Betty Lou Leaver and Rebecca Oxford

Program quality can often be traced not only to the presence of mentoring in the process of faculty development but more important, to its quality (Leaver forthcoming). The literature on mentoring in teacher development is limited and in most cases, the concepts of faculty development and of mentoring (usually treated separately, although we argue that mentoring is an integral part of faculty development) are viewed as "a non-unique series of activities or actions taken with any new teacher" (Leaver and Oxford 2000). Even the better-known works in L2 related to program direction and TA development tend to look at global, staff-wide issues, making across-the-board suggestions for both program management and, where discussed, mentoring. (See, for example, Arens 1991, Azevedo 1990, Benseler 1992, Dryer, 1997, Magnan 1993, Pérez 1993, Rahilly 1992, Waldinger 1993.) This paper suggests an alternative view. We find a need to individualize the process of mentoring if it is to be as effective as it can be.

Definition of Mentoring and Issues Surrounding It

Mentoring is defined as "the process in which successful individuals go out of their way to help others establish goals and develop the skills to reach them" (The Mentoring Group, 2000). The Mentoring Group (1997) and the National Mentoring Partnership (2000b) offer useful discussions on how to succeed in building positive mentoring relationships. The goals of new teachers are generally multiple, but three strands can be easily discerned: 1) to gain tenure; 2) to become a good researcher or specialist in some aspect of language, literature, culture, or linguistics; and 3) to become a good classroom teacher within a given program. It is the last goal that this paper addresses, specifically mentoring new foreign-language teachers into becoming satisfied and effective classroom teachers within the foreign-language program and team in which they are working. (Such mentoring may well result in teachers' ability to transfer readily to other programs or enhance their career options, but attention to those aspects of mentoring, while important, are not the focus of this paper.).

Although much is known in business circles and in theory and research about effective mentoring, good mentoring unfortunately fails to occur for many new teachers of foreign languages. Why does adequate mentoring fail to happen in so many instances? The National Mentoring Partnership (2000a) provides a few key reasons. First, there is often insufficient support for mentoring in programs. Second, schools and universities, along with other institutions, allot insufficient resources to mentoring. Third, potential mentors typically lack access to information about how to serve as mentors. Fourth, a high attrition rates exists among mentors, often because of a lack of recognition and visibility for excellence in mentoring. Phillips-Jones (2000) underscores the last point, indicating that mentors need positive reinforcement (recognition) from mentees in order to feel satisfied and continue doing a good job at mentoring.

Another reason for difficulties is that mentoring, like marriage, frequently involves a clash of "cultures" or belief systems between two people. A recent Psychology Today article (Marano, 2000, p. 60) discusses marriage, but what is said about marriage in that article can just as readily describe the mentor-mentee relationship. Therefore, in the following passage, the word "marriage" is removed, and the phrase "mentoring relationship" is inserted.

Several models for TA development have been proposed. Most include several components: pre-service workshop, methods courses, class observation, peer observation and assistance, practice teaching, and reflective teaching (including the use of journals and videotapes), formative evaluation, and summative evaluation (Azevedo, 1990). Such models assume that all TAs are inexperienced teachers–yet a number of TAs are experienced teachers returning to the university for an advanced degree. They also assume that all TAs are alike in their needs–another misperception. This paper does not propose any specific model but addresses the ways in which attention to style differences can inform the selection and implement of program components, so that mentees receive the kind of mentoring they need rather than the hit-and-miss effect offered via a generic TA development program. In short, our concern is with the quality of the mentoring process and not necessarily with the form that it takes, our assumption being that a good mentor is a chameleon and a good mentoring program may reduce to precepts but not to uniform actions and formats.

One of the most frequent causes of supervisor error, according to Van Fleet (1973) is failure to the treat subordinates as individuals. One could assume, then, that differentiation might be critical to successful mentoring of new teachers since faculty members are not all cut from the same piece of cloth. Differences in education and experience are usually anticipated and accepted by mentors. However, what mentors often fail to notice–to everyone's detriment–are style differences among individuals, including differences in personality type, cognition, perception, and biology. Mentors who differentiate, i.e. who mentor in style, report that the results are worth the effort of learning to recognize and react to these differences.

What constitutes the uniqueness of each "person" is, in great part, an individual personality. Today's concepts emanate most frequently from the work of Carl Jung (1971), whose theories and research have blossomed into a juncture of philosophical and sociological inquiry. Recent years have seen the emergence of personality typologies manifested in two related measurement instruments that work well in mentoring: the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers and Briggs 1976) and, extrapolated from the MBTI, Keirsey's Temperament Sorter (Keirsey and Bates 1988). Both systems posit four dimensions: extraversion [Jung's preferred spelling] (E) versus introversion (I), Sensing (S) versus intuiting (N), feeling (F) versus Thinking (T), and Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P). The first three dimensions are based on Jungian categories. Myers and Briggs suggested the fourth, and Keirsey adopted it. The individual dimensions are discussed below.

Extraverts derive their energy and values from the external world. They seek interaction with people and tend to have many friendships, some deep and some superficial. At the end of an intensive meeting or a day full of highly interactive work, they are energized enough to begin the day anew. In mentoring E teachers, mentors need to invest time in personal interaction, although many Extraverts are satisfied with interaction received in group activities. E teachers can very easily exhaust I mentors–and still have energy to spare.

In contrast, Introverts derive their energy and values from the internal world. They seek solitude and tend to have a few friendships, which are often very deep. At the end of an intensive meeting or a day full of highly interactive work, they need time to regenerate. In mentoring I teachers, mentors may need to meet with them one-on-one in a quiet environment away from group activities. If there is to be a difficult discussion, such as the topic of inadequacies in teaching performance, Introverts often need time before the meeting to prepare and after the meeting to sort through their reactions. E mentors may quickly tire I teachers. Therefore, some E mentors establish time limits for meetings.

Extraverts and Introverts can work together. Putting time limits on agenda items at meetings can hold the enthusiasm of Extraverts to manageable levels, and making different faculty members responsible for leading the discussion on each of the agenda items gives Introverted teachers the opportunity to participate on a near-equal basis with the Extraverts. So does publishing the agenda in advance, so that I teachers can prepare comments. (Along the same lines, teacher-generated agendas can be very successful at giving I teachers confidence in participating actively in staff meetings.) Another meeting activity that helps I teachers compete with their E peers is to go around the table at the beginning of the meeting to see if anyone has something to add to the agenda and at the end of the meeting to see if anyone has something still to say. Tannen (1994) suggests the Japanese idea of nemawashi, in which the meeting leader meets with each attendee privately to collect the conflicting ideas and work out issues in advance so that the meetings can become places where consensus is reached. (Although Tannen's point was in reference to giving equal opportunity to both men and women at business meetings, the same principle can be applied to Introverts and Extraverts at faculty meetings.)

Sensing types are grounded in the here and now. For them, the most important time is today. They pay attention to the physical world around them, noticing details. They prefer to make decisions based on reality and are convinced by statistics and facts. In mentoring S teachers, mentors need to provide detailed information, facts, and statistics–especially if they want to convince them of something. S teachers often frustrate N mentors with their lack of acceptance of assertions or new ideas. The problem is usually not the "difficult" S teacher; it is the lack of experience and insight that the typical N mentor has in marshaling fact-based arguments. Where "seeing is believing" to the S teacher, "faith in oneself" the "modus operandi" of the N mentor.

Intuiting types look to the future. For them, the most important time is tomorrow. They pay attention to the world of ideas, noticing concepts. They prefer to make decisions based on possibility–actually, multiple and often grand possibilities–and are convinced by gut feelings and insights. In mentoring N teachers, mentors need to provide a theoretical construct and rationale. Mentors can set the stage for self-conviction but may need to wait until the N teacher has analyzed, reorganized, and rethought his or her opinion vis-à-vis the new input. N teachers can seem disorganized and "ungrounded" to S mentors who may not value the N teacher's innovative (or unorthodox) approaches to teaching–and to life.

Sensing people and Intuitive people can work together. In setting goals as a team, conflict can be minimized by keeping in mind that Sensing individuals prefer simple, quickly attainable goals. Kroeger and Thuesen (1992) contend that Sensing people use the principles of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) as their "model of life." Intuitives, however, tend to set challenging and inspirational goals. In planning a program change (e.g., undertaking an experiment in Languages Across the Curriculum–a popular emendation to contemporary foreign-language department offerings), N teachers can be counted on to establish the strategic goals and S teachers to put numbers, dates, and preliminary steps to the goals. Separating planning tasks in this way can maintain harmony on a team that might be frustrated by a full-group activity in which all team members participated in both establishing the strategic vision and writing the action plan. (While all teachers ultimately need to agree to both the strategy and the tactics, they all do not have to be involved in developing both.)

Trouble can arise when the Intuitive members of a group present far more goals, ideas, and possibilities than the Sensing members can handle. The Sensing individuals may become nervous and criticize the ideas on the grounds of feasibility. In response, the Intuitive people in the group may feel that their wonderful, futuristic thoughts are not being taken seriously, and they sometimes consider the other group members to be reactionaries. What can be done in such a situation? Sometimes the mentor can help a conflicted group like this to pare down the list of potential actions, thus pleasing the Sensing members, while praising the innovation of the Intuitives in the group, thus maintaining a balance between the needs of the Intuitive and the Sensing individuals.

Feeling people value other people in highly personal ways. They will tell a white lie to avoid hurting someone else's feelings. They show caring with words, as well as actions, and they want to be respected for their hard work. In mentoring feeling individuals, mentors might remember that F teachers respond to praise for their efforts, value loyalty, and experience comfort only when there is esprit de corps among colleagues. F teachers relate best to mentors they consider kind and caring. For T mentors, F teachers can seem emotionally demanding and needy, when they really are not. T supervisors tend to keep their own feelings under control and invisible, although they are not at all reticent to let their opinions be known. With a primarily F staff, there can be advantages in sharing feelings, however uncomfortable that may be for a T mentor.

New teachers, adjunct faculty, and even TAs sometimes have rich backgrounds. Newness to the specific foreign-language program does not always equate to newness to the teaching field. Moreover, while teachers are probably more often "made," "born" teachers do occur. Talented teachers, and even very experienced ones, still need personal growth and mentoring within the organization. Such teachers, who are Fs, take input much more readily if their experience and skills are acknowledged and appreciated.

Thinking individuals value principle. They tell the truth, even when it causes hurt feelings. They show caring with actions rather than with kind words, which they often consider awkward or unnecessary. They want to be respected for their competence. In mentoring Thinking people, mentors needs to understand that T teachers can be harder on themselves than any supervisor would be. F mentors who praise efforts even when results are poor may lose the respect of T teachers, especially when they know that the quality of their own work leaves something to be desired. One T employee received an e-mail note from his F mentor: "I know you did not want to do the task that I assigned but did it, anyway; thank you for your effort; it is very much appreciated." The Thinking employee looked up at a colleague, who had been reading over his shoulder, and commented, "I didn't need that." Being praised for effort can make T teachers think that they are being manipulated. (One reason that T mentors do not praise F teachers often enough for their efforts is because such praise seems condescending to the T.)

On the other hand, attitudes toward praise and encouragement are occasionally fuzzy. For example, sometimes the T individual secretly wants to be praised, all the while acting as though praise is inessential. Such a person might find it hard to praise others but might need some overt praise when a job is well done or when a particularly difficult subtask is completed. The good mentor tries to assess the individual's need for praise and encouragement.

The T-F dimension seems to be the most difficult one in which to transcend differences. The value systems of Ts and Fs are nearly diametrically opposed, although, as we have just seen with the topic of praise, the lines are not always firmly drawn. F mentors with principally T staffs may need to prepare for meetings by converting values-based ideas into logical argumentation. T mentors with principally F staffs may need to find overt ways of showing appreciation that do not necessarily come naturally to them: flowers, a handwritten note, or a pat on the back.

In addition, mentors can help their working teams or faculties to understand the key T-F differences. Mentors can teach T employees to give F colleagues a little of the overt compassion and caring that they need and suggest that F employees to turn down the expression of feelings and highlight logic when working with T colleagues. Mentors can help Ts and Fs to avoid burning each other up in spontaneous combustion based on their differences. Through sharing information about theses differences, mentors can enhance the likelihood of Fs and Ts getting along and being productive together.

Judgers like an ordered world. They work to deadline, prefer to do one task after another, and are more comfortable after questions have been decided. J teachers in P situations can become very frustrated. "Just tell us what to do, and we'll do it," they often say in exasperation at brainstorming sessions that they experience as lasting too long for their patience. Mentors can delegate tasks to J teachers more effectively by putting information in writing, making tasks specific, giving a deadline, and avoiding multiple assignments (although there are some J teachers who can handle many different tasks at the same time.).

Perceivers, on the other hand, like an open world. They work best when they have freedom, prefer to work on many tasks at the same time, and feel better while options remain open. In mentoring a Perceiving teacher, mentors need to allow a choice and flexibility when possible. Reminding a P teacher of deadlines ahead of time may also help. P teachers may benefit from time management training that helps them convert their "open" sense of time to the "closed" sense of time that most institutions prefer.

Js and Ps often experience conflict over the need for closure. Js claim that Ps procrastinate, and Ps insist that Js jump to conclusions. The greatest disagreement between perceivers and judgers occurs around issues of time. According to Kroeger and Thuesen (1992), "when it comes to time management, it is a judger's world, hands down" (87). They point out that good time-planners are the winners in contemporary society. For example, airlines reward early ticket purchase, banks reward long-term asset planning, and schools reward students who turn in papers on time (in the academic world, punctuality routinely beats brilliance). Kroeger and Thuesen label this "a conspiracy of judgers" (88). By assigning committee work, mentor-supervisors can accommodate the talents of both J and P teachers without frustrating both. P teachers can work on brainstorming solutions to thorny issues, and J teachers can develop new pilot projects (to generate more thorny issues).

This might not solve all J-P conflicts, of course. There will still be P individuals who will delay finalization of a project until the eleventh hour, sometimes for the thrill of living on the edge of disaster and at other times to take in as much pertinent information as possible. At the same time, there will still be J individuals who will push the P people to be more serious, to stop being lazy, and get the job done. To a great extent, however, misunderstandings about the nature and meaning of potential J-P conflicts can be alleviated by straightforward discussion.

Many systems and instruments exist to help mentors study cognitive differences and structure their mentoring process. One of the most useful is the Gregorc Register (Gregorc, 1982). While there are many other cognitive style dimensions, such as the synoptic (holistic) — ectenic (atomistic) construct suggested by Ehrman and Leaver (1997), we use the Gregorc Scale here as an example, due to limited space. Readers are invited to explore cognitive dimensions further. Each system has much to offer the faculty developer who would work in style.

The Gregorc Register is composed of two axes: abstract-concrete and random-sequential. These axes yield four cognitive types: abstract-random (AR), abstract-sequential (AS), concrete-sequential (CS), and concrete-random (CR) (Gregorc 1982, Ehrman 1996, Leaver 1997).

Abstract-random individuals learn through observation. They process information theoretically and organize information in an individualized fashion. In fact, pre-organization of information can frustrate them. Advanced organizers in the classroom are anathema to ARs. They typically question the motivation for things: why does something work or why should they become involved in something–even, why should someone mentor them. That last question certainly has to be answered before mentoring can be undertaken. In mentoring AR teachers, mentors might use videotapes, visual information, and class observation (by the AR teacher) to share ideas. Opening one's own classrooms to visitation by the AR teacher can be very helpful. Setting an example can provide much more education for the AR teacher than either written or spoken words.

Abstract-sequential individuals are quintessential book learners. They process information theoretically and expect imparted knowledge to be organized in advance. AS teachers usually want mentoring. Their questions most often center on a factual core: what needs to be done, what is important, what criteria will be used to assess them, and the like. In mentoring AS teachers, traditional classroom approaches work fine. The most common problem for AS teachers is understanding other styles because most of them have always been excellent students in traditional environments. They tend to equate lack of success in foreign-language learning with lack of effort.

Concrete-sequential individuals prefer hands-on learning. They learn by doing and expect information to be organized in advance. For CS teachers, knowing how something works is important. Knowing "how" for CS teachers means being aware of all the steps involved and being able to accomplish those steps themselves. Understanding an abstraction for them is often incomplete comprehension, accompanied by an inability to transfer the understanding to new environments. In mentoring CS teachers, the most successful mentors provide samples, step-by-step instructions, and the opportunity for practice.

Here we need to diverge for a true story about CS teachers encountering AS mentors. Never underestimate the drama and potential stress of such an encounter. Several years ago in Siberia, out-of-style mentoring set two dedicated groups of professionals against each other. After a week of extensive faculty development, the mentors in charge of a project to redesign English, French, and German national curricula, asked the teachers responsible for writing the new curricula to produce examples of how the information learned at the workshop would affect their course development efforts. What the mostly AS mentors expected to see as "examples" were templates that could be used in writing a wide range of lessons. What the mostly CS teachers presented were detailed, unique, and complete sample lessons. The mentors reacted in anger and the teachers with near-tears–until they realized how their cognitive differences had colored their expectations and interpretations, after which they were able to reestablish a collegial relationship.

Concrete-random individuals prefer to use trial and error in most of their endeavors. They learn by doing, especially when the "doing" is their own decision, and are frustrated by material that has been "pre-digested" (i.e., organized) for them. An important question for them often strikes fear in many supervisors and mentors–and very likely created premature aging in their parents: "What if…?" CR individuals are great experimenters and inordinate risk-takers, whether they work in in foreign-language teaching or in another other profession. In mentoring CR teachers, many of whom are also NT personality types, mentors would be well forewarned to keep hands off and to provide support for the CR's creativity. Allowing CR teachers to fail and to learn from their failures is more important than ensuring that CR teachers always do things right or always succeed. Watching a new teacher fail is often a frustrating experience for non-CR mentors. However, for the CR teacher, the emotional reaction is quite different. CR teachers tend to look at failure simply as one method of learning, and a useful one at that. So, mentors (often considered unnecessary by CR teachers) fare best when they allow the CR teacher room for experimentation and innovative risk-taking. CR mentors can be very successful and creative at mentoring all kinds of teachers and often actually prefer the so-called "difficult" people. On the other hand, mentors with different cognitive styles can find CR teachers both difficult in general and difficult to mentor. What the CR teacher wants is a validator, a devil's advocate for new ideas, and a supporter who will stand by until needed. F mentors with other cognitive styles often feel "unneeded" and, therefore, experience difficulty in relating to CR teachers.

All four types can work together harmoniously, productively, and in a learning-oriented way. In developing a new curriculum, for example, the CRs can be relied upon to devise innovative approaches, the ARs to obtain the needed observations and feedback, the ASs to research the options, and the CSs to determine the ways in which to implement a given approach and the steps to take in doing so. Given this kind of style-oriented assignment of responsibilities, even the most junior faculty member can bring real talent to the task, and all faculty can grow in significant ways by learning from each other.

The category of perceptual differences has several labels: sensory preferences, modalities, and perceptual styles. The most useful distinctions for the teaching workplace include the dimensions of visual, auditory, and motor styles.

Visual perceivers prefer to acquire information through sight. Mentors, in working with visual teachers, can facilitate learning and communication by using visual support. In terms of instructional skills, they can teach non-visual teachers to assist visual learners in their classrooms through such practices as extensive use of the blackboard, providing written handouts to accompany audio texts, and allowing visual learners to read through listening material in advance.

In terms of mentor-mentee interactions, mentors can assist visual teachers by providing handouts of critical information at faculty meetings. (However, mentors would do well to remember that giving a handout before a discussion will probably set up a contest for the teacher's attention–and very likely, the written word will win. Mentors should also be aware that the desired listening will often fail to occur for visual individuals without the assistance provided by the handout. Typically, strongly visual people will fidget and worry about the lack of a handout and do not hear what is being said.)

When asked to implement programs that rely on auditory or kinesthetic input over visual input (such as in the ALM or early stages of TPR), visual Ts can become resistant. Since they need visual support to learn, their natural assumption is that students do, too. The current taboo in some circles on the use of flashcards, considered a decontextualized and, therefore, ineffective means of presenting vocabulary, calls forth vigorous disagreement from some visual learners, whose own vocabulary reserves often have been developed as a result of much work with flashcards. Mentors who understand the source of such resistance can take the right steps to reduce it.

Auditory perceivers prefer to acquire information through sound. Auditory learners learn best when listening to a broadcast or participating in a discussion, and some do learn quite well from reading aloud, regardless of the results of generic research (which has not included perceptual style as a variable) that shows oral reading to be ineffective. In terms of instructional skills, mentors may have to teach auditory teachers to move beyond discussion in the foreign-language classroom in order to facilitate learning for visual and kinesthetic learners. Non-auditory teachers can be encouraged to bring in video and audio tapes, include classroom discussion on lesson themes, and make tapes of reading assignments for their auditory students. In terms of mentor-mentee interactions, new teachers learn best when mentors take the time to discuss ideas with them, rather than expecting them to be able to incorporate ideas after reading about them. Not usually being exceptionally skilled readers–after all, they do not choose to spend leisure time reading, auditory learners can resist extensive reading assignments as a precursor to methodological discussions. Mentors who understand that auditory learners do not read as rapidly or with as much pleasure as their visual counterparts can organize their faculty development sessions accordingly.

Motor perceivers prefer to acquire information through motion. Two categories exist for such people: mechanical learners and kinesthetic learners (Leaver 1998). Mechanical learners use their fine motor muscles for learning; kinesthetic learners use gross motor muscles. The kinesthetic teacher, or at least the teacher who allows his or her movement propensities to be manifested freely in the classroom, is somewhat of a rarity; the educational process tends to eliminate or at least discourage kinesthetic learners from higher education. Let's face it, there is an anti-kinesthetic bias in many schools beyond the elementary grades. Yet there are probably more "closet kinesthetic" teachers than we realize, teachers who have suppressed their true natures in order to fit into relatively static educational systems, and who have been able to access other perception styles (perhaps a secondary preference) successfully. Mentors might help such teachers overcome their fear of institutional bias against movement and to feel free to help their own students move expressively around the classroom through drama and games.

In terms of instructional skills, mentors may need to show non-kinesthetic teachers how to incorporate elements of Total Physical Response (Asher 1988) and other physical activities into classrooms with large numbers of kinesthetic learners. In Slavic languages, using a treasure hunt to teach verbs of motion can be especially effective for kinesthetic learners. As much as this approach seems like commonsense, far too often non-kinesthetic teachers ask students to complete workbook pages, carry out in-seat dialogue recitation, or provide oral answers to textbook exercises. In mentoring motor teachers, mentors may need to make allowances for their need to use their muscles, , letting them doodle or stand up at staff meetings or move around the room, instead of sitting still, during individual counseling sessions–or even better, taking a walk together when thorny issues need to be discussed.

In terms of mentor-mentee interactions, motor teachers who must sit for long periods of time often resist the input being provided not because of philosophical disagreements but because of frustration at being forced into what feels to them to be a physical straitjacket. Mentors who realize this can determine ways to meet the motor teachers need for movement while accomplishing more sedentary goals.

Mentoring individual teachers effectively is the cornerstone to mentoring the group and managing the program effectively. Mentoring in style is the key to mentoring individuals, whether the focus be instruction in foreign language education (FLED) theory and practice, counseling, evaluation, or support of personal growth.

When development of good teaching techniques is accomplished in accordance with teachers' styles, the overall teaching performance of new teachers improves more rapidly. For some new teachers (e.g., visual AS Introverts), assigned readings are likely to be highly informative. For others, seminars are excellent; this is especially true for auditory and kinesthetic CS Extraverts. For still others, such as visual AR Introverts, observations of master classes, demonstration classes, or peers' classes can be very helpful. An effective teacher development program will contain all of these activities in measure. In the very best programs, teachers will be able to select the activities that work the best for them; there the mentor's role is help teachers determine the best activities for their development portfolio. Activities, such as co-teaching and modeling, can instruct teachers in style-flexible ways.

One of the most effective ways to develop teaching techniques in new teachers is co-teaching, or two teachers in the classroom teaching together. The second teacher can be an experienced colleague or a supervisor-mentor. Co- teaching is useful in many ways: building relationships, developing specific techniques, and helping teachers learn how to differentiate among learners. Preparing and conducting lessons together helps the mentor see the new teacher's approach and instincts, as well as developing trust between mentor and teacher. There is the added advantage of conducting formative evaluation (evaluation that occurs during the development phase, rather than at the very end). Formative evaluation allows on-the-spot assistance and immediate improvement, whereas a post-observation discussion can be merely a critique that does not help the teacher very much. For many teachers, particularly those who like spontaneity and do not need to have in-depth reflection before making instructional changes, such immediate feedback is very effective. Supervisors have often found that they can significantly reduce the amount of calendar time required to develop a new teacher by teaching together with the teacher.

For Extroverts, co-teaching tends to be a more comfortable activity than it is for an Introverted teacher. Although experience can help Introverted Ts to be more comfortable, most I teachers, regardless of experience, seem to need time to adjust to the idea of co-teaching, as well as time to prepare for such a class.

New teachers also need to learn how to apply to the classroom the same principles of differentiation that the mentor applies to mentoring. The most crucial principles are: 1) teaching all students equally does not mean treating them the same, and 2) treating all students the same tends to result in unfair and unequal treatment because of learning style and other differences among them (Leaver 1998). Just as mentors need to learn to mentor in style, teachers need to learn to teach in style. In many cases, these concepts are alien to new teachers and take some time to assimilate. The co-teaching format has helped teachers learn these concepts in a realistic, concrete, and interesting way.

If mentors want teachers to use learner-centered instruction, including showing sensitivity to style differences, in the classroom, the mentor must model this behavior in the supervisory relationship. Few of today's teachers were educated in learner-centered classrooms, so models are rare. Mentors most likely will have to break the mold that results in teachers teaching in the way that they were taught. Foreign-language teachers of today were typically trained via grammar-translation, audiolingual, or cognitive code methods that were clearly effective for many of them, and the natural instinct is to reproduce these same methods in their own classrooms.

Mentors can model learner-centered instruction in the classroom. In their lesson plans, they can include activities for a wide variety of learners. When students experience learning difficulties, they can use learning style information to help with trouble-shooting, and they can show new teachers how to do all these things.

Mentors can also model other very important attributes: risk-taking, courtesy, democracy, asking not demanding, and empathy in place of apathy. Risk-taking is important not only in language learning but also in faculty teams where new teaching concepts are being implemented or in cutting-edge programs that want to remain cutting edge. Risk-taking, of course, comes most readily to CR teachers, especially NT-CR teachers. Other teachers may need the mentor's support, encouragement, and protection in order to be willing to take risks.

Even in modeling, mentors should be aware of style differences. Modeling alone may be enough to effect change in AR teachers. However, other teachers may need more explicit communication, requiring mentors to explain aspects of what is being modeled before and/or after the modeling.

Counseling is more than a discussion with a mentee. Effective counseling requires planning and rehearsing, as well as the actual conduct of the counseling session.

Planning counseling sessions should include not only the topics to be addressed but also the attitude to be taken: calm, firm, or tentative, among a wide variety of choices. The last (tentative) sometimes works well at removing the walls built by some kinds of difficult teachers, especially F teachers, who, by nature, want to help people. Reversing the relationship so that by complying with the mentor's request the new teacher can clearly do a service for the mentor can seem to put that teacher in control, remove defensive barriers (when one is taking the offensive, one does not need a fortress), and gain the cooperation needed for team work.

Part of planning also involves determining when to conduct the counseling sessions. When problems occur, impulsive mentors usually want to solve them immediately. They rush into a counseling session with the teacher, which can make the problem worse, not better, especially if the teacher is reflective. Reflective mentors on the other hand, usually put space between the time a problem occurred and the scheduling of the counseling session. If the time is reasonably short and used for the purpose of reflection and psychological preparation by the teacher and planning by the mentor, the time is well-spent. Often, though, too much time passes because reflective mentors are preparing psychologically, and the teacher is unaware of the problem. By the time the problem gets addressed, the details have been forgotten. For that reason, reflective supervisors can sometimes unfairly get the reputation of being unwilling to take action when needed.

Associated with planning is rehearsing. Controlling the emotions released when one's "buttons" have been pressed by mentee reactions is accomplished more easily when the counseling session is not the first place that the mentor encounters these things. Rehearsing with a colleague or friend of the same personality type or cognitive style as the teacher is can ensure the smooth conduct of difficult counseling sessions.

In spite of good planning and conscientious rehearsing, counseling sessions that do not take into account style differences can quickly disintegrate–or worse, harm the mentor-mentee bond. Extraverts and Impulsives need to give Introverts and Reflectives time to respond. Productive silence is okay. Js need to allow Ps to present a plan of action at a later date, if a plan is needed to improve teaching. NT mentors need to provide details and be prepared for questions that may seem nit-picking. T mentors need to be psychologically prepared for the emotions of F mentees, and so on and so forth. Counseling sessions conducted in style can be both productive and satisfying.

Mentors usually have dual roles: development and evaluation. These are not antagonistic functions. Rather, evaluation provides guidance in determining development activities and assesses the effectiveness of them.

Unfortunately, all too often mentors find evaluation uncomfortable. Frequently, this attitude is the result of unpleasant experiences in evaluating and being evaluated. However, if evaluation is done in accordance with style and through the separation of formative and summative forms of evaluation, evaluation can be a positive force in a teacher's professional life and in the mentor-mentee relationship.

Formative and summative evaluations both provide the opportunity for mentoring but in very different ways. Formative evaluation brings out coaching traits in a mentor. Summative evaluation brings out analytic and diagnostic traits. Formative evaluation, the purpose of which is to foster growth and improvement, and summative evaluation, the purpose of which is to assess, rate, and often, reward or punish, should always be accomplished separately, a point that Stanley and Popham (1988) underscore, "Many administrators who have been thrust into the formative-summative evaluator role will protest that they can, having 'earned the trust' of their teachers, carry out both teacher evaluation functions simultaneously, [but] they are deluding themselves" (59). Trying to save time in this way cheats the teacher of the range of mentoring (and time) he or she has a right to expect from a mentor.

Style differences play an important role in the conduct of both kinds of evaluations, and accommodation of individualized needs can make evaluating new teachers more comfortable and effective. NTs, for example, can be difficult to evaluate. While they are their own most severe critics, they do not readily accept the authority of mentors to judge them based solely on positional authority; the mentor must have earned respect. F teachers can be devastated by negative elements in evaluations, especially if T mentors fail to sandwich the negative elements between positive elements. AS and SJ teachers may want more details than a NT mentor, even with the best of intentions, may be able to provide. Knowing the style-related preferences of mentees helps mentors take the steps to ensure a smooth rating process and not be surprised at the end.

While positively intended, formative evaluation is often seen as negative. For that reason, re-framing the evaluation in positive terms is essential. Positive motivation wields great power, whereas negative emotions can shut down working memory (Goleman, 1995). Pressing further at that point is ineffective.

How does one deal with negative emotions when they appear? First, don't expect a rational response. Few new teachers can be fully rational at the outset when approached with a list of deficiencies in their performance; the threat to their ego and to their sense of security is too great, especially if they are NTs. So the most logical thing a mentor can do is to accept whatever response is given. Second, wait out the response. Maybe in a day or week the teacher will be able to approach the evaluation with less negative emotion. Therefore, setting a future date for further discussion can help, especially for Reflective and Introverted teachers. (It can also have the opposite effect on Impulsive, Extraverted teachers, who may use that time to marshal a rebuttal.) An important part of formative evaluation is self-evaluation. Teachers who carry out reflective teaching (keeping journals, monitoring, taping/observing their own behaviors, and assessing the success of various techniques and activities) are more apt to show continuous improvement than teachers who rely exclusively on student and mentor feedback. Reflective teaching also tends to produce less defensive teachers who can carry on a productive and insightful dialogue with mentors at counseling sessions.

Of all the mentor-mentee relationships, summative evaluation tends to be the most stressful and can lead to acrimony and a breakdown in the relationship. Before improvement in teaching can be expected–and even highly experienced and successful teachers can be expected to improve–teachers need to know the program goals (important for NT teachers), work requirements (important for AS teachers), and performance standards (important for SJ teachers). Troubled programs frequently experience lack of success not because of teacher or administrator incompetence but because clear statements of mission, written goals, and published performance standards–the objective criteria that makes possible the fair management of all teachers–are missing. Summative evaluation is much less threatening and easier to defend when everyone knows the criteria for success. Rating, rewarding, and conducting formative discussions and development of new teachers in accordance with these standards makes mentoring and preparation of the summative evaluation much easier. Further, establishing consistent expectations for classroom visits and the interpretation, use, and discussion of data collected during observations significantly reduces perceived threat for nearly any type of teacher. Allowing teacher input to the evaluation ensures both a more accurate evaluation and a more effective one.

As in learning to teach, personal development activities are more effective when they are carried out in accordance with style. Sending CS teachers to off-site experiential workshops may be the best option for them; whereas sending AR teachers to observe successful peers on-site may be preferable for them. Sending Introverted Thinkers to the library or their own classrooms for research is as effective as working directly together with Extraverted Sensing perceivers, but the opposite combinations are apt to fail. Explaining the reasons for the difference in treatment is sometimes far less difficult than mentors think. Often, new teachers know their style preferences, at least on a subconscious level, and will instinctively choose the mode that works best for them. Talking about these matters openly and forthrightly can help the teachers and the mentor whether the goal is the development of teachers' professional skills or empowerment of teachers.

Many mentors forget that career preparation and enhancement is a part of personal development. There is a tendency to focus on short-term goals–the teaching requirements of the current institution and how to meet those requirements–leaving long-term goals forgotten. Rifkin (2000) suggests that long-term goals are essential to the formation of a future professoriate. Covey (1990) explains the existence of this often overlooked, critical set of activities as being lost through improper time management that puts urgent-not-important tasks head of important-not-urgent considerations. Teaching a TA to perform well in the current classroom, as the old Chinese proverb says, feeds him or her for a day. Helping the TA to build a foundation in SLA feeds him or her for a lifetime. Mentors who take the role of mentoring seriously should consider the long-term view. The real workplace is full of examples where mentors have made a significant difference in the lives of their new teachers in doing so.

There is a caveat, however. In helping teachers with professional development, mentors should avoid placing their own biases into the minds of teachers. While still in undergraduate school, one of us asked a mentor, a university professor, about the possibility of joining the university ranks herself as a professor someday. Surprisingly, the mentor launched into a personal tale of woe about the travails of university teaching, starting with the "publish or perish" threat, then describing in detail all the pressures of a heavy teaching and advising schedule, and wrapping up with a mention of the boring social life endured by female university professors. The truth of these statements went unquestioned in the mind of the undergraduate, a budding linguist and scholar who had until then liked the idea of teaching. The mentor's advice was enough to persuade the undergraduate to turn away from a university career in language teaching for twenty years. Only by a series of unexpected events did this individual enter the professoriate, where she has been very happy after her much-delayed debut as a university teacher. Mentors have a great deal of influence, and they must take care to use it wisely and provide balanced counsel rather than biased advice.

While authoritarianism is a typical approach of new mentors, it can be found among some experienced mentors as well. It may well spring from the dichotomy that created much discussion in the 1990s: training or education as the goal of teaching. In our view, there is no discussion. Teachers, whose duties are far from mindless, repetitive, and stimulus-dependent, do not need training. What they do need, no matter how experienced, is continuing education, as does every professional, beginning with the would-be professional–the student in the classroom. To that effect, we note and underscore the words of Lalande (1991, p. 18):

If mentors want teachers to facilitate classroom activity, i.e., to educate students, then they need to model facilitation by educating and empowering teachers, allowing them the opportunity for critical thinking, liberation from ethnocentric and egocentric mindsets, and equipping them for a lifelong journey of personal and professional growth.

There are a number of ways to empower teachers. One is to give teachers a say in team matters. Another is to give them a say in choice of method (where that is appropriate and possible). They can also be given a say in teaching practices. To empower new teachers, mentors sometimes have to change their instinctive forms of support. When a new teacher brings a problem, called a "monkey" by Oncken (Blanchard, Oncken, and Burrows 1990), to a mentor and the mentor promises to take care of the problem, the mentor has just taken on the care and feeding of the teacher's monkey. Given enough monkeys, the mentor quickly becomes a zookeeper, and teachers remain unempowered with only one way to take care of their sick monkeys: bring them to the mentor. Rather than promising to take care of a problem, the wise mentor assists the teacher in figuring out how to take care of the problem on his or her own. In other words, the mentor shows the teacher how to feed or heal the monkey. With time, teachers working with monkey-free mentors arrive with a sick monkey, a description of symptoms, and some suggested cures. Helping a teacher select a cure is much easier for a mentor than running a monkey hospital.

When mentoring in style, the ways in which teachers, both experienced and new, are empowered depend on their style differences. CR-NTs need freedom and authority to pursue self-generated, innovative ideas. CS teachers need instructions and examples of how to do things on their own. AS teachers need templates as guidelines. AR teachers need the opportunity to observe how empowered teachers work.

Once empowered, teachers need support. Even seemingly self-directed teachers on the fast path to fame and glory need a cheerleader in their corner in times of insecurity and difficulty. Teachers who are attending school at the same time that they are teaching need periodic affirmation that the accumulation of experience and education will be worth the time, effort, and stress. New teachers need their mentors even in failure. In fact, they need them most when they fail. Empowered employees, who feel the support of their mentors, are more likely to take the kinds of risks that are needed for effective teaching.

Remembering (or recognizing when) to support teachers comes least naturally to TJ mentors. Highly task-oriented, they sometimes forget that there are other motivations and other ways of providing support than working together on task completion. NT mentors, too, sometimes become irritated with the "neediness" of FP teachers (who want emotional support) and AS or CS teachers (who want informational support). Understanding the source of the neediness can go far in alleviating irritation.

The time invested in empowering mentees is worthwhile. Supportive mentors frequently are the first to receive invitations to graduations and award ceremonies. They are also usually the first to hear about any good news in the mentees' life, and they are likely to be thanked in a dozen different ways from time to time. Clearly, a mentor's support is desired, needed, and appreciated by teachers.

Good communication is every bit as dependent on understanding teachers’ learning styles as are other aspects of faculty development. Good communication, however, is often not achieved without conscious attention to the communication process and the individual with whom one is communicating. While there has been some literature on communication styles (see, for example, Woodward 1999), most communication styles are actually an aspect of a combination of personality types and cognitive styles. Hence, we will treat the larger topic–communication–here and leave the highly individualized and more sophisticated aspects as a refinement of the processes described below to be undertaken by language program managers, once the basic concepts are functioning smoothly in their programs.

Communication is a complex issue. An open door policy not only helps foster communication, it also allows the manager to get to know staff better. However, even in the most open relationships with tremendous rapport, communication still fails from time to time. Making communication explicit and sending appropriate signals can do much to prevent communication errors.

Often, program directors do not spend enough time to ensure that teachers have really understood what has been communicated. An explicit approach to communication takes time, but failure to communicate ultimately takes more time. What kinds of things need to be communicated explicitly? CS teachers need explicit instructions. NT and CR teachers need explicit rationales. SJ and AS teachers need specific rules, content, and deadlines. SPs need to know the limits of choices that are available or permitted.

An important part of good communication is sending accurate signals. Not all these signals, however, are verbal. We have many ways to communicate: words, actions, body language, and presence.

One of the most obvious ways in which we send signals is by words. Teachers and supervisors speak in accordance with their own styles. SJ teachers use words like "should," "ought, " and "must." SP teachers use words like "choice," "may," and "flexible." NT teachers use words like "challenge," "analyze," and "goal," and NF teachers use words like "fun," "collaboration," and "serve." In some ways, teachers with different styles are speaking different languages, and the style-aware program director ends up being an interpreter.

Actions and behaviors are sometimes more powerful signals than words. Actions include both what faculty developers do and what they choose not to do (or forget to do). One T department chairperson was astonished to learn that the source of one teacher's newly developed hostility was a forgotten packet of curricular materials that the teacher had prepared on her own and with some pride had handed to the department chairperson who put them into his overflowing in-box and did not see them for weeks. The message to the teacher was clear: the chair did not like the lessons. Further, being an F, the teacher personalized that message: the chair did not value her efforts. He could at least have acknowledged the time and energy she spent on the project. There was a happy ending in this case. The chair learned about the lost materials, found them, and made his comments–along with his apologies.

Body language sends signals, too. Mentors who say that they are open to other opinions and ideas but listen with their arms and legs crossed are sending mixed signals–and unfortunately body language tends to speak louder than words. One of us used to complete paperwork while talking to her staff when she worked as a dean at one institution. A J who displays the polyactivity typical of Ps, she did not even notice that she was doing this, but she had apparently done it for months. When a new associate dean reported in, he and the assistant dean met with her to discuss the status or programs and the roles of members of the dean's staff, and she simultaneously, as usual, completed her ever-present paperwork, an activity that could obviously be interpreted as rude or as denigrating the significance of the conversation. The new associate dean shot a questioning look at the assistant dean, who explained, "Yes, sir, she processes paperwork while she listens and talks, but she clearly also hears and understands everything we say; we've tested her on several occasions." Needless to say, she now keeps her in-box out of reach, so that she does not accidentally multi-task in the presence of staff. The message sent is not the one she wants them to be receiving.

Even presence (or absence) can be a signal. When supervisors are present, they signal that a task and the people involved with it are important. When they are absent, they send the opposite signal. The saying, "when the cat's away, the mice will play," may have less to do with a proverbial lack of motivation than with the reception of the signal that the planned activities are not important enough for the supervisor to spend time on them. In one extremely large and unwieldy program one of us managed (nearly 150 teachers and support staff), significant problems with organizational communication became quickly apparent when she first tried to meld teaching teams from several different programs into one unified new program. Therefore, she worked out a week-long training program on organizational communication with institutional staff trainers, put senior teachers in charge at all levels of administration, including as acting dean, and spent 40 hours with the 15 managers undertaking training. The fact that she, as the upper management and mentor, was there for the entire training and planning seminar made a significant difference in developing an effective communication plan for the organization. Such presence and visibility come easier to Extraverts than to Introverts, who often must force themselves to go out among their mentees on a regular basis.

The experience of the authors and others indicates that long-term (and short-term) goals are met more readily and with greater satisfaction when mentoring is done in style. The problem with mentoring advice and research to date is a focus on teachers as collectives and on only those individual variables (such as motivation and competence) that are directly related to a teaching goal. In reality, what is needed is an understanding that people are unique entities who bring an individualized package of variables to the work place, the classroom, and the teaching team. Many of these variables may not be directly related to a teaching goal, but they do, indeed, have an impact on teaching, personal growth, team spirit, and effectiveness. Therefore, effective mentoring depends on putting people first and concepts second. Mentoring in style gives the mentor a toolbox of instruments to use when the platitudes fail.