oliver, D.G., Serovich, J.M. & Mason, T.L., (2005). Constraints and Opportunities with

Interview Transcription: Towards Reflection in Qualitative Research. Social forces; a

scientific medium of social study and interpretation, 84(2), 1273-1289.

Page, B.J., Loots, A., & du Toit, D.F. (2005). Perspectives on a South African

tutor/mentor program: the Stellenbosch University experience',Mentoring & Tutoring:

Partnership in Learning, 13 (1), 5-21

Pennington, M.C. (1989). Faculty Development for Language Programs. In R. K.

Johnson (Ed.), The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press

Pennington, M.C. (1992). Second class or economy? The status of the English language

teaching profession in tertiary education relationships,Personnel and Guidance Journal,

62, 329-332.

Price,B (2003) Laddered questions and qualitative data research interviews, Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 37 (3), 273-281

Rapley, T.J. (2001). The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: some considerations on

analysing interviews. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 303 -323.

Richards, K. (2003) Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL, Palgrave Macmillan


27/37

Roberts, A. (2000). Mentoring Revisited: a phenomenological reading of the literature.

Mentoring & Tutoring, 8 (2) 145-170

Rowley, J.B. (1991). The Good Mentor.Educational Leadership, 56 (8), 20-22

Ruane, J. (2005).Essentials of Research Methods: A Beginner's Guide to Social Science

Research, Oxford : Blackwell

Rubin, H.J., Rubin, IS. (2004). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. (2nd

Edition), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Sands, R.G., Parson, L.A & Duane, J. (1991). Faculty mentoring faculty in a public

university,Journal of Higher Education, 62, (2), 174-193

Schempp, P., Sparkes, A & Templin,T. (1993). The micropolitics of teacher induction,

American Educational Research Journal, 30, 447-472.

Schon, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals think in action,

Aldershot: Arena.

Siskin, H.J & Davis,J. (2000). Historical, Theoretical, and Pragmatic Perspectives on

Mentoring., In B.Rifkin (Ed.),Mentoring Foreign Language Teaching Assistants,

Lecturers, and Adjunct faculty, Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Tolentino, B.W. (1999). Factors in successful mentoring relationships. Paper presented at

Annual AERA conference, Montreal, Canada

Webb, E., Pachler, N., Mitchell,H., & Herrington, N. (2007). Towards a pedagogy of

mentor education,Journal of In-service Education, 33 (2), 171-188

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and identity,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wray, A.K., Trott,. & Bloomer,A. (1988). Projects in Linguistics. London: Arnold.

Wright, C.A. & Wright, S.D. (1987). The role of mentors in the career development of

young professionals,Family Relations, 36 (2), 294-308


28/37

APPENDIX I-FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE

Through this survey we would like to ascertain how English language courses are developed,

organized and implemented at university level in Pakistan. The focus of the research is on how

course effectiveness can be increased through the introduction/strengthening of needs assessment

procedures, comprehensive course evaluation and faculty support structures. We are interested in

your personal opinions and perceptions as well as in factual information. All the information you

provide will be treated in the strictest confidence. The questionnaire consists of 34 questions and

should not take more than 30 minutes to complete.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.Please indicate your gender

Male Female

2.Check the box with the age group appropriate to you

25-3536-4546-5556-65

3.Please indicate the designation you hold by checking appropriate box

Lecturer Assistant Professor Associate Professor

Professor Other (please specify-------------------------- (

4.What is your educational qualification?

MA MPhil PhDOther (please specify-------------------------- (

5.What is the length of your teaching experience at the college/university level?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6.Please describe any pre service and/or in-service teacher training you have received.

_________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___


29/37

7.Please describe any training and/or experience you may have in curriculum development

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

___

8.Which courses have you taught so far? Please check the boxes appropriate to you.

English

Communication skills

Technical communication

English literature

Business Communication

Other (please specify(

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.Which aspect (s) of organizing a course have you ever been responsible for during your

teaching career? Tick relevant box (es)

Conducting needs analysis/assessment

Setting goals and objectives

Conceptualizing content

Creating/Adapting materials

Teaching the course

Evaluating the course


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

10. Who is responsible for running the English Language and related courses at the

university? Tick the appropriate box(es)

Department of English

Language Support Centre

Humanities Dept/DivisionOther (please specify(

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


30/37

11. What role do language courses have at your college/institute/university?

Core subject

Elective

Support subject

RemedialOther (please specify(

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

12. At what level are language courses taught at your college/institute/university?

Undergraduate

Postgraduate


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

13. Are the language courses graded?

Yes No

14. If yes to 13, how are the courses graded?

Pass/Fail

On the same pattern as core subjects


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

15. Who decides the syllabus and books/materials for the course? Tick as many box (es) as

applicable.

Ministry of Education

University

InstituteTeacher

Learner


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-


31/37

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

16. Is needs analysis/assessment of learner needs conducted at any stage in the organization

of the course?

Yes No

17. If yes to 16, what form does it take?

Questionnaire given at beginning of course

Discussion with students in the initial sessions


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MENTORING

18. Do you know of a formal mentoring* programme in any Pakistani university?

Yes No Not sure

*The process in which an experienced colleague is assigned to an inexperienced

individual and assists in a training or general support role

19. Does your college/institute/university have a particular teacher induction/support policy

which may involve senior management and/or experienced colleagues guiding

inductees and/or supporting teachers with organizing/teaching a course?

Yes No

20. If yes to 19, what kind of teacher support structures (for e.g. a mentoring programme

and/or peer development through cooperation) does it provide? Please describe briefly.

21. If you have been mentored through any support structure during your career, please

describe the kind of support you received briefly.

_______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


32/37

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______

22. Course effectiveness can be increased if faculty is supported through support

structures such as a mentoring programme. (If you have been mentored, please

answer this question based on your experiences ORif you have not been supported in

this way before, please answer the question on what value you assign to such support

structures.)

Strongly Agree

AgreeNeutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

23. In what ways would you expect faculty support structures to facilitate teachers?

)A(

Benefiting from the experience of more experienced teachers

Help in adjusting to institutional culture

Sharing of knowledge

)B(Please give your views on how support structures may facilitate teachers.

_____________________________________

Naqvi Nust Journal Article

Documents

Transcript of Naqvi Nust Journal Article