I. :H. ..:}t.. . til: ....i.:f... .;.~\..;\n. . :27 . !..~:raln|f.3?. .1. V. . \nut. .«nLrTJA. '13.!)1. ..; . l ...7 . .x _ vv_»: :- ELF.» . n h ‘ . 2 113:; . 3.1 4.1.f....mL..»C 5.. :5 2:35 (usher... _ ‘ if; HI AN STATE llllllllllllli NIVEREiITY LIBRARIES llll l llllill ll 31293 00903 2016 IL This is to certify that the dissertation entitled CLASSROOM TEACHERS AS MENTORS: THEIR PERSPECTIVES ON HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH presented by Randi J. Nevins has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctorate degree in Philosophy Major professor Date 1/29/93 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0— 12771 .hw, " -.__-._-A___‘ LIBRARY )flehlm State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove thls checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE d ______—————- CLASSROOM TEACHERS AS MENTORS: THEIR PERSPECTIVES ON HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH By Randi J. Nevins A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1993 ABSTRACT CLASSROOM TEACHERS AS MENTORS: THEIR PERSPECTIVES ON HELPING NOVICES LEARN T O TEACH By Randi J. Nevins The purpose of this study was to describe how five classroom teachers make sense of their role as mentors to prospective teachers within a Professional Development School (PDS). Specifically, this study investigated how the teachers views about learning, sources of knowledge and conceptions of reflection influenced their mentoring. The study took place at a PBS site where classroom and prospective teachers are affiliated with one of the teacher preparation programs at Michigan State University. Data collected over a five month period included: stimulated recall and structured interviews with the mentors, and observation of the mentors' interactions in language arts and student teaching seminars. The data was analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This method allowed for comparison across the subjects for the purpose of understanding one subject in light of another. From the data, three descriptive categories evolved which synthesized the major themes of the participants' words: views about learning, sources of knowledge, and nature of reflection used to help novices learn to teach. Using these three categories, data analysis combined the use of cases, frequency counts of the mentors' words, and visual representations created by the mentors. Findings include descriptions and analysis of patterns and uniqueness across the five cases. The patterns were that 1) a discourse community was created where most mentors share common language, knowledge and beliefs about helping novices learn to teach, 2) the ways in which the mentors interact within the context of Brown PDS affects the sources of knowledge used to mentor, and 3) the content of most mentors' reflections center around work in teacher education and understanding literacy instruction. There were also uniquenesses among the mentors' stories. First, variability across the four mentors who do share some common views about learning are discussed. Then, variability in the fifth mentor, who constructed her role in a traditional manner is contrasted. Implications for future practice and research include: creating an environment for teacher learning, engaging mentors and prospective teachers in reflective conversations about subject matter, and learning about teachers' own practice through mentoring. Copyright by RANDI JILL NEVINS 1993 To Dr. Cassandra Book My mentor ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are several people whom I would like to thank for their support and feedback throughout the dissertation. First I would like to thank the five teachers who let me participate in their lives across five months. To Lisa, Kimberly, Alexa, Paige and Brooke I extend deep gratitude. Through observing and talking to these teachers, I learned a lot about the significant contributions mentors can make to prospective teachers' learning. I would also like to thank the principal of Brown PDS and all of the MSU faculty associated with Brown PDS. These people made it possible for me to be a part of the Brown PDS culture in order to complete this study. A significant part of my learning to research and write about my research came from interactions with the members of my committee. I chose the members of my committee because of their outstanding commitments to teaching and teacher education. Cassandra Book, Linda Anderson, Henrietta Barnes and Laura Roehler are the four women who have worked closely to support my learning and research. I would like to extend an extra special thanks to Cassandra Book, the chair of my dissertation. Since I arrived at Michigan State, Cassandra has been my mentor, teacher, friend and colleague. She has helped increase my love for learning and teaching, and has pushed me to learn to conduct quality research of which I can be proud. Her constant support and ability to provide feedback on draft after draft of the dissertation are indicators of her strong commitment to teacher education research. 1 vi would also like to extend a special thank you to Linda Anderson, who worked closely with me on my methodology. Linda was extraordinarily effective in helping me sort through issues of data analysis and reporting, and in helping me to create my own methodology which reflected my own vision of my work. Special thanks also go to Henrietta Barnes, for her careful and critical feedback on drafts of my dissertation. She, too, pushed me to strive for very high quality writing of my research which captured the significance of my findings. And a special thanks to Laura Roehler, whose expert knowledge of working in Professional Development School contexts and of literacy instruction were extremely valuable to my learning and to my study. Laura's patient teachings have helped me to increase my own literacy knowledge and understanding. I would also like to thank Cheryl Rosaen, Perry Lanier and Patty Noell of the Academic Learning teacher preparation program at Michigan State University. Cheryl Rosaen believed in my potential for teaching and research, and listened to my proposal for study of teachers at Brown PDS. Cheryl has also been a mentor to me in the study and teaching of language arts, and in working with prospective and mentor teachers within a PDS context. Perry Lanier has been very supportive of my research, and was always available to listen to my ideas and goals. Patty Noell spent countless hours helping me to put together my dissertation in a form of which I can be proud. Finally, it is necessary to thank the members of my family. My parents, Ruth and Harvey Nevins who always believed in me, have given me constant emotional support throughout graduate school. My sister, Vicki and my grandparents, Leo and Mae Perry, have also provided constant love and support. My significant other, Tom Stanulis, stood by my side, staying with me vii late nights in the office while I wrote, and making me comfortable at home after long days and nights of writing. He gave me much of the strength to complete this work, and to do it well. Thank you to all those who provided me with emotional and intellectual support throughout the process of writing this dissertation. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures QhAMLr—QanJntmdnrtinand—mtmn Introduction and purpose Field-based teacher education experiences University-based teacher education experiences Classroom teachers as partners in guided practice Problem statement The context of the study Academic Learning teacher preparation program Academic Learning mentor teacher component Mentors Academic Learning and mentoring within a Professional Development School This study Statement of purpose Research questions Definition of terms Professional Development School Academic Learning teacher preparation program Academic Learning mentor teacher component Prospective teacher Mentor teacher Reflection Guided practice Significance of study Methodology Overview of the dissertation Wan: Theoretical Framework The behaviorist view of learning The information processing view of learning The social constructivist view of learning Teacher thought Reflection ix xvi xvii HwQ-hu—I # 15 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 22 23 25 25 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 35 37 Teacher preparation and field experiences 43 The duration of field-based experiences 44 The composition of field-based experiences 46 The value of university coursework in teacher preparation 50 Guided practice in field experiences 55 Summary 65 Wand: The context of the study 67 Academic Learning teacher preparation program 68 Academic Learning mentor teacher component 69 Professional Development Schools and mentoring 73 Summary 76 Warden Methodology and design 77 Research questions 77 Research design 78 Subjects 79 Data collection, instruments and procedures 80 Interviews Opening interview 82 Structured interview 83 Stimulated recall interview 84 Observation 86 Data analysis ~ 87 The constant comparative method of analysis 87 Data analysis procedures 88 Frame for analysis 89 Forms of reporting and analysis 89 Cases 91 Frequency counts 92 Interrator reliability 92 Mentor models 93 Categories for analysis 94 Limitations of the study 104 Summary 106 l I . I I . II I I I I Introduction 107 Lisa Lisa's theories of how novices learn to teach 108 Discovering your own voice & beliefs about teaching 108 The special knowledge of connecting subject matter to children 114 Theories about learners 115 Frequency counts-views about learning 116 The sources of knowledge Lisa uses to help novices learn to teach 118 Professional Development School as a source of knowledge Academic Learning as a source of knowledge Classroom teaching experience as a source of knowledge Frequency counts-sources of knowledge The nature of reflection used by Lisa to help Shelly learn to teach Reflecting about work with prospective teachers Modeling and encouraging prospective teachers to reflect Frequency counts—nature of reflection A visual model of mentoring Summary Kimberly Kimberly's theories of how novices learn to teach Learning by doing: Hearing stories and answering questions Learning by doing: Talking about teaching decisions Learning by doing: Understanding children as learners Theories about learners . Frequency counts-views about learning The sources of knowledge Kimberly uses to help novices learn to teach Professional Development School as a source of knowledge Academic Learning as a source of knowledge Classroom teaching experience as a source of knowledge Frequency counts-sources of knowledge The nature of reflection used by Kimberly to help Betsy learn to teach Reflecting about work with prospective teachers Modeling and encouraging prospective teachers to reflect Frequency counts-nature of reflection A visual model of mentoring Summary Alexa Alexa's theories of how novices learn to teach Understanding and communicating purposes of instruction Understanding children and adapting curriculum to meet children's needs Theories about learners xi 119 120 122 123 124 124 126 127 129 132 133 133 137 138 139 140 I42 142 143 I45 146 147 147 148 149 150 152 153 154 159 160 Frequency counts-views about learning The sources of knowledge Alexa uses to help novices learn to teach Professional Development School as a source of knowledge Academic Learning as a source of knowledge Classroom teaching experience as a source of knowledge Frequency counts-sources of knowledge The nature of reflection used by Alexa to help Kate learn to teach Reflecting about work with prospective teachers . Modeling and encouraging prospective teachers to reflect Frequency counts-nature of reflection A visual model of mentoring Summary Paige Paige's theories of how novices learn to teach Helping students to have voice and engage in learning Being thoughtful about teaching planning and decisions Theories about learners _ Frequency counts-views about learning The sources of knowledge Paige uses to help novices learn to teach Professional Development School as a source of knowledge Academic Learning as a source of knowledge Classroom teaching experience as a source of knowledge Frequency counts-sources of knowledge The nature of reflection used by Paige to help Jane learn to teach Reflecting about work with prospective teachers Modeling and encouraging prospective teachers to reflect Frequency counts-nature of reflection A visual model of mentoring Summary Brooke Brooke's theories of how novices learn to teach Matching philosophy with instruction Being thoughtful about creating thoughtful learners Theories about learners Frequency counts-views about learning xii 161 163 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 174 175 176 179 180 181 132 183 184 186 186 187 188 189 190 190 193 194 I95 198 199 201 The sources of knowledge Brooke uses to help novices learn to teach Professional Development School as a source of knowledge Academic Learning as a source of knowledge Classroom teaching experience as a source of knowledge Frequency counts-sources of knowledge The nature of reflection used by Brooke to help Michelle learn to teach Reflecting about work with prospective teachers Modeling and encouraging prospective teachers to reflect Frequency counts-nature of reflection A visual model of mentoring Summary Summary of Cases Patterns and uniqueness in how five classroom teachers make sense of their role as mentors Pattern One: A discourse community was created by university faculty and classroom teachers as a result of PDS and Academic Learning teacher preparation program experiences This teacher education discourse community is based on a collaborative model for teacher preparation Four of the five teachers use common language from Academic Learning teacher preparation program to help novices learn to teach Four of the five teachers bring knowledge and norms from individual projects into the larger teacher education discourse community Four of the five teachers share some common views about learning Four of the five teachers feel they have a voice in preparation of novices Summary. Pattern Two: The ways in which the mentors interact within the context at Brown PDS affects sources of knowledge they use to mentor Four of the five teachers promote development of norms in their mentoring which have become a part of the Brown PDS culture Four of the five teachers use PDS and Academic Learning as a source of knowledge in mentoring Four of the five teachers blend "two worlds" of knowledge (university and school) xiii 203 203 205 206 207 208 208 210 211 212 215 216 217 217 218 218 220 221 222 226 226 227 229 231 mmary tern Three: The content of mentors' reflections center around work in teacher education and literacy instruction Four of the five teachers reflected about their influence in preparing novices for independent thinking Four of the five teachers reflected about literacy instruction in ways consistent with Academic Learning goals mmary iqueness There are uniquenesses among the four mentors who share some common views about helping novices learn to teach There is uniqueness in the case of Kimberly mmary roduction slications for teacher education practice Creating an environment for teacher learning Interacting with the context to construct the role of mentor Engaging mentors and prospective teachers in reflective conversations about subject matter and pedagogy Learning about teachers' own practice through mentoring Using the patterns from this study to help further study of mentoring ' Using this methodology as an intervention to support teachers in mentoring Using cases of mentoring to support teachers in mentoring lications for a future research agenda in mentoring The value of this study for current research The context of this study Future research questions mmary lendix Appendix A - Opening interview with mentor teachers Appendix B - Structured interviews with mentor teachers xiv 234 235 235 239 243 244 244 249 254 255 256 256 258 260 261 261 262 264 265 265 269 270 272 274 278 Appendix C - Interview with Academic Learning program 280 ' faculty References 282 XV LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Frequency count categories Views about learning page 97 Table 2 Frequency count categories Sources of Knowledge page 100 Table 3 Frequency count categories Nature of reflection page 103 Table 4 Frequency count summary Views about learning page 225 Table 5 Frequency count summary Sources of knowledge page 233 Table 6 Frequency count summary Nature of reflection page 242 Table 7 Total summaries of the averages of the extent scores across the three categories of views about learning, sources of knowledge, and nature of reflection page 253 xvi Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure LIST OF FIGURES Frame for analysis Mentor Mentor Mentor Mentor Mentor model-Lisa model-Kimberly model-Alexa model-Paige model- Brooke xvii page 90 page 131 page 151 page 173 page 192 page 214 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Educators are initiating reforms in teacher education which propose potentially different roles for classroom teachers. One restructuring effort lead by the Holmes Group (1990) seeks to reexamine and restructure the way classroom teachers can be involved in both field and university-based aspects of teacher education. The Holmes Group's vision lead to the conceptualization of institutions called Professional Development Schools (for detailed definition see page 20). A goal of PDS work is to involve prospective teachers, experienced teachers and university faculty in a collaborative venture to learn about teaching together, hoping to blur the lines and weave together sources of knowledge from both the university and field. In this role conception, classroom teachers are asked to work with prospective teachers in forms of guided practice that could be substantially different from traditional forms of supervision. Many agree that classroom teachers have a significant impact on the learning of novices. Prospective teachers credit field-based experiences as the place where most learning about teaching occurs (Feiman-Nemser, 1983). Throughout field-based experiences, it is the classroom teacher who, because of close interaction during the practice of teaching, potentially exerts the greatest influence on the development of a prospective teacher (Cochran- Smith 1991b; Hauwiller 1989; Meade, 1991). Since prospective teachers value their time with a classroom teacher, those who study teacher learning as well as those who educate teachers need to understand what is happening in interactions between novices and experienced teachers. Shulman (1987) believes that teachers have a wisdom of practice that could be a source of valuable knowledge for teacher education. Carter (1990) asserts that teachers 2 have practical knowledge of teaching that could be shared with others. Feiman-Nemser (1992) provides an example of how a teacher uses his knowledge of practice to guide a novice. Though field experiences are perceived by students to be one of their most valuable experiences in teacher preparation, questions remain about the nature, contributions, and possible inadequacies of a field-based preparation program (Clift, Meng & Eggerding, 1992; Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). Because classroom teachers potentially have a lot to offer novices, teacher educators are beginning to develop preparation programs where classroom teachers, in partnership with university faculty, can be involved in more prominent roles in both university and field-based components of teacher education (Cochran-Smith, 1991; Roth, Rosaen & Lanier, 1988). However, we know little about the ways teachers enact these new roles. For example, what does it mean for teachers to work in new roles in teacher education? How do classroom teachers make sense of roles that ask them to mentor rather than supervise, guide rather than tell, and integrate knowledge from both theory and practice? While most teacher education programs follow a conventional model for teacher education experiences, some programs are working to develop roles for classroom teachers as mentors and collaborators in teacher education (Cochran-Smith, 1991; Roth, Rosaen & Lanier, 1988). One example of a program that is trying to address the issue of involving classroom teachers more in' both field and university-based components of teacher education is the Academic Learning program at Michigan State University (for detailed definition see pg. 22). The Academic Learning program makes a mentor teacher component (for detailed definition see pg. 23) an integral part of the program. Classroom teachers, labeled "mentors" by Academic Learning, work 3 with one student in their classroom over a two year period. Originally, mentor teachers participated in meetings with university faculty where field assignments were discussed, coursework concepts were examined and feedback encouraged. It was hoped that the mentor teachers could help university faculty build connections between university course content and field experiences. But before the advent of Professional Development Schools (PDS), where resources of time, money and personnel made differences in the types of participation that were possible, these conversations were limited. With the conception of PDS's, there is an opportunity to experiment with various ways for prospective teachers and university faculty to participate and collaborate with classroom teachers. The Academic Learning program faculty developed the mentor teacher component on the premise that connecting field and university experiences is desirable and could have benefits for prospective teachers, experienced teachers and university faculty. Although the Academic Learning program has an explicit goal of involving teachers as mentors to novices, prolonged study of what this role of mentors (for detailed definition see pg. 25) means to the classroom teachers involved has not been possible. In a situation where they are provided with little formal training in mentoring expectations, knowledge or role, classroom teachers often construct their views of how novices learn to teach on their own. Consequently, as a profession, we know very little about how they construct their role. For example, what sources of knowledge do they draw on as they mentor? In what ways do the teachers model and encourage novices to use different knowledge sources to think through teaching actions and decisions? How do the teachers talk about their work in teacher education? In order to understand what it means for classroom teachers to be 4 involved in university and field-based teacher education, the teachers' point of view needs to be examined. Without such knowledge, educators will not know whether this new reform effort is worthwhile or whether it can be sustained. Focus on the teachers' perspectives could uncover the extent to which classroom teachers embrace the goals of Professional Development Schools and Academic Learning, and how the teachers think about their role in helping prepare novices to teach. There are several issues which surround the question of involving classroom teachers in university and field-based teacher education roles. These issues include: 1) what field experiences can contribute to teacher education 2) what university preparation can contribute to teacher education and 3) what university faculty and classroom teachers can contribute to teacher education as they work both in the field and university components of preparation. These issues will be briefly explicated in order to understand the purpose of this study. Field-based teacher education experiences Many agree that field-based experiences are perceived by prospective and experienced teachers as the most valuable segment of teacher preparation (Bischoff, Farris and Henniger, 1988; Evertson, 1990; Krustchinsky and Moore, 1981; Roth, 1989; Yellin et al, 1988). Classroom teachers are influential in shaping novices' learning during field-based experiences. Because of the potential influence and value of experience in the field, teacher education reform proposals such as those initiated by Joyce and Clift (1984), the Carnegie Group (1986), and the Holmes Group (1990) seek to examine and restructure field-based teacher education programs. As educators think about contributions and inadequacies of field-based experiences, they focus on issues of how much time in the field is necessary and valuable, and what the 5 substance of these field-based experiences should include (Cochran-Smith, 1991a; Cruickshank, 1987; Hopkins, 1985; Goodman, 1988; Zeichner & Liston, 1987, Zeichner, 1987b). One of the problems that educators deliberate about is the amount of time novices spend in the field. There is some agreement that more time in the field could be healthy for preparation (Goodman, 1986). But merely increasing the duration of time in the field does not promise that these experiences will be automatically be educative (Amstine, 1975; Ball, 1987; Berliner, 1985). Among reformers working to both increase the duration and enhance the composition of field-based experiences, there are some who argue that reflection, experimentation and responsible decision making be the focus of these experiences, helping to make increased time in the field more meaningful (Beyer, 1984; Goodman, 1986; Lanier and Little,l986; Zeichner and Liston, 1987). It is important to find out if classroom teachers also believe that reflection (for detailed definition see pg. 25) is an important part of their role in helping prepare teachers while working with them in the field. Though much has been written about various conceptions of what it means to be reflective (Denton, 1983; Erdman, 1983; Schon, 1987) and what teachers should be reflective about (Dewey, 1916; Valverde, 1982; Zeichner & Liston, 1987), classroom teachers have not been consulted in helping operationalize this construct for work between mentors and novices in the field. The ways classroom teachers interact with novices in the field needs to be examined to find out how teachers define the purposes of field-based experiences. In order to work more as partners in preparation, both university faculty and classroom teachers' perspectives are valuable in deciding how to provide an educative experience in the field-based component of teacher preparation. The purpose of this study is to uncover, from the perspective of five classroom teachers, how they make sense of their work with helping novices learn to teach while they are working in the field, and in what ways they view the student teaching experience as an occasion for learning. As classroom teachers talk about their role as mentor, analysis will include efforts to describe whether the classroom teachers define, promote and believe that reflection is a part of their role in helping novices learn to teach. Reflection could take place in the form of mentors' reflections about their work in teacher education, and encouraging prospective teachers to reflect about teaching practice. University-based teacher education experiences In contrast to the belief that field-based experiences are the most valuable part of teacher preparation, it is perceived that university teacher education course work has little value for preparing students to teach (Goodman, 1986; Lanier and Little, 1986; Grossman, 1989). In the past, there have been few attempts to link what some novices view as the "two worlds" of university and field experiences (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1987) by involving classroom teachers. If educators believe there is value in both aspects of preparation, it seems worthy to consider how both can be seen as viable sources of knowledge which can be integrated rather than thought of as separate entities. Grossman (1989) called for researchers to examine their assumptions about the value of university course work and its implications for teacher education. Grossman commented after hearing an address by former Secretary of Education William Bennett that: ”the former secretary's remarks reflect a more general perception that 7 teacher education offers little value to prospective teachers, its completion resulting only in a meaningless credential rather than in the mastery of a professional body of knowledge and skills necessary for teaching" (1989, p. 191). Grossman (1989) believes that the inherent value in university-based teacher education pedagogical course work has been dismissed. She believes it is wrong to assume that pedagogical knowledge can only be learned during work in the field. Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann (1987) differentiate between the roles of classroom teachers and university instructors in what they should focus on while working with novices in the field. They said that classroom teachers should focus on making explicit "the invisible world of teaching" while university personnel should help link specific incidents that occur in the classroom to a larger context provided within university coursework. Instead of dichotomizing the sources that teachers can learn from by talking about knowledge either from the university or the field, the Holmes Group (1990) challenges educators to work for ways to benefit from both sources of knowledge at the university and in the field. The Academic Learning teacher preparation program is working with five classroom teachers at Brown1 Elementary Professional Development School to try different ways of helping novices see value in both university and school-based learning. One problem which could be addressed by both classroom teachers and university faculty is how to help novices learn to develop a disposition for analysis of experiences in the classroom. In order to foster dispositions for critical learning about teaching, Livingston and Borko (1989) believe that experiences need to "be designed explicitly to help novices develop and elaborate knowledge structures for teaching and pedagogical reasoning skills (Livingston and Borko, 1989; p. 39). Another problem is that although studies 1Brown is a pseudonym. 8 have shown that university course work does have an immediate effect on helping build novices conception of teaching, novices may find it difficult to apply this learning in the classroom, for the immediacy and impact of field- based experiences many times washes out the university's efforts (Goodman, 1986; Hoy and Rees, 1977; Jacobs, 1968, Staton & Hunt, 1992). Prospective teachers may need assistance, from both classroom and university educators, in understanding how conceptions learned in the university can provide lenses for critically examining and applying ideas in the classroom. The Academic Learning program places prospective teachers in the field concurrently with time in university-based course work. They are working to provide a lens for critically examining ideas that they have learned in the university to the classroom. For example, mentors are included in supporting an assignment that asks the prospective teachers to track student development in reading. Through discussions with the mentors, discussions on campus with the language arts methods instructors, and through working directly with students in a classroom to analyze the students as readers, the novice potentially learns to look at student development from a variety of perspectives. Whether the mentors embrace sources of knowledge other than experiences in the classroom will be examined. Classroom teachers as partners in guided practice As stated earlier, it is the classroom teacher who potentially has the greatest impact on the learning of a prospective teacher because of close interaction during teaching experiences. Research findings indicate that indeed cooperating teachers appear to have more influence on prospective teachers than university personnel (Bunting, 1988; Staton-Spicer and Darling, 1986; Staton and Hunt, 1992). Studies show that novices often adopt the values and habits of their cooperating teachers (Freibus, 1970; Seperson & Joyce, 1973; Zeichner, 1980). Because of the potential impact of the cooperating teacher on the learning of a novice, there could be rich rewards in this form of support in the field. However, studies have shown that often cooperating teachers are "unable or unwilling to provide analyses of their own or the student teacher’s teaching practice" (Staton and Hunt, 1992). Feedback provided by cooperating teachers typically focuses on ideas and activities that can be immediately useful in the classroom (Calderhead, 1988; Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann, 1987; Griffin, 1989; Livingston and Borko, 1989). Since cooperating teachers play a powerful role in shaping how and what novices learn about teaching, some university-based educators are becoming more interested in involving classroom teachers in teacher preparation programs (Cochran-Smith, 1991a, 1991b). It is heped that through this collaboration, both university and school experiences will become more valuable for prospective teachers. However, work with university and schools is complex, laden with assumptions about where knowledge and expertise are found. The way in which university-based teacher educators value and work with classroom teachers differs among teacher preparation programs. Collaborative work reveals assumptions about "the knowledge, language and expertise of school-based teachers relative to the knowledge, language and expertise of university-based teacher educators and researchers" (Cochran- Smith, 1991b). In addition, if university and school personnel are truly going to collaborate to improve teaching and teacher education, classroom teachers may need support in making a transition from classroom teacher to the role of school-based teacher educator (Clift and Say, 1988). Academic Learning university faculty are working to involve classroom teachers in constructing a role that asks them to guide and mentor rather than 10 to supervise novices. However, it is difficult both for university and school- based educators to break away from the traditional label and conception of "supervisor" which is laden with constraints. Traditionally, supervision implies evaluation and performance rather than modeling and learning together. The Academic Learning program is trying to create a model for mentors and novices that supports guided practice (for detailed definition see pg. 26) rather than supervision. According to Rosaen, many cooperating teachers believe that student teaching is a time to perform, to "show what you know" (Rosaen, 1991) about teaching. Within the Academic Learning program, mentors are encouraged to view prospective teachers as people who are learning to teach, who are using the student teaching experience as an opportunity to "examine your difficulties and learn from them" (Rosaen, 1991). Roth, the assistant coordinator for Academic Learning, also believes that by seeing teachers who model themselves as learners, novices receive a message that knowledge from different sources could be valued by practitioners as well as by university professors. The form of guided practice which the mentors and university faculty who work with novices embrace is based in part on how each person believes people learn. Academic Learning faculty have worked in varying degrees with the five mentors at Brown, and range from having little to a lot of interaction time with the mentors within which to voice their beliefs about learning. Since there has been little formal training for mentors in the Academic Learning program, the classroom teachers have in large part created their own conceptions of what it means to mentor. For example, one conception of guided practice as a way of helping novices learn to teach includes the premise that "guided practice should help the practitioner gain 11 deliberate control over his or her practice through active consideration of the connections between professional actions and purposes, and between theory and practice" (Ross, 1990, p. 43). This conception includes the view that learning is active and thoughtful, that there is value in consideration of various sources of knowledge, and that reflecting about purposes and practices is important. Through the study of five mentors at Brown PDS and how they construct their roles, views of learning, sources of knowledge and the role of reflection in helping novices learn to teach will be examined. PROBLEM STATEMENT Recent restructuring efforts have lead to the conceptualization of partnerships between area schools and universities in order to work together to enhance the contributions of field experiences, university experiences and the forms of guided practices provided for novices. These partnerships operate on the premise that both university and school-based educators have valuable knowledge to contribute to the preparation of teachers, and that the prospective teachers themselves play an integral role in constructing knowledge about teaching (see for example, Brainard, 1989; Joyce and Clift, 1984; Takacs and McArdle, 1984; Clift and Say, 1988; Holmes Group, 1990). An outcome of one effort to restructure teacher education has been the conceptualization of what is labeled a "Professional Development School" (Holmes Group, 1990). Professional Development School (PDS) sites were established in hopes of building partnerships between public schools and universities. Since part of the PDS vision includes the notion of university, school faculty and prospective teachers together building and developing the teacher education program, a Professional Development School is a viable place to study an effort to reform teacher education. In order to learn more about one of the reform propositions in practice, it is necessary to examine a 12 site where participants are attempting to restructure teacher education through a collaborative model. This study affords a unique opportunity to examine critical aspects of change in teacher education from participants who are directly involved and potentially influenced by this new wave of reform. Central actors involved within these "partnerships" are the classroom teachers. For years students have been placed in teachers' classrooms, with varying amounts of collaboration with university teacher educators about goals and expectations for the student teaching experience. It has been long known that classroom teachers are often the most influential players in prospective teachers' learning during student teaching. What classroom teachers do and ways they interact with prospective teachers play a powerful role in shaping novices' beliefs and practices. Since classroom teachers potentially have a tremendous impact on prospective teacher learning, it is important to try to understand how some classroom teachers who mentor novices during student teaching make sense of and enact their role. In addition, it is equally as important to understand from the perspectives of classroom teachers, if and how the classroom teachers define a vision of a school-based teacher educator within a Professional Development School. In order for change to occur in teacher education, active collaboration by the principal actors involved is imperative. This collaboration includes the classroom teacher. It is assumed that by assigning experienced teachers to work with novices in the field, that teachers have some sort of knowledge that will help prospective teachers learn. It is not an easy matter however, for experienced teachers to make what they know explicit and understandable. It may be difficult, without collaborative support and time for inquiry, for Classroom teachers to talk about their knowledge of teaching in ways that are helpful to the novice as they attempt critical analysis of practical issues and 13 dilemmas in teacher education. Reflection facilitates making implicit knowledge tangible to others and oneself. Reflection about teaching practice can allow prospective teachers access to the thoughts of experienced teachers. Reflection about teacher education, in addition, can provide classroom teachers with opportunities to think about teaching in a larger context than their own classroom. Research on teacher thinking has only begun to explore ways to help teachers make their knowledge and beliefs explicit, and the potential value of interactions with novices where teachers expose this knowledge. Although research is moving toward study of teachers as reflective professionals, little has been done yet to study or test models of reflection. Before the conception of Professional Development Schools, the Academic Learning teacher preparation program at Michigan State University developed a "Mentor Teacher Component" of the program in an effort to involve classroom teachers more extensively within teacher preparation. With the emergence of a Professional Development School as a site where some of the elementary student teachers would be placed, the program facultyfelt there was an opportunity to experiment with even more extensive involvement by the classroom teachers in teacher education roles. The Academic Learning teacher preparation university program faculty specifically state that their goal is to work within an environment where all participants are working to define and support a teacher education program that is constructed together by classroom teachers and university faculty. Within Brown Elementary, one of the Professional Development sites, there are five classroom teachers who are attempting to work in partnership to develop a "mutually constructed learning community" (Cochran-Smith 1991a) with university faculty and prospective teachers involved in the 14 Academic Learning Teacher Preparation Program. These teachers have indicated a commitment to teacher education, and a willingness to devote time for study, deliberation and practice in mentoring prospective teachers. The Professional Development School initiative puts forth as a fundamental goal that classroom teachers provide valuable voices in constructing teacher education experiences. If this view of the role of mentor is to work, teacher educators need to understand how to support teachers who attempt to enact this role. The main research question examined was: How do classroom teachers make sense of their role as mentors in support of novices as they learn to teach? In examining this question, three other themes arose from study of the five teachers. These themes symbolize how the mentors think about work with novices in the field during teacher preparation. The three themes were: views about learning, sources of knowledge and nature of reflection used to help novices learn to teach. Investigation of these issues led to the conceptualization of three additional questions for study: I) How do the mentors talk about their theories of how novices learn to teach? (views about learning) 2) How do the mentors use different sources of knowledge to help novices learn to teach? (sources of knowledge) 3) How do the mentors model and encourage critical reflection about issues and practices in teacher education? (nature of reflection) 15 THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY Academic Learning teacher preparation program The Academic Learning program is one of five teacher preparation programs at Michigan State University. The Academic Learning program focuses on preparation of elementary and secondary teachers who will support conceptual understanding of subject matter in schools (Feiman- Nemser, 1990). Primarily, the thrust of the Academic Learning program includes the ideas that knowledge is socially constructed, thus learners actively seek to create meaning through interaction with people and texts. The program also emphasizes the importance of understanding subject matter knowledge and multiple ways to represent subject matter to students (Amarel, 1988). Academic Learning mentor teacher component The Academic Learning teacher preparation program faculty conceptualized the mentor teacher component in 1985 (prior to working in a PDS) in efforts to encourage prospective teachers to see value in both knowledge sources gained from the university and the field, and to help mentors understand, to some extent, the philosophy and knowledge base of the teacher preparation program. According to Roth, Rosaen and Lanier, there was a problem that (1988), "students came to value the practical lessons learned from their cooperating teachers and to reject the conceptual change notions (of Academic Learning) as too idealistic for use in "real" classrooms (p. 3)." The program faculty wanted to encourage students and teachers to value sources of knowledge in both theory and practice. In order to achieve the more desirable outcome of helping novices weave sources of knowledge from university and field, Academic Learning program faculty began working to involve classroom teachers in an extensive 16 field-based component of teacher preparation. Program faculty believed that this meant creating a new role for classroom teachers. Instead of merely providing a classroom for prospective teachers to have their field-based experiences, mentor teachers were encouraged to study the Academic Learning Program goals and the research knowledge base, collaborate with Academic Learning faculty in design and revision of field assignments, and play an active role in guiding prospective teachers' work in the field. Mentors Within the Academic Learning teacher preparation program, prospective teachers are assigned to a mentor during the first term of their junior year. The novices remain with their mentor throughout the five terms of the teacher preparation program. It is long-term, regular contact with the mentor that is emphasized within the program, for faculty and teachers feel that more intensive interaction can be fostered when there is time for a continuous relationship to develop. During the novices' junior year, for example, mentors are involved with supporting field-based experiences in conjunction with campus-based courses in social studies, science and language arts methods (terms one through three). During the fall term of the novices' senior year (term four), mentors assist with a language arts practicum, which is a field-based experiences held two mornings per week for ten weeks. University field instructors work with the prospective teacher during the formal student teaching segment (term five), and are required to observe the novice five times within this term. The program is structured so that mentors and prospective teachers have the opportunity to develop a relationship over time and across subject areas. Within this format, mentors have opportunities to work with novices as they move through Academic Learning course content. Because the university instructors visit infrequently and enter the 17 site after the mentor and novice have established a relationship and routine, often much of the responsibility for learning to teach during field-based experiences lies with the mentor teacher rather than a university field instructor. Within the Academic Learning program, because the mentor and novice interact as they move through course work and field experiences together over a two year period, it is hoped that the nature of interaction between mentor and novice is educative. Academic Learning and mentoring in a Professional Development School The subjects selected for this study are five classroom teachers who work within a Professional Development School (PDS) and mentor prospective teachers enrolled in the Academic Learning Teacher Preparation Program. As participants in a PDS these educators have been provided opportunities and support for collaboration with university faculty to learn more about teaching and teacher education. For example, subjects are involved in research projects in collaboration with university faculty studying topics such as integrating subject matter and developmental curriculum, co-teaching methods courses on campus for prospective teachers, including social studies and language arts methods, and presenting research findings at national conferences, such as AERA (American Educational Research Association) and IRA (International Reading Association). The five teachers, along with twenty other classroom teachers from elementary schools surrounding the university, are involved within the 1990- 1992 group- of the Academic Learning teacher preparation program's mentor teacher component. A mentor, according to the Academic Learning Program Faculty, is one who can assist prospective teachers in linking university subject matter and theoretical learnings with more practical kinds of 18 knowledge learned in the field (Roth, Rosaen, and Lanier, 1988). This study The Academic Learning elementary program is six terms long, beginning with the student's junior year. This study takes place during terms four and five of the six term teacher preparation program. Specifically, this study will focus on interactions between the mentors and prospective teachers in conjunction with the planning, teaching and evaluating of language arts. The language arts methods course included within the Academic Learning curriculum is taught during the third and fourth terms of the program. As part of the language arts methods class held during the third term, prospective teachers on two occasions worked in their mentor's classroom with small groups of elementary or middle school students. The first assignment asked prospective teachers to talk with children about their aesthetic response to text, and to analyze the interaction. The second assignment asked for prospective teachers to conduct a reading sample with children. The reading sample focused more on skills and strategies children use to make sense of text, whereas the aesthetic response interview focused primarily on student enjoyment and appreciation of literature. The primary focus of this term of the course is on reading and discussing theoretical issues involved in the teaching of reading and writing within a literature-based classroom. During this term, the university-based part of the language arts methods course meets on campus twice per week. During the fourth term of the Academic Learning program, prospective teachers complete a language arts practicum where class is held at the university one day per week, and field-based work occurs in the mentor's classroom two days per week. During this term, prospective teachers develop a unit of instruction in language arts and teach a portion of this unit in the 19 classroom. The fifth term of the Academic Learning program is designated for full time student teaching. Prospective teachers are required to be in their mentors' classrooms for the full school day for a ten week period. During this time, prospective teachers create and teach units of instruction for all subjects. This investigation will focus on mentors' work with prospective teachers in the study and teaching of language arts during the fourth and fifth terms of the Academic Learning program. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE While other subject matter are taught and practiced within the Academic Learning program's university and field-based components, this study will focus exclusively with mentors in their work with prospective teachers in the study and teaching of language arts. This is not to dismiss the importance of the teaching and learning of other subject matter, but to focus the study in order to gain a more in-depth perspective on the question being investigated. In addition, while this study will focus on the mentor teachers who work within a Professional Development School context, data from university faculty and prospective teachers who also work at this site will be used to clarify issues of context and content of interactions. The primary purpose of this study is to describe and analyze how classroom teachers make sense of their role as mentors in a Professional Development School context. Secondary goals of this study are to investigate 1) the knowledge and beliefs which guide the mentors' work with prospective teachers; 2) the process and content of reflective practice and; 3) the training and support of mentors. Following are the questions which guide this research. 20 RESEARCH QUESTIONS How do classroom teachers make sense of their role as mentors in support of novices as they learn to teach? I ) How do the mentors talk about their theories of how novices learn to teach? (views about learning) 2) How do the mentors use different sources of knowledge to help novices learn to teach? (sources of knowledge) 3) How do the mentors model and encourage critical reflection about issues and practices in teacher education? (nature of reflection) DEFINITION OF TERMS In order to provide a clear framework for this dissertation, the following terms will be defined: Professional Development School, Academic Learning teacher preparation program, Academic Learning mentor teacher component, mentor teacher, prospective teacher, reflection and guided Practice. Professional Development School - Reform efforts initiated by the Holmes Group (1986,1990) have lead to the conception of Professional Development Schools (PDS). The philosophy of these schools centers around collaboration and mutual benefits for Participants in both universities and public schools. A goal of PDS work is to Create learning communities where there is intersubjectivity. Ideally, PDS cult“res would establish discourse communities where members are co-equal and knowledge is mutually constructed. As stated in W, "Inquiry in the Professional Development School should be a way for teachers, administrators, and professors to come together on equal footing. It should help forge a shared professional identity in schools and universities. And it should serve as a professional norm around which collaboration can take place, bringing together the many parties who are concerned for improving schools (Holmes Group, 1990, p. 60)." 21 Collaboration, however is not a natural part of the school culture. A problem which has plagued education throughout the years is teacher isolation. Isolation encourages teachers to keep their wisdom tacit. Within the Professional Development School model, classroom teachers are afforded time and opportunities to talk publicly about ideas and dilemmas. Classroom teachers need to be encouraged by colleagues, public school administration, and university faculty that teachers have a critical role in preparing teachers and advancing teaching. The Holmes Group (1990) uses an analogy of medical school faculty and hospital staff overlapping and interacting in multiple ways to help clarify the ideal. As the Holmes Group states, "We need the Professional Development School and the parity relationship because the university needs experienced, wise teachers to help us revise the curriculum of education studies. If we don't do that, the Professional Development School is only a clinical setting" (Holmes Group, 1990, p. 82). Central to the conception of these schools is the notion that university and school-based personnel together grapple with questions which arise out of Praetice, and experiment with new approaches to teaching and learning. Incorporated with the definition of a Professional Development School is the nOtion that: "we can create ambitious learning communities of teachers and students that are at the same time centers of continuing, mutual learning and inquiry by prospective teachers, experienced teachers, administrators, and education and liberal arts professors. We think our efforts to build inquiry into such coalitions and to do this over time are in fact something new under the reform sun" (Holmes Group, 1990, p. 3). This study takes places within Brown Elementary Professional Dev'P—lopment School (grades K-5). Brown Elementary and Michigan State UniVersity's College of Education forged a partnership in 1988 which focused on using research-based knowledge to improve elementary school teaching and learning (Rosaen and Hoekwater, 1990). The mission statement of Brown- 22 MSU Professional Development school was created collaboratively by public school and university faculty in 1989. It reads: "The mission of [Brown] -MSU Professional Development School is to provide students, prospective teachers, and practicing educators opportunities to use learned knowledge to interpret new situations, to solve problems, to think and reason and build new knowledge structures. Professionals at [Brown] School and Michigan State University working together as a community of learners will create an equitable learning environment that will promote educational growth and development as lifelong processes. To achieve these goals in meaningful ways will require creative thinking about organizational structures and professional roles. Collaborative study will permit developing deeper understanding of persisting educational problems and fostering open and inquisitive thinking. This collaborative relationship is based on mutual respect and appreciation for the expertise of all concerned in an effort to build an exemplary educational extension network for the 21st century." Academic Learning Teacher Preparation Program The Academic Learning Teacher Preparation Program is one of four thematic programs in teacher education at Michigan State University. Each of the four thematic programs focus on a specific aspect of teaching, such as subjfict matter teaching, decision-making in teaching, reaching diverse 1“filters or the social context of teaching and learning. The theme of the Academic Learning program is subject matter teaching. In addition to specific th9111atic emphases, each of the four thematic programs also devotes emphasis to developing dispositions within prospective teachers to be lifelong learners and reflective practitioners. The Academic Learning program goal is to guide prospective teachers to cull)l‘ace a model of teaching that encourages conceptual understanding of subject matter. According to Roth, Rosaen and Lanier (1988), there are four curricular themes which are central to the Academic Learning program: "(a) helping students adopt a constructivist view of learners who construct their own understandings of subject matter knowledge, and whose prior knowledge and experience influence their interpretations of instruction (Magoon, 1977; Davis, 1981; Posner et al., 1982) ; (b) helping students develop knowledge of effective strategies and 23 appropriate learning environments for conceptual change teaching that will promote conceptual understanding; (c) helping students develop an understanding of the need for rich subject matter knowledge (Brunet, 1960/1982; Schwab, 1978) that includes knowledge of the structures of the disciplines, the functions of knowledge in subject areas, and the nature of inquiry and knowledge growth in the disciplines; and (d) helping these prospective teachers adopt a view of learning to teach as an on-going process that requires continued study and reflections on teaching experience Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Schon, 1983)" (Roth, Rosaen and Lanier, 1988, p. 7). Prospective teachers within Academic Learning are encouraged to think critically about different sources of knowledge, both from research and from teaching practice. According to Roth, Rosaen and Lanier (1988), prospective teachers need to "understand both worlds of knowledge and learn to intertwine the two in order to decide on wise, defensible teaching actions" (p. 13). The Academic Learning Mentor Teacher Component In efforts to bridge the gap between theory and practice, the Mentor Teacher Project2 was designed in 1985, piloted in 1987, revised in 1988, and now has become a regular component of the Academic Learning program. One goal of the Mentor Teacher Component, in addition to incorporating course Work knowledge in interactions with prospective teachers, is for mentors to Share their wisdom of practice. The particulars of this "wisdom" include Practical knowledge about students, curriculum, management strategies and coIltext (Roth, Rosaen and Lanier, 1988). A mentor, as defined by program faculty within Academic Learning, is one who supports a prospective teacher in linking university-learned subject Infitter and field-learned practical knowledge. Prospective teachers are placed with a mentor teacher for two years, in order to establish consistency and lollgevity in a field-based experience. With the conception of the Mentor Teacher Project in 1985, Academic Learning faculty worked to achieve this \ 2The word “project' has now been replaced by "oomponent'. i 24 goal by adopting what Cochran-Smith (1990) calls a consonance model. A l consonance model stresses the importance of having agreement between I theory and practice, along with means to articulate this agreement among university and school faculty. However, consonance is often achieved by imposing university standards for the knowledge believed important for prOSpective teachers to learn (McNergney, Lloyd, Mintz and Moore, 1988). As Cochran-Smith (1990) said: "Although teacher educators in this group {consonance} claim to combine "knowledge-based empirical research" with "knowledge that comes from practical experience", the fact is that they train experienced teachers by constructing for them both their knowledge (that is, what they ought to see when they look at and think about the classroom) and the language used to describe it (that is, the words and phrases they ought to use to talk about teaching)" (p.4.). There is a model, described by Cochran-Smith which comes closer to the vision 0f the Professional Development School called the synergy model (Cochran- Smith, 1991a). Within the synergy model, the goal is: "to link the school and university portions of preservice preparation through mutually-constructed learning communities in which all participants, whether student teachers, cooperating teachers, supervisors or course instructors, function as both learners and teachers" (Cochran-Smith, 1990; p.7). When the mentor teacher project began in 1985, Academic Learning program faculty found themselves originally leaning more toward a conSonance model. Even with mentor meetings twice per term, there did not seem to be enough opportunities to actually get the classroom teachers to take on a significant role in creating and supporting field experiences. Because of 0Pportunities which arose with the conception of the Professional DeVelopment Schools, the Academic Learning program faculty are making a collcerted effort to move toward a more synergistic model. Academic Learning fac3lllty feel that currently within the Brown Elementary PDS site, there is an ~ 25 opportunity with extra time and support to experiment with the mentor teacher model in a new context that has potential for more synergistic goals. Prospective teacher- A prospective teacher refers to an undergraduate student who is working on a degree in teacher education. Candidates for teaching are referred to within this text as "novices" or "prospective" teachers, for they are learning to teach in a university teacher preparation program which combines work at the university and work in the field. Mentor teacher- A mentor refers to a classroom teacher who agrees to work with a pI'OSpective teacher over a two year period of time within the Academic Learning Teacher Preparation program. A mentor, according to Academic Learning faculty, is one who supports prospective teachers in seeing value in both knowledge which comes from theory and knowledge which comes from Practice. Mentors are selected by the following criteria: 1) the teacher's Commitment to teacher education; 2) the teacher's openness to learning about educational research and Academic Learning program goals and willingness ‘0 support Academic Learning students; and 3) teachers with adequate time to devOte to prospective teachers. The classroom teachers were recommended by the university faculty, principals, colleagues, and self-nomination. Each candidate filled out an application, was interviewed, and approved by the Principal before accepted (Roth, Rosaen and Lanier, 1988). Reflection- The practitioner who is reflective can take herself out of a situation, c0Ilsider that she has to construct an answer in the moment, and draw Simultaneously on sources of knowledge and experience. As Argyris, Putnam “Id Smith (1985) state, "this reflection-in-action is a way of making explicit 26 some of the tacit knowledge embedded in action so that the agent can figure out what to do differently." The construct of reflection will be examined on two levels for this study: 1) the ability to be reflective about the mentor's own teaching practice to make her knowledge accessible to the novice and 2) the ability to be reflective about the mentor's work in preparing a novice for the practice of teaching. 'Guided practice Guided practice is the form of interaction which Academic Learning advocates. Guided practice differs from the traditional connotation of supervision. The nature of supervision implies that one is evaluator who is JUdging the performance of another. Guided practice is more consistent with Academic Learning's definition of mentor as a guide who models continual learning and thinking about problems of practice. Within this conception, guided practice has a reflective dimension. The mentor or guide tries to help the novice actively consider various perspectives in order to make inStructional choices. As Ross (1990) stated, guided practice should "help n(Nice teachers learn how to think about teaching in ways that enable them to make rational and ethical choices and to accept responsibility for those ChOices" (p. 43). SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY ' This study has potential value for both classroom teachers and university teacher educators. The significance of this research lies in the fact that the study simultaneously explores several areas which hold promise for it“Proving the preparation of teachers. Specifically the study 1) inquires into how these mentors think about their role in helping prospective teachers lEarn about teaching; 2) focuses on classroom teachers as school-based teacher edIlcators working within a Professional Development School context to weave 27 together sources of theory and practice; and 3) investigates the content of classroom teachers' reflection about their work with prospective teachers. The experienced teacher potentially brings to a learning situation a wealth of practical knowledge which is constantly growing based on on- going, daily, current experience within the classroom. In the past, investigations have primarily focused on understanding the discourse, knowledge and beliefs of prospective teachers and university field instructors (Putnam, et al, 1988; Zeichner and Tabachnick, 1982; Zeichner and Liston, 1985). However, little literature has focused on understanding classroom teachers' work with prospective teachers (Carter, 1988; Feiman-Nemser, 1992; Little, 1990). By examining what knowledge mentors draw upon, and how they Proceed in their work with prospective teachers, it will be possible to document information that could be helpful in both educating and supporting mentor teachers. METHODOLOGY In order to capture the mentors' perspectives about their role in helping novices learn to teach, this research study iwill draw on data collected thl’Ough interviews, stimulated recalls and observations. These qualitative data sources allow for access into teacher thinking and teacher knowledge. Qufllitative design allows for systematic inquiry within a natural setting. This res(tarch focuses on studying the meanings in action of the actors involved. The data collected was analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This method allowed for comparison across the subjects for the purpose of understanding one subject in light of another. From the data, deSCriptive categories evolved, which synthesized the major themes of the pal‘ticipants' words. Data reporting and analysis combines the use of cases, freQuency counts, and visual representations to describe and analyze how five 28 classroom teachers make sense of their role as mentors in support of helping novices learn to teach. OVERVIEW OF THE DISSERTATION The chapters of the dissertation which follow are arranged in the following fashion: Chapter 11 presents a review of the literature relevant to this study; Chapter III presents a richer description of the context of the study from the perspective of participants who helped to conceptualize the Academic Learning mentor teacher component and Brown Professional Development School; Chapter IV presents the design and methodology of the study, including a description of the design, participants in the study, procedures used to collect data, and the methods of data analysis; Chapter V presents the findings related to a description and analysis of how five classroom teachers make sense of their role as mentors in support of helping novices learn to teach; Chapter VI presents implications this study may have for future restructuring efforts in teacher education which seek active involvement from classroom teachers. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of the literature relevant to problems and issues introduced within the first chapter. The review of literature will be organized around the aims of this research, which include becoming better informed about the ways which classroom teachers as school-based educators in a Professional Development School make sense of their role; how mentors use beliefs about learning and sources of knowledge to help prospective teachers learn about teaching; and the nature of reflection fostered by university. faculty and classroom teachers in university and field- based experiences. In order to pursue these goals, the literature review will be divided into three sections. The first section of the review will describe the theoretical framework, including literature on social constructivism, teacher thought and reflection. Second, literature about teacher preparation and field experiences will be explored. Third, a review of the literature on forms of guided practice during field-based experiences will be provided. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The context of many teacher preparation programs today focus on a constructivist orientation which views a teacher as a reflective professional. This differs from earlier reliance on behaviorist views of teachers as technicians, and information processing views of teachers as decision makers. Since many university educators are now advocating approaching teaching and learning from a constructivist perspective, it is possible that classroom teachers might also come to embrace this theoretical framework in support of students' and prospective teachers' learning. In order to understand the theoretical framework which guides this dissertation, literature on behaviorist, information processing and social constructivist theories of 29 ‘\_ 30 learning, teacher thought and reflection will be examined. Many classroom teachers have limited exposure to more innovative preparation programs (Goodman, 1986) which emphasize the social constructivist view of learning and teaching. In addition, despite university preparation which is grounded in the theoretical framework of social constructivism, prospective teachers are not typically supported by university professors or classroom teachers in the development of critical, reflective dispositions which could transfer to a classroom context (Livingston & Borko, 1989). Since both prospective and experienced teachers often feel ill-prepared to talk about and critique theories about teaching and learning, research findings indicate that prospective teachers abandon the more liberal notions proposed in the university for the more conservative practices in schools. (Goodman, 1985, Tabachnick, Popkewitz & Zeichner, 1979-80). The behaviorist view of learning Behaviorist theories of learning are concerned more with how behavior, rather than knowledge, is acquired. According to Phillips and Soltis (1991), "to the behaviorists, learning was a process of expanding the behavioral repertoire, not a matter of expanding the ideas in the learner's mind. (Mind, after all, was a subjective and nonpublicly observable entity, and thus had to be avoided by science)" (p.23). The focus of behaviorism is placed not on how one learns and understands an idea, but how he/she can be lead to behave in a way that leads to performance of a task. The behaviorist model focuses on observable, objective and public data, and "...the private world within the skin is not clearly observed or known" (Skinner, 1974, p.31). Watson (1924) argued that psychology deal only with observable, scientific behavior in order to be accepted as an objective science. That which was observable, according to psychologists at this time, was hehayjoL(Schunk, 31 1991). Experiences and ideas that lie in a learner's mind, according to behaviorism, are not relevant. Skinner has written several texts which apply behaviorist views to teaching. For example, his 1968 book The Technology of Teaching focuses on how principles of behaviorism can help instruction and motivation. According to behaviorists a teacher is viewed as a technician, whose job is to shape student behavior to reach certain objectives. "Teaching is simply the arrangement of contingencies of reinforcement" (Skinner, 1968, p. 5). The behaviorist view has been challenged by many, including Phillips and Soltis (1991) who ask, "Are the events taking place in the mind of the learner of no relevance to the psychologist, and perhaps even more importantly, are they of no relevance to the work of the teacher?" (p.30). The Information Processing view of learning Another perspective in learning also emerged within the twentieth century. Where the behaviorists viewed teachers as technicians, the information processing psychologists viewed teachers as decision makers. Information processing theories are concerned with how one attends to, encodes, stores and decodes information. Advances in communication and computer technology influenced the information processing theories, for according to this view, functions of a computer (receiving, storing and retrieving information) are similar to the functions of humans (Schunk, 1991). Even though information processing theories are concerned with communication, one of the criticisms is that the theories do not help people to understand everyday communication in all its complexity and with all of its personal meanings (Conant, 1979; Littlejohn, 1983).. Contrary to behaviorism, information processing researchers do focus on the internal processes involved in decision making. In fact, the 32 information processing theories view teachers as decision makers. Shavelson (1973) said: "Any teaching act is the result of a decision, whether conscious or unconscious, that the teacher makes after the complex cognitive processing of available information. This reasoning leads to the hypothesis that the basic teaching skill is decision making" (p.18). The information processing theories have acknowledged the value of how the mind makes decisions. Yet, within the information processing view, the root metaphor is a computer, with the notion that thinking is computational. In contrast, the social constructivist theory holds as its root metaphor a conversation, where thinking is dialogic (Gavelek, 1992). The social constructivist view of learning Within the context of this study, Academic Learning program faculty are working to remedy the problem of disparity between learning models promoted within traditional preparation programs by introducing both classroom and prospective teachers to the social constructivist view of learning and teaching. This View is advocated by the program as a way to conceptualize learning and teaching. Social constructivism is grounded in the premise that people understand and act upon the world by interacting with others. This perspective is rooted within a socio-historical context, where learning is affected by construction of meaning based on perspectives which participants bring to a particular experience. Consistent with the social constructivist approach is the idea that learners play an active role in making sense and shaping their environment. According to D. Barnes (1979), Bruner (1960/1982), and Vygotsky (1978) learners make sense of new knowledge based on their prior knowledge. Meaning is constructed and in constant evolution, and involves a continual process where learners re-define knowledge as they are influenced by 33 past/present experiences, their context, and interaction with other individuals. The social context, then, influences what and how an individual learns (Erickson, 1982). Vygotsky (1978) describes this evolution on two planes; the interpsychological plane (social interaction between individuals) and intrapsychological plane (within an individual). Central to this theory is the idea that activities of school and home over the years are internalized to form an individual. The cycle of individual development begins with social interaction, including both written and spoken dialogue. Interactions lead to internalization of ideas, which in turn result in the formation of new mental structures (Davydov & Zinchenko, 1989). These mental structures are transformed within the individual as a private activity before they are then publicized and available for social discourse again (Vygotsky, 1978). Interactions facilitate the process of making implicit knowledge visible. Dialogue and coaching help participants unpack and discover meaning. Through interaction, participants begin to reveal the knowledge that was held in the intrapsychological plane, making that knowledge available on a interpsychological plane. The vehicles used to mediate our sense-making during interactions are language (or some sign system) and thought. Social constructivists advocate that learners use tools and language in order to develop more s0phisticated thought processes (Wertsch, 1985). Butt (1989) summarizes the relationship of language and thought as: "language always involves thought: thought is inherent in the very structure of the sign; similarly, one cannot conceive of thought except in the terms of a semiotic system - a community, public, system for meaning. So we might express it thus: Language ---------- Thought" (p.28). Butt (1989) claims that language is a tool used to help an individual understand him/herself. Through communication, a person builds his/her 34 sense of self, including beliefs, knowledge and skills (Laing, 1969; Littlejohn, 1983; McCall, 1987). These thoughts are affected, altered and/or maintained through subsequent interactions with texts, people and the environment. "The individual sense-making that goes on in a learning situation arises out of a social context that contributes to the meaning the learner constructs" (Rosaen, 1987, p.14). According to Campione, Brown, Ferrara & Bryant (1984), interaction with a more knowledgeable person facilitates internalization of more sophisticated thought processes. Consistent with this model, the more knowledgeable person supports the learner in movement through the zone of proximal deveIOpment. Within this zone, learners are moved from a place where assistance is necessary to a place where problems can be solved independently. Further, social constructivists posit that peOple internalize implicit theories about the world through interactions with others. Hidden voices are consulted frequently in attempts to make sense out of experiences. Through gradual internalization of ideas from exposure to different contexts (e.g. the classroom, the school) and interactions with individuals associated with these contexts (e.g. the students, colleagues, administrators, parents) people form beliefs, values and knowledge which drive their participation in a culture. People learn standards for appropriate behavior, role expectations, power, and develop shared meanings for verbal and nonverbal communication (Rommetviet, 1980; Swales, 1990; Wertsch 1990). Within the social sciences, scholars are beginning to see the value of considering the "meanings of actions for the participants worthy of scientific explication" (Rommetveit, 1980). Consistent with the social constructivist perspective, researchers interested in pursuing inquiry framed within a social constructivist perspective need to examine 1) participants as they 35 interact with their context (in this case, how classroom teachers help prospective teachers learn about literacy instruction) and 2) what implicit theories guide participants' visions of their role (in this case, a classroom teacher's role as mentor to a prospective teacher). According to this view of learning, a researcher cannot simply study an individual, but needs to understand the individual in interaction with others within the context in which a certain role is being enacted. Teacher Thought As described within the previous section, scholars have relied on various metaphors to describe the cognitive work involved in the practice of teaching. These metaphors emerged in parallel with a shift away from a behaviorist orientation which viewed the teacher as "technician" to an information processing orientation which viewed the teacher as "decision- maker" toward the current constructivist orientation which views the teacher as a "reflective professional" (Clark & Peterson, 1986). The social constructivist view values the role of thought and hidden voices which inform this thought in teaching and learning. The shift from a focus on behavior to a focus on cognition lead to the exploration of teachers' implicit theories. Lee Shulman, in a meeting of the National Institute of Education (1974) claimed that "it will be necessary for any innovation in the context, practices and technology of teaching to be mediated through the minds and motives of teachers." Building upon this idea, according to Vitz (1990), "moral deliberation is usually a social not a solitary process. Even when one deliberates alone, moral reflection is often an internalized conversation among the various voices of one's conscience..." (p.715). This internal dialogue with the voices of one's mind is also social in nature. Since social constructivists value thought as an 7__fi— 36 integral part to construction of reality, there have been more efforts to examine the internal dialogues of teachers. Research on what has been labeled "implicit theories" (Clark and Peterson, 1986) continues to develop as researchers gain a deeper understanding of the role of social interaction in making the invisible visible. The first studies of this sort were efforts to probe the implicit theories of an individual teacher through methods that focused on the individual. Currently, the focus seems to be shifting to examine how individual teachers make their knowledge and beliefs explicit through interaction. Investigations now include efforts to view teachers' conversations as means to getting closer to identifying teachers' beliefs and knowledge (Witherell & Noddings, 1991). Consistent with the current metaphor which describes teachers as "reflective professionals", Clark and Peterson (1986) believe that reflective practitioners would be ones who have taken steps toward making explicit their implicit theories and beliefs about learners, curriculum, subject matter and the teachers' role. Clark and Peterson (1986) say that reflective practitioners would: "Reflect on and analyze the apparent effects of their own teaching and apply the results of these reflections to their future plans and actions" (p.292). This conception of reflection is similar to the work of Schon (1983, 1987). Although research is growing in the area of teacher thinking, there has been little effort to study or test models of reflection empirically (Calderhead, 1989). The process of reflection, according to Schon's (1987) model, involves the ability to make implicit theories, knowledge and beliefs explicit. What has not been studied, is the content of these reflections. Nor has the notion of a "reflective" mentor been examined. A possible conception of a reflective mentor could be one who has the capacity to explain what she knows and how she came to know this substance of knowledge about the 37 practice of teaching. A reflective mentor could also talk about how she uses her knowledge to help a prospective teacher learn to teach. Reflection Reflection is a construct which is becoming increasingly popular in the field of teacher education (Calderhead, 1989; Zeichner, 1990; Zeichner & Liston, 1990). Although teacher education programs use the word reflection in their programs, there is very little shared meaning about what this construct means. In addition, "there appears to be even less agreement about what characterizes the content of reflective inquiry and on what kinds of contexts tend to foster such a process" (Grimmett, 1988, p. 6). However, teacher educators do to agree that this construct called reflection is worthy of inclusion within teacher preparation. Emphasis on reflection in teacher education indicates an effort to provide preparation experiences which involve critical analysis and meaningful deliberation about issues and practices in schools (Denton, 1983; Erdman, 1983). One example of efforts to make this construct concrete comes from Zeichner and Liston (1987) who claim that field experiences should support prospective teachers "to reflect on the origins, purposes and consequences of their actions, as well as on the material and ideological constraints and encouragements embedded in the classroom, school, and societal contexts in which they work" (p.23). Another example comes from Valverde (1982) who believes that reflection includes examination of "situation, behavior, practices, effectiveness, and accomplishments" (p. 86). Reflection, according to Valverde, calls for a subject to ask questions such as, 'What am I doing, and why?’ According to Schon [(1987), reflection includes the ability to think critically about issues of teaching practice instead of relying solely on technical knowledge to guide actions. In order to facilitate the development of 38 a reflective disposition, Dewey (1916) suggests that situations need to be created for prospective teachers that provoke reflection. These situations can evolve from the act of teaching, where "rather than behaving purely according to impulse, tradition, and authority, teachers can be reflective-- they can deliberate on their actions with open-mindedness, wholeheartedness, and intellectual responsibility" (Cruickshank, 1987, p. 8). One of the most widely relied upon models of reflection is that developed by Schon (1983, 1987) whose ideas were inspired by Dewey. The works of Schon and Dewey will be used as a beginning frame to study how the five mentors work in a Professional Development School context with prospective teachers. The drawback of most models of reflection is that the process of reflection gains more attention than what the content of reflections should include. Building upon Schon's more process-oriented framework, the purpose of this research is to examine the content of reflections as well. M31 According to Dewey (1933), reflection arises when a person is deliberating about choices within a situation. Wrestling with feelings of uncertainty, surprise and doubt often leads to reflection. Dewey's conception of reflection includes "active persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it and the further consequences to which it leads" (Dewey, 1933, p. 9). Dewey maintains that reflection helps practitioners "know what we are about when we act" (Dewey, 1933, p. 17). According to Dewey, developing a reflective disposition requires one to acquire attitudes of open-mindedness and wholeheartedness, and skills of reasoning (Calderhead, 1989). Dewey distinguishes reflection from behavior or information 39 processing theories, and points toward a constructivist view of knowledge. Grimmett (1988) describes Dewey's orientation toward reflection as enabling "reflection to stretch the mind beyond more information towards the accumulation of wisdom. The acquisition and storing of information does not require reflection; rather, it draws heavily on memory. Transforming such information into knowledge...is the hallmark of reflection and wisdom is its fruit. Such wisdom causes thoughtful persons to be heedful, circumspect, and given to scrutiny rather than rash, unwary, and perfunctory" (p.7). Dewey's description of reflection has helped educators clarify differences between reflective and routine action. Reflective teachers are able to deliberate about their actions, rather than acting on impulse and tradition (Cruickshank, 1987). Dewey's definition, however, eludes the question of content of reflections. As Zeichner and Liston (1990) say: "After we have agreed that thoughtful teachers who reflect in and on action, are more desirable than thoughtless teachers who are ruled by tradition, authority, and circumstance, there are still many unanswered questions" (p. 24). Schon Schon builds upon the work of Dewey and grounds the construct of reflection within a constructivist view of learning. Other voices from which Schon builds his thinking include Vygotsky and Wittgenstein, both advocates of constructivist theories (Schon, 1988). Schon is concerned with reflection as the reorganization or reconstruction of experience (Grimmett, 1988). As participants are engaged in the reconstruction of experience, Schon believes they will begin to articulate theories of knowing that had previously been held implicit. While Schon emphasizes the significance of tacit knowledge, Shulman (1988) takes the importance of what is tacit one step further. Shulman argues that teacher education programs need to be concerned with supporting teachers in making the tacit explicit. He also 40 argues that the content of reflection include both matters of practical experiences and synthesis from theories. "Teachers will become better educators when they can begin to have explicit answers to the questions, "How do I know what I know? How do I know the reasons for what I do? Why do I ask my students to perform or think in particular ways?" The capacity to answer such questions not only lies at the heart of what we mean by becoming skilled as a teacher; it also requires a combining of reflection on practical experience and reflection on theoretical understanding" (Shulman, 1988, p. 33). According to Schon, many practitioners realize that real-world problems of practice are not always structured, easily definable or able to be systematically solved. Rather, real world problems are "messy, indeterminate situations" (Schon, 1987). In order to frame a "messy" problem, reflective practitioners draw on their practical knowledge, use this knowledge to select what in the current situation they will attend to, organize this prior and in- action knowledge, and select a way to act. This is called reflection-in-action. Teachers who are reflective have the capacity to use improvisation within a teaching moment, framing, reflecting and acting within the situation at hand. It is these zones of practice, which include complexity, uncertainty and uniqueness that "escape the canons of technical rationality" (Schon, 1987). Schon (1987) argues that preparation for professional work in many cases comes from being immersed in the practice of doing. This learning by doing, according to Schon, includes active involvement by a "coach" (the term used in this study for this participant is "mentor") that focuses on developing the ability within novices to problem solve and analyze their own learning. Schon says: "Through advice, criticism, description, demonstration, and questioning, one person helps another learn to practice reflective teaching in the context of doing. And one does so through the Hall of Mirrors: demonstrating reflective teaching in the very process of trying to help the other learn to do it" (Schon, 1988, p. 19). 41 Schon (1987) advocates use of the reflective practicum to help prepare novices for the "complex and unpredictable problems of practice." He believes that novices need to develop the capacity to be reflective before they are able to wisely take action in cases where established theories do not apply. The idealized view of a dialogue between the mentor and the novice within a reflective practicum includes several stages. First, the mentor tries to understand what the novice already knows and where the novice is encountering difficulties. Based on this information, the mentor can then demonstrate some aspects of teaching which the mentor thinks the novice needs to learn. The mentor manages this task by first offering herself as a model to be imitated. Then, the mentor asks questions, and offers instructions, advice and/or criticism. During the episodes of demonstration, the mentor is modeling reflection-in-action. After demonstrations by the mentor, the novice tries to analyze the mentor's demonstrations, and then applies what she has learned to further teaching experiences. Through dialogues with the mentor and through the action of teaching, the novice illustrates what sense she has made of the mentor's demonstration. If successful, both the mentor and the novice become conversant in reflection-in-action. In order for this to be possible, the mentor needs to have established some criteria of what competent teaching looks like, in order to guide the novice to this level of achievement. Wm; Schon has been criticized for portraying technical and reflective work as dichotomous (Shulman, 1988). Shulman cautions that teachers do not typically fall into neat, extreme groups who advocate only technical means of 42 teaching or reflective measures. "Indeed, most teachers are capable of teaching in a way that combines the technical and the reflective, the theoretical and practical, the universal and the concrete that Schon so eloquently seeks" (Shulman, 1988, p.33). In order for reflective practicums between prospective and mentor teachers to work in a way consistent with the conceptualization of reflection outlined above, several factors need to be in place. The purpose of a reflective practicum is to support a prospective teacher in developing the capacity and habit of reflecting on teaching actions. This disposition, once internalized, could then allow the novice to begin reflecting in action, during the teaching moment. An important question to be raised, then, is, who is to coach the prospective teachers? Since university faculty typically only visit prospective teachers a handful of times, the logical "coach" is the c00perating teacher (Gilliss, 1988). But what characteristics should these c00perating teachers hold, and who will support the development of these characteristics? According to MacKinnon and Erickson (1988): "the most important condition is to be found in the ability of the supervisor to articulate and demonstrate a coherent perspective of teaching practice. This means that supervisors also must be able and willing to reflect on their own practice as well as that of the student and try to make explicit some of the underlying beliefs and principles ...that directs their own practice" (p. 133). A final question to consider is that of content of reflections. As university faculty, classroom teachers and prospective teachers are encouraged to reflect, a clear focus for what kind of reflection is desirable needs to be in place. Is all reflection counted as wise reflection? Or is some reflection more likely to lead to critical analysis of teaching episodes and theoretical understandings? The next sections of the literature review will examine the nature of 1) 43 teacher preparation programs and student teaching and 2) forms of guided practice provided during the student teaching experience. The section will focus on what field experiences and university preparation can contribute to teacher education. This literature will be examined in order to highlight issues about the nature, contributions and possible inadequacies of teacher preparation and field experiences. TEACHER PREPARATION AND FIELD EXPERIENCES Within this section, literature regarding teacher preparation and field experiences will be examined. Teacher preparation programs historically contain field-based experiences, affording prospective teachers opportunities (in varying degrees depending on the program) to spend time within a school setting prior to student teaching. Many prospective teachers view time in the field, including student teaching, as the place where learning of teaching occurs (Clark, 1988; Evertson, 1990; Koerner, 1992). Concern remains whether the nature of field—based experiences actually support development of teachers who are thoughtful and critical about teaching and the context surrounding teaching practice (Zeichner, 1987), or whether field experiences contribute to more passive acceptance of existing norms and strategies of classroom teaching (Goodman, 1986). Few experienced or prospective teachers will deny the value of field- based experiences in teacher education programs. Time in the field is acknowledged for providing teachers with practical skills necessary for teaching. How much time in the field is necessary and desirable remains a dilemma. In addition to the issue of duration, questions have been raised about the substance of field experiences. According to Lortie (1975) and Jackson (1968), prospective teachers often conclude through field experiences that teaching is learned through trial and error rather than through critical 44 reflection using a variety of sources including theory and experience. Researchers argue that field experiences often have limited value because prospective teachers are not adequately prepared by the university to learn from time in the field (Lanier & Little, 1986; Tabachnick et al., 1979-80). Finally, instructional support during field experiences has historically been inadequate. University instructors visit schools infrequently, and classroom teachers are rarely given time or training (Hart, 1989; Richardson-Koehler, 1988). Recent restructuring efforts (Carnegie 1986; Holmes, 1990) are studying and working to change the four problems in teacher preparation outlined above which will be examined within this portion of the literature review: 1) the duration of field-based experiences, 2) the composition of field-based experiences, 3) the value of university coursework and 4) the forms of guided practice provided in field-based experiences. The duration of field-based experiences Teacher preparation program participants are advocating that novices spend time in the field in addition to student teaching. The argument for increased time in the field is that prospective teachers need more on-site training in order to be better prepared for the practice of teaching (Beyer, 1984). Though most would agree that providing more field-based experiences could provide many benefits, researchers are finding that increased opportunities in the field does not necessary equate with increased opportunities for learning that is educative (Goodman, 1985; Feiman-Nemser, 1983). An illustration of what is meant by educative follows. Dewey (1904/1965) has warned that if placed too early in a classroom where they are expected to teach, novices will be forced to focus on classroom management- rather than on subject matter and principles of education. According to 45 Dewey, novices would be provided with no alternative if thrust into field experiences too soon, for they need to be in control of the classroom, and this means that the novices will attend to the outward behavior rather than to the mental life of the students. Dewey (1904/1965) states that novices would adjust "not to the principles he is acquiring but to what he sees succeed and fail in an empirical way from moment to moment; to what he sees other teachers doing who are more experienced in keeping order than he is" (p. 14). Dewey believes that if placed in field experiences too soon, novices will most likely learn to teach through imitation and trial and error, rather than through principled reasons. Research on early field experiences show that the value of time in the field prior to student teaching is determined by how carefully the university and school coordinate the experiences (Staton & Hunt, 1992). During early field experiences, prospective teachers are often not provided with enough feedback to help them move from reinforcing existing beliefs to being reflective about teaching practice (Goodman, 1986; McIntyre & Killian, 1986; McDiarmid, 1990). Reports prepared within the 1980's by both the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Holmes Group echo concern about the field-based portion of preparation. The Carnegie and Holmes groups have proposed the development of new structures for the preparation of teachers that both intensify and extend novices' time in the field (Teacher Magazine, 1992). Restructuring efforts initiated by the Holmes Group are attempting to intertwine issues of both quantity and quality of field-based experiences. 46 The composition of field-based experiences Educators agree that field experiences are a vital part of teacher preparation, and that more time within schools could provide benefits for prospective and experienced teachers (Holmes Group, 1990). Efforts to conceptualize substantive experiences include developing and experimenting with characteristics of what educative goals for field experiences should be (Denton, 1983; Erdman, 1983; Goodman, 1986). Dewey (1904/1965) argues that the substance of field-based experiences include a practical component. He discusses two models that work to meet the need of providing practical knowledge for teachers. On one hand, there is an apprenticeship model, where novices learn techniques of instruction and management, achieving an immediate goal of readying novices for handling a classroom. In contrast, a laboratory model has as its goal a slower process of developing not just someone who can complete a task, but one who learns theories, philosophies, and methods that drive action. Within the laboratory model, theoretical study of subject matter and philosophy are worked with in depth. Dewey maintains that field experiences are necessary for teacher learning, but that the model determines the kind of learning which may occur. He advocates preparation that begins with a laboratory model and then moves to an apprenticeship model. According to this view, field-based experiences are forums used to observe practices and reflect on these experiences. After developing a reflective disposition within a laboratory model, then novices would be ready to work with focus students and small groups in an apprenticeship model. Prospective teachers would be continually encouraged to link their university study to their clinical work. Only after connections are made would the novice be ready to begin formal 47 instruction. Then technical aspects of teaching could be attended to during instruction, but with different emphasis. Formal instruction would occur within a context of understanding the mental life of the children, and not only focusing on outward behavior. In essence, Dewey believes that attention to technique in teacher preparation is necessary, but that emphasis and placement of the laboratory and apprenticeship models within preparation programs need to be re-examined. One goal which consistently appears in discussions of substance is supporting prospective teachers in development of reflective dispositions (Calderhead, 1989; Cruickshank, 1987; Zeichner, 1987). Most teacher preparation programs dedicated to reflection agree to a general conception that reflection is a disposition involving continual inquiry about one's teaching practice and the contexts within and surrounding that practice (Zeichner, 1987). Programs vary, however, in respect to at least two concerns. First, teacher preparation programs vary in their level of concern about how university-based and field-based components of the program might either prohibit or encourage development of a reflective disposition (Adler and Goodman, 1986; Yinger and Clark, 1981; Zeichner and Liston, 1987). Second, teacher preparation programs vary in their level of concern for creating specific criteria for the components of what constitutes reflective thinking and practice (Beyer, 1984; Korthagen, 1985; Zeichner, 1987). There are several undergraduate preparation programs working to develop substantive field experiences with the goal of helping novices become reflective practitioners. These programs include efforts at Washburn University (Goodman, 1986); Ohio State University (Cruickshank, 1987), and University of Wisconsin-Madison (Zeichner, 1987) Washburn University's teacher preparation program has begun to work 48 to connect university coursework and field experiences by providing more opportunities for novices to reflect upon university and field activities. To conceptualize a new experience for the prospective teachers, university faculty drew on Dewey's suggestion that laboratory experiences occur before apprenticeships. Laboratory experiences should be designed to "foster reflective criticism within students towards the nature of instruction, curriculum and the purposes of education" (Goodman, 1986, p. 114). Also important to Dewey's description of a laboratory experience is support in helping novices analyze experiences. Thus, Washburn set up a "block experience" with three components. First, two university courses exposed prospective teachers to multiple resources and methods for teaching social studies in the elementary and middle school classroom. Novices were also introduced to ways to integrate the arts in the curriculum. The second component of the block was a supervised nine week practicum in an elementary/middle school. Novices were in the school for three afternoons each week. The third component was a weekly seminar lead by a university supervisor in which "students reflected upon and integrated the knowledge gained from the other components of the block" (Goodman, 1986, p. 113). Reflection was an integral part of this experience, for throughout the experience students were encouraged to critically examine their experience in the schools and relate these experiences to study in the university. Another program that is working to embrace Dewey's suggestion to fuse the apprenticeship and laboratory model of teaching is Ohio State University's Reflective Teaching procedure (Cruickshank, 1987). Reflective teaching at OSU is a 60-75 minute exercise that has been developed, piloted and now is a part of teacher preparation at OSU. The reflective teaching procedure involves prospective teachers teaching a common lesson to an audience of 49 instructors and other prospective teachers. Following the lesson, the designated learners fill out learner satisfaction forms. Then the designated teachers engage their audience in a group discussion that promotes "reflection-on-action" (Schon, 1987), Reflection—on-action helps the designated teachers to reconstruct and reexamine their teaching actions and results (Trumbull, 1986). The purpose of the laboratory method of reflective teaching is to "help teachers become wiser and to encourage them to become life-long students of teaching" (Cruickshank, 1987, p.39). University of Wisconsin-Madison's preparation program is also designed to encourage critical reflection (Feiman-Nemser, 1990). Within this program the type of reflection advocated is .defined. Reflection should be able the moral and political structures of schools and the implications these structures have on classroom practices (Zeichner, 1981-1982). The student teaching portion of the program includes the prospective teacher taking gradual increase of responsibility in the classroom, while simultaneously being involved in an inquiry project. The inquiry project weaves the context of the classroom where the novice is teaching to larger questions about the culture of schools. A weekly seminar for the prospective teachers invites opportunities to "broaden their (prospective teachers) perspectives on teaching, consider the rationale underlying alternative possibilities for classrooms and pedagogy, and assess their own developing perspectives toward teaching" (Zeichner & Liston, 1987, p.32). Each of the programs mentioned above has operationalized reflection in a manner consistent with Dewey and Schon's definitions. Within each of the programs, there in an underlying rationale that support is needed to help think about a variety of knowledge sources including the classroom, theories and methods of teaching, and contexts of schooling. Yet all three programs 50 emphasize support from university instructors to help novices make connections and reflect. These efforts to engage students in reflection may improve the substance of preparation. However, educators caution that in order to help novices develop reflective dispositions, reflection needs to be included in all aspects of a teacher preparation program (Zeichner, 1990). The value of university coursework in teacher preparation There are several problems which have plagued the university portion of teacher preparation across the decades. First, the university culture largely perceives teacher education courses, housed mainly within Colleges of Education, as non-rigorous and non-intellectual (Lanier and Little, 1986). Second, there has been a lack of agreement about what knowledge and skills are necessary for teaching. An inability to articulate a knowledge base adds to growing skepticism that something of value is being taught in education courses. Yet, there are some who argue that there is a body of knowledge relevant for prospective teachers to learn (Shulman, 1987, Wineburg & Wilson, 1988). Third, because prospective teachers have also been, students for at least 12 years, formal teacher education coursework often has limited impact on shaping novices beliefs about teaching and learning. Lortie (1975), who labels this experience in school as an "apprenticeship of observation" cautions that novices often teach as they were taught in schools. This informal preparation often has a more powerful impact then does formal university preparation (Feiman-Nemser, 1983). In addition to these dilemmas, there are various viewpoints about the relationship of university preparation to field experiences. Researchers have spent time deliberating about why there is disparity between university and field experiences. One point of view holds that field-based experiences "wash out" what has been learned from university-based preparation (Zeichner & 51 Tabachnick 1981). Typically, neither university faculty nor classroom teachers help novices to develop the disposition to be critical of what they see in schools, nor to conduct inquiry about their own and others' practice (Livingston & Borko, 1989). Because of the structure and content of many university courses, novices often implicitly learn to passively accept the more traditional patterns of schools (Beyer, 1989). Another viewpoint holds that the impact of university based preparation ' can be strengthened by field-based experiences if the experiences are constructed in a way that they compliment each other and the learning of the prospective teacher (Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984). Since teacher preparation, as a total experience of university and field, involves both university faculty and classroom teachers, more university faculty are interested in including teachers in decision making and planning (Cochran- Smith, 1990; Holmes, 1990; Meade 1991; Roth, Rosaen & Lanier, 1988). This involvement plays out in a variety of ways. One way educators blend university and field preparation is by helping classroom teachers speak the same language as university faculty (Cochran- Smith, 1990; 1991). However, by placing a higher value on the wisdom of the university-based educators, it is argued that school-based educators' wisdom is not afforded equal value (Stoddard 1992). She says: "A high quality teacher education program is more than a highly orchestrated on-campus experience organized around a conceptual frame. Research and development requires a tightly structured program, meticulously applied, and carefully evaluated. Doing this in a real-school setting requires collaboration in which all participants are involved in making decisions and endorse the principles on which the program is evaluated. If the university dictates the conceptual frame, is this a collaboration? A shared vision of pedagogy must be developed" (Stoddard, 1992, p. 27). Stoddard's (1992) call for a "shared vision" resonates with literature on 52 characteristics of discourse communities. Cochran-Smith (1991a) also calls for a vision of "mutually constructed learning communities" (p 109) where all participants feel power and voice. According to Markova (1990), the quality of dialogue within a discourse community is mediated by "immediate, intentional perspective-taking, shared socio-cultural experience and mutual knowledge between participants" (p. 6 ). Others agree that there needs to be a cluster of knowledge and ideas that have shared understanding among a community's participants in order for a group of people to be called a discourse community (Herzberg, 1986; Swales, 1990). Teacher preparation programs that include both school and university-based personnel in decision making are attempting to widen the community who typically makes decisions about substance of university and field experiences. Complexities emerge as the community widens. Cochran-Smith (1991a) provides a framework for looking at various efforts to blend university and field preparation. Cochran-Smith (1991a) argues that preparation programs are structured based on certain assumptions of knowledge. That is, some programs assume the knowledge for teacher education comes primarily from the university, and some believe that preparation programs should evolve from mutually constructed knowledge between participants at the university and the school. She believes that little time has been spent investigating the relationship between the university and the school, or to expose the way power is implicitly controlled in the ways university-based educators involve school-based educators in organization, implementation and supervision of field-based experiences (Cochran-Smith, 1991a). Cochran-Smith categorized three themes which describe knowledge, assumptions and power of different models for restructuring teacher preparation. These are called consonance, critical dissonance, and 53 collaborative resonance. The consonance model has as its goal "accord based on common application of effective-teaching research" (Cochran-Smith, 1991a, p. 106). Within the consonance model, the university and school-based portions of preparation work to be consistent with each other. The university-based preparation program supports prospective and classroom teachers to speak the same language. Participants are encouraged to use the results of research to frame common problems of the classroom (McNergney et al, 1988). The drawback of this model is that knowledge in the discourse community is seen as derived from the university participants, with neither classroom nor ' prospective teachers as contributors (Cochran-Smith and Little, 1990). The second model, critical dissonance, has as its goal "incongruity based on a radical critique of teaching and schooling" (Cochran-Smith, 1991, p. 106). This model proposes to make university and school-based preparation incongruous enough to prompt participants to challenge knowledge learned from different sources. This model originates from a perceived problem with student teaching that university preparation inspires a liberal feeling that evaporates within the context of a conservative school culture (Goodman, 1986; Richardson-Koehler, 1988). The goal of this model is to help prospective teachers develop critical skills necessary to critique and challenge the school culture (Katz, 1974). The problem with this model is that a derogatory message about the knowledge of school-based educators is conveyed. This message includes the idea that university-based educators are the ones who help create and maintain a critical lens for novices, and that classroom teachers' wisdom does not necessarily have value in creating knowledge for teaching. Cochran- Smith (1991a) says that this model may set up "many cooperating teachers to be exposed in university courses and may convey the message that many 54 teachers' lived experiences are unenlightened and even unimportant" (p. 109). The third model, collaborative resonance, has as its goal "intensification based on the co-labor of learning communities" (Cochran-Smith, 1991a, p. 106). The philosophy behind this model is that both school and university faculty and prospective teachers mutually construct experiences in learning to teach. The emphasis in this model is on co-labor between prospective, classroom and university participants. Building on ideas within the dissonance model, prospective teachers are prepared to examine critically the context and practices in schooling. The emphasis in this model is on collegiality rather than trial-and-error (Little, 1987), valuing knowledge from university and classroom sources, and creation of a disposition for life long work to continue to improve teaching and learning. The idea within the collaborative resonance model is that: "student teachers, cooperating teachers, and teacher educators alike are involved in efforts to learn from, interpret, and ultimately alter the day-to-day life of schools by critiquing the cultures of teaching and schooling, researching their own practice, articulating their own expertise, and calling into question the policies and language of schooling that are taken for granted" (Cochran-Smith, 1991a; p. 110). One difference in particular is highlighted within the collaborative resonance model. The difference is that, according to the collaborative resonance model, teacher preparation should be a shared responsibility among the participants involved (Holmes Group, 1990; Meade, 1991). Within this model, teachers are encouraged to play an active role in shaping teacher preparation, and are even invited to take part in university-based methods courses. Cochran-Smith's (1991a) model also advocates involving prospective and experienced teachers and university faculty in collaboratively conducting seminars about teaching. Necessary for enactment of this model is a certain 55 type of school environment (Koerner, 1992; Meade 1991). The Holmes Group (1990) hope that the conception of Professional Development Schools will work to promote goals of mutually constructing teacher preparation. As participants work inside these sites, issues of shared vision, language and power remain for further study. As Koerner (1992) states: "It makes sense that cooperating teachers want to have a voice in the process and not be regarded simply as silent partners in the experience" (p. 54). Guided practice in field experiences This review of literature focuses on teacher preparation and student teaching. The first part of the review examined the nature of field-based experiences in terms of duration, composition and relation to university-based preparation. The second section of the review of literature will examine the forms of guided practice provided in the field. Two topics will be reviewed, university and school based guided practice. Guided practice is a relatively new way to think about the purposes of field experiences and student teaching. The term "supervision" stems from an evaluative and not an educative function. Congruent with goals of helping prepare novices to become reflective practitioners, the function of the role of an instructor is to guide more than to supervise. As Stoddard (1990) said, "If field-based teacher education programs are to contribute to the development of thoughtful and reflective teachers we must begin to focus our concerns on the quality of these experiences as they are actually implemented in the field and develop a better understanding of the process of guiding practical teaching experience" (p. 3). Wand—animals; The university instructor during field experiences is typically a representative from the university-based portion of a teacher preparation 56 program. There are typically several dilemmas faced by university instructors. These include: 1) the status of field instruction in higher education; 2) the limited number of visits possible within university supervision; 3) the kinds of dialogue promoted between university and prospective teachers; and 4) the more influential role of the c00perating teacher. Instruction of prospective teachers in the field is not an attractive option for most university professors. According to Meade (1991), "we may have created publications and other markets for scholarship pertaining to this area (supervision), but the fact of the matter is that field instruction is not highly regarded in higher education" (p. 668). In fact, supervision is often the responsibility of graduate students and adjunct faculty who may not be intimately connected with coursework, or have a long-term commitment to the advancement of a teacher preparation program. Because the university representative visits the novice infrequently, it is difficult to establish relationships with the novice and the cooperating teacher, or to become a part of the culture of the school and classroom (Richardson-Koehler, 1988; Zimpher, DeVoss & Nott, 1980). A general scenario for university instruction is that the instructor enters the novice's classroom, observes a lesson, provides comments (ranging in detail), and discusses the comments with the novice. Hopkins (1985) explains that this kind of supervision "generally, places the students in a reactive role where they are subject to advice and criticism without being involved in the process of establishing judgement" (p. 137). Earlier within this review, an argument was made that prospective teachers need assistance in developing dispositions that will help them be critical of practices within the schools. This remains a problem if university 57 supervisors are not engaging prospective teachers in dialogues that push them to question and critique practices and surrounding contexts. As H. Barnes (1989) said: "the capacities needed (in initial teacher preparation) appear to be primarily intellectual in nature and do not merely result from training in the technical aspects of teaching. Rather, they involve learning to see, to judge, and to act appropriately in situations that cannot be precisely anticipated. Developing these capacities is complicated by the fact that often the knowledge that may be most critical for an individual beginning teacher can be identified during their pro-induction experiences, but is seldom fully developed during typical student teaching experience" (p. 17). Despite the call for support in helping prospective teachers bring a critical disposition to experiences in the field, university instructors typically provide limited feedback, and few provide feedback that helps inspire analysis, criticism and connections from university coursework (Shulman, 1987; Staton & Hunt, 1992). There are some exceptions, however. There have been findings that cooperating teachers consult with university instructors for information and guidance (Tannehill, 1989). University instructors can provide information about coursework expectations that can help cooperating teachers feel more informed, and more willing to allow a novice to experiment with a new idea. By providing support, university instructors can have a positive influence on the school (Emans, 1983; Hollingsworth, 1989). It has been suggested that by clustering prospective teachers together in a school, the university supervisor could feel more a part of the culture, and build a support group with the supervising classroom teachers in the school (Koerner, 1992). In order to bridge the gap between the university and classroom, some teacher preparation programs Specifically work to educate their university instructors, with varying degrees of success, to conference with prospective 58 teachers in a manner which is congruent with program goals (Zeichner & Liston, 1985; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1982; Putnam, Hoerr, Barger, Murdoch, Johnson & Johns, 1988). Zeichner and Liston (1985) studied discourse of conferences between university instructors and novices in order to see if there was congruence between expressed goals of a teacher preparation program and what was being enacted in actual discourse between university supervisor and prospective teacher. The results of this study indicated that although programs emphasized particular forms of discourse, the program goals were enacted in varying degrees by each supervisor and prospective teacher. Zeichner & Tabachnick (1982) investigated ways which university instructors approach their work with prospective teachers. The examined the intentions, motivations and beliefs which guided the supervisor to enact his/her role. Their results indicated that there were differences in what supervisors said their intentions and beliefs are, and what was actually enacted in their work. Putnam et.al. (1988) also emphasize that the instructors need to enact their role in ways which are congruent with program goals. They advocate that the conception of teaching promoted within the program direct the aims and purposes of the supervisor. Zeichner and Tabachnick (1982) call for more research to focus on the ways which supervisors interpret their work. Although the university instructor is usually the person ultimately responsible 'for formal evaluation of the prospective teacher, the university representative plays a secondary role to that of the classroom teacher who supervises the novice (Boydell, 1986; Friebus, 1977; Staton & Hunt, 1992). It is the classroom teacher who has been cited as the most influential agent in teacher preparation (Bunting, 1988; Karmos & Jacko, 1977; Koerner, 1992; 59 McIntyre & Morris, 1980) Wise Although classroom teachers have been credited with much of the preparation of novices in the field, there are several inadequacies within current practices. Issues which will be examined include: 1) the selection and training of classroom teachers for instructional roles; 2) the form and substance of dialogues between classroom and prospective teachers; 3) classroom teachers as "mentors" of prospective teachers; and 4) classroom teachers as teacher educators. Selection Classroom teachers who are selected to work with novices are not typically screened rigorously. There is little evidence that the teachers selected are well prepared to be mentors, or are even necessarily good classroom teachers. Teachers are not usually selected for their ability to reflect about underlying rationales that guide their decision-making (Lortie, 1975). Even if perceived as an effective teacher, educators should not make the assumption that because a teacher is good in the classroom, he/she would automatically be able to support the learning of a prospective teacher (Koerner, 1992; Little, 1990). Since classroom teachers receive little formal support, they are often left to "invent their roles as they go along" (Hart, 1989, p. 24). Because classroom teachers do potentially have a significant impact on novices' learning, Livingston and Borko (1989) recommend that teachers who mentor be selected based on commitment to take on the role of teacher educator. Training of school-based educators poses additional problems. Because typical teacher preparation programs devote time ranging only from a few hours to a few days for training, there is very little support provided for 60 helping classroom teachers learn this new instructional role. This lack of training could have negative implications for novices, as classroom teachers try to deal with the learning of an adult along with the learning of children in the classroom (Veenman, 1984). According to Thies-Sprinthall (1986) "school systems cannot expect that experienced teachers will be able to provide effective assistance to beginners in a systematic way. There is simply no evidence to support such a view" (p. 13). Without communication about course content and expectations, classroom teachers are not likely to be able to support novices in making connections from university-based preparation. Without involving the classroom teachers in preparation, chances are likely that novices will feel pulled between the "two worlds" of the university and classroom (Feiman- Nemser & Buchmann, 1985). Mounting evidence shows that novices cannot easily apply what is learned in the university and the classroom (Calderhead & Miller, 1986; Grossman & Richert, 1988; Rovengo, 1992). University instructors have not encountered much success in supporting novices to connect these ideas (Zeichner, 1978; Thies-Sprinthall, 1986) and leaving classroom teachers in the dark about preparation expectations only serves to exacerbate the problem. Form and substance of dialogue The second issue to be examined is how school-based educators talk to novices about teaching. Classroom teachers frequently encounter difficulties critiquing the teaching practice of a novice (McIntyre & Killian, 1986; Parker, 1990) which can prohibit the novice from developing a critical disposition. In addition, classroom teachers tend to focus on practical and immediate problems of practice, rather than thinking about teaching in a larger context (Calderhead, 1988; McIntyre, 1988). Subject matter knowledge is treated in a 61 variety of ways, including subject matter in reference to student thinking, and classroom management. Findings from one study indicated that rarely were there substantive conversations about the meaning of the content in teaching (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1990). Congruent with the goal of current restructuring efforts in teacher preparation, educators are becoming more interested in fostering an environment where novices are supported in developing the disposition to be reflective about teaching practice. Zeichner (1990a) calls for studies which analyze how supervisors are helping novices to reflect, and what the content of these reflections include. Schon believes that it is possible for a practitioner to work with a novice to develop the disposition to be reflective. He describes a certain form of dialogue called a reflective practicum which embraces the ideas mentioned within this review of 1) making the knowledge-in-action of the mentor explicit for the novice to see and learn from; 2) helping the novice develop a disposition to reason through and question decision-making about teaching. Schon (1987) argues that much can be learned in the doing of teaching if that doing is supported with proper supervision. He advocates mentoring that focuses on developing the ability to problem solve and analyze learning. Classroom teachers as mentors of prospective teachers Third, the conception of classroom teachers as mentors of novices will be addressed. Classroom teachers who work with novices have through the years been provided a range of titles and responsibilities. Among these titles are "cooperating teacher", "supervising teacher" and "mentor." With these titles come varying role conceptions and responsibilities, ranging from simply providing a classroom for a student to practice teaching, to little interaction with student teachers, daily contact, unstructured supervision, and 62 daily work with student teachers in collaboration with university faculty. As mentioned earlier, the form of work most congruent with the desired outcome of helping novices become reflective practitioners is guided practice (Stoddard, 1990). Those who assign the term "mentor" to professionals engaged in guided practice presume that these practitioners have some sort of wisdom which can be shared with others (Little, 1990). The role conception of mentor contains "the expectation that the mentor can make this knowledge accessible to a novice through a process of critical analysis and reflection" (Stoddard, 1990, p 3). Classroom teachers who mentor are often assumed to be experts who can support the prospective teacher in developing competence (Little, 1990; Stroble & Cooper, 1988; Zimpher & Rieger, 1988). However, many teachers who themselves are competent practitioners "lack the ability to articulate the basis for their expertise and skill" (Berliner, 1986, p. 7). Classroom teachers who work with novices are assumed to be experts who can guide novices to competency. In order to work with novices, classroom teachers are required to have a certain number of years of experience. According to Berliner (1986) some people do not believe that experience necessarily correlates with expertise. However, he does not provide a way to separate experience and expertise in teaching. Berliner does provide criteria, however, for an expert pedagogue. In order to be an expert. pedagogue, a teacher needs to be able to readily access two domains of knowledge: subject matter knowledge and knowledge of organization and management of classrooms (Berliner, 1986, p. 9). Study of "expert pedagogues" has uncovered the finding that "experts possess a special kind of knowledge about classrooms that is different from that of novices" (Berliner, 1986, p. 10). Livingston and Borko (1989) also agree that experts and novices differ in knowledge, thinking and actions. They talk 63 about three expert-novices differences in schema, pedagogical reasoning and pedagogical content knowledge. The "cognitive schemata of experts typically are more elaborate, more complex, more interconnected, and more easily accessible than those of novices" (Livingston & Borko, 1989, p. 37). Pedagogical reasoning is a complex cognitive skill involved in a teacher's schema. Pedagogical reasoning involves the ability to transform subject- matter knowledge in a variety ways to meet the needs of diverse learners (Shulman, 1987). According to Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann (1987) pedagogical reasoning is unique to teaching and takes time for novices to develop. Pedagogical content knowledge is also unique to teaching, and involves weaving content and pedagogy for instruction (Shulman, 1987). Learning to teach involves developing schema for pedagogical reasoning and pedagogical content knowledge (Livingston & Borko, 1989). Berliner (1988) argues that having expert knowledge of subject matter and classroom organization does not automatically lead to effective mentoring. He concluded that although mentors need to be competent, they "need not be experts themselves, rather they must be articulate analysts of teaching...They may have needed to be more analytic then those who were naturals at the game. They may have learned to articulate the reasons for doing this or that, a quality that could make for an expert coach" (Berliner, 1988, p. 29). Berliner's distinction calls to question the issue of expertise. If a mentor is to talk about decisions made in teaching, should that mentor be talking about decisions that are rooted in expertise in subject matter and knowledge of classroom organization and management? There is some debate whether classroom teachers who mentor need to be experts in teaching and experts in talking about teaching decisions. In order to be able to model and provide examples for novices, teachers do need to be competent in the Classroom (Berliner, 1986). Berliner agrees that mentors need to be 64 competent, but qualifies that expertise in unpacking decisions made is a more necessary quality for .mentoring. Schon (1987) agrees that effective coaches (or mentors) need to be able to articulate reasoning for decisions in order to model reflection to novices. Schon believes that novices can learn to reason through teaching decisions by observing their mentors articulate knowledge used to make decisions. He agrees that it is difficult for practitioners to bring to the surface what they know, and argues that knowing is embedded in actions. "Our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our patterns of action and in our feel for the stuff with which we are dealing" (p. 49). Stoddard (1990) adds that making knowledge accessible involves "a whole new way of thinking about one's instructional knowledge and skill" (p. 3). 2.. Teachers have implicit theories that guide their teaching actions. Included within teachers' implicit theories are their knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning to teach. Within the body of research on teacher knowledge, research on teachers' practical knowledge has begun to focus on the complexities of teaching and the knowledge of practice which evolves from reflection-in-action (Carter, 1990; Munby, 1989; Schon, 1987). By assigning experienced teachers to work with prospective teachers, it is implied that there is some knowledge that experienced teachers possess that can help novices learn about the practice of teaching. Investigations are beginning to look at how teachers do make their knowledge visible (Clark & Peterson, 1986). To date, few studies have focused on the knowledge which mentors perceive as necessary to support novices' learning (Koerner, 1992). Classroom teachers as teacher educators There may be two different roles educators are asking mentors to play, that of teacher and teacher educator. Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann (1987) 65 say that "just as becoming a classroom teacher involves making a transition from person to professional, so, too, becoming a mentor involves making a transition from classroom teacher to teacher educator" (p. 271). Koerner agrees that: "Often the dual goals of educating children and student teachers in the same classroom seem at cross purposes. The purpose of schools is to provide an education for students, not for student teachers. Teachers are hired to achieve that goal. If schools accept responsibility to educate future teachers; however, they may have to make a commitment of time and resources that extends beyond simply accepting the student teachers" (Koerner, 1992. p. 54). In order for classroom teachers to be able to take on a role of teacher educator, a certain environment is necessary. The context for effective mentoring needs to be a place where university and school faculty collaborate and share meanings for what constitutes quality teaching. This school should be one where critical reflection is modeled and fostered (Little, 1982). According to Livingston and Borko (1989), "the creation of 'professional development schools' (e.g. The Holmes Group, 1986) may be one means of ensuring this type of learning environment" (p. 41). SUMMARY Within this literature review, educators have described different layers involved in helping novices learn to teach. Many agree that teaching involves an element of learning by doing. Since this is agreed upon, teacher preparation programs are increasing time spent in the classroom. Second, educators are becoming increasingly interested in the role of reflection in learning to teach. Programs are emphasizing learning by reflection as a means to consider the rationale and knowledge bases which guide teaching decisions. Third, consistent with Dewey's conception of a laboratory approach, teacher educators are concerned about providing guided practice for learning 66 about teaching. Programs are attempting to involve educators from both the university and school to support novices in their learning by doing. The form of support provided in the field which is advocated is that which fosters a reflective disposition. The Academic Learning teacher preparation program at Michigan State University is working to remedy problems in preparation discussed within this review of literature. With the opportunity to enact Academic Learning's mentor teacher component goals in a Professional Development School setting, university faculty are hoping that mentors will feel more equipped to enact a role of teacher educators, and be partners in helping novices learn to teach. Chapter Three will describe the Academic Learning university program faculties' beliefs and goals for the mentor teacher component of the preparation program. CHAPTER THREE THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY The purpose of this chapter is to describe the background of the study. In order to capture the perspectives of participants who helped to conceptualize the Academic Learning teacher preparation program, the mentor teacher component, and mentoring within the professional development school context in which this study takes place, the three coordinators of the Academic Learning program were individually interviewed. Their perspectives of the preparation program and mentor teacher program will be described. First, a description of the Academic Learning program and specifically the Academic Learning Mentor Teacher Component will be provided. Second, a description of mentoring within a professional development school context will be characterized. These explications will provide background information needed to understand descriptions and analysis of the perspectives of the mentors as they enact their role within the contexts of the Academic Learning program and a Professional Development School. 67 68 Academic Learning Teacher Preparation Program The Academic Learning teacher preparation program is a two year undergraduate program for both elementary and secondary education majors. Academic Learning is one of five alternative programs at Michigan State University, A central goal of the program is to study subject matter in a way which will support pupils' conceptual understanding. University courses promote prospective teachers' development of understanding academic disciplines. Prospective teachers are encouraged to use their understandings of disciplines to build multiple‘representations of content to facilitate pupils' understanding (Wilson & Shulman, 1987). Faculty within the program work to facilitate the novice's transition to pedagogical thinking (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985). This pedagogical thinking includes the ability to "draw on the research base about the teaching and learning process as well as on practical experiences" (Roth, Rosaen & Lanier, 1988, p. 10). Another goal of the program is to prepare teachers who will reflect on their own learning and on the practice of teaching (Roth, Rosaen & Lanier, 1988). In an effort to encourage reflection on both university and field experiences, program faculty worked to involve classroom teachers more integrally into the preparation of their novices. Prospective teachers are placed with a "mentor teacher" at the beginning of the two year program. During each of the three terms of the academic year, term field assignments are carried out in this mentor's room. Within the second year of the program, student teaching takes place in the mentor's classroom for one term (ten weeks). Field assignments are designed to provide opportunities for program faculty and mentors to help the novices link concepts taught in university courses with classroom practice (Feiman-Nemser, 1989). 69 Academic Learning Mentor Teacher Component Approximately 65 area teachers are involved in the Academic Learning mentor teacher component each year. Teachers who mentor are drawn from six school districts surrounding Michigan State University. Within one school district there are two schools, an elementary and a high school which are part of the Michigan Partnership for New Education as Professional DeveIOpment Schools. Three faculty involved in constructing the current version of the Academic Learning mentor teacher component were P. Lanier, C. Rosaen and K. Roth. Each of these professors was individually interviewed during October, 1991 about the goals for the mentor teacher component, the criteria for selection of mentor teachers and beliefs about possibilities for the mentor teacher component in a professional development school setting. The interview protocol was piloted with another faculty member within Academic Learning. After clarifying some of the questions, the interviews with the three principal faculty members were conducted. Following are excerpts from the interviews that describe the perspectives of the university faculty who created and continue to enact the mentor teacher component (see appendix C for a list of the interview questions). 9.2m Originally, the mentor teacher project was conceptualized in reaction to problems which Academic Learning program faculty felt were persistent in teacher preparation. The three problems which Academic Learning attempted to tackle were 1) what the substance of field-based experiences should include; 2) how the program could foster integration of university and field experiences, and; 3) how the program could improve the form of guided practice provided in field-based experiences (Roth, Rosaen & Lanier, 1988). 70 The first goal of the mentor teacher project was to build a closer connection between what prospective teachers were studying in university courses and what they were doing in the field. Roth (1991) said that the idea was not simply that novices take the theory that they have learned out to the classroom, but that mentors could help support that: "there would be an equal valuing of what students could learn from practice and from theory, and that maybe at times those two different forms of learning would become more interactive instead of being two separate things--one of which they value and one of which they don't" Another original goal of the mentor teacher project was that by arranging for mentors to participate in seminars each term and work with prospective teachers over a two-year period, perhaps it would not be necessary to have a university representative in the field to supervise student teaching. According to Rosaen (1991): "The idea was that we (university program faculty and classroom teachers) would work together closely enough and share enough of a knowledge base and language that we would construct tasks that students would do in. the field. And the mentors would support the students in the field while we supported the students at the university. That was our original intent" (p.1). As a part of this goal, it was assumed that university faculty would construct the substance of field experiences together with classroom teachers. During the first and second year of the projectl, mentor teachers were involved in the design of field assignments. A university professor would present a field assignment to the mentors and elicit feedback about how realistic and helpful the mentors perceived this assignment to be. Rosaen provides the following example of how the mentors worked with university faculty: "We were working with the term pedagogical content knowledge, 1The mentor teacher project was piloted in 1987, revised in 1988, and now has become a regular component of the Academic Learning program. 71 trying to help our students see that teachers may have a different kind of knowledge. Well, that meant that we had to talk to the mentors about what that term means so that they would understand how we were handling it in class and then what we hoped the students would see. So, we would watch a video tape together and say, now here's the kind of sense we would hope our students would make if they watched a lesson like this in your classroom" (Rosaen, 1991.) W In efforts to restructure field-based experiences, the Academic Learning program sought to involve classroom teachers in a new role. Rather than merely providing a classroom for prospective teachers to observe and teach, program faculty hoped to involve classroom teachers in design, revision and implementation of field assignments, and in study of the Academic Learning program goals and research base (Roth, Rosaen & Lanier, 1988). The Academic Learning program faculty selected to label classroom teachers who work with novices as "mentors." According to P. Lanier, teachers were identified as "mentors" because the general connotation of mentor is that there is some caring and responsibility for another. The term mentor was selected over the term coach because: "Coaching is so affiliated with sports. And it's not necessarily thought of as on-on-one; you usually coach a team. Seldom does a coach only have one client. The other reason mentor was selected is that with the word mentor comes the connotation of support (Lanier, 1991.) ~ Supporting students includes helping novices see the usefulness of what they were studying in their courses. This idea of support guided selection criteria, for according to Roth (1991) "the key thing we were looking for in the mentors is that they would be learners themselves and be Open to reading and considering some of the ideas talked about in courses" (Roth, 1991.) 72 In addition to support, modeling was another part of the conception of mentoring. According to Lanier (1991), mentors can model how to "get at" student understanding. He hepes that modelling will include "getting inside students' heads, getting at what they understand, what they're sensing, what they're feeling. That is what I would like to see mentors model for a beginning teacher" (Lanier, 1991.) A Program faculty also feel that the mentor's role includes helping the novice see the mentor's thinking and understand the decisions that guide teaching actions. These decisions include planning, implementation of instruction, and how the larger context of the school and state influence teaching (Rosaen, 1991; Roth, 1991). According to the goals of the mentor teacher component, a mentor would be one who would think about how to help a novice learn to teach. So far within traditional teaching contexts, this has had limited results. Lanier (1991) says: "Among our mentors (65 total including elementary and secondary) or among teachers in general, there is not a lot of thought given to how to help someone learn to teach. The general feeling is that you learn to teach from experience, and that feeling still prevails." Even though program faculty outlined characteristics of an ideal mentor, the faculty never created an ideal model nor expected to find 65 mentors who teach in ways that exemplify all the ideas listed above (Roth, 1991). (The actual criteria for selection of mentors is provided in Chapter four). The Academic Learning faculty feel that teachers who are mentors need to be competent, but do not necessarily need to be exemplary teachers. Rosaen (1991) explains: "I don't think it's realistic to set up mentors as exemplary teachers. I think we all have aspects of what we do that are exemplary but I think that label intimidates teachers and creates 73 a division between them. ..Ideally, a good mentor helps the students become privy to her thinking and understand why 'she does what she does." Professional Development Schools and mentoring The conception of a Professional Development School has been designed by a consortium of over 100 universities across America. The Holmes Group (1991) defines the professional development school as an elementary, middle or high school that promotes learning for all students. These schools work in partnership with a university to develop and implement instruction and to prepare teachers. In these efforts, teachers are provided with opportunities to enact new roles, as they work to become researchers and teacher educators. One of the major agenda items of the Holmes Group is to create settings where teacher education becomes the responsibility of schools as well as the universities. Authors of WUWO) agree that teacher education programs traditionally have not helped novices to apply principles of theory to practical experiences in the classroom. Part of the problem, defined by the Holmes Group, is that educators have not agreed upon a form of preparation that "draws on and integrates the disciplines and the practical wisdom" (Holmes Group, 1990, p. 47) of teachers who work with novices in teacher education. In addition, few preparation programs have tried to work with schools to develop shared meanings between university and school about what is important in learning to teach. Therefore, "prospective teachers are left alone to integrate knowledge, to puzzle through applications, and to resolve contradictions, ambiguities, and tensions" (Holmes Group, 1990, p. 48). This—839.111 Three years ago, an elementary and high school within the same district became Professional Development Schools affiliated with Michigan State University. Small groups of students from Academic Learning were 74 placed at these two schools. The subjects of this study mentor prospective teachers within the elementary professional development school (PDS) affiliated with Academic Learning. ' Academic Learning program faculties' description of the culture of Brown school (pseudonym) and their perceptions of benefits for student teachers mentored in this context will be summarized within this section. This dissertation takes place during the third year of Brown being a PDS. Rosaen believes that Brown is "evolving into a professional learning community." Rosaen has heard several teachers, university faculty and the principal comment that the substance of talk has become more focused on inquiry about teaching and learning. This talk includes "people saying, 'listen to what this kid said today in class about math'. People are more excited about teaching and learning, they're more engaged in it as a genuine question" (Rosaen, 1991.) The teachers seem to feel that collaboration is a positive method for learning. She feels that the PDS experiences are: "getting the teachers more engaged in what it means to learn to teach. They have begun to view themselves as learners. I think the fact that any teachers would volunteer their lunch hour to go to a brown bag to talk to student teachers about language arts is real indicative of professional commitment. I think the PDS opportunities to be engaged in inquiry, to be involved in projects has kind of revitalized some of the passion for learning that they probably all started their career with." Roth adds that involvement in professional development work affords potential advantages for student teachers. She believes that what the mentors at Brown Elementary School can potentially model for the Academic Learning students is much different from what the mentors in other schools can model since they have experiences asking harder questions of themselves about issues of teaching and learning. Through PDS experiences, the mentors at Brown have had access to time and resources which have allowed for 75 collaboration and dialogue about different ways to think about teaching practice. This is different from what Roth sees happening in a traditional teacher/student teacher relationship, where teachers "pretty much see their role as teaching their student how to do what they do" (p. 5). Within the constraints of traditional university/school relationships, it is difficult to find opportunities to engage in sustained conversations that can encourage teachers to develop themselves as learners, and as teacher of teachers. As Roth said, "YOu know one thing that I wish we could have worked on more with all the mentors was, what does it really mean to be a mentor and to besupporting someone who's learning to teach? We would always sort of make quick passes at that (at regular mentor meetings with all the mentors), but we never get beyond the level of tips-~mentors swapping tips about working with mentor teachers...It just seems like the PDS teachers have a bigger picture of thinking about teacher education and feel more stake in it." Lanier (1991) concurs that there are potential benefits of placing prospective teachers in professional development sites. He believes that in the long run, these schools will provide places where students of teaching can see "models of teachers who reflect on their practice, where they're expected to learn from their practice, not just some years, but all the time." Lanier believes that the emphasis on reflection will help prospective and experienced teachers move away from the notion that there is one way how to teach, to an inquiry approach to teaching. He believes that the strength of the PDS's could be in building the dimension of the "professional as inquirer, as a seeker and generator of knowledge ...I think the big difference will be how students are encouraged to make sense of their practice in teaching; to be able to be analytical about teaching will be important" (Lanier, 1991.) This vision is consistent with goals of the Holmes Group for Professional Development Schools. According to the Holmes Group, the PDS's should be sites 76 where reflection, collaboration and inquiry are commonplace. University educators, classroom teachers and administrators would be responsible for the education of prospective teachers. Together these partners would "teach student teachers habits of thinking back on their work, questioning it, trying out and evaluating new ways of teaching-by themselves and with colleagues" (Holmes Group, 1991, p. 5). SUMMARY In summary, the Academic Learning mentor teacher component was originally designed in attempt to remedy problems persistent in teacher preparation. Program faculty involved in the Academic Learning teacher preparation program at Michigan State University identified three issues to work to improve: 1) what the substance of field-based experiences should include; 2) how the program could foster integration of university and field experiences, and; 3) how the program could improve the form of guided practice provided in field-based experiences (Roth, Rosaen & Lanier, 1988). While these problems were perceived as critical to enhancing both the university and field-based portions of teacher preparation, there have been difficulties in implementing a role for classroom teachers which encourages the teachers to develop themselves as learners and teachers of teachers. With the conception of a Professional Development School, program faculty have opportunities to work more closely with classroom teachers to enact the role of mentor. During this chapter, program faculties' visions and perceptions about the role of mentor have been described. Now study will move to the perceptions of the classroom teachers who mentor within an elementary professional development school and Academic Learning to understand more about how these teachers enact the mentor role. CHAPTER FOUR METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN This study was designed to investigate, from the perspective of five classroom teachers, how they make sense of their role as mentors in a Professional Development School context. This chapter provides a rationale and description of the methodology and research design for this study. First, the research questions which guide the inquiry will be introduced. Second, the research design and rationale for design will be presented. Third, the subjects selected for study will be described. Fourth, the data collection instruments and procedures will be summarized. Fifth, the procedures for data analysis will be discussed. Sixth, the limitations of this research study will be examined. Research Questions The primary research question focused on learning about how five classroom teachers make sense and enact their role as mentors of prospective teachers within a context which promotes reflection about knowledge of teaching gained from both theory and practice. The primary research question is: How do classroom teachers make sense of their role as mentors in support of novices as they learn to teach? A second set of questions emerged from the data; as the mentors were involved in interviews and stimulated recalls of conferences with their prospective teachers, as Academic Learning program university faculty were interviewed, and as relevant literature was reviewed. The second set of questions include: I) How do the mentors talk about their theories of how novices learn to teach? (views of learning) 77 78 2) How do the mentors use different sources of knowledge to help novices learn to teach? (sources of knowledge) 3) How do the mentors model and encourage critical reflection about issues and practices in teacher education? (nature of reflection) Research Design The research design is an interpretive study which relied on stimulated recall interviews, structured interviews and observation. An interpretive research method was selected as the most suitable for this dissertation because the intent of the inquiry was to discover and describe the perspectives of the participants as they mentor prospective teachers within a Professional Development School context. The interpretive orientation has roots within a social constructivist framework, which focuses on studying the meanings in action of the subjects (Blumer, 1969) as they interact in their role as mentors. The researcher tried to understand the "conceptual world of the subjects" (Geertz, 1973) in order to understand "how and what meaning they construct around events in their daily lives" (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982, p. 33). Qualitative design allows for systematic inquiry within a natural setting. Meaning is of central concern in qualitative research. Those who focus on meaning are interested in studying ways that different pe0ple make sense out of experiences (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). The basic validity criterion within this approach focuses on the "immediate and local" meanings of the participants (Erickson, 1986). As Goodman (1988) said, "more than any other cultural characteristic, the perspectives of individuals who work in a given program determine its substance" (p. 49). This investigation seeks to uncover and define categories for describing and analyzing how these five mentor teachers are making sense of their role. The constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) will be used to look 79 across the five subjects to define categories which reflect common themes of talk. Subjects The subjects for this study are five classroom teachers who work within a Professional Development School and the Academic Learning Mentor Teacher Component of Michigan State University's teacher education program. Given the five subjects are the entire population of teachers working as mentors of prospective teachers in this teacher education program and school, it is possible to study all subjects involved. All five teachers are willing to be a part of this study, and understand that their participation is completely voluntary. Anonymity is being protected by use of pseudonyms for teachers, prospective teachers, and the site. All five of the mentor/prospective teacher dyads are female. The pairs are also all Caucasian. The classroom teachers range in age from upper thirties to upper forties. All of the teachers hold Masters degrees. The classroom teachers vary in the amount of time they have been mentors and the time they have been classroom teachers. The subjects range from 13-21 years of classroom teaching experience, and 1-5 years working with the Academic Learning Mentor Teacher Component. Some of the teachers have worked with student teachers before Academic Learning. The range represents a variety of teaching experience and perspectives. These differences in experiences are neither planned nor random. The five classroom teachers were selected as mentors based on the criteria for selection devised by the Academic Learning teacher preparation program. The mentor teacher selection is based on the following criteria: 1) the teacher's commitment to teacher education; 2) the teacher's openness to learning about educational research and Academic Learning program goals 80 and willingness to support Academic Learning students; and 3) teachers with adequate time to devote to prospective teachers. The classroom teachers were recommended by the university faculty, principals, colleagues, and self- nomination. Each candidate filled out an application, was interviewed, and approved by the principal before accepted. Mentors are given a $500 per year stipend for the two year involvement with Academic Learning -(Roth, Rosaen and Lanier, 1988). There were two circumstances that affected the collection of data. One of the five subjects (Paige) was quite ill during the period she was mentoring. However, she kept in constant communication with her student teacher, and indicated continued interest in being involved in this inquiry. The opening interview with Paige was held at the same time as the other four mentors. Four stimulated recall and structured interviews were held with Paige at similar intervals as the other subjects. Another of the subjects (Alexa) worked with a student teacher who was struggling. Alexa continued to work with her student teacher from mid- October through early February, when it was obvious to Alexa and the university instructor that the student teacher was not exhibiting competencies of the Academic Learning program. The student teacher was eventually pulled out out student teaching. This affected data collection, for only three of the six stimulated recall/structured interviews were possible. Alexa's opening interview was held at the same time period as the other subjects. Alexa continued to meet with the researcher to answer the structured interview questions for interviews four, five and six. Data Collection Instruments and Procedures Data collection tools included two forms of interviews with the mentors, and observation of interactions between the mentors and prospective 81 teachers. The two forms of interviews were stimulated recall and structured interviews. There were six stimulated recall and seven structured interviews (including the opening interview) held over a five month period. The stimulated recall interviews asked each mentor to look at videotaped excerpts of conferences between the mentor and their student teacher. Each mentor/student teacher dyad was videotaped by the researcher eight times throughout the five month period. The researcher videotaped the entire conference between the mentor and prospective teacher. The first two conferences were videotaped in order to help the participants feel comfortable being videotaped. The six subsequent videotaped conferences were used as stimulated recalls. During the recall, each mentor viewed six different excerpts from her conferences. The purpose of each of the recalls was to provide a vehicle to help the mentor describe decision-making during the mentor/student teacher conferences. The structured interviews were designed to learn more about the perspectives of the mentor teachers as they work with novices. Questions for the structured interviews were shaped by interactions with the mentors. Issues which emerged within a set of interviews influenced questions developed for subsequent interviews. Each mentor was asked the same questions. (The questions are listed in Appendix B.) Observation data was collected from two different sources. The first source of data was collected from observation of the mentor/student teacher conferences. The second source of data was collected from observation of ° seminars where mentors and prospective teachers within the building and university faculty from the affiliated teacher preparation program met to discuss issues of planning and teaching a unit plan for language arts. Six conferences were observed between the mentor/prospective teacher dyads. 82 Five seminars were observed. Three of the seminars focused on planning and teaching of language arts. Two of the seminars focused on reflecting on the student teaching experience. Field notes were taken during the seminars to record process and content of interactions among the mentors. The interviews and observations were spaced throughout the five month period that the prospective teachers worked in 'the classroom with their mentors. The spacing was designed to provide opportunities for the mentors to build a rich variety of experiences from which to pull when talking about work with the novice in the classroom. Data collection was spaced over the entire five month period in order to capture a range of experiences including planning, teaching small parts of a unit, and full-time student teaching. Interviews were spaced approximately two-three weeks apart in order to provide ample opportunity for reflection between interviews. Mm Opening interview Initial entry to the site and the beginning of data collection began with a 45 minute interview with each of the five mentor teachers. This interview took place before the prospective teachers began their language arts field experience, so they were not yet in the classroom. The purposes of this opening interview were to I) gather background data about the experience of the teachers; 2) begin to understand how the mentors conceptualize their role and; 3) from the conceptualizations form the questions which would guide the first set of structured interviews. The interview protocol was first piloted with a teacher in a comparable role at another school not affiliated with this study. After revision, the protocol was then piloted with another teacher in a comparable role. After two revisions for clarification and substance, the instrument was used to interview the five subjects of the study. (The opening 83 interview questions are listed in Appendix A). There were several purposes for this opening interview. First, it was necessary to find out background information about each of the subjects to help the audience understand the different experiences and perspectives which each subject brought to this current mentoring experience. Second, before the mentors began working with this set of novices in the classroom, the researcher wanted to uncover the mentors' existing beliefs about what it means to mentor prospective teachers. Third, beliefs, questions and issues from the mentors' opening interview served as the basis for designing the first round of structured interview questions. Consistent with an interpretive approach to qualitative research, the research design is seen as a time in which "the researcher needs to get background information on the specific group(s) being studied before formulating more specific questions" (Jacobs, 1987; p. 22). The opening interview was divided into five categories. The categories were: description of work with prospective teachers; previous mentoring experience; how, where and when the teachers learned to mentor; mentoring within the Academic Learning program and a Professional Development School context; beliefs about language arts instruction (See Appendix A for the entire interview protocol). Structured interviews The mentors were asked six sets of structured interview questions to uncover and describe their perspective about what it meant to mentor prospective teachers. Each of the stimulated recall and structured interviews were combined into one interview set, totalling six sessions of 30-45 minutes each per mentor. The format for the interviews was that the structured interview questions were asked first, then the mentors would watch the video 84 and answer the stimulated recall questions. The questions for each of the six structured interviews evolved after study of data collected during the previous interview. From these interviews three research questions for this dissertation emerged. These research questions center around the mentors' views about learning, sources of knowledge and nature of reflection used to help novices learn to teach. This is consistent with the constant comparative method of qualitative research. As Strauss and Corbin (1990) state: "Data collection, analysis, and theory stand in reciprocal relationship with each other. One does not begin with a theory, then prove it. Rather, one begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge" (p. 23). The questions for the structured interviews are listed in Appendix B. Stimulated recall Stimulated recall is a method used to try to gain access to thoughts of participants during interactive work. With increased interest in helping teachers make implicit knowledge about teaching explicit (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Shavelson, Webb & Burstein, 1986), stimulated recall is being used as a method to tap into subjects' thoughts by looking at videotaped footage of their "knowledge-in-action" (Schon, 1987), and working to unpack this knowledge. Within this study, mentors will be asked to recall as much as is possible, what knowledge-in-action (Schon, 1987) guided their. interactions with the prospective teachers. Typically the stimulated recall method is used to help subjects recall what they were thinking at the time of the interaction, but this form of data is self-report, tempered with time and added reflection about the event. To increase the validity of this data source, these data will be used more as retrospective reports of the mentors' perceptions of their thoughts rather than as an account of their interactive thoughts (Keith, 1988). 85 Research on cognitive processes relies heavily on self-report measures. However, these types of measures create some questions of validity and reliability (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Ericcson & Simon, 1980; Shavelson, Webb & Burstein, 1986; Yinger, 1986) for the simple reason that the measure relies on recall. Ericcson and Simon (1980) caution that the reliability of stimulated recall hinge on the timing of the recall. The most effective use of these measure place the timing as close as possible after the event. The stimulated recall interviews took place within 24 hours of a conference between the prospective and mentor teacher. The conferences were primarily focused on language arts planning and teaching, however, since elementary teachers are involved in instruction of other content areas, conversations often drifted to other areas of concern. Six conferences between each mentor/prospective teacher dyad were videotaped. Within 24 hours of each conference, the mentors were shown an excerpt from the video tape and answered questions about their decision-making during the conference. The questions were open-ended in order to allow the participant's freedom in capturing their own meaning for actions. The same questions were asked to each participant. Probes were individual to the participants' responses. The stimulated recall questions common to each participant at each of the six recall sessions were: 1) If you were to select the most important thing that you said to your student teacher in this conference, what would you choose? Why would you choose this? 2) Was there a point in the conference where you chose not to say something? That is, did you have something in mind to say, and then choose not to say it? On what basis did you make this decision? 3) During this conference: a) what knowledge did you use to help you decide what to talk about? b) What knowledge did you use to help you decide how to talk about this particular tepic? 86 Discussion Observation allows the researcher to record what is happening in an event where participants are engaged in interactions (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). The author of this dissertation observed and took field notes in seminars held at the Professional Development School. The field notes focused on the process and content of interactions among the mentors. The seminars took two forms. In conjunction with the language arts methods practicum which was being taught concurrently on campus (fourth term of the program), mentor and prospective teachers at Brown Elementary professional development school were encouraged to attend three brown-bag lunch seminars help across the 10 week term to discuss issues of planning and teaching language arts. Two mentor teachers (Brooke and Paige) met with representatives from the university program faculty to plan themes for these lunches that would correspond with the language arts practicum. These themes were: 1) designing a central question for a language arts unit; 2) planning lessons of instruction; 3) implementing language arts instruction. Present at these seminars were five mentor teachers, four prospective teachers, the principal, and two university program faculty. The ‘mentor teachers opened and facilitated the discussions. The second type of seminar was held during the fifth term of the Academic Learning program. This was the term of full time student teaching. Four seminars were held across this term, two of which were observed. One of the mentor teachers, Brooke, volunteered to take responsibility to plan and facilitate these seminars. The seminars focused on helping the prospective teachers talk about, analyze and reflect on experiences in the classroom. Integrated in these sessions was the theme of developing and being able to 87 articulate a philosophy of teaching that was consistent with instruction. Talk was not limited to language arts instruction. Field notes taken during these seminars influenced construction of the structured interview questions about the role of mentor. Specifically, one quotation from a seminar was used to probe the mentors' thoughts and reactions to another mentor's statement (See Interview 6, Question 2 in Appendix B). Data Analysis The form of qualitative data analysis used is commonly referred to as the constant comparative method of analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Within this framework, data reporting and analysis will combine the use of narrative cases, frequency counts and visual representations to describe and analyze how five classroom teachers make sense of their role as mentors to prospective teachers, and patterns and uniqueness among the five cases. WEE: Use of the constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) involves description, analysis and comparison of data across the five subjects of study. As interview data from the five subjects were examined, descriptive categories emerged which synthesized major themes of the participants' words. Similar data were grouped together and provided with conceptual labels based on interpretations of the data. Three categories were labeled and used to frame the research questions and analysis of the study. 88 Waders; In order to uncover descriptive categories which represent the subjects' perspectives, the five classroom teachers were involved in an interview prior to the beginning of work with their student teachers in the language arts practicum (See Appendix A). This opening interview was framed around the primary research question to begin to understand how the classroom teachers make sense of their role of mentors in supporting novices to learn to teach. As the classroom teachers conversed in the interviews, the themes which occurred most frequently in the mentors' language were synthesized into three categories which were named: views about learning, sources of knowledge, and nature of reflection. The researcher developed these labels in order to provide similar names for what was evident in an interpretation of the data. The six subsequent interviews with the mentors were framed around these three categories in order to capture the mentor teachers' perspectives of their role. (For a list of the questions for the six interviews, see Appendix B). Since inquiry focused on the three categories listed above, three corresponding research questions were developed after the Opening interview around these three themes. These questions are: I) How do the mentors talk about their theories of how novices learn to teach? (views about learning) 2) How do the mentors use different sources of knowledge to help novices learn to teach? (sources of knowledge) 3) What is the nature of reflection used by the mentors to help novices learn to teach? (nature of reflection) The results and analysis include evidence from the mentors' perspectives in answer to the three questions listed above. The three research 89 questions will help support overall purpose of the dissertation, which is to describe how five classroom teachers are making sense of their role as mentor. Whats Figure 1 provides a visual synthesis of the frame used to analyze the data. The three categories of views about learning, sources of knowledge, and nature of reflection are represented. In addition to the three categories which emerged from the opening interview, many of the mentors spoke of similar themes which fall as subthemes beneath the main categories. These themes were labeled by the researcher, and capture the language of the mentors as closely as possible. After labeling the topics, they were placed under the category which most closely corresponded, in the teachers' words, to the category which the mentor was describing. The topics were used to describe data both in the cases and frequency counts. Wilda Analysis includes various efforts to capture the mentors' perspectives of how they make sense of their work supporting novices as they learn to teach. There are three different forms of reporting and analyzing the data. Within each form of analysis, views about learning, sources of knowledge and nature of reflection are used to frame discussion. The three conceptual forms of reporting and analyzing data are 1) cases, which use the teachers' language to describe perceptions of their role, 2) frequency counts, which describe the number of times and extent to which each mentor discussed a category or theme and 3) rumpus-.11, which were created by the teachers to visually represent perceptions of their role. Interview data collected from the five mentor teachers across a five month period (October-December 15, January- March 15) serve as the primary 2m3