Educational Research and Reviews

  • Abbreviation: Educ. Res. Rev.
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 1990-3839
  • DOI: 10.5897/ERR
  • Start Year: 2006
  • Published Articles: 1781

Full Length Research Paper

Evaluative research of the mentoring process of the PGDT, with particular reference to Cluster Centers under Jimma University facilitation

Worku Fentie Tegegne*
  • Worku Fentie Tegegne*
  • Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies Department, Jimma University, Ethiopia.
  • Google Scholar
Alebachew Hailu Gelaneh
  • Alebachew Hailu Gelaneh
  • Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies Department, Jimma University, Ethiopia.
  • Google Scholar


  •  Received: 08 September 2014
  •  Accepted: 24 March 2015
  •  Published: 10 April 2015

Abstract

The objective of the study is to evaluate the mentoring process of the PGDT program which was under the supervision of Jimma University in the regional states of Oromia and SNNP, Ethiopia. The overall intention was to see whether the program was being underway as expected. Because, there was uncertainty regarding the proper running of it as it was a new program in the history of the country. The dimensions of the research were mentees school environment, mentors, and supervisors. To see whether school environments were conducive to mentees; whether mentors assigned had the attributes expected in different respects: their commitment, knowledge of the program, the necessary inputs they deliver to the mentees, etc. In relation to supervisors, it was to see their commitment to their roles and knowledge of the program under implementation. The other area was if the supervisors involved were cognizant of the program objectives and committed. The research methods used were both quantitative and qualitative in which questionnaires and interview were used to collect data. In the research what was found out is that there were mentees under apprenticeship who were over-loaded, had no mentors, assigned at a level they were not supposed to, and who had mentors from other very far schools. Not only this, there  were mentors assigned irrespective of their education level, experience, subjects they were teaching and field of specialization. And of course, important stakeholders with whom the university runs the program did not know the program very well including its objectives. As a result, the conclusion arrived at were: the mentoring process has not been consistent to the plan; the problems that faced the program include stake-holders’ limited orientation of the program, inappropriate assignment of mentors and mentees (assigning mentor who did not qualify to be and assigning mentees at the level where they were not supposed to; misunderstanding of the roles of mentors by mentees, mentors themselves and educational officials; lack of commitment from concerned stakeholders including  mentors and education officials at various levels.

Key words: PGDT, evaluation, mentoring.