Mentor and supervisor score differences in evaluating pre-service mathematics teachers

Abstract

This research investigated the reason for a difference in the evaluation scores assigned by university supervisors and mentor teachers where the mentor teachers scored a pre-service student eight to ten percent higher than the supervisor did for the same mathematics evaluation lesson. The research question investigated: Which factors contribute to a difference between the evaluation scores assigned to mathematics student teachers by school-based mentor teachers and those assigned by university supervisors during the same lesson, using the same assessment rubric? Moreover, how might the difference in scoring between the school-based mentor teacher and university supervisor be narrowed? The participants were purposively selected from cases where a final-year mathematics student teacher received a score difference of eight percent or more from their mentor and supervisor, respectively. Hence, their supervisors and available mentor teachers were selected thereafter. Semi-structured interviews and score comparisons were used to collect the data. Assessment theory, role theory and professional vision were combined as a conceptual framework, as these theories provide a coherent framework for understanding mentor–supervisor score differences. It was found that factors contributing to the differences between the evaluation scores of supervisors and mentors included: a lack of joint feedback sessions between the mentor, supervisor and preservice teacher; a failure to give post-lesson observation feedback timeously to pre-service teacher; variance in professional vision of mentors and supervisors; the subjective nature of evaluation; and the differences in role that mentors and supervisors fulfil.