FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE AN INTERN’S LEARNING ABOUT AND
ENACTMENT OF DISCUSSION-BASED TEACHING
By
Jessica Meier

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education- Doctor of Philosophy
2017

	

v	

ABSTRACT
THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE AN INTERN’S LEARNING ABOUT
AND ENACTMENT OF DISCUSSION-BASED TEACHING
By
Jessica Meier
This multi-case qualitative study examined the factors that influenced an intern’s
learning about and implementation of a core practice, discussion-based teaching (DBT)
during her two semesters of student teaching. Influenced by theories of how teachers
learn about and enact core practices, comparative case studies were conducted involving
two cases: (1) an intern and her first mentor teacher and (2) the same intern and her
second mentor teacher. Specifically, the purpose of studying each case was to understand
(a) how the mentor and intern worked together to promote the intern’s vision of DBT, (b)
the ways in which opportunities for practice influenced the intern’s enactment of DBT
and (c) how the contextual and biographical factors influenced the intern’s
implementation and learning about DBT. Data sources included direct observations,
semi-structured interviews, and audio-recorded conversations.
Cross-case analysis suggested contextual factors were most influential in the
intern’s enactment of DBT, namely the opportunities for practice and learning
community provided by her second mentor teacher. Evidence from the study shows
interns can learn core practices such as DBT, but autonomy and exposure are not enough
to build complex learning. Interns need to be placed with mentors who provide modeling,
targeted feedback and collaboration, and regular opportunities for guided reflection
around the core practice. Findings from the study have implications for teacher education
programs as they prepare new teachers to enact core practices.

	

v	

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank the College of Education at Michigan State University for
awarding me with a Summer Research Fellowship. The financial support allowed me
time to build on my research interests that ultimately led to this dissertation.
I am grateful for my advisor and Dissertation Director, Randi Stanulis, who has
been my cheerleader from the start. Thank you, Randi, for helping me grow as an
educator in more ways than you will ever know. Your sound advice, thoughtful feedback,
and encouragement (“You’ve got this!”) will always be remembered. I also wish to thank
my committee members for providing me with feedback throughout the process, and who
supported me well before they generously agreed to serve on my committee. Sandra
Crespo, your enthusiasm for education is contagious. I knew I could finish what I had
started so long as I kept myself surrounded by educators like you. Steve Weiland, you
introduced me to a range of literature that helped me see that writing is something I can
do, and even enjoy. Amy Parks, you helped me with the enormous task of designing this
study and provided me with the knowledge and skills to follow through with it. I wish to
thank Cheryl Rosaen, who also took me under her wing on day one. Thank you for your
continuous guidance, support, and confidence in me. I want to acknowledge Arthur
Hochman, who has been a friend and colleague since I was an undergraduate student at
Butler University. Thank you for planting the “Ph.D. seed” in my head and helping me
see it through. Your love for life, teaching, and everyone around you has always been an
inspiration.
I also wish to express my gratitude to my family. To my dad, for always inquiring
about my endeavors. To my mom, for graciously watching Jackson whenever I needed a

	

iii	

few days away to refresh the brain. To my sister, Jen, for always being available to chat
anytime of the day, especially when I wanted to procrastinate. To Jonathon, my brother,
for giving me the “pep talk” during my first year, and whose success in his own graduate
program served as inspiration. To my son, Jackson, for your laughs and smiles. And most
of all, I am indebted to my husband, Johnny, for moving across the country with no
hesitations, for standing next to me through all the ups and downs of this process, and for
always lending me a listening ear and words of encouragement. You are my true partner
in life and I could not have done this without your love and support.

	

iv	

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

ix

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Purpose of Study

1
3

CHAPTER TWO
Literature and Theoretical Framework
Core Practices
The Benefits of Discussion-Based Teaching
Literacy
Mathematics
Science
History
Technology
Equity
Standards
Definition of Discussion-Based Teaching
Features of High Quality Discussion-Based Teaching
Challenges
The Role of Mentoring
Theoretical Framework
Biographical Factors
Knowledge and Skills
Professional Identity
Contextual Factors
Conceptual and Practical Tools
Opportunities for Practice
Learning in Communities
Technologies and communities of practice

5
5
7
7
9
10
11
11
13
14
15
16
18
21
24
25
25
28
29
29
30
32
33

CHAPTER THREE
Method
Context and Participants
Internship
Intern
Context One
Context Two
Case Study
Data Sources
Observations
Interviews

34
34
34
35
35
36
37
37
39
39

	

v	

Conversations
Documents
Study Design
Data Analysis
Phase One
Knowledge
Opportunities for practice
Phase Two
Phase Three
The Researcher’s Role
Looking Ahead

40
41
42
42
43
44
44
45
45
46
47

CHAPTER FOUR
Context One: Cathy and Sarah
Cathy’s Prior Experiences: “Like a Sponge”
Cathy’s Internship Experiences: “The Exploration Phase”
Sarah’s Perspective: “Sort of at the Beginning”
Sarah’s Enactment of DBT
Cathy’s Enactment of DBT
Cathy and Sarah: The Dilemma
Concluding Thoughts

48
48
50
53
57
60
63
67

CHAPTER FIVE
Context Two: Cathy and Kate
Cathy’s Knowledge: “Scaffolding is Big”
Cathy’s Enactment of DBT: A Daily Routine
Lesson One: Social Studies
Lesson Two: Science
Features of High-Quality DBT
Kate: A “Natural” Part of Her Practice
Kate’s Enactment of DBT
Cathy and Kate: “A Well-Oiled Machine”
Modeling
Co-Teaching and Co-Planning
Coaching
Concluding Thoughts

70
70
73
73
74
74
77
80
83
84
85
87
91

CHAPTER SIX
Bringing It All Together
In what ways do the mentor and intern work together to promote
the intern’s vision of DBT?
In what ways do opportunities for practice influence an intern’s
enactment of DBT?
Opportunities for practice in university courses
How do contextual and biographical factors influence an intern’s
implementation and learning about DBT?

	

vi	

94
94
98
101
103

Conceptual and practical tools
Opportunities for practice
Learning in communities
Professional identity
Knowledge and skills
Perceived challenges
A New Model: Circle of Influential Factors
Discussion
Autonomy and exposure are not enough to build complex
learning
Learning in communities
Opportunities for practice
Mentors need to be prepared as educative
Limits of traditional mentoring
Creating conditions for educative mentoring
Implications and Future Research
Limitations
Conclusion

104
106
106
108
110
111
113
116
116
117
117
118
119
119
121
124
125

Researcher’s Reflection: A Note to the Audience

126

APPENDIX

128

REFERENCES

132

	

vii	

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1

Example of line-by-line analysis to create subthemes

45

Table 2

Factors influencing Cathy’s enactment of DBT: Context one

69

Table 3

Factors influencing Cathy’s enactment of DBT: Context two

92

Table 4

Sarah and Kate’s mentoring moves

95

Table 5

Cathy’s enactment of DBT strategies

	

viii	

100

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2

Factors that influence a student teacher’s implementation
of DBT

25

Relationship between knowledge and practice (Kennedy, Ball, &
McDiarmid, 1993)

27

Figure 3

Theoretical Framework

103

Figure 4

Circle of Influential Factors

114

	

ix	

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Historically, research in teacher education has focused more on what teachers
need to know rather than how teachers enact that knowledge (Darling-Hammond,
Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, Shulman, 2005; McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013).
Yet, there has been a shift over the past decade to a focus on how to prepare teachers to
enact core practices that are associated with highly effective teaching and encompass
both knowledge and enactment. Discussion-based teaching (DBT) (Stanulis, 2014) is one
such practice.
Influenced by the social learning theory, DBT is a practice that provides students
with opportunities to construct meaning through teacher and peer collaboration
(Reznitskaya, 2012; Weinstein, Roman, & Mignano, 2011). When teachers enact DBT
they provide opportunities for students to engage in challenging, critical, and interactive
talk to enhance their learning (e.g. Lampert, Boerst & Graziani 2011; Meloch and Bomer,
2012). The students’ learning has potential to improve in all content areas due to an
increase in critical thinking, high-level language development and metacognition.
Moreover, participating in carefully structured interactive discussions improves reasoning
in new contexts and results in deeper conceptual understanding (Reznitskaya, 2012).
When students are involved in interactive discussions, they learn how to collaborate with
peers and respond to multiple perspectives about complex issues (Almasi, 1996). Thus,
when students engage in questioning and discussions, they gain knowledge to succeed in
school and in life.

	

1	

Nonetheless, DBT is complex and difficult for teachers to understand and
implement (e.g. Almasi, 1996; Grossman, Hammerness & McDonald, 2009). Even
experienced teachers grapple with conducting discussions, much less novice teachers.
Researchers have concluded many challenges teachers face that prohibit DBT from
becoming an instructional norm. Anagnostopoulos, Smith, & Nystrand (2008) argue
teachers face the challenge of keeping discussions on path to meet the planned objectives.
Teachers need to be willing to try an instructional practice that is often new, challenging,
and risky (Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Maloch and Bomer (2012) suggest rich
discussions are less likely to occur because it is hard to measure students’ individual
progress. The students’ prior experiences with DBT and their roles can also bring about
many challenges when teachers try to implement DBT, as it is likely most students are
not used to co-constructing learning with their peers and teacher (Howard & Weimer,
2015).
Moreover, the gap between teacher education and practice makes it difficult for
new teachers to learn how to implement core practices like DBT (Flores & Day, 2006;
McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013). Novice teachers need ample opportunities to
transfer theories of teaching to enactment, but those opportunities are rare for most new
teachers (Grossman, et al., 2009; McDonald, et al., 2013). Research suggests mentor
teachers could play a role in supporting new teachers learn about DBT, as studies show
they play the most influential role during the student teaching experience (e.g. Clark,
Triggs, & Nelson, 2014; Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009). Yet, research
also shows that not all mentoring makes a difference in learning (Stanulis, Little, &
Wibbons, 2012). There are several other contextual and biographical factors that

	

2	

influence teachers’ learning of core practices, including their knowledge and skills,
professional identity, conceptual and practical tools, learning community and
opportunities for practice. This study examined these biographical and contextual factors
in order to better understand how they influence a pre-service teachers’ enactment of
DBT. As such, it contributes to the ways in which teacher preparation programs can
better prepare novice teachers to enact core practices, such as DBT.
Purpose of Study
This study focused on the factors that influenced an intern’s learning about and
implementation of discussion-based teaching (DBT). Specifically, the study examined the
following research questions:
1) In what ways do the mentor and intern work together to promote the intern’s
vision of DBT?
2) In what ways do opportunities for practice influence an intern’s enactment of
DBT?
3) How do contextual and biographical factors influence an intern’s implementation
and learning about DBT?
To investigate the research questions, comparative case studies were conducted involving
two cases: (1) a student teacher, or intern, and her first mentor teacher and (2) the same
intern and her second mentor teacher. The first case took place in a kindergarten
classroom in a large, urban public school district. The second case took place in a
third/fourth grade classroom at a Montessori public school in a suburban school district.
Data sources included direct observations, semi-structured interviews, audio-recorded
conversations, and documents. Theories of how teachers learn about enacting core

	

3	

practices framed the study, as within these theories are contextual and biographical
factors that influence the ways in which teachers implement high-leverage practices like
DBT. These theories, as well as the relevant literature on discussion-based teaching, will
be discussed in the following chapter.

	

4	

CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
Discussion-based teaching (DBT) is a core practice that has been proven to
provide students with academic and social benefits. Yet, it is also a complex practice that
is difficult for novice teachers to implement. In what follows, a description of core
practices will be provided to show how DBT is situated in the current picture of teacher
education. Next, a rationale for why DBT is important will be provided, followed by a
description of DBT, it’s challenges for implementation, and the role mentors can play to
help pre-service teachers overcome the challenges. The chapter concludes with the
study’s theoretical framework, which describes factors that influence how teachers learn
about and enact core practices.
Core Practices
Historically, research in teacher education has focused more on what teachers
need to know rather than how teachers enact that knowledge (Darling-Hammond,
Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, Shulman, 2005; McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013).
Yet, there has been a shift over the past decade to a focus on how to prepare teachers to
enact core practices that are associated with highly effective teaching and encompass
both knowledge and enactment. As a result, there is a greater push for integrating
university methods courses and K-12 classrooms to provide pre-service teachers
opportunities to learn about core practices and enact them in actual classroom settings.
Discussion-based teaching is one such practice. Like all core practices, DBT is a
complex, research-based instructional method frequently enacted across the curricula to
improve the learning of both students and novice teachers. In Grossman, Hammerness, &

	

5	

McDonald’s (2009) review of the literature, they found definitions of core practices have
the following characteristics:
● Practices that occur with high frequency in teaching;
● Practices that novices can enact in classrooms across different curricula or
instructional approaches;
● Practices that novices can actually begin to master;
● Practices that allow novices to learn more about students and about teaching;
● Practices that preserve the integrity and complexity of teaching; and
● Practices that are research-based and have the potential to improve student
achievement. (p. 277)
Researchers argue when teachers enact these practices, they are enacting principles of
ambitious teaching. Ambitious teaching requires students to use critical thinking skills to
develop deep understanding of content so they can apply their learning in the real world.
When teachers enact both ambitious teaching and core practices, they are also using their
knowledge about teaching in action at a level that requires deeper reflection and the
ability to transfer ideas about teaching and learning to real contexts. (Ball, Shaugnessy, &
Mann, 2015; McDonald, Kazemi, Kavanagh, 2013; Sleep, Boerst, & Ball, 2007;
Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012). For example, Grossman, et al. (2009)
explain when teachers lead classroom discussions, they are using their knowledge of
teaching and reflecting in the moment as they react to students’ ideas; they must respond
to students’ thinking and monitor their participation throughout the discussion in ways
that will support students in meeting the learning objective. Similarly, when teachers
enact the core practice “teaching students routines for working together”, they need to

	

6	

respond thoughtfully in the moment to the different needs of students and the different
group dynamics.
This study examines one of these core practices in particular, discussion-based
teaching. DBT has each of the characteristics that represent core practices. For example,
DBT can be enacted frequently and across the curricula. When teachers enact DBT, they
gain knowledge of their students’ understanding and perspectives. DBT also involves
several instructional routines novice teachers can learn one at a time, such as eliciting
student thinking, asking high-level questions and revoicing student ideas. In this sense, it
is feasible for novice teachers to begin to master DBT, and they can learn routines that
can be applied to all aspects of their teaching. Finally, research shows DBT increases
student achievement. As discussed in the following section, participating in carefully
structured interactive discussions improves reasoning in new contexts and results in
deeper conceptual understanding across the curricula (Howard & Weimer, 2015;
Reznitskaya, 2012). Important to note is that DBT looks differently within each content
area. For example, in math, the discussion is often about the students’ process, while in
literacy, students might discuss their interpretations of a text. As such, a lesson’s
objective within any content area may or may not lend itself to implementing DBT, and
therefore a teacher might not implement DBT on a daily basis. Even so, there are many
benefits to enacting discussion-based teaching in all content areas.
The Benefits of Discussion-Based Teaching
Literacy. Research shows the benefits of social interaction on student learning
starts at a young age. For example, Tolentino (2013) conducted a yearlong study of a
prekindergarten classroom to examine the nature of talk among children during literacy

	

7	

learning activities, and the ways in which the talk influenced the students’ work.
Tolentino reported when emergent literacy learners participate in daily collaboration and
co-construction of learning, with scaffolded support from the teacher, they become
literate. In this sense, talk is a “literacy tool” (p.17).
In Nystrand’s (2006) extensive review of the effects of discourse on reading
comprehension, he concludes “a number of studies show that reading comprehension is
enhanced by the classroom interaction of students with teachers and peers, including both
small-group and whole-group discussions” (p. 398). More specifically, the studies
showed discussions helped students recall what they had read, elaborate their ideas, and
problem-solve and reason with their peers. Many studies also showed discussions
improved the reading comprehension of academically low students and English language
learners. Similarly, Meloch and Bomer (2012) reviewed several studies and research
about the benefits of discussions and they concluded students become more critical
readers when they have repeated opportunities to actively participate in high-level
discussions.
Applebee, et al. (2003) examined the effects of discussion-based approaches on
students’ literacy performance in one of the largest studies of the kind to date. They
studied 64 diverse middle and high school English classrooms in which they collected
evidence of dialogic instruction, such as open discussions, authentic teacher questions,
and questions with uptake (ones that build upon a previous response). They also
examined the emphasis teachers placed on envisionment building-activities, or ones that
support students’ understanding of a concept over time through discussion-based
approaches; and extended curricular conversations in which the teacher integrated the

	

8	

reading, writing and discussions around specific topics for an extended period of time.
The researchers also paid close attention to the academic demands of students. For
example, were the students discussing and writing about texts that require critical
thinking to understand? They collected field notes, audiotapes, teacher and student
questionnaires (related to their backgrounds and present teaching/learning experiences),
and student writing samples during fall and spring semesters. The researchers found
“dialogic instruction, envisionment building, and emphasis on extended curricular
conversations are in fact related aspects of a common emphasis on discussion-based
instructional activities that support the development of understanding” (p. 714). This
proved to be true in both suburban and urban school settings, and students of all academic
abilities benefited from the combination of discussion-based approaches and challenging
academic content.
Mathematics. There has been a call for discussion-based teaching in mathematics
for decades (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). In mathematical
discourse communities (Sherin, 2002), students share and support their ideas, and they
respond to the ideas of their peers by asking questions and building on to them. The
teacher’s role is to ensure students understand the mathematical content throughout the
discussions by eliciting and monitoring student ideas. Number talks, which highlight
features of a mathematical discourse community, have become increasingly popular in
mathematics classrooms. Number talks improve students’ number sense as they mentally
compute problems and participate in five-fifteen minute conversations with their peers
about their problem-solving strategies (Parrish, 2011).

	

9	

Moreover, Blazar (2015) conducted a study to identify instructional practices that
support students’ achievement in math. The author contends the study provides “some of
the strongest evidence to date on the relationship between specific instructional
dimensions and students’ mathematical achievement” (p. 27). Instructional dimensions
that were studied included ambitious mathematics instruction (or inquiry-oriented
instruction), mathematical errors and imprecisions, classroom emotional support, and
classroom organization. Blazar identified elements of ambitious mathematics instruction
from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the Common Core State
Standards for Mathematics. Some of these elements were student explanations, linking
and connections, student mathematical questioning and reasoning, explanations, and math
language. Over a two-year period, he collected student demographic and test score data,
teacher surveys, and video-recorded lessons that were scored using two instruments: the
Mathematical Quality of Instruction and Classroom Assessment Scoring System.
Participants included 3,203 fourth and fifth grade students and 111 teachers. He
concluded inquiry-oriented instruction, which typically consists of peer collaboration and
discussions (Laursen, Hassi, & Hough, 2016; Pedaste, Maeots, Siiman, de Jong, et al.,
2015; von Renesse & Ecke, 2014), is positively related to students’ mathematical
achievement.
Science. In science education, Yilmaz, Tekkaya, and Sungur (2011) conducted a
comparative study of three types of instruction to determine which was the most effective
in deepening students’ understanding and retention of genetics concepts. Each of three
eighth-grade science classes received traditional lecture-based instruction, conceptual
change text (CCT) instruction (in which students read a text and discussed their own

	

10	

conceptions and common misconceptions to reconstruct new concepts), or discussionbased learning cycle instruction. Discussion-based learning cycle instruction involved
several phases. First, students made predictions and formed hypothesis based on a given
problem. Students then discussed their hypothesis and reasoning in a whole group, after
which they tested their predictions through inquiry. Finally, students discussed their
results and new terminology, and worked in groups to solve new problems by applying
what they learned from the inquiry. The authors determined students in the discussionbased and CCT groups understood and retained their knowledge of genetics concepts
“significantly better” than students who received traditional instruction. They contend the
findings support previous research that shows the benefits of discussion-based instruction
on students’ science learning.
History. In the history field, Del Favero, Boscolo, Vidotto, & Vicentini (2007)
conducted a study of 100 eighth graders to compare the effects of problem solving
through discussion versus problem solving independently on students’ understanding of
historical topics, as well as their interest in the topics. The participants were students in
four different classrooms, which the researchers chose based on preliminary data by
which they found the classes were similar in achievement levels. Two classes participated
in problem solving through discussions and two classes participated in problem solving
independently. The researchers collected data from interviews, questionnaires, learning
activities, discussions, pre-tests, and post-tests. They found students who participated in
the discussions seemed to have a deeper understanding of general procedural knowledge
of history than those who worked independently. The same group of students also had a
higher interest in the historical topics.

	

11	

Technology. During a time when technology is more widely accessible and
encouraged to be used throughout K-12 education, and hybrid learning is increasing, it is
also important to discuss the influences of DBT in online learning. After a decade of
research, Johnson, Adams, Estrada, & Freeman (2014) identified collaborative online
learning environments as a “fast trend” and an “innovative pedagogical practice” that will
likely have a large affect on online education in the coming years. Discussion-based
teaching promotes authentic learning which is viewed as “an umbrella for several
important pedagogical strategies with great potential to increase the engagement of
students” by connecting real-world experiences to academic concepts in virtual
communities of practice (Johnson, et al., 2014, p. 20). Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006)
reviewed multiple studies about student-student interaction in online courses and they
concluded the interactions improved learning when students discussed high-level
questions and comments connected to the content of the course. In a meta-analysis of 50
study effects, Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Bakia, et al. (2010) found that effect sizes
were larger for studies in which the online instructor provided students with collaborative
learning opportunities than in those studies where students worked independently.
Still, it is important to address that technology has drastically changed the way we
communicate with others. Sherry Turkle has dedicated three decades of research on the
impact of digital technology, including the ways in which it has limited face-to-face
conversations. Indeed, a recent Pew Research Center study showed out of 73% of teens
that owned a smart phone, 58% said texting is their number one form of communicating
with their closest friends (Anderson, 2015). Turkle (2015) argues that when children rely
on smartphones and social media to communicate, they lose the opportunity to build

	

12	

empathy and intimacy. Face-to-face conversations, on the other hand, allow children to
hear different perspectives, ask questions, and build deeper meanings. They also help
children see the emotions of the participants. Therefore, while it is likely students will
continue to communicate more and more via technology outside of the classroom- for
social and academic purposes- it is important for teachers to provide them with
collaborative opportunities inside the classroom.
Equity. Research also suggests DBT can promote equity in the classroom
(Aquino-Sterling, Rodriquez-Valls & Zahner, 2016; Tanner, 2013) when teachers
“attempt to position all students in meaningfully intellectual roles in classroom
discourse”, and build from their diverse perspectives (Wagner, Herbel-Eisemann &
Choppin, 2012, p. 6). For example, Wagner, et al. (2012) suggest when teachers
implement culturally relevant curriculum, discussions can provide students the
opportunity to share perspectives rooted in their own background experiences and
cultures. Teachers can then build on the students’ perspectives to support their learning.
Moreover, when teachers revoice students’ ideas during discussions to connect them with
the academic content, they show students their ideas are important and relevant. The
authors also suggest nuances in academic language can be addressed through explicit
discussions, such as the differences in meanings of words inside and outside the
classroom (i.e. the meaning of “sine” in mathematics versus the meaning of “sign”).
Furthermore, Michaels, O’Conner, and Resnick (2008) conducted 15 years of
research on what they call “Accountable Talk”, which emphasizes aspects of classroom
discourse that help all students participate to improve their learning. The authors argue
the need for accountability to the learning community, to standards of reasoning, and to

	

13	

knowledge. The first facet, accountability to the community, refers to how students listen
to their peers’ ideas, build on them, and ask questions. The second facet, reasoning, refers
to talk that draws logical conclusions and arguments. The final facet, knowledge,
represents talk that uses facts- as opposed to personal opinions or experiences- as
evidence to build explanations. The authors found in classrooms that effectively use these
facets of Accountable Talk “robust academic learning for students of all backgrounds has
been documented…across a range of grade levels and subject areas” (p. 295).
Standards. As a result of the aforementioned research, the criteria in several
popular teacher evaluation frameworks promote the implementation of DBT practices
(Danielson, 2013; Marzano, 2012; Silver et al., 2004). For example, DBT is at the
forefront of perhaps the most widely used teacher evaluation framework, Charlotte
Danielson’s Framework for Teaching. In fact, Danielson (2013) states, “questioning and
discussion are the only instructional strategies specifically referred to in the Framework
for Teaching, a decision that reflects their central importance to teachers’ practice” (p.
63). Similarly, Lampert, Boerst & Graziani (2011) identify the ability to teach high-level
concepts and enact DBT as criteria for ambitious teaching. Moreover, the
TeachingWorks Project (2013) identifies leading a whole-class discussion as a “highleverage practice” that will “increase the likelihood that teaching will be effective for
students’ learning...as warranted by research evidence, wisdom of practice, and logic”
(Introduction section). Finally, DBT is an integral component of the Common Core State
Standards, the Next Generation Science Standards, and the College, Career, and Civic
Life Framework (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014; National Council for
Social Studies, 2013; NGSS Lead States, 2013).

	

14	

Still, some may argue DBT is not a necessary practice to support student learning.
Indeed, there are some skills and content that can perhaps be learned best independently
or through memorization. As such, it is not expected DBT is the only practice
implemented by teachers throughout a day, rather they might move along a continuum of
traditional and dialogic approaches (Kathard, Pillay & Pillay, 2015). Yet, one should not
ignore the decades of research proving the importance of DBT. As Howard (2015) stated,
“At a time when…many Americans seem to have lost the ability to engage in reasoned,
respectful debate and dialogue, encouraging the development of skills and dispositions
necessary for civil discourse is particularly important” (p. 30). Discussion-based teaching
is important for students’ success inside and outside the classroom.
Definition of Discussion-Based Teaching
In the traditional recitation participatory structure, teachers use the InitiateResponse-Evaluate (IRE) approach where they pose a question, call on a student to
answer it, and determine if the answer is correct. In this structure, teachers provide
students with few opportunities to interact with one another and construct their own ideas
(Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long, 2003). On the other hand, DBT is a practice
that provides students with opportunities to construct meaning through teacher and peer
collaboration (Reznitskaya, 2012; Weinstein, Roman, & Mignano, 2011).
Nystrand (2006) reviewed 150 years of research on classroom discourse and
found discourse can be defined as:
•

An event- a dynamic, temporal process of negotiation between conversants in
particular, situated sociocultural contexts;

	

15	

•

Co-constructed “on the fly” by the conversants and appropriately understood by
the conversants only in the context of its emergence;

•

Structured by the terms of reciprocity between conversants, as each reciprocally
factors the intentions of the other conversant into subsequent interactions. As
such, utterances are “sequentially contingent” upon each other. (p. 397)

Compared to the traditional recitation approach, DBT involves more conversational turns
and few questions from the teacher.
Discussion-based teaching is influenced by the social learning theory- it
highlights social interaction and ‘dialogical meaning-making’ as the ways in which
students learn (Vygotsky, 1978). According to Vygotsky (1978), students need to play an
active role in constructing knowledge through dialogic exchanges that include speaking
and writing. Thus, knowledge is co-constructed rather than gained individually (Lyle,
2008). Students make interpretations, share ideas, and support their assertions with
logical arguments to understand an issue or concept (Almasi, 1996). The teacher provides
scaffolding as needed, but the students play an active role in their own learning; they ask
questions, encourage participation, choose their own strategies for assisting their
interpretations, respond to one another, and challenge each other’s answers (Almasi,
1996; Reznitskaya, 2012). For teachers to enact this form of high quality discussion
based-teaching, several components must be in place.
Features of High Quality Discussion-Based Teaching
Prior to enacting high quality discussion-based teaching, teachers need to plan for
several components. First, teachers need to establish a community of learners so students
feel safe and supported when participating in critical discussions (Benard, Rojo de

	

16	

Rubalcava, & St-Pierre, 2000; Tallent-Runnels et al, 2006). Students need to feel
comfortable sharing their perspectives and challenging their peers’ ideas (Bali, 2014;
McCory, Putman, & Jansen, 2008). Thus, teachers need to establish specific norms and
procedures for student participation. Second, to promote meaningful discussions and
collaborative learning, tasks should be authentic to students and promote high-levels of
thinking (Benard, Rojo de Rubalcava & St-Pierre, 2000; da Ponte & Quaresma, 2016;
Garrison, Wilson, Gibbons & Shahan, 2013; Hung, Chen & Tan, 2005). In other words,
tasks should be connected to the real world and be problem-based. Students should be
able to apply their own experiences to the tasks and they should solicit multiple views.
Several studies have also concluded students need to see representations of the expected
outcomes to effectively participate in co-constructing knowledge (Moallem, 2007;
Lipponen, Rahikainen, Lallimo and Hakkarainen, 2003). For example, teachers need to
model the task or provide students with worked-out representations to serve as examples.
Similar to the need for high level learning tasks, high quality discussion-based teaching
also requires high levels of questions that solicit multiple perspectives, critical thinking,
and meaningful discussions (Nystrand, 1997; Roth, 1996; Tallent-Runnels, et al. 2006;
Wang & Woo, 2007; Zingaro, 2012).
Finally, the teacher’s role during the discussion is vital to ensure all students
move towards improved learning. Teachers need to elicit student ideas, encourage
elaboration and multiple perspectives, and help students articulate their thoughts for their
peers to understand (Applebee, et al., 2003; Ghousseini, 2015; Nystrand, 1997). To do so,
Stein, Engle, Smith, & Hughes (2008) suggest teachers need to implement five practices:
1) anticipate student responses, 2) monitor the responses, 3) select particular students to

	

17	

share their responses 4) purposefully sequence the responses, and 5) help students make
connections between the responses and key ideas.
Challenges
Due to the national push to include more DBT in the classroom, some
interventions have specifically targeted helping beginning teachers learn to lead
classroom discussions (Stanulis, et al., 2012). Although DBT has social and academic
benefits for students, studies show veteran teachers and novice teachers alike rarely enact
DBT in the classroom (Kathard, et al. 2015; Mehan, 1998; Nystrand et al, 2003).
Researchers have determined many challenges teachers face that prohibit DBT from
becoming an instructional norm. Anagnostopoulos, Smith, & Nystrand (2008) argue
teachers face the challenge of keeping discussions on path to meet the planned objectives.
Teachers need to respond quickly to student ideas and help all students understand their
peers’ thinking, all while ensuring the focus remains on the content (Stein, et al., 2008).
This challenge, which Sherin (2002) describes as the tension between the process of
discourse and the content of discourse, can be a constant struggle for both veteran and
novice teachers.
Furthermore, teachers need to be willing to try an instructional practice that is
often new, challenging, and risky; this often deters teachers from implementing DBT
(Christoph & Nystrand, 2001). Instead, they rely on teaching practices with which they
are already familiar (Cooper et al., 2015; Williamson, 2013). Stein, et al. (2008) discuss
the challenge teachers face when facilitating academic whole-group discussions,
specifically in mathematics. The authors argue the typical “show and tell” discussions, in
which students share their mathematical processes, are not enough to help the whole class

	

18	

meet the learning objective. Teachers need to facilitate the discussions in ways that will
scaffold all students’ learning toward the objective.
Maloch and Bomer (2012) suggest rich discussions are less likely to occur
because it is hard to measure students’ individual progress. Teachers can be so focused
on who is participating, and the process of the discussion, that they lose focus on what the
students are saying and the extent to which they understand the content (Howard &
Weimer, 2015). Howard & Weimer (2015) also point out it is difficult to assess shy and
introverted students who do not often participate verbally.
Maloch and Bomer (2012) argue the use of mandated scripted curriculum focuses
more on preparing students for tests than on implementing rich discussions. Kathard, et
al. (2015) also found this to be true when they studied 15 classrooms across four different
elementary schools. The researchers did not observe any dialogic interactions, which they
concluded was in large part because teachers felt pressured to follow the strict curriculum
guidelines and pacing schedule. Santori (2011) conducted a yearlong study in a thirdgrade classroom where the teacher was mandated to follow a scripted curriculum and
strict pacing guidelines. Santori found, “such constraints can be daunting; however, it is
possible to work within district guidelines while paying attention to students’ interpretive
needs and interests across various participation structures.” (p. 205). The author used
guided reading as an opportunity to adapt the scripted curriculum and implemented
“dialogically organized literacy discussions” (p. 200) with a group of students. Compared
to when the regular classroom teacher followed the mandated curriculum (such as during
shared reading), students in the guided reading group were more likely to monitor their

	

19	

comprehension and formulate persuasive arguments. Nonetheless, teachers need the
resources and support to make such adaptations to the curriculum.
The students’ prior experiences with DBT and their roles also bring about many
challenges when teachers try to implement DBT (Howard & Weimer, 2015). While some
students may have experienced DBT on a regular basis in previous classrooms, it is likely
most students experienced the traditional approach. Therefore, their responsibilities as a
student will have to change, as they will be held accountable for co-constructing learning,
supporting their ideas with evidence, and responding to multiple perspectives. Likewise,
learning objectives for DBT require higher order thinking, something that is difficult and
often under-developed by students. This can also result in a lack of confidence. The
teacher needs to address these issues for successful DBT implementation.
Moreover, Howard and Weimer (2015) describe “civil attention” where students
appear to be paying attention, such as by nodding their head or by putting a thumb up
when they see other students doing so, which allows them to avoid participating in the
discussion. On the other hand, teachers have to recognize some students really are
engaged, even if they are silent. These students often perceive active listening and paying
attention to the same as “participating”, even though they are not verbal actions. The
authors argue it is important for teachers to know the students’ pre-conceived
expectations, on which the teacher can build upon. Similarly, in many classrooms, the
same few students will dominate the conversation. Teachers need to ensure the quieter
students see value in contributing their ideas, and they need to allow students a safe space
to do so. Teachers also need to consider that some students are introverts who are creative
and insightful, but who would rather listen than speak (Cain, 2012). Cain (2012) argues it

	

20	

is important for teachers to understand the barriers that keep students from participating
and create opportunities for students so participate comfortably.
With so many challenges, how do student teachers learn to enact core practices
such as DBT? Studies suggest the mentor teacher plays a significant role in helping
student teachers learn. Specifically, Stanulis, Little & Wibbens (2012) studied the impact
mentor teachers had on 42 beginning teachers’ enactment of leading discussions. The
authors found mentors who participated in a focused mentoring program were able to
help their mentee’s make “significant growth in their facilitation of discussions” (p. 38).
Therefore, it is important to examine the role of mentoring to better understand how
mentors can support pre-service teachers learn about and enact DBT.
The Role of Mentoring
Research suggests mentors play the most influential role during the student
teaching experience, as they determine the quality of the experience as well as what
preservice teachers learn (Clark, Triggs, & Nielson, 2014; Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, &
Tomlinson, 2009). Several factors influence the quality of the experience, including the
ways in which mentors participate and view their roles, the professional development and
support they receive, and the environment in which they teach (Clark, et al., 2014;
Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Hobson, et al., 2009).
In their extensive review of cooperative teacher literature, Clark et al. (2014)
concluded three common conceptions that describe the extent to which mentors
participate in teacher education. The first, which the authors refer to as “classroom
placeholder”, represents the mentor who immediately hands over the classroom to the
student teacher and is completely absent from the classroom setting. The second

	

21	

conception, “supervisor of practica”, assumes the mentor supervises the mentee by
observing and evaluating her practice. The third conception, known as “teacher
educator”, involves the highest level of participation by the mentor. Here, the mentor’s
role is to coach the mentee by providing immediate feedback and guidance to elicit deep
reflection. The mentor is viewed and acts as a teacher educator on the same level as the
university educators.
This conception is similar to what Feiman-Nemser (2001) refers to as educative
mentoring, which she describes as providing support for beginning teachers “by
cultivating a disposition of inquiry, focusing attention on student thinking and
understanding, and fostering disciplined talk about problems of practice” (p. 28). This
view of mentoring mandates a collective responsibility for the mentor and mentee to
improve their instructional practices and students’ learning (Drago-Severson, 2007;
Kardos, Johnson, Peske, Kauffman, Liu, 2001; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Kanevsky, 1993;
Little, 2006; Payne, Pimm, Britton, Raizen, Wilson, 2003; Wood, 2007). It also requires
participants to reflect upon their practice and engage in ongoing, focused inquiry (DragoSeverson, 2007; Kardos, et al., 2001; Little, 2006; Payne, et al., 2003; Wood, 2007).
Furthermore, mentors conduct frequent observations of the mentee and provide
opportunities for co-teaching and modeling, followed by one to one reflective debriefs
focused on specific teaching practices and student learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001;
Kardos, et al., 2001; Little, 2006; Payne, et al., 2003).
Bell, Stanulis and Maculoso’s (2015) study of two mentor teachers’ practices
found educative mentoring is “fundamental to support novice teachers’ continued
learning” (p. 5). Specifically, they found an educative mentor supports the mentee’s

	

22	

professional growth by encompassing the following characteristics: a disposition of
sustained inquiry, a long-term orientation toward teaching, a view of teaching as a
complex practice, and an understanding that she can learn from her mentee. The authors
also found assisted performance is an essential component of educative mentoring as it
helps develop a mentee’s complex understanding of teaching by establishing short-term
goals, guiding targeted analyses of data, and scaffolding the mentee’s learning.
Nonetheless, research shows this form of mentoring is rarely enacted (Clark, et
al., 2014). Mentors most often provide feedback that is positive with surface-level,
closed-ended questions. Similarly, debrief topics rarely go beyond classroom
management and routines to ones that are focused around core instructional practices and
student learning. Mentors often expect mentees to mimic their teaching practices without
encouraging the student teacher to explore and reflect upon alternative practices.
Likewise, mentors more often transfer knowledge to the student teachers, as opposed to
facilitating collaborative, reflective conversations that will increase the knowledge of
both professionals.
To further the complexity of mentoring, research shows universities typically
predetermine the roles of mentors without inviting them to be part of the decision-making
process. Also common is when the mentors act autonomously from the university in
response to their individual professional identities. As a result, researchers have
determined the need for a collaborative relationship between the university and the
mentors (Clark, et al., 2014; Schuster, 2014; Stanulis & Brondyk, 2013). In this
relationship, both parties should have a voice in negotiating the mentors’ roles as the
university provides support and focused professional development for the mentors. For

	

23	

example, Stanulis and Brondyk (2013) studied two mentors who participated in a twoyear professional development program through the university. The program taught
mentors educative mentoring practices, which focused on helping novice teachers learn
how to lead classroom discussions. The authors found the university-based program gave
the mentors confidence and a sense of authority to support their beginning teachers, and
both mentors helped improve their mentees’ implementation of discussion-based
teaching.
Mentors play an important role in supporting novice teachers’ learning. Yet,
research shows that not all mentoring makes a difference in learning. There are several
other factors that influence teachers’ learning of core practices. In the following section,
factors that might influence a pre-service teacher’s learning of DBT will be examined.	
Theoretical Framework
Theories of how teachers learn about enacting core practices frame my study.
Within these theories are contextual and biographical factors that influence the ways in
which teachers implement a core practice, such as DBT (Figure 1). These factors are
interrelated and have different levels of influence as teachers develop (author, 2015). For
example, the support preservice teachers receive in a learning community influences their
skills and knowledge (Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, Bransford, et al., 2005).
Similarly, the student teachers’ opportunities for practice influence how they learn to
enact a core practice in their professional environments (Grossman, et al., 2009).
This study will focus on the contextual factors in particular. These factors have
been shown to influence how teachers learn for decades, and more recently, researchers
have shown how they influence teachers’ learning about core practices. Although we

	

24	

cannot ignore the biographical factors, by focusing on the contextual factors on which
teacher educators can have an impact, we might be able to interrupt the biographical
factors. Moreover, a complete theoretical approach would mean examining all aspects of
biography, including, for example, one’s history. When considering one’s biography,
there are seemingly no limits. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, only biographical
factors that have already been established in research on core practices will be discussed.
Figure 1
Factors that influence a student teacher’s implementation of DBT

Biographical Factors
Knowledge and Skills. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) describe three
conceptions of teacher learning: knowledge for practice, knowledge in practice, and
knowledge of practice. Within these conceptions are assumptions and ideas about

	

25	

knowledge and practice. Knowledge for practice includes knowledge from university
courses, such as theories about learning and subject matter knowledge. Teachers within
this conception are often novice teachers. They are typically individualistic, as they try to
use their knowledge for practice to solve problems on their own rather than asking
questions or engaging in inquiry with colleagues. Knowledge in practice refers to the
knowledge teachers have that is embedded in the practice. Teachers within this
conception solve problems and construct new ones by connecting to previous situations.
They reflect upon and research their own practice and experiences. The third conception
of teacher learning, knowledge of practice, refers to teachers who gain knowledge from
conducting inquiries within and throughout learning communities. The knowledge they
seek is connected to larger political and social agendas within and beyond the classroom.
Teachers in this conception learn collaboratively and act as fellow researchers and
learners as they share their expertise.
Pre-service teachers need to have knowledge of practice to successfully
implement core practices. They need to have a deep understanding of the core practice,
including its purpose and strategies for implementing it (Hammerness, et al., 2005). For
example, teachers need to learn how to establish norms and procedures for student
participation, generate high-level questions and tasks, and use talk moves that help
students think critically, extend their ideas, and understand the ideas of their peers
(Ghousseini, 2015; Grossman et al., 2009; Stanulis, 2014). They also need to understand
how to connect the process of DBT to the content (Sherin, 2002; Stein, et al., 2008), and
they need to use their knowledge and skills to purposefully implement DBT across
curricula in ways that support their students’ developmental levels, experiences, and

	

26	

learning styles; and to promote equitable learning opportunities. Due to the complexity of
core practices, pre-service teachers also need to learn about and reflect upon their
implementation of the practices both in the classroom and within professional learning
communities.
Figure 2
Relationship between knowledge and practice (Kennedy, Ball, & McDiarmid, 1993)

Kennedy, Ball, and McDiarmid (1993) constructed a model that shows the
relationship between knowledge and practice (Figure 2). The authors argue teachers have
“knowledge, values, beliefs, dispositions, skills, etc.” (p. 8) within each of the six
domains. Some domains might work together to inform a teacher’s decisions and some
might have more influence over others. For example, a teacher can value the role of
learners as active participants in a discussion, but they may not know how to facilitate
discussions that help students learn specific learning objectives. As another example, a

	

27	

teacher might use a scripted curriculum to teach subject matter less familiar to her, but
she might create her own lesson plans to teach subject matter that is more familiar. The
authors believe the model can help teacher educators and researchers better understand
the extent to which each domain influences a teacher’s decision. Because the model
includes aspects of professional identity, it is important to discuss identity in more detail,
and the ways in which it can influence a teacher’s learning of core practices.
Professional Identity. Identity refers to the beliefs, values, and attitudes that
constantly change as one becomes a teacher. Rodgers and Scott (2008) conducted an
extensive review of how professional identity develops while one learns to teach. The
authors found definitions of identity, in relation to teacher education and adult learning,
share four ideas:
(1) that identity is dependent upon and formed within multiple contexts which bring
social, cultural, political, and historical forces to bear upon that formation; (2) that
identity is formed in relationship with others and involves emotions; (3) that identity
is shifting, unstable, and multiple, and, (4) that identity involves the construction and
reconstruction of meaning through stories over time. (p. 733)
Thus, A teacher’s professional identity is dependent upon their background and past
experiences in education, as well as their visions and habits about teaching and students.
For example, teachers have beliefs about their practice, their roles, their students’ roles,
and the content they teach; and these beliefs influence their decisions and behavior in the
classroom (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, et al., 2012; Li, 2014; Nespor,
1987; Pajares, 1992; Richards, 2008; Timperley & Phillips, 2003; Tsui, 2011). A
teacher’s present educational experiences, such as those in teacher preparation, as well as

	

28	

the context in which they work also influence one’s professional identity (Flores & Day,
2006, Rodgers & Scott, 2008). As their professional identities emerge, a pre-service
teacher’s vision for teaching guides their enactment of core practices (Grossman, et al.,
2009; Hammerness, et al., 2005).
Contextual Factors
Conceptual and Practical Tools. Learning core practices is a collective
experience facilitated by conceptual and practical tools (McDonald, et al. 2009).
Conceptual tools are theories and principles about teaching and learning which teachers
use to make instructional decisions. For example, during teacher preparation, a teacher
might gain knowledge of the social constructivist theory, which supports learning as a
social process. Teachers also often learn about the principles that support the importance
of differentiating instruction, as well as teaching culturally relevant information. These
conceptual tools provide teachers with knowledge about teaching, but teachers also need
practical tools to put the theories into practice.
Practical tools are specific strategies that teachers can enact in classrooms. For
example, think-pair-share is a strategy teachers learn to promote talk between two
students. Teachers might also use role cards during small group work, a strategy that
assigns specific jobs to students as they work collaboratively to complete a task. Or they
might use a tiered lesson plan to provide instruction for multiple levels of students.
Structured curriculum, which is common in most schools, might serve as both a practical
and a conceptual tool. For example, principles of the curriculum might rely on learning as
a social process and provide opportunities for students to co-construct knowledge through
specific strategies such as partner talk, small group work, and whole group discussions.

	

29	

The curriculum might also contain pre-designed higher-order questions and high-level
tasks for the teacher. Pre-service teachers need ample opportunities to connect their
conceptual knowledge and strategies in practice when learning how to enact core
practices (Grossman, et al., 2009).
Opportunities for Practice. “Practice” encompasses a wide range of meanings.
An individual can practice skills that come naturally or that have become easy to
perform, such as tying a shoe or driving a car. But when discussing the need for
opportunities to practice a complex skill like DBT, we are referring to “deliberate
practice”. Ericsson (2008) argues deliberate practice is necessary to learn a skill that goes
beyond what one can do automatically, or with little effort. Based on his review of
research on skill acquisition, Ericsson (2008) identified four conditions that need to be in
place for a person to improve performance of a complex skill. These conditions make up
deliberate practice. Ericsson found individuals made “significant improvements in
performance” when they were “1) given a task with a well-defined goal, 2) motivated to
improve, 3) provided with feedback, and 4) provided with ample opportunities for
repetition and gradual refinements of their performance” (p. 991).
Likewise, pre-service teachers need opportunities in their teaching contexts to
learn about and develop instructional routines that support core practices. These complex
skills can only be mastered through deliberate practice. Teachers need ample guided
opportunities to learn about and implement them across the curricula, receive
constructive feedback, and reflect upon their instructional use of the skills (FeimanNemser, 2001; Ghousseini, 2015; Grossman, et al., 2009). These opportunities should
take place in both university methods courses and authentic classroom settings.

	

30	

In methods courses, Grossman, et al. (2009) calls these guided opportunities
approximations of practice. Pre-service teachers learn about an instructional routine, plan
for enactment of the routine, and rehearse it while their peers act as students. Afterwards,
peers and instructors provide feedback and help the pre-service teacher reflect upon their
practice. The objective is to learn how to enact core practices in a highly scaffolded and
low-stakes environment before implementing them in a real classroom. McDonald, et al.
(2013) suggest a similar cycle for learning to enact core practices in teacher education.
They assert pre-service teachers need to learn about an instructional activity that helps to
develop the core practice (i.e. through instructor modeling or videos), plan for and
rehearse the activity with their peers, enact the activity in a real classroom, and analyze
their teaching and plan for next steps.
Novice teachers also need multiple opportunities for practice in authentic
classroom settings where they receive guided support to conduct inquiries around their
teaching (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Feiman-Nemser, 2001). These opportunities might be in
the form of co-teaching, where both the student teacher and mentor plan a lesson around
a core practice, enact it together, and reflect upon their instruction and student learning
before planning next steps. Novice teachers should also practice specific routines
independently, but mentors should serve as a coach by giving them explicit feedback and
guiding reflective practices.
Opportunities for practice can also work in conjunction with one another. For
example, Lampert, Franke, Kazemi, Ghousseini, et al. (2013) suggest teacher educators
and novice teachers participate together in rehearsals to help prepare novice teachers for
ambitious teaching. Preservice teachers first work with their peers to plan for and

	

31	

rehearse a lesson focused on a specific strategy. Next, they practice it with students in the
classroom, and finally, they reflect upon the lesson with the teacher educator and their
peers.
Learning in Communities. Integral to learning in communities is that learning is
a social practice; teachers use their shared expertise to participate in collective reflection
and problem solving around teacher and student learning (Lave, 1996; Little, 2006;
Wenger, 1998). The conversations are structured and systematic, and through their
collaborative nature members gain knowledge of and access to supportive resources
(Lave, 1996). Teachers analyze student data and engage in ongoing inquiry to determine
how to respond to students’ needs by improving their instructional practices. The
community helps novice teachers understand the complexities of teaching, including for
example, the many strategies and routines one must understand to enact core practices. It
also helps teachers make productive decisions about their instruction by guiding analyses
of student understanding. As a result, the communities have the potential to improve
novice teachers’ deep understandings of core practices.
Wenger (1998) identifies three characteristics of communities of practice: mutual
engagement, joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. Participants in a community of
practice are mutually engaged by contributing their own expertise and by productively
building on the expertise of others in the group. For example, a pre-service teacher might
bring her knowledge of using the role cards strategy while the veteran teacher provides
expertise for how to establish the norms and expectations with the students for using such
a strategy. A joint enterprise assumes members work together for a common goal. The
community negotiates the goal and the ways in which the community reaches the goal.

	

32	

For example, the field supervisor, university instructor, mentor teacher, and intern might
work together to negotiate a vision of DBT and the roles each person will play to make
the vision a reality. The end result is viewed as a collective accomplishment. A shared
repertoire includes “routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures,
symbols, genres, actions or concepts” (p. 83) the community uses as part of its practice.
This might include specific guidelines and prompts pre-service teachers use to provide
feedback to one another during in-class rehearsals, or it might include a conversation
protocol the mentor and intern use to guide their reflective practices after implementing a
specific DBT strategy.
Technology and communities of practice. Wenger’s research on communities of
practice assumes teachers are conversing face-to-face. However, it is worth noting the
number of people communicating via smartphones and social media is on the rise (Smith,
2015). Indeed, the majority of teens with access to digital devices prefer to use them to
communicate with their friends rather than having face-to-face conversations (Anderson,
2015). As these teens enter the teaching profession, their use of technology could
influence the ways in which they participate and value communities of practice. Sherry
Turkle, (2015) who has become an invaluable resource on the subject, has discovered
teens and young adults struggle with listening and speaking face-to-face due to their
reliance on communicating with technology. As listening and speaking skills are
necessary for successful communities of practice, technology could ultimately influence
the ways in which new teachers learn about complex teaching practices.
	

	

33	

CHAPTER THREE
Method
This study focused on the factors that influenced an intern’s learning about and
implementation of discussion-based teaching (DBT). Specifically, I sought to answer the
following questions:
1) In what ways do the mentor and intern work together to promote the intern’s
vision of DBT?
2) In what ways do opportunities for practice influence an intern’s enactment of
DBT?
3) How do contextual and biographical factors influence an intern’s
implementation and learning about DBT?
To investigate my research questions, I conducted comparative case studies involving
two cases: (1) a student teacher, or intern, and her first mentor teacher and (2) the same
intern and her second mentor teacher.
Context and Participants
Internship. The internship year is a component of the teacher preparation
program of a large Midwest university from which the intern received her undergraduate
degree. To receive a teaching certificate from this university, students must complete one
full year of a teaching internship in a kindergarten thru fifth grade classroom following
their graduation. Throughout the year, the interns take a total of four required masterlevel courses focused in literacy, mathematics, social studies and science. Interns attend
the classes approximately one day a week for six hours in a university building. Thus,
interns are in their field placements approximately four days per week. During the fall

	

34	

semester interns complete a two to three week guided lead teaching (GLT) period where
they plan and teach a 10-day unit in both math and literacy. Prior to GLT interns choose
one instructional practice to focus on throughout the literacy unit, such as DBT. During
the spring semester, interns complete a six-week lead teaching period where they teach
full time, five days per week.
Intern. Cathy, the intern participant, had graduated the previous spring with a
degree in Elementary Education. She was working towards her urban education
certification during the internship year. She began the internship in a kindergarten
classroom and moved to a fourth/fifth grades combination classroom in January.
I first met Cathy at the beginning of her internship year after one of her literacy
courses. Prior to the class, I had emailed the instructor to see if I could speak to any
students who had shown interest in learning about and implementing discussion-based
teaching as they planned for their GLT units. Cathy was one of the interns who
enthusiastically agreed to speak with me, as DBT was a main focus of her literacy unit,
and as she said, she wanted student talk to be at the forefront of her teaching. After my
initial meeting with Cathy, I spoke with her university field instructor who had been
supervising Cathy in her internship classroom since the start of the year. The field
instructor reported Cathy had a strong belief system about DBT and its benefits for
students. She also described Cathy as a reflective practitioner who was enthusiastic to
learn and grow.
Context One. Cathy began the internship year in a kindergarten classroom with
her mentor teacher, Sarah. When I discussed Cathy’s context with her prior to the study,
she informed me Sarah was open to Cathy implementing DBT and trying out new

	

35	

instructional strategies. Sarah was also participating in a mentoring professional
development program led by the university faculty. She was a veteran teacher of more
than 20 years. She had worked as either a second grade, first grade or kindergarten
teacher in the same large, urban public school district throughout her career. The
prekindergarten thru third grade school has a population of about 300 students. 62% of
the students are minority, and the majority of this percentage is Hispanic. Seventy-seven
percent receive free lunch. Sarah has a parent volunteer that helps in her classroom for a
few hours each day, providing administrative help and one-to-one assistance for students.
The teachers have no prep time and students do not receive art, physical education, or
music. The school has two class sets of iPads, but teachers must go through the district’s
technology department before they can download any programs. This often takes weeks,
which dissuades most teachers, including Sarah, from using them at all. The school was
designated as a STEM magnet school (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) the year
prior to the study. However, teachers did not know it was a STEM school until the
following year. Once Sarah became aware of the school’s designation, she began
attending quarterly STEM professional development sessions that focused on projectbased learning. When I met Sarah, she had attended two sessions, which she spoke about
excitedly. The teachers have access to project-based learning science curriculum, as well
as a basal reading curriculum. There is no school-wide writing or math curriculum, so
Sarah often relies on math lessons she finds online and Lucy Calkins writing lessons.
Context Two. In January, Cathy moved to a third/fourth combination classroom
with her mentor teacher, Kate. Kate was a veteran teacher of 18 years. The university’s
intern coordinator (IC) informed me Kate was open to implementing DBT and trying out

	

36	

new instructional strategies. She was not part of the university’s mentoring professional
development program. The placement was in a prekindergarten thru fourth grade
Montessori public school in a suburban school district. Approximately 300 students
attend the school and seven percent qualify for free lunch. Thirty-five percent of the
students are minority, and the majority of this percentage is Asian. Several of the faculty
members from nearby universities send their children to the school.
Kate has a full time staff member in her classroom that provides administrative
help and some assistance to students. The teachers receive 45 minutes each day of prep
time while students attend physical education, art and music class. Each student has a
laptop in the classroom, which they use throughout the day. Teachers receive regular on
and off-campus trainings focused on student engagement. They are encouraged to video
record themselves and observe one another teaching. According to Kate, they are experts
within their school. They use the standard Montessori curriculum, which provides
teachers with detailed lessons and manipulatives; although Kate often supplements other
materials, especially during social studies and writing. Although Kate has many resources
available, she feels tremendous pressure to get through the curriculum and meet the
district’s high expectations.
Prior to transferring to the Montessori school, Kate taught in a nearby district for
12 years. She attended a year of Montessori training, which she paid for herself. She
explained this was a difficult decision because she took a large pay cut when she
transferred, and her Montessori education credits did not count towards continuing
education credits mandated by the state. Nonetheless, she believed in the school’s
philosophy of teaching and knew the school leader had a reputation of supporting her

	

37	

teachers. At one point during the study, Kate volunteered to host 40 teachers in her
classroom from area schools as part of a Kevin Feldman professional development
program that emphasizes student engagement.
Case Study
A case study approach is an appropriate choice for studying the individual case
because it allows researchers to develop an in-depth understanding and a detailed
description of the unit of analysis (Flyvbjerg, 2011; Yin, 2014). More specifically, a
multiple-case study design is appropriate for two reasons. First, it provides an in-depth
examination of two cases that can be compared to make cross-case conclusions. These
two cases can provide insight to inform a more common case, or one where the
circumstances are similar to those of other student teachers (Yin, 2014). Second, theories
regarding the biographical and contextual factors that have been known to influence
teachers’ development are now being applied to the enactment of core practices, such as
discussion-based teaching. A multiple-case study design provides the potential to
“confirm, challenge or extend” (Yin, 2014, p 51) these theories specifically related to
how teachers learn to enact core practices.
Data Sources
A benefit to conducting case studies is the opportunity to collect several sources
of data to corroborate arguments (Yin, 2014). Throughout my data collection procedures,
I developed data triangulation by collecting multiple sources of data, and thus
strengthening the construct validity of the study (Yin, 2014). These sources included
direct observations, semi-structured interviews, audio-recorded conversations, and
documents.

	

38	

Observations. I conducted a total of nine direct observations, three during
Cathy’s first placement and six during her second placement. Each observation lasted
three to seven hours, and they were conducted at least once a month November thru
April. I scheduled the observations with the intent to see each content area at least two
times in each context, as this would allow me to see how the mentors and intern enacted
DBT practices across the curricula. I met this objective, with the exception of science.
Science was taught less frequently in both contexts and as a result, I was only able to
observe it one time in each placement. Although the main focus of my observations were
on the intern, I observed each mentor on two different occasions as well. Evidence from
these observations helped corroborate my conclusions for each research question.
I was a passive observer throughout all observations. I took detailed field notes
and collected photographs to help document important classroom characteristics (Yin,
2014). I also frequently audio-recorded student-student and teacher-student interactions
as I took field notes. I referred to these audio recordings throughout my data analysis to
ensure my notes aligned with the actual interactions that took place. For example, I often
recorded and took notes on Cathy facilitating whole group discussions. During data
analysis, I compared the recordings to my notes to check the accuracy of her talk moves I
had written.
Interviews. I conducted two one-on-one semi-structured interviews with the
Cathy, the intern. The first interview took place in November and the second one took
place in April. I also conducted one-on-one semi-structured interviews with the mentor
teachers, one with the first mentor teacher in November, and two with the second mentor

	

39	

teacher at the beginning of March and at the end of April. I audio-recorded each
interview and they lasted approximately 30-60 minutes each.
The interviews were segmented into three parts based on the three research
questions (Appendix A). This helped me gain insight into the influential biographical and
contextual factors, including the intern’s and mentors’ personal views and understandings
of DBT, as well as the ways in which the mentor supported the intern. Before I asked
questions related to their knowledge of discussion-based teaching, we viewed a video
segment of a student-led discussion in a third grade classroom so the participants could
draw on evidence from the video in their responses. The protocol for the second round of
interviews was based on data collected November through April. For example, because
there was evidence that Cathy was implementing DBT differently by the end of the
second semester compared to the first semester, the following questions were asked:
Consider your first semester versus this semester. How would you compare and contrast
your DBT experiences? The ways you enact DBT? What do you think influenced the
differences/similarities?
Conversations. A total of five mentor-intern conversations were audio-recorded
by the intern and submitted to me. Two of these conversations took place during her first
placement, and three took place during her second placement. I also recorded
conversations between the intern and mentor throughout my observations, as they often
conversed after lessons and during prep time. Conversations focused on co-planning
future lessons and debriefing lessons taught by the intern. These conversations provided
insight into how the mentor viewed her role and supported the intern, as well as the ways

	

40	

in which the mentor and other contextual factors influenced the intern’s knowledge and
implementation of DBT.
I also audio-recorded spontaneous one-on-one conversations between the mentor
and me and between me and the intern that took place during recess, lunch and prep time.
These conversations focused on a variety of topics connected to what I had observed that
day. For example, Cathy’s second mentor teacher, Kate, shared with me her observation
tool after I noticed her using it to take notes during Cathy’s lesson. This led to a
conversation about how she looked for evidence of student engagement, and her rationale
for doing so. As another example, after I observed Cathy teach a lesson with several
components of DBT, we had a conversation about how she planned that particular lesson
and what influenced her decisions to use particular DBT strategies throughout it. Finally,
I observed and audio-recorded one conversation between Cathy and her university field
instructor during which they debriefed a social studies lesson Cathy had taught. This
conversation provided insight into what Cathy’s goals had been prior to teaching the
lesson and the extent to which the field instructor influenced Cathy’s learning about and
implementation of DBT.
Documents. For further triangulation, I collected documents as secondary data
sources to help validate evidence from the aforementioned sources (Yin, 2014). These
documents included the mentors’ observation protocols and materials they received from
DBT-related professional development trainings. The intern and mentors also shared with
me district curriculum and lesson plans.

	

41	

Study Design
I conducted the first case study and second case study separately. After collecting
data for each study, I wrote an overview of preliminary findings. After analyzing the data
from each study, I drew cross-case conclusions. Because the context of Cathy’s second
placement was so different than her first placement, some redesigning took place before
the start of the second case study. For example, I conducted two audio-recorded
conversations with Cathy regarding her ideas and beliefs about the different contexts.
One conversation took place at the beginning of her second placement and one took place
at the end of the year. During these conversations, Cathy discussed the differences in
student populations and her relationships with her mentors. Another redesign feature is
that I conducted a second one-on-one interview with Cathy’s second mentor teacher,
Kate, at the end of the year. By that time, I had evidence to show Kate was supporting
Cathy’s vision of DBT, which included several audio-recorded conversations that showed
Cathy’s perspective of how Kate was supporting her. Therefore, I wanted to ask Kate
questions to dig deeper into how she viewed her role in promoting Cathy’s vision of
DBT. Finally, in my efforts to redesign features of the study, I sought to “saturate the
data” so that eventually I was gaining little new insights or understanding (Remler &
Ryzin, 2011). For example, data from Kate’s second interview supported evidence I had
already collected, but it did not provide me with many new insights.
Data Analysis
Prior to data analysis, I transcribed all interviews in full. I also transcribed
excerpts of all audio-recorded conversations. These excerpts were chosen based on their
relevance to the research questions. For example, I did not transcribe parts of the

	

42	

conversations that got off topic, such as when the mentor and intern discussed nonacademic related issues about specific students.
As a general strategy for analyzing my data, I relied on theoretical propositions
(Yin, 2014) as described in my theoretical framework. For example, I looked for
evidence of the intern participating as a member of a learning community, as well as
resources and tools she often used to support her teaching (i.e. scripted curriculum,
support from her mentor, course assignments, etc.). In combination with this strategy, I
examined possible rival explanations (Yin, 2014) to determine if there were other factors
that influenced the interns’ learning that were not discussed or were ignored in reference
to those identified in the theoretical framework (Glesne, 2006). More specifically, I
analyzed the data in three phases.
Phase One. I performed open coding, a line-by-line coding of the interview
transcripts, conversation transcripts, and field notes to identify any theme, idea or issue
that might be related to the intern’s learning about and implementation of discussionbased teaching. Ten broad categories emerged including, for example, Intern Prior
Experiences, Mentor Prior Experiences, Intern Beliefs, Mentor Beliefs, Mentoring
Practices, etc. I then looked for patterns to create a smaller set of categories, or core
themes, and sorted the data into those categories (Emerson, Fritz, & Shaw, 2011). For
example, within Mentoring Practices, themes emerged such as Co-Planning, Guided
Reflection, Problem Solving, etc. It was realized during this phase that two categories,
Knowledge and Opportunities for Practice, needed to be defined more explicitly before
moving forward.

	

43	

Knowledge. When looking for evidence of knowledge, I looked for any
discussion of or implementation of DBT-related practices. For example, in the second
interview Cathy said, “The questions that you pose cannot be yes or no questions. They
have to be deeper questions than that” (April 27, 2016). This segment showed Cathy had
knowledge of the types of questions that should be asked when implementing DBT, so I
coded it as “knowledge”. As another example, a mentor teacher shared in her first
interview, “We’re more into project-based learning, I think that’s different than
discussion-based teaching” (November 23, 2015). This segment showed the mentor
teacher had a possible misconception about discussion-based teaching, because projectbased learning has many components of DBT. Therefore, I also coded this segment as
“knowledge” as it could be evidence that she is lacking knowledge of specific DBT
features.
Opportunities for practice. When looking for evidence of opportunities for
practice, I looked for evidence of enacting, observing, talking about, and/or reflecting on
features of DBT. For example, Cathy said the following during a social studies lesson she
taught on March 3, 2016: “We are going to get into groups to talk about…What purpose
of the judicial branch does this scenario involve? How do you know? Do you agree with
the ruling? Why or why not?” This segment was coded as opportunities for practice
because it is evidence of Cathy enacting DBT. As another example, Cathy and her mentor
teacher discussed the groups Cathy made for an upcoming science lesson (Field Notes,
March 10, 2016). This was also coded as opportunities for practice because it was
evidence of Cathy and her mentor talking about DBT.

	

44	

Phase Two. In phase two, I performed focused coding by completing a line-byline analysis to determine further connections between the data and core themes, and to
define subthemes as appropriate. Table 1 shows examples of subthemes created within a
core theme, Intern Knowledge.
Table 1
Example of line-by-line analysis to create subthemes
Core Theme: Intern Knowledge
Subthemes
Line
Instructional goals
You also have to think about what your aim is for the
discussion (Interview 2, April 27, 2016, line 78)
Intentions of
implementation, students,
beliefs

Giving them those little low-risk exposures first I think will
be good so if I’m thinking about setting up my future
classroom- having them talk to a neighbor about what they
did over the weekend (Interview 2, lines 128-133)

Environment, students,
beliefs

It really is like if you don’t create an environment where kids
feel they can talk to each other, you’re not going to be
successful. (Interview 2, lines 191-196)

Students, challenge, math

They don’t want to talk about math. They want to get the
right answer and not talk about why… they forget about the
process. And the process is where the discussion comes in, so
if we eliminate the process, there’s no discussion to be had.
(Interview 2, lines 295-301)

Phase Three. For further triangulation, I analyzed the secondary data sources to
find additional evidence of how the contextual and biographical factors influenced the
implementation of DBT. For example, I reviewed the professional development materials
Kate, the second mentor teacher, gave me to look for evidence of how DBT strategies
were being taught at the trainings. This helped corroborate evidence I had that showed

	

45	

how Kate learned about specific DBT strategies, which she modeled for Cathy. During
this phase, I also listened to all audio-recorded conversations again to ensure I had
transcribed and coded all relevant excerpts. Finally, I examined the data to determine if
there were other factors that influenced the interns’ learning that were not discussed or
were ignored in reference to those identified in the theoretical framework (Glesne, 2006).
Indeed, one such factor surfaced which will be discussed in Chapter Six.
The Researcher’s Role
Although I was not teaching at the time of this study, I am a teacher at heart. Prior
to graduate school, I taught for 7 years in an elementary classroom. For four years during
graduate school, I taught at the university level. My role as “teacher turned researcher”
was a challenge throughout the study. I believe Cathy saw me as a source of knowledge.
She asked me for DBT resources, including videos and handouts from trainings she knew
I had facilitated. Because I wanted Katy’s participation in the study to help her
professional growth, I tried to answer her questions and provide her with resources after I
completed data collection, although I am sure the teacher in me unintentionally provided
her with immediate feedback on occasion.
Furthermore, I have been committed to DBT from the start of my teaching career.
After participating in several professional development sessions connected to DBT, it
eventually became a natural part of my practice. I witnessed the social, academic and
even emotional benefits it had on my diverse, high-needs students. I later worked on a
team for three years to provide DBT professional development for teachers in high-needs
urban schools. It is likely my moral commitment to DBT, and my own experiences with
the practice, influenced how I thought about and interpreted the data.

	

46	

Looking Ahead
Chapter Four describes findings from the first case study of Cathy and her mentor
teacher, Sarah. Findings from the second case study of Cathy and her mentor teacher,
Kate will be described in Chapter Five. In Chapter Six, cross-case conclusions will be
provided in response to the three research questions. I will also return to the theoretical
framework and explain a new model of factors that influenced Cathy’s learning about and
implementation of discussion-based teaching. Finally, the chapter will discuss
implications for teacher preparation programs and suggestions for future research.

	

47	

CHAPTER 4
Context One: Cathy and Sarah
Cathy began her internship in a kindergarten classroom with her mentor teacher,
Sarah. She began the placement the first week of September and I met Cathy six weeks
later. At that time, Cathy had a positive attitude about her placement as she expressed
many times that Sarah gave her the autonomy to try whatever she wanted. According to
Cathy, discussion-based teaching (DBT) is what she wanted to try more than anything
else. Yet several factors influenced her ability to enact DBT in the way she had hoped. In
this chapter, a description of Cathy’s prior experiences with DBT will be provided, which
laid the foundation for her vision of the practice. Next, an explanation of how interrelated
biographical and contextual factors influenced the knowledge and enactment of DBT for
both Cathy and Sarah will be provided, as well as a description of the role Sarah played
in supporting Cathy’s enactment of DBT. The chapter concludes with a summary of the
pair’s influential factors.
Cathy’s Prior Experiences: “Like a Sponge”
Cathy didn’t always envision herself wanting to implement discussion-based
teaching. Before coming to college, she admitted she had very different ideas about
teaching. “They were all very well intended”, she explained, “but they were the products
of how I was taught” (Interview One, November 23, 2015). Throughout her K-12
education, she didn’t recall ever having a “free-flowing discussion” (Interview One).
Some teachers allowed her and her classmates to talk, but there was always a protocol
they had to follow with the questions pre-planned by the teacher. Cathy shared a story
she will never forget about a high school teacher who “shut her down” when she tried to

	

48	

say what she thought a poem was about. She said the teacher wasn’t interested in hearing
other perspectives. Yet, Cathy explained her perceptions about teaching “changed
drastically” when she came to college “because professors were like I don’t want the
right answer…Give me what you think…I’ve seen how powerful it can be for even
myself…when a teacher lets us loose on an article, that’s what I learn from. I learn from
my peers and what they bring to the table” (Interview One).
During our first interview, she laughed as she told me about an article she had
read many times in her courses about discussion-based teaching:
It’s burned into my head because we’ve read so much about it in every
assignment. It says please reference Almasi, and its like oh my God! But it
really gets you thinking about are you being serious about discussion-based
teaching.
The Almasi chapter (from Gambrell & Almasi, 1996) she referred to is a staple in at least
two of the literacy methods courses at the university. Almasi explains the different roles
students and teachers play in discussions versus recitations. She also discusses the
cognitive, social, and affective benefits of classroom discussions, such as improved
critical thinking skills, improved social interactions, and increased enjoyment of the
subject matter. During their fourth year at the university, preservice teachers used the
ideas in the chapter to analyze a literacy discussion they planned for and facilitated.
Cathy said the instructional videos she viewed in her classes also helped her learn about
the value of DBT because she could see that the students were listening to their
classmates, valuing their ideas, and responding to them.

	

49	

Yet, she believed her experiences with DBT had been limited. For example, she
told me about an assignment from her senior-level literacy methods course in which she
had to plan, teach, and reflect on a DBT lesson. “We didn’t get to do it over three days or
over a week or be able to spend that time with the kids. So we could write about it but
from a very limited stand point.” (Interview One) She described another discussion
lesson she conducted her senior year in a science methods course. The instructor helped
her focus more on talk moves and as a result she learned how to press for more
information from the students. But again, she was only able to apply her ideas about
discussion-based teaching in one lesson during the course. She was happy her current
literacy and math professors encouraged the interns to plan for discussions during their
guided lead teaching and she hoped it would improve her learning about DBT. After all,
she was a self-described “sponge” when it comes to learning new things, and she
especially resonated with DBT.
Cathy’s Internship Experiences: “The Exploration Phase”
As a result of Cathy’s limited experiences prior to the internship, she was unsure
about her ability to effectively implement DBT, but she was also hopeful and knew it was
something she wanted to do. Ten weeks after the start of the internship, I asked Cathy
about where she thought she was in developing the practice. She responded:
I would say very much at the beginning. Its very much the transition between
reading about and idealizing it and fantasizing about this awesome discussion
based lesson you’re going to have, to planning it, studying mentor texts, studying
whatever stories you’re going to have…So, its really kind of the exploration
phase. Trying to implement it. (Interview One)

	

50	

Cathy’s experiences with DBT in the teacher education program made her eager to
implement the practice, but she believed she had a long way to go before she could do so
with success and confidence. In our first interview, Cathy showed her timidity about
implementing DBT:
You say you want to implement it, but are you doing what you need to be doing in
order to actually implement it? Which I think is a big risk as a teacher is to let
your classroom go. Um, because you never want to seem like you’re out of
control and I think that’s just something all teachers feel is that kind of productive
chaos or productive struggle. Are you ready to let that go? So I’m going to have
to like mentally prepare myself to do a discussion-based lesson, because there’s
no writing, there’s no directions or outline for them. I don’t dictate it...How do I
navigate them back to the question?
Cathy talked about her attempts at implementing DBT in her internship placement and
explained she was concerned about focusing too much on managing the students, and not
enough on the content. She was also concerned that she would not give students enough
scaffolding to help them be successful and wondered about the limits of her expectations.
Can they think abstractly? What is too advanced for the students that could cause
challenges?
Cathy was facing many of the same challenges that often discourage teachers
from implementing DBT. Cathy viewed the practice as risky and challenging, and she
was concerned about her ability to keep students focused on the learning objective.
Novice and veteran teachers feel the “productive struggle” she described in the interview,

	

51	

as it is difficult to facilitate a discussion that ensures students are participating in the
discourse and learning from their peers at the same time.
In several instances Cathy shared what she hoped her students would be able to do
with DBT, but she said she had not “trained them yet”. For example, she wanted students
to ask their own questions, respond to higher-level questions, use talk cards with sentence
starters (which they had in the classroom), and guide the discussion. These features of
DBT were taught in her courses and were discussed in the aforementioned Almasi text.
She told me about a third grade teacher, Mr. G, she recently observed at the same school:
He is just like out of this world to watch! Like so up beat and gets the kids going.
I mean he asks questions of them and they all know how to talk to each other.
They were doing math one day. And he was like, he had put a problem on the
board and one kid went up there to solve it and he said, “Alright, what do we
think about this?” and he let the kids talk about why it was wrong or right. And
the problem was done correctly but he let them prove why it was. He didn’t go up
there and say, “Yep, next one”. Um, so that was really cool to see. He was very
high energy. Very interested in getting the kids involved and not being the one
whose talking all the time. (Interview One)
Through Cathy’s university courses and observation of Mr. G, she understood the value
of DBT and had knowledge of several strategies she wanted to implement. She expressed
several concerns about enacting the practice, but her concerns are common for novice and
veteran teachers. Even with her concerns, she knew DBT was a practice she wanted to
improve upon.

	

52	

Sarah’s Perspective: “Sort of at the Beginning”
Sarah, the mentor teacher, recalled her own K-12 education without fondness. “It
was all the teacher. All of us sat there. And I remember not liking school because I was
not um, I wasn’t a really good student” (Interview One, November 23, 2015). As a result,
she believed students, especially kindergartners, should have more time to play and
explore. She also believed this is when students learn how to work together and problem
solve. I observed centers (the students’ time to play and explore) each day I observed.
One day Sarah cut out the math lesson and decided to give students more center time
instead. Yet, she said the curricular mandates hindered her ability to give the students as
much playtime as she would have liked.
As Sarah talked about her own experiences, she questioned her knowledge and
maintained that the lack of resources prevented her from effectively implementing
discussion-based teaching. When asked about the role of the students in DBT, Sarah
responded,
The role of the student would be (pause) to, to answer the questions. To get
um, to be able to think through and problem solve or- I don’t really know- I
would think (laughs)…and create an environment that they’re all learning from.
(Interview One)
As I pressed her to talk more about how she plans for DBT that helps students “problem
solve”, she said planning for specific questions “should” be done, but she replied,
That's a hard thing. And I think you learn it more as you teach because you
know, their questions lead to a different way of questioning. And I think that
you, you really learn that as you’re teaching. I think that’s a hard thing to teach

	

53	

somebody, you know what I mean? I think if they see it, they can remember it and
try to integrate it. But I, I just think that's sort of, its something you learn.
Sarah acknowledged that learning how to plan for and ask high-level questions is
challenging and she was unable to explain whether she planned for such questions. She
believed it is something a teacher learns while teaching or by observing. She did not see
it as something that needed to be explicitly taught or scaffolded for new teachers, perhaps
because she did not receive explicit instruction for how to plan for and implement highlevel questioning, an important feature of DBT.
When I asked Sarah where she is in her development of discussion-based
teaching, she responded, “Well, sort of in the beginning in a lot of ways because we’re
more into like project based learning and so we’re doing more with- I think that’s
different than discussion based. Am I correct or not?” (Interview One). Sarah was
referring to a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) professional
development she recently attended to learn about project-based learning (PBL). At the
time of our interview, she had not implemented any of the PBL lessons, but she had plans
to implement one later in the month. I explained to Sarah the integrated components of
DBT and PBL. She showed reluctance in implementing the first PBL lesson, and any
DBT lesson:
Cathy and I are always trying to figure out the best way to get them on the right
path or saying what we’re hoping they’re going to say. (Laughs.) Um so I would
say in kindergarten I feel like I’m sort of at the beginning…because its hard to get
them to converse with each other…In kindergarten we find group things are very
hard because they’re still so into “me, me, me”. (Interview One)

	

54	

Indeed, when I asked Sarah to describe a DBT lesson she planned for and implemented,
she could not recall a particular one. Instead she explained a PBL lesson she planned to
implement, but in her description of the lesson she did not describe any elements of DBT,
including how the students would work together. For example, Sarah explained they
would be reading Jack and the Beanstalk, and
They [students] have to try to create their own beanstalk by using pipe
cleaners…that will hold a little teddy bear at the top. So what we have to do is
really start talking about what the structure needs to look like, what needs to
be strong, how the base needs to be strong. (Interview One)
Sarah’s description of the lesson portrayed students as working individually. She did not
say they would need to focus on how to work together, or how to conduct an inquiry.
Instead, she said the students would “create their own” and it seems they would be given
so much background information about structures ahead of time that there would be little
opportunity for them to co-construct learning nor engage in high-level thinking during the
project.
Sarah seemed to be aware that she had a lot to learn about DBT and she wished
there were more resources available. She asked about school districts, or specific
teachers, where effective implementation of DBT was happening, so she could observe
teachers in action. She felt this would be most beneficial to her because she is a visual
learner and she wanted to see what changes she should make. “I’m very open to change”,
she said. She also feels that lack of time is holding her back from learning about and
implementing DBT:

	

55	

I would love to have more, more project based um situations…There’s just a lot
of things we keep talking about but its, its time because we don’t have the art,
music, PE, we have no planning time. So its all done after school and…I feel like
that's what stops me. But…I mean that's not the answer to this. I mean I’m not
going to get better at it if I don’t give that time up or put into it. But it takes a lot
of planning to do anything well. (Interview One)
At the end of our interview, she brought up the challenge of time again. She said she
knows the kids love DBT, but the time for implementing it and getting the materials
together makes it so difficult: “Its just time. I mean it really is, and being able to get the
materials around. Because all the kids love it you know. Its just, its just the time of
implementation and what its pulling away from, you know what I mean? Not that its bad,
but…It’s time”.
Sarah stated another challenge with implementing DBT is “the type of children
we get”. She said their prior knowledge and vocabulary is limited which makes the
students struggle with communicating their ideas. She said it is also difficult to “keep
them reined in and keep them from not yelling out and from not giving the answersespecially at this level because they just want to be heard” (Interview One). She
understood students needed to be taught how to work together and discuss ideas, but it
seems her limited knowledge of DBT and lack of time for planning kept her from
enacting features of high-quality DBT.
Sarah seems to think DBT could be important, but she also believes there are
barriers that prevent her from making enactment of DBT a priority, including time,
resources, and her particularly challenging students.

	

56	

Sarah’s Enactment of DBT
Sarah, the mentor, labeled her enactment of discussion-based teaching as
“beginning”. My observations of Sarah supported her belief. I only observed Sarah
attempting DBT a few times. On one occasion, after students completed a craft activity in
which they made turkeys, Sarah put a picture of an ostrich on the overhead screen and
asked students, “What makes ostriches birds?” (It sounded like a student asked her about
ostriches.) The students raised their hands and waited to be called on. Before calling on
anyone, Sarah asked questions about the ostrich’s characteristics and the students
answered in unison. The remainder of the conversation went as follows:
Sarah: Look at the pictures of people riding ostriches. Why can’t we ride birds
around here?
(Students raise their hands to answer.)
Sarah: Look at the picture of turkeys. Do turkeys have…(lists characteristics of
birds)?
(Students answer in unison.)
Sarah: How many fingers and hands did we have in all?
(Students had traced their hands to make the turkey’s feathers.)
Conner: 5
Sarah: Who thinks there is a different answer out there?
Monica: 4
Sarah: What do you think, C?
Charles: 10

	

57	

Sarah tells students to quietly come to the back of the room. She apologizes to me
and says, “This is not a typical day, I won’t see a lot of “why” questions.” (Field
Notes, November 23, 2015)
Sarah attempted to initiate student dialogue by asking questions, but the questions were
surface level and they were asked in a recitation style. She called on a few students to
answer her questions, and she did not use talk moves to press their thinking or to
encourage elaboration. Instead, she concluded by showing the students the correct
answer.
In another example, Sarah engaged in a read-aloud with a Martin Luther King, Jr.
informational book:
Sarah: Does anyone know what a protest is? (No one responds, so Sarah
explains.)
(She continues reading.)
Sarah: He was playing things you guys like to do. How many of you have ever
sang in a church? (Some students raise their hands.)
Sarah: So these are things you have done also.
(She continues reading.)
Sarah: What does that mean? (In reference to Martin Luther King Jr.’s
experience of being told he couldn’t play with his friends because he was black.)
Monica: They aren’t going to be friends anymore?
Sarah: Why? What reason do they give us? (She calls on a student and adds to
what he says.)
(She continues reading.)

	

58	

Sarah: Does anyone know what a slave is?
(She calls on a student, and adds to what he says.)
Sarah: We are going to stop here. So far, what have we learned about MLK?
Do we do different things than he did? Do we get to play at different places
than he got to play?
(Sarah does not call on students to respond to her questions. She dismisses
them from the carpet.) (Field Notes, January 20, 2016)
Sarah largely used a recitation approach to guide students in thinking about the meaning
of words in the text and in making personal connections. She made one attempt to call on
a student to build on the idea of his peer. Overall, she did not encourage students to
elaborate on their ideas. She called on one student per question, and added on to their
response to ensure it was “correct”. The stated objective of the read aloud, to learn why
MLK Jr. is important and how he changed the way we live in our country, was a highlevel prompt. However, Sarah did not connect back to it at any other time during the read
aloud.
During center time, Sarah frequently enacted features of discussion-based teaching,
where students talking to each other seemed to occur naturally. For example, during
center time on December 10, 2015 the following interaction took place:
The boys at the blocks center put their hand up and say a peer’s name to show her
where they are. A student starts adding to the structures the boys are making. The
boys don’t seem to mind at all. One boy adds to the other student’s structure. A
structure falls and Sarah asks, “How can we build something that won’t fall?
What can you do to fix the problem?” A student responds, “Make legs.” Sarah

	

59	

restates her question, “How can I make this from falling on his?” She prompts
students to think about how to make the structure stronger. Two boys at the
alphabet group immediately start working together using one puzzle board. The
two girls work independently. Students at the cutting/gluing group are talking
quietly and playing a guessing game with each other as they cut. Two girls walk
around the room together looking for “letter O” words, as suggested by Sarah.
Later, a boy joins them and they search together. Two boys at the alphabet center
problem solve together. They realize one has upper case letters and the other has
lower case letters so they decide to work together to complete task. (Field Notes)
This excerpt represents the steady flow of student talk and collaboration I observed each
time the students participated in centers. Sarah encouraged students to work together
during centers and at times she prompted them to use their problem-solving skills.
Important to note is centers seemed to be the exception to the rule. I most often observed
students sitting quietly and restlessly at their desks or at the carpet for extended periods
of time until Sarah called on them to speak.
Cathy’s Enactment of DBT
Cathy said students are doing the “beginner workings of discussion-based
teaching” (Interview One). Cathy led small-group writing conferences in which students
could talk to each other about their stories and share pictures they created. Students were
also provided opportunities to quietly talk about their writing with their table peers. She
asked students to share their thinking in math, but this was not observed as being a
discussion; at this point students did not build off each other’s responses or explain their
agreement and disagreement. Cathy tried to implement features of DBT during whole

	

60	

group instruction. On one occasion, Cathy used turn and talk at the beginning of a writing
lesson when she asked students to share their own stories with a friend. The students
quickly turned to one another as if it were a daily routine, although it was never observed
to happen again. Cathy tried especially hard to implement DBT during read-alouds. At
the end of her first placement, on January 20, 2016, Cathy engaged in what was a typical
read-aloud lesson. She was reading a Junie B. Jones book while students sat at the carpet,
and she frequently stopped reading to initiate student talk:
Cathy: What do you think will happen to Junie?
(Monica raises her hand to answer, “Maybe she will never be able to play.”
Cathy calls on Jeremiah who answers, “She’s grounded”. Students start saying
they have been grounded before. Cathy continues reading and stops to ask: “What
is Junie B. making progress on? What has she been doing this whole book?” She
calls on Veronica who says, “Cutting hair”.)
Cathy: Cutting hair. Marcus, is that what you were going to say?” Marcus
responds “yes” and Cathy says he has the right idea because “beauty shop” is in
the title.
(A student makes a prediction, and Cathy says, “Let’s finish the chapter and see.”
She stops and asks what students think Junie is holding. They chorally respond
that she has scissors. Cathy continues reading.)
Cathy: Why is Junie B Jones frowning?
(She calls on Marcus and repeats what he said: “Maybe she thought her hair
looked awful”. Another student is called on and says, “Maybe her hair is too
short.”)

	

61	

Cathy: (repeating what a student just said) Ooh, we’re predicting that she’s going
to get in trouble.
(She calls on four students in all, then she continues reading and stops to ask, “Do
you know what “tiltier” means?”)
Anthony: Bendier!
(Cathy shows what tilting means by standing and tilting her body.)
Similar to Sarah, Cathy led students in making predictions through personal connections
and in thinking about the meaning of the words. She promoted student participation by
calling on several students to answer the same questions and by allowing them to answer
chorally. However, Cathy used a recitation style approach. She did not encourage
students to elaborate on their ideas, or to respond to each other’s ideas. This might have
been in part because the levels of questions she asked did not promote critical thinking,
and therefore did not necessarily require elaboration. Yet, because Cathy did most of the
talking, only a small percentage of students shared individual thoughts and it was unclear
if the students valued the ideas of each other.
Although Cathy was attempting to implement DBT moves, she was aware she
was not implementing effective DBT lessons. She told me she had tried doing DBT
lessons but the students “just answered some questions to me”(Interview One). She
described a social skills lesson she taught during the first few weeks of school and
afterwards she reflected on how she could have initiated more student talk. She did not
mention asking Sarah for guidance. On multiple occasions she told me neither she nor
Sarah had implemented a “true” DBT lesson, nor had they discussed a DBT lesson. When
I asked her how she and Sarah were analyzing DBT together, she was matter-of-fact

	

62	

when stating, “I wouldn’t say we’re really analyzing anything because there’s nothing to
analyze” (Interview One). She claimed they had never made an anchor chart with the
students or documented their ideas. My observations support this claim, as there was no
evidence of co-constructing knowledge, except for during centers. On the other hand,
Sarah claimed they were implementing DBT “wherever it fits in” and were talking about
it throughout the day, especially when they decided how to pair students (Interview One).
The following excerpt, from my first interview with Cathy, further showed how their
ideas about student talk differ:
I don’t believe in like “does everyone agree” and everyone goes “yeah!”. That
doesn’t teach me anything. That doesn’t tell me that you all actually know
something. Whereas I think with my mentor it’s very much, um, you know, she’ll
pose a question and it's a leading question. She wants the kids to understand
something and so she’ll say “dadadada, we understand that, right?” and all the
kids, because they’re six years old, say “yes!”. That's kind of the difference there,
I think.
Cathy had the knowledge of several components of DBT and she could recognize a true
DBT lesson. However, her understanding seemed to differ from her mentor’s, making it
difficult for Cathy to move her learning of the practice to the next level.
Cathy and Sarah: The Dilemma
Cathy told me on several occasions that her mentor was open to Cathy trying new
things. Indeed, when I asked Sarah about her role as a mentor, she said she sees herself,
“Just sort of as a guide. Trying to guide her [Cathy] the way I think things work, but also
allowing her to try it her way and talking about what she did…right or what needs to

	

63	

change” (Interview One). Sarah also praised Cathy’s teaching and her confidence, which
had encouraged Sarah to let Cathy have autonomy. Although Cathy was given the green
light to try new things, such as DBT, Cathy was struggling to find the scaffolded support
she needed. The following excerpt shows the dilemma in which Cathy found herself:
I think that my mentor tries and that's something she wants to do but it takes a lot
of planning and it requires a lot of trust and a lot of skill building and its hard
because in our classroom there’s a lot of telling kids to be quiet. Like, “you’re
being too loud and stop talking”, and I actually think that discussion-based
lessons would solve like 90 percent of the behavior issues we have because
they’re so deeply engaging. And so I think we spend a lot of time telling kids to
be quiet when we should be teaching them how to talk strategically. So use those
words and use them to build something, to do something! Um, so I think that's
kind of been a frustrating point for me is that I would love to get the kids talking.
(Interview One)
Cathy said the students had never learned how to talk to one another, and she did
not know how to do that for kindergartners. She knew they needed explicit instruction
and scaffolding, but she was not sure where to begin. Sarah had never modeled it for her
and Cathy believed Sarah did not have the knowledge to do so. Cathy did not fault Sarah
for this. As stated in the above excerpt, Cathy believed Sarah wanted to enact DBT, but
Cathy identified herself as more of a risk-taker. She believed Sarah had been teaching
one way for so long that she’s “nervous to implement it” (Interview One). Cathy also
thought Sarah lacked confidence because she was unsure whether she was doing it right
or wrong. Cathy wished someone could coach her and Sarah.

	

64	

Cathy also expressed concern that she and Sarah did not know how to plan for a
DBT lesson. Cathy hoped to overcome this obstacle during her writing unit, in which she
planned to implement student talk. She found the curriculum Sarah initially suggested
promoted a lecture-based approach to learning. Cathy expressed her concerns and Sarah
was responsive. She suggested Cathy use Lucy Calkin’s storytelling curriculum instead.
Cathy was excited about the prospects of the new curriculum, but Sarah’s feedback and
suggestions kept Cathy from implementing it the way she had hoped.
In one audio-recorded conversation between Sarah and Cathy, they planned for a
writing lesson Cathy would implement the following day. At the beginning of the
conversation, Sarah suggested students can do a “turn and share” with their partners.
Sarah talked for a few minutes about what the partners could discuss and suggested they
make puppets that would help them remember what they should talk about. After three
minutes, Cathy asked for help implementing the partner talk:
Cathy: So tomorrow then, do you have any suggestions for how I like teach them
the rules of think-pair-share? Like how do I talk that out for them and tell them
‘okay, one person needs to be this role and then this role’, you know?
Sarah: Well, and the thing I’m wondering is do we want to pair them up with
kids who we think will work well together? Because maybe we need to get to the
point, and that’s something that Lucy [Calkins] does too, is have their writing
partners. Writing partners are different than the math partners and it’s not always
the two best writers…(goes on to discuss examples of different types of writers
and some specific student pairs).

	

65	

Sarah: And a lot of times with the writing partners, I have them sitting by each
other at the back. And they learn to turn and talk. So it’s knee to knee. And you
know, eye contact. And um, you’re quiet. And you know, a lot of times, too, after
they share their story, having the other person either retell the story or make a
positive comment. (December 14, 2015)
Sarah suggested they need to plan for writing partners and she suggested what the rules
should be when they talk with their partners, but she never answered Cathy’s initial
question about how to teach students the rules and procedures for roles beyond classroom
management. During the 11-minute conversation, Sarah discussed eight different topics
and four were writing-lesson ideas. Therefore, they never really plan a lesson, yet Sarah
ended with saying “We know what we’re doing for writing at least.” Throughout the
conversation, Sarah shared what she was thinking and made all but one of the
suggestions. She asked Cathy for her opinion one time.
During a seven and a half minute debrief of one of Cathy’s writing lessons on
December 18, 2015, Sarah immediately started by saying Cathy did a good job of stating
the goals. For the remainder of the debrief, Sarah’s feedback was about management. At
3:30 minutes into the conversation, she told Cathy how she should set up the norms and
expectations for writing partners. Sarah said they needed to show the students “what is
right, and what’s not, especially for our boys who can’t do the right thing.” She continued
by suggesting they could do a whole period with the students being actors showing the
wrong way and the right way. She suggested they make a chart together as a class. Cathy
said she was impressed with how well the students worked with partners, especially the
volume level. Sarah agreed and said at a later time, once they start understanding the

	

66	

writing, they could tell students they could go to a partner for help. She says, “but we’ll
do more of that later”. She goes back to saying they need to do the wrong way and the
right way, because she has found it is a really good way to teach them “what to do and
what not to do”. Near the end of the debrief, Sarah asked Cathy, “So do you have any
questions, comments? How do you feel?” Cathy said again that she was really impressed
with how well the students worked together and believed one reason is because they tried
something new.
Cathy asked for Sarah’s suggestions about how to teach students the rules of
writing partners a few days prior to this lesson. Yet, Sarah waited until after the lesson to
give suggestions when Cathy seemingly no longer needed them. According to Cathy, the
students participated very well and enjoyed talking to each other. Sarah’s mentoring
practices were similar to most. Her feedback was surface-level and did not go beyond
classroom management (Clark, et al., 2014). Sarah did not elicit any reflection from
Cathy, nor did she provide feedback about Cathy’s instruction and student learning.
Finally, she did not enhance Cathy’s learning by providing scaffolded and targeted next
steps for Cathy to work on. These mentoring moves are crucial to a new teacher’s
learning, and the fact that Sarah did not implement them seemed to influence Cathy’s
ability to enact DBT.
Concluding Thoughts
Cathy knew she wanted to implement discussion-based teaching when she began
the placement, but she soon realized she needed a lot of knowledge and support to do so.
Her prior coursework experiences gave her knowledge of DBT strategies and of the
benefits DBT provides students, but she needed more scaffolded opportunities to practice

	

67	

DBT. Although Sarah allowed Cathy the freedom to try new strategies, she lacked the
knowledge and resources needed for her to provide Cathy with the proper coaching. As a
result, Sarah and Cathy rarely enacted features of high-quality DBT. Table 2 summarizes
the factors that were most influential to Cathy’s enactment of DBT during her first
internship placement. Sarah’s factors are also included on this table, because as her
mentor teacher, they indirectly influenced Cathy’s enactment. These factors are discussed
in more detail in Chapter Six. The first category, Knowledge of Strategies, represents the
DBT strategies Cathy and Sarah talked about or implemented. They knew of the
strategies, but they did not necessarily know how to enact them. The second category,
Perceived Challenges, represents the challenges Cathy and Sarah discussed that seemed
to hinder their enactment of DBT. The final category, Perceived Support for
Implementation, represents the resources and learning opportunities that Cathy and Sarah
believed supported their enactment of DBT.

	

68	

Table 2
Factors influencing Cathy’s enactment of DBT: Context one

Cathy
(Intern)

Knowledge of
Strategies
(O=Observed)
• Partner talk
(O)
• Asking highlevel questions
(teacher and
student)
• Role cards
• Teacher talk
moves

Perceived Challenges

•

•

•
•

•

•
Sarah
(Mentor)

•

•
•

	

Asking highlevel questions
(teacher and
student)
Partner talk
Small group
collaborative
learning (O)

•
•

•

69	

“Letting
go”/loss of
control
Facilitating
balance of
discourse and
student
learning
Risky practice
Lack of prior
experience
implementing
DBT
Lack of
established
norms and
procedures for
student talk
Lack of
modeling from
mentor
Lack of time
Lack of
professional
development
Students’
abilities

Perceived Support
for Implementation
•

•

•

Autonomy to
try to new
strategies
Prior course
experiences

PBL
curriculum
and training

CHAPTER FIVE
Context Two: Cathy and Kate
At the end of January, Cathy was moved to a new internship placement with a new
mentor teacher, Kate. Kate taught a third and fourth grade combination class. During this
part of her internship experience, Cathy was able to enact discussion-based teaching
(DBT) practices daily. This shift in enactment of DBT practices was a result of several
influential factors, many of which were connected to her new mentor’s use of DBT and
the way she enacted her role as a mentor. In this chapter, Cathy’s experiences with DBT
during the second placement will be described, including her improved knowledge and
enactment of the practice. Next, an explanation of Kate’s experiences and
implementation of DBT in her classroom will be provided. Kate’s mentoring practices
and the ways in which she supported Cathy’s development of DBT will also be
discussed. The chapter concludes with a summary of the factors that influenced the ways
in which Cathy and Kate enact DBT.
Cathy’s Knowledge: “Scaffolding is Big”
During her final interview (April 27, 2016), Cathy spoke confidently about DBT,
and she demonstrated her understanding of the practice by explaining the features that
had to be in place. She said, “First, right off the bat, you have to have a protocol,
procedure and community set up in the classroom.” She said the “low risk exposures” to
DBT, such as students talking to a partner about what they did over the weekend, are
important to help students learn the norms and procedures at the beginning of a year.
Similarly, on many occasions, Cathy shared the environment has to be safe for students to
feel comfortable sharing: “I know I’ve said that multiple times during this. But it really is

	

70	

like if you don’t create an environment where kids feel they can talk to each other, you’re
not going to be successful” (Final Interview).
Cathy explained students also needed “structure and stability” to feel safe talking.
When students know what to expect, such as how to talk and listen to each other, they
will be more successful. She described the culture in Kate’s classroom as “a community
of talkers” in which “we’ve all got things to say and they’re all important, and we can
learn from one another”. An environment in which students feel safe participating, and in
which students feel their ideas will be valued are important components of high-quality
DBT.
Cathy believed making the purpose of the discussion clear was “key”. She
explained, “You have to have a clear objective. You have to have a clear aim for the
lesson because if you don’t, you’re just going to have a conversation that’s going all over
the place” (Final Interview). In order to keep the conversation aligned with the purpose,
Cathy discussed the importance of teacher talk moves, such as eliciting more information
from students. She shared “If they [the students] say something you don’t just say, ‘yeah,
right’. You say ‘tell me more’, or like, ‘okay, so I hear you saying this, can you tell me
more about it?’” Cathy explained her role, in part, is to understand what the students are
thinking and to help them work through their ideas. She also discussed the importance of
revoicing for students, a talk move her field instructor and mentor worked with her on to
implement. She thought revoicing was important to scaffold students’ understanding.
Finally, Cathy believed the types of questions asked were important for helping students
work toward the lesson objective while having a deep discussion. She explained, “The
questions that you pose cannot be yes and no questions. They have to be deeper questions

	

71	

than that. You can’t have a discussion if you’re not asking a deep question” (Final
Interview). Indeed, teacher talk moves, high levels of questions, and a clear learning
objective are all features of high-quality DBT.
Finally, Cathy often talked about the role of the discussion topic. She believed it
had to be a topic that was relatable to the students’ lives so that students could bring their
own experiences into the discussion. At the same time, the topic had to “peak their
interest”, so Cathy believed it was important for her to know about her students’
backgrounds and interests so she could make the content relevant and engaging. Cathy
thought, “scaffolding is big in discussion-based teaching”, and she believed all the
features she discussed had to be in place to provide students with the proper support to
participate in effective DBT.
Although Cathy was no longer timid about implementing DBT, she still expressed
some concerns about the practice. First, she called DBT “one big formative assessment”,
because she believed it gave students the opportunity to “get their knowledge out” (Final
Interview) which allowed her to provide students with immediate supports. Yet, she
wondered if DBT allowed her to know what all students were thinking, and was she
providing the right scaffolding for all students? Similarly, she wondered if all students
were actively listening and understanding the content of the discussion. Cathy found
math to be the most challenging content area because her students wanted to focus on the
“right answer” without discussing their thought process. Finally, her whole group
discussions were very much teacher-led and she hoped to implement more student-led
discussions in which the students “cultivate some of those deep questions” and respond

	

72	

naturally to what other students say. She believed such a discussion was possible through
modeling and establishing clear norms and procedures.
Cathy’s Enactment of DBT: A Daily Routine
Cathy’s growing knowledge of DBT transferred to her daily practice. When
asked how often she planned for and enacted DBT in her second placement, she
responded, “at least one lesson everyday”, then she added, “probably every lesson in our
classroom is focused around getting kids to talk” (Final Interview). Indeed, Cathy was
observed implementing DBT strategies throughout the entire day, and within entire
lessons, as shown in the following two examples.
Lesson One: Social Studies. After six weeks in her second internship placement,
it was evident Cathy made student talk a priority. In a social studies lesson on March 3,
2016, Cathy initiated student talk within every stage of the lesson. First, Cathy helped
students recall the different branches of government. She initiated a think-pair-share in
which students shared the purpose of each branch. After calling students back to a whole
group, she asked pairs to share out what they discussed, and asked students to provide
examples of how the branches performed their purpose. Next, Cathy put students in preplanned small groups. She gave each group a different newspaper article that described a
court ruling, and directed them to discuss the following prompts: What purpose of the
judicial branch does this scenario involve? How do you know? What evidence from this
article will help back up your stance? Do you agree with the ruling? Why or why not?
She told students, “These prompts will stay on the board while you all are working.
When you are done working with your group you are going to pick someone to share
with the class what you think.” Finally, before students began working, she reminded

	

73	

them that their group members might have different ideas than their own, but “We can
learn from each other when we hear different perspectives.” Throughout the small-group
activity, Cathy sat with each group to provide support. She often asked questions such as,
“What evidence is there? Why do you think that? Do you have any other ideas? What
does that mean?” Later, students sat in a whole group and Cathy asked each group to
share ideas. Again, she pushed students to explain their thinking by asking questions like,
“What makes you think that?” On two occasions, she helped students recall an idea she
overheard during their group conversations. At one point, when a student’s response
elicited a lot of talk at once, Cathy told students to turn to a nearby peer and talk for 30
seconds about their thoughts.
Lesson Two: Science. During a science lesson on March 22, 2016, Cathy showed
short video clips of weather scenes and asked students to write their observations on a
handout. She then asked students to share their observations with a partner before sharing
in a whole group. Throughout the short discussion, Cathy used talk moves to help
students meet the objective of the lesson, which was to understand the factors that
influence changes in weather. For example, she responded to students’ ideas with, “What
else is different about them? Think about the definition of weather. What does that mean
for us? Can you add to what Stephanie said?” Students then worked in small groups to
complete a task in which they were to act out a scene to represent a group of related
weather words (i.e. humidity, rain, atmosphere). Each group then performed for the
whole group and students praised their peers after each performance.
Features of High-Quality DBT. The two lessons show Cathy was able to enact
several features of high-quality DBT. First, she used different structures, such as whole

	

74	

group, small group, and partner talk, to initiate student participation. Second, she
implemented high-level tasks, or ones in which students were required to collaborate, coconstruct knowledge, and think at a higher level. Furthermore, the tasks allowed multiple
perspectives to be shared. Third, she used a wide range of teacher talk moves and she
responded quickly to students’ ideas. For example, to encourage elaboration, she asked
questions such as, “What does that mean?” and “Why do you think that?” To elicit
student responses, she asked, “Do you have any other ideas?” and “Can you add to what
Stephanie said?” She also strategically chose students to share out the ideas she heard
them discuss in small groups. These moves helped Cathy scaffold students to draw
connections between their ideas and the content. Finally, it was evident norms and
procedures were in place for students to participate, and they seemed to feel safe sharing
their ideas.
The framework for many lessons Cathy taught came from the Teacher’s
Curriculum Institute resources. This resource has many lessons that promote student
collaboration. Cathy shortened the lessons and modified small group activities to require
more co-construction of learning. For example, Cathy modified a science lesson in which
she was supposed to give students definitions to copy. Instead, the students worked in
small groups to come up with their own definitions for weather-related words. They
wrote the definitions on post-its and displayed them on the board. Cathy then asked the
students to determine what the definitions had in common, then they agreed as a whole
group on a definition. The curriculum was a supportive resource for Cathy, and the ways
in which she modified the lessons showed her understanding of DBT and her dedication
to making it a priority.

	

75	

Cathy’s enactment of elements of DBT was not limited to social studies and
science. She implemented DBT strategies throughout the day, across all content areas.
For example, during math, Cathy often encouraged students to share their strategies for
solving problems, and to work together to complete the post-lesson assignments. During
word study, she asked students to co-construct the meanings of common prefixes and
suffixes, as well as new vocabulary words. She facilitated whole group discussions
during sacred writing time, in which students shared their thoughts about photographs or
quotes.
Guided reading seemed to be the time of day Cathy was least likely to integrate
high-quality features of DBT, although it was evident she tried. During guided reading,
Cathy read texts with small groups of students based on their reading development levels.
She followed a scripted curriculum mandated by the district, which did not seem to align
with the goals of high-quality DBT. The following excerpt is from a typical guided
reading lesson (April 13, 2016):
Cathy: Turn to the person next to you. Just by looking at the cover, what do you
think this book will be about? (Students talk to partners)
Cathy: Zack and Ali, what did you talk about? (Students respond) Sam and
Michael? (Students respond)
Cathy: Okay, anything else?
(No one responds, so Cathy asks a student to read the first page.)
Cathy: So what does the author want us to think about on this page?
Ali: The setting.
Sam: The characters.

	

76	

(Cathy calls on Michael to continue reading.)
Cathy: Has the author introduced a problem yet?
(Students shake their heads no, so Cathy reads on.)
Cathy: Is Joey [character in book] dedicated to the job?
Sam: Yes
Cathy: Why do you think that? (Sam responds.)
Cathy: Ali, you said yes. Tell me why. (Ali responds.)
(Cathy clarifies both students’ answers to summarize how they know Joey is
dedicated.)
Cathy: Read the rest of the page and give me a thumbs up when you’re done.
Cathy: What do you think is going to happen? (A student responds.)
Cathy: Okay, you’ll finish reading the book then you’ll answer questions 1, 2,
and 3. (Dismisses students.)
The structure of the curriculum seemed to force Cathy to ask a variety of low-level
questions that were not connected to a larger lesson objective. The texts did not promote
critical thinking, but it was necessary for Cathy to use them because the students would
be asked to recall ideas related to them on the mandated weekly assessment. This made it
difficult for her to use DBT in a purposeful way, which is often a challenge for teachers.
Nonetheless, even with these constraints, Cathy attempted DBT strategies, such as
partner talk and moves that encouraged students to elaborate on their ideas.
Kate: A “Natural” Part of Her Practice
Kate’s influence on Cathy’s practice was clear from the start, as Kate
implemented elements of DBT on a daily basis. In the first interview with Kate (March 3,

	

77	

2016), she described her vision of DBT developed during her own internship year. Her
placement school had professional learning communities (PLCs) that focused on student
talk. Kate observed teachers learning about and enacting DBT. She said the process was,
“playing out right before me”. She shared a professor at the university trained and
supported the teachers. Kate explained how the experience developed her vision of
teaching:
I took away from that [experience], this philosophy, this notion, that I’m not the
keeper of the knowledge, the children are. This isn’t about me all day. It’s about
them. So the more opportunity you can have to engage them in conversation- and
really don’t just take the face value answer but to say “can you say more about
that?” and dig deeper into why they’re thinking- I think that leads to quite a
revelation about what they really do know and don’t know.
Kate discussed how her internship experience transferred to her first year of teaching. She
tried to make DBT “as much a part of her teaching as possible”. During her first year she
was also taught inquiry-based science during a series of professional development
sessions, and that eventually transferred into her math instruction. She was later involved
in a project with the university that studied the use of different levels of questioning. She
implemented her learning about questioning, and studied the affects of them, in her own
classroom.
Kate’s development continued when she began teaching at the Montessori school.
The school was part of a Kevin Feldman program, which provided professional
development to teachers with an emphasis on student engagement and talk strategies.
Kate shared a small booklet of 11 notecards from the program. Each notecard described

	

78	

how to implement a specific DBT strategy, such as structured partnering, think-pairshare, and Yes-No-Why in which students debate their position on a certain topic. Kate
keeps the booklet nearby for reference. With the support of the school’s administrator,
the program also encouraged teachers to video-record themselves teaching, observe their
colleagues, and provide feedback using a rubric that focused on student engagement.
Kate believed the process had helped “break down some barriers” (Field Notes, April 13,
2016) within the school to make teachers more open to sharing their expertise and
accepting constructive feedback. At the time of the final interview (April 27, 2016), Kate
was preparing for 40 teachers from surrounding schools to observe her teach using the
program’s rubric. She volunteered to host the teachers because she wanted their feedback.
Kate viewed enacting DBT as a “natural” (Interview One) part of her practice,
rather than something she consciously planned for every day. However, she was very
strategic about setting up the classroom environment for DBT from the start of the year.
According to Kate, she spent the first six weeks practicing norms and procedures for
collaborative learning. She also articulated the importance of other features of highquality DBT. First, she believed that each “discussion should be accessible to
everybody”, meaning all students should be able to participate through the use of
different participation structures and teacher talk moves; and the content should be
something the students can connect prior learning to. She thought DBT was “incredibly
valuable”, especially when it involved posing questions to the students that “dig deeper”
to “find out what they really know”. She also felt it was important for students to ask
questions, but the teacher should “steer” the conversation to ensure the learning objective
is met (Interview One).

	

79	

When asked about challenges she faces when enacting DBT, Kate said,
“Ultimately, it’s time”. She expressed the “tremendous pressure” she felt from the school
district to ensure all the standards and curriculum were taught. This pressure sometimes
made her question whether she should enact components of DBT, such as small group
tasks that can take longer than anticipated. Nonetheless, it seemed she valued the practice
so much that it took precedent over her hesitancies. In the first interview, she shared, “I
think its valuable to incorporate that [DBT] into your everyday teaching if you can…and
getting them [the students] to articulate instead of sitting and getting.”
Kate’s Enactment of DBT
Kate initiated whole group discussions at the start of each day during “sacred
writing”. The purpose of sacred writing was for students to practice on demand writing
for a short period of time about a specific quote, photograph, or word chosen by the
teacher, and then discuss their thinking in a whole group setting. Most often, the prompt
was “What does this make you think about?” After a few minutes of independent writing,
students discussed their thoughts. During the sacred writing period on March 3, 2016, a
picture of earth surrounded by hands was displayed on the overhead screen. After a few
minutes of independent writing, Kate began the whole-group discussion by asking
students, “Who would like to share their thoughts?” The discussion continued as follows:
Ali: World inside our hands.
Kate: What does that mean to you? The world’s inside our hands? That’s an
interesting way of thinking about it, so let’s dig deeper.
(Kate calls on three students, and Brian responds, “Earth Day”).
Kate: Tell me more about that.

	

80	

(Brian explains. Kate calls on Diana who reads what she wrote.)
Kate: It makes you think the earth is in our presence. Tell me more about what
you think about that.
(Diana explains her thinking.)
Kate: So Diana is thinking the earth has been given to us and we need to take care
of it.
Kate: Yesterday we talked about rights and responsibilities in social studies. How
does what we discussed connect to what you see up here?
(Kate waits for a response, but no one answers.)
Kate: Do you think we have a responsibility to earth?
Brian: To take care of it.
Kate: And that goes back to what you said earlier…(She makes a connection to
an earlier response.)
Kate encouraged students to elaborate on their ideas and make connections to academic
content from a previous day’s lesson. The task itself also allowed multiple perspectives,
as there was not one right or wrong answer. Finally, there were clear norms and
procedures established. Students waited to be called on and they did not talk over one
another.
During a writing lesson on March 3, 2016, Kate and the students co-constructed
an anchor chart to help students understand ways they could introduce their topic to a
reader (they were working on expository essays). The following excerpt shows how Kate
used a teacher talk move, revoicing, to help students understand their peer’s thoughts,
which is an important feature of high-quality DBT.

	

81	

Darrin: You could write down a fact and say, “to learn more you could read
this”.
Kate: You could say something like, “Many people don’t know…I have
found…” What are some other ways?
Therese: Start with a suspenseful fact.
Kate: Start with a jaw-dropping fact or statistic.
Ali: This is kind of the same as a question, but an idea.
Kate: Tell me more.
Ali: Like I don’t like the president. You can come up with an idea and tell why
you don’t like him.
Kate: So I wonder if we can begin with a personal connection to your topic?
At the end of the lesson, Kate suggested students who are writing similar types of essays
should talk together about their ideas. Several students chose to work together throughout
the rest of the writing period, which was typical of all writing periods observed. Even
those who did not choose to work with a partner naturally discussed their work with those
around them. For example, a student asked her peer, “What color do you think of when
you think of poverty?” Another student asked her peer, “Who is Malala? Is she still
alive?” (Field Notes, March 10, 2016). Questions such as these often led to short
discussions between students, as it seemed natural and routine for them to collaborate.
Instead of relying on a teacher to answer a question, the students asked their peers. They
moved quickly to talk to one another, without asking permission from a teacher.
Kate also regularly planned for students to co-construct learning in small groups
by completing meaningful tasks. For example, students worked in small groups to

	

82	

research Native American tribes and typed up what they learned in a Google Doc shared
amongst the team members. They co-authored the introduction, and each student used the
rest of the information to write their own book about the tribe. Kate explained to me that
students had varying levels of writing development, so when she started the project she
said to the students, “What do you think about working in groups so you can write the
sections together and make it more of a collaborative project?” (Field Notes, March 10,
2016). The students loved the idea, and each group made different decisions about how to
do it collaboratively. For example, one group decided each member would become
experts of one section, and report back to the group. Another group decided to research
and write each section together. Kate planned for students to share their books with first
graders and to put them in the school library to give the project “more purpose”.
Cathy and Kate: “A Well-Oiled Machine”
In my first interview with Kate, she discussed how she viewed her role as a
“guide” for Cathy. She explained,
I think my role is to be reflective out loud and share what I’m thinking about
things, always. But also to give Cathy the freedom to try and to feel like this is a
safe environment to try. And I’m here to help Cathy think about the lesson and
what worked, and what didn’t, and what could be done differently next time. And
just be that safe place to try before you’re out on your own when you don’t have
that extra person watching all the time.
To Kate, being a mentor encompassed several responsibilities. She felt she should be a
reflective practitioner, create a safe learning environment in which Cathy could take
risks, and facilitate Cathy’s own reflecting. Kate also said, “I’m here to help Cathy

	

83	

understand what is considered to be best practices of a teacher” (Interview One). To
fulfill these responsibilities, Kate explained how she mentored Cathy through three
stages: modeling, co-teaching and co-planning, and coaching.
Modeling. In the first interview, Kate explained that during Cathy’s first few
weeks in the classroom, she shadowed Kate by “observing and recording everything.”
Kate would often turn to Cathy and say, “I’m doing this because…” to explain her
rationale for instructional decisions. She believed “being as articulate as possible” was
important for Cathy to understand “all the interworking of making something like this
work”. In the final interview, Kate discussed how the mentoring experience made her a
better teacher because she had to verbalize the purpose of everything. She said if she
“can’t say what the purpose is, that’s a problem.”
Cathy took notes on “everything” and asked Kate questions like why she was
doing what she was doing. Throughout this stage, Kate modeled talk moves to help elicit
student responses and rephrase their thinking in both large and small group settings. She
also thought aloud about how she made decisions for grouping students before any small
group task, such as by academic abilities, personalities, and group sizes. In a conversation
with Cathy on April 27, 2016, Cathy explained how Kate’s modeling of DBT supported
her own implementation:
I’ve mirrored her. I mean I’ve literally mirrored what she said. That's how everyone
learns! You mirror it first and then you start to nuance it a little bit. So with this
whole discussion-based teaching, I was like, okay, I’ve watched Kate do a million
discussion lessons where she’s going to set it up for the kids to talk and I go with it.

	

84	

Co-Teaching and Co-Planning. After a few weeks, Kate and Cathy began coteaching. They both taught students in small groups, and they took turns doing the whole
group instruction portion of each lesson. Kate said they often discussed lesson planning,
and even met several times outside of school so Kate could guide Cathy “through the
lesson planning process” (Kate, Interview One). This included Kate thinking aloud about
how she plans daily and weekly lessons, and helping Cathy think about her own lesson
ideas.
During a co-planning conversation on April 20, 2016, Kate and Cathy planned for
problem-solving lessons in math. Cathy had taught a problem-solving lesson earlier that
day and realized students were at “very different places in terms of problem solving
ability”. Therefore, the two discussed how they could differentiate instruction by placing
students in tiered groups and integrating more dialogue about math within each group.
Together, they formed groups based on “concrete, just right, and abstract” thinkers. Kate
encouraged Cathy to think about what the goal of problem solving would be for each
group, and they discussed specific steps and scaffolding techniques Cathy would use
throughout the following week. At one point, Cathy said she wanted students to be able
to explain their thinking and process. Kate reminded her students would need to be taught
how to do that and encouraged Cathy to consider the question, “How will I show them
what I want them to do?”. Cathy explained in detail how she would show them. Later,
Kate remembered she had a problem-solving book she got from a professional
development session. They looked through the book together and found specific
resources and problem-solving questions for Cathy to use. Kate showed Cathy, through
specific examples, how she could modify the school’s math curriculum by using the book

	

85	

as a supplementary resource. Finally, Kate recalled another book she received when she
participated in a professional development at the university. She showed Cathy how the
book is “full of really great problems…that make [students] go a step beyond finding the
right answer.” The two discussed specific, authentic problems they would both use with
the students to "give them something to talk about”.
In this example of co-planning, the conversation was about the students and
instruction, and it remained focused on problem solving. It stemmed from a problem
encountered in practice, and resulted in specific, short-term steps to help solve the
problem. Finally, both Kate and Cathy noted that they benefited from the conversation.
They both walked away with concrete ideas about instructional practices, and the
conversation led Kate to recall two different useful resources she had forgotten about
using.
In her first interview, Kate described the way in which Cathy and Kate plan for
DBT by sharing,
I don’t know I would say we’ve had explicit conversations about discussionbased teaching. I think more of the discussion we’ve been having is, ‘how have
you been getting the children involved in the teaching?’ And it actually ends up
that it happens through discussion.
In her final interview, Cathy described how she and Kate planned for DBT together. She
explained Kate always emphasized the importance of asking “meaty questions” that
require students to think deeper or support an opinion. Similarly, she always encouraged
Cathy to help students elaborate on their ideas. When planning for a lesson together, they
would also discuss “the flow of how the students are going to be talking and who they

	

86	

will be talking to”. For example, would the students work with partners during the whole
lesson, or would they think-pair-share, then talk as a whole group? By the end of this
phase, Cathy described her and Kate as a “well-oiled machine” (Field Notes, March 22,
2016). They still conversed regularly, and Cathy often asked Kate for her thoughts about
each lesson. However, Cathy felt Kate trusted her to ensure lessons were designed “in a
productive way…using gradual release of responsibility and discussion-based teaching”
(Final Interview).
Coaching. After six weeks in her second placement, Cathy became the lead
teacher. She planned for and taught every lesson. In her final interview, Kate described
the transition, “The more that Cathy took over in the room, the more observant I became
of her and how things were going. We would debrief and I would always say, ‘How do
you think that went?’”. (Later, in a conversation between Cathy and Kate, they laughed
about how Kate always started a debrief by asking that question.) Kate and Cathy
debriefed after nearly every lesson. In her final interview, Cathy described Kate’s role
during lead teaching:
Even though I was lead teaching, [Kate] knew what was going on in the room.
Its not like she pulled herself out of the context, she knew what content I would
be teaching so we could have conversations…I would say we worked very
closely together.
Kate often took notes when she observed Cathy. When asked about what she
wrote down, Kate shared, “I’ve kept it very much focused on what I see, then I write my
‘wonders’ off to the side” (Final Interview). She explained how the school participated in
a “teachers’ learning together model” that included a rubric for observing other teachers.

	

87	

The rubric focused on a teacher’s use of engagement strategies, such as sentence frames,
choral response, scaffolding (for student talk), precision partnering, formative assessment
(through student talk) and active listening. Kate said she had the rubric in mind when she
observed Cathy, so she always looked for student engagement.
Kate acknowledged that keeping students engaged could be a challenge: “I call it
‘monitor your air time’, right? You don’t wanna be the one that’s doing all the talking
during the lesson, and it’s hard” (Final Interview). She described a particular social
studies lesson Cathy taught in which the kids were not engaged. Kate shared what they
discussed during the post-lesson debrief:
I said ‘How do you think it went?’ and she said, ‘Well they should have had more
turn and talk time. I noticed I was losing them.’ I said, ‘Okay, so what are you
going to do next time?’ [Cathy said] ‘I'm not going to talk so much, I’m going to
let them talk’.
Kate then told Cathy that she had talked for 28 minutes while the students sat there. Kate
said after that, Cathy planned more high-level discussion questions and small group tasks,
and she implemented turn and talk more frequently. Cathy also shared this experience
during the final interview and said the following about her debriefs with Kate:
Its almost always ‘how could you have gotten the kids to talk more?’…Its always
‘how are you putting the learning back on them?’...If I’ve ever had a really big
critique, it’s almost always because the lesson was me really heavily talking. It
was the kids weren’t engaged because they weren’t talking or doing anything, you
were just talking at them. So it just brings to my mind, like, why isn’t discussionbased teaching just called teaching?

	

88	

These debrief sessions helped remind Cathy of why DBT was so important, and it made
her more aware of strategically planning for it in the future.
During the post-lesson debriefs, Kate also provided Cathy with opportunities for
guided reflection. For example, after a sacred writing lesson taught by Cathy on March
22, 2016, it was clear to Kate that Cathy was discouraged and had a lot of thoughts about
the lesson, so Kate allowed Cathy to lead the conversation. First, Cathy described how
she felt many students were talking over one another during the whole-group discussion.
The conversation continued as follows:
Kate: Maybe tomorrow the prompt is just the written word ‘respect’. After they
share thoughts, ask ‘Why do you think I chose this prompt for today?’ Or flip it
and have them talk first if you feel like they come in and are very talkative.
Cathy: I always go back to, ‘Was this engaging? Did I create something that was
genuine?’ (Cathy explains how she chose the photograph and wrote the prompt to
make it authentic for the students.)
Cathy then shared another problem that occurred when students said they were done
writing before the time was up. Kate responded with a quote from Lucy Calkins, a
writing curriculum author, who says, “When you’re done, you’ve just begun”. She
suggested Kate could use the quote as a sacred writing prompt and ask them to discuss,
“What does this mean for you? For sacred writing time?” Finally, Cathy shared about an
occasion when two students wrote very little during sacred writing. Kate reminded Cathy
the two students always write slowly, and she suggested allowing the students to talk to
one another about the prompt, instead of writing, then asking them to share during the
whole group discussion to “take the pressure off” them.

	

89	

Throughout the conversation, Kate listened closely while Cathy reflected out
loud. Kate provided feedback when necessary, but she allowed Cathy to guide the
conversation because it was clear she had a lot of thoughts and feelings about the lesson.
Kate’s suggestions were specific to the problems Cathy faced, and they were ones Cathy
could implement the very next day. Finally, Kate’s suggestions were focused on student
engagement and learning.
On several occasions, Cathy talked about how her opportunities for reflection had
“really helped [her] discussion-based teaching” (Final Interview). In a conversation on
April 27, 2016, Cathy and Kate discussed changes Cathy made to a lesson she taught a
few days earlier. Near the end of the conversation Cathy reflected on the roles Kate and
her field instructor, Megan, played in developing her practice:
Cathy: One of the biggest things I’m going to miss about the internship year is
not having a mentor.
Kate: An instructional coach type thing?
Cathy: Yes…the reason I have felt so successful in these last few months of the
internship is because I’ve had a network- starting with you- of people to watch me
and talk with me, and help me reflect and ask me important questions. I think I’ve
had such a unique experience because you’re so reflective…I’ve gotten such
valuable feedback here, things that have pushed me to be able to talk about
teaching and practices that I value.
Cathy: (In reference to the lesson they discussed at the beginning of the
conversation.) If I hadn’t had the space to reflect on that with you, and later talk
about it that day with Megan, I don’t know if I would have changed anything.

	

90	

Concluding Thoughts
Cathy began her second internship placement discouraged about her abilities to
implement discussion-based teaching, but she knew it was still a practice she valued and
wanted to learn. With the support from her mentor, Kate, she was able to improve her
knowledge of DBT strategies, and her enactment of the practice. Kate provided Cathy
with modeling, targeted feedback and collaboration, and regular opportunities for guided
reflection. As a result, Cathy consistently enacted many features of high-quality DBT.
Table 5.1 summarizes the factors that were most influential to Cathy’s enactment of DBT
during her second internship placement. Kate’s factors are also included on this table,
because as her mentor teacher, they indirectly influenced Cathy’s enactment. These
factors are discussed in more detail in the following chapter. The first category,
Knowledge of Strategies, represents the DBT strategies Cathy and Kate talked about and
implemented. Some strategies were observed only one or two times, while others were
observed regularly. The second category, Perceived Challenges, represents the challenges
Cathy and Kate discussed. Although the challenges did not seem to hinder their
enactment of the practice overall, they did keep the two from implementing specific
strategies, such as student-led whole group discussions. The final category, Perceived
Support for Implementation, represents the resources and learning opportunities that
Cathy and Kate believed supported their enactment of DBT.

	

91	

Table 3
Factors influencing Cathy’s enactment of DBT: Context two

Cathy
(Intern)

	

Knowledge of
Strategies
(O=Observed at
least one time; OR =
Observed
Regularly)
• Partner talk
(OR)
• Whole group
discussions
(OR)
• Small group,
high-level
tasks (OR)
• Asking of
high-level
questions by
the teacher
(OR)
• Asking of
high-level
questions by
the students
(O)
• Teacher talk
moves (OR)
• Student talk
moves in
small groups
(O)
• Student talk
moves in
whole group
• Norms and
procedures
for student
talk (OR)

Perceived Challenges

•

•

Teaching
students to use
talk moves in
whole group
discussions
Assessing all
students’
understanding

Perceived Support for
Implementation

•
•

•
•
•

•
•

•

92	

Autonomy to try
new strategies
Established
norms and
procedures for
student talk
Modeling from
mentor
Collaboration
with mentor
Guided
reflection
opportunities
with mentor and
field instructor
Problem-solving
with mentor
Targeted
debriefs with
mentor and field
instructor
Curriculum
resources (i.e.
Teacher’s
Curriculum
Institute)

Table 3 (cont’d)
Kate (Mentor)

Lack of time
Partner talk
(OR)
• Whole group
discussions
(OR)
• Small group,
high-level
tasks (OR)
• Asking of
high-level
questions by
the teacher
(OR)
• Asking of
high-level
questions by
the students
(O)
• Teacher talk
moves (OR)
• Student talk
moves in
small groups
(O)
• Student talk
moves in
whole group
Norms and
•

procedures for
student talk (OR)

	

93	

Participation in
professional
learning
communities
during
internship
• Universitybased
professional
development
opportunities
Kevin Feldman/school•

wide professional
development

CHAPTER SIX
Bringing It All Together
This study sought to answer the following questions:
1) In what ways do the mentor and intern work together to promote the intern’s
vision of discussion-based teaching (DBT)?
2) In what ways do opportunities for practice influence an intern’s enactment of
DBT?
3) How do contextual and biographical factors influence an intern’s
implementation and learning about DBT?
In this chapter, an explanation of how the mentor teachers and the opportunities for
practice within Cathy’s teaching contexts played a role in Cathy’s enactment of DBT will
be provided. Next, all contextual and biographical factors that influenced Cathy’s
learning about and implementation of DBT will be described. The chapter will conclude
with an explanation of how this study contributes to current research and it’s implications
for teacher education programs.
In what ways do the mentor and intern work together to promote the intern’s vision
of DBT?
The ways in which Sarah and Kate worked with Cathy to support her vision of
DBT were very different. Sarah took on a traditional mentoring role with little focus on
Cathy’s vision of DBT. In contrast, Kate took on a more educative mentoring role as she
provided daily scaffolding to promote Kate’s vision of DBT. Unlike traditional mentoring
in which mentors provide surface-level feedback and ask close-ended questions,
educative mentoring mandates a collective responsibility for the mentor and mentee to

	

94	

improve their instructional practices and students’ learning through collaboration and
reflection (Feiman-Nemser, 2001).
Table 4 shows the mentoring moves practiced by each mentor. Based on my
review of the literature, the asterisk signifies moves representative of educative
mentoring, the highest level of mentoring that is considered most beneficial to the
interns’ learning and enactment of instructional practices (Bell, Stanulis & Maculoso,
2015; Drago-Severson, 2007; Feimen-Nemser, 2001; Kardos, et al., 2001; Little, 2006;
Payne, et al., 2003; Wood, 2007).
Table 4
Sarah and Kate’s mentoring moves
Sarah
Provided a level of autonomy for Cathy to
try new instructional strategies
Transferred knowledge and ideas

Kate
Provided a level of autonomy for Cathy to
try new instructional strategies
Provided opportunities for collaborative
learning and co-planning*
Facilitated surface-level conversations
Facilitated conversations about “problems
of practice”*
Focused conversations on student learning
and specific teaching strategies*
Provided opportunities for guided
reflection*
Conducted frequent observations followed
by focused feedback*
Provided modeling of high-quality DBT*
Viewed mentoring as beneficial to her own
learning*
Both Sarah and Kate provided some level of autonomy for Cathy. Cathy was able
to try new strategies and modify instructional plans. For example, during her first
placement, Cathy felt the writing curriculum Sarah had originally suggested was too
teacher-centered and did not allow for student talk. Sarah then suggested Cathy use the
Lucy Calkins writing curriculum, a more student-centered curriculum. Cathy used the

	

95	

curriculum as a guide for her writing unit by pulling out ideas that aligned with her vision
of the unit, such as implementing writing partners and providing students with
opportunities to share and discuss their writing. During her second placement, Cathy
modified the curriculum in all content areas on a daily basis to align with her vision of
teaching. For example, in sacred writing, when students wrote on-demand to a high level
prompt, she chose prompts that connected to the students’ backgrounds and experiences
to promote a deeper post-writing discussion. Likewise, in social studies, she followed the
learning objectives provided in the curriculum, but planned her own high-level questions
that she knew would connect to the students’ prior experiences and interests to initiate
more student talk.
Although Cathy was granted autonomy in both placements, she did not
consistently plan for and enact her vision of DBT until during her second placement with
Kate. This is a result of the scaffolding Kate provided for Cathy, which promoted Cathy’s
vision of DBT. For example, Kate and Cathy often co-planned together, which allowed
Cathy to hear Kate’s thought-process and ask questions. These conversations were
always collaborative in nature, as both Kate and Cathy offered their ideas about next
steps and talked through their rationales for every decision made, including how to place
students in small groups. Kate frequently facilitated conversations about “problems of
practice”. For example, she helped Cathy plan for differentiated math groups when Cathy
realized all the students were at different levels during a previous math lesson. She also
helped Cathy plan for high-level questions and small group tasks after Cathy taught a
whole-group, lecture-based lesson in which the students were disengaged. Instead of
explicitly focusing on student management, Kate helped Cathy understand that student

	

96	

misbehavior can be corrected when students are actively participating and engaged in
their learning through DBT. Their conversations were also focused on student learning
and specific teaching practices. After nearly every lesson, Cathy reflected with Kate
about the extent to which specific students met the learning objective, based on their
contributions during the discussions and small-group activities. They also discussed
levels of participation and ideas for how to group students the following day to support
their learning. The conversations focused on one or two specific teaching practices at a
time, such as differentiating instruction and planning for high-level questions.
Kate also provided opportunities for guided reflection multiple times throughout
the day. Most often, Cathy led the conversations and Kate took on the role of a listener.
This ensured Cathy was able to reflect on what was important to her, which was typically
connected to the implementation of a DBT strategy. Kate provided feedback when
necessary, but typically led Cathy to form her own conclusions and ideas by asking Cathy
questions such as, “And why do you think that happened?” and “What are you going to
do next time?” Furthermore, Kate conducted frequent observations in which she often
used a rubric that focused on teachers’ use of engagement strategies, many of which are
also DBT strategies. In this way, Kate was able to provide Cathy with focused feedback
on Cathy’s implementation of DBT. Kate also modeled features of high-quality DBT for
Cathy, especially during Cathy’s first few weeks in the placement. When Cathy began
teaching, she immediately started “mirroring” Kate’s DBT moves. Finally, Kate viewed
her mentoring experiences as beneficial to her own learning. When she collaborated with
Cathy, she knew it would support her own instructional practices as well; and perhaps
this is another reason she made collaborative conversations a priority.

	

97	

In contrast, during co-planning and debrief conversations, Sarah often transferred
her knowledge and ideas to Cathy by spending the majority of the time making
suggestions about teaching that she thought would work well. The conversations never
reached beyond surface-level topics, such as classroom management, to focusing on
student learning and teaching practices. They also covered several topics within a short
amount of time, rather than focusing on one or two specific teaching strategies or
problems of practice. In terms of supporting Cathy’s vision of DBT, some conversations
focused on setting students up for working in partners but the suggestions did not respond
to Cathy’s needs. During one conversation, Sarah never specifically answered Cathy’s
question about how to establish norms for working with partners. In another
conversation, Sarah provided some suggestions when it seemed Cathy no longer needed
them.
In what ways do opportunities for practice influence an intern’s enactment of DBT?
Teachers need many guided opportunities to learn about and implement core
practices across the curricula (Ghousseini, 2015; Grossman, et al., 2009). These
opportunities for practice were most noticeable during Cathy’s second placement, which
resulted in her implementing high-quality features of DBT on a regular basis, and across
the curricula. During her second placement, Kate modeled DBT strategies for Cathy,
scaffolded Cathy’s planning of DBT lessons, and provided Cathy with constructive
feedback and opportunities to reflect on her enactment of DBT. In contrast, Cathy had
few opportunities for practice during her first placement, and as a result, she rarely
enacted DBT.

	

98	

In a conversation on April 13, 2016, Cathy reflected on her development in
learning to enact discussion-based teaching. When she began the internship year, she was
excited to try DBT. She thought it was a practice she would no doubt implement right
away because she had knowledge of several strategies. However, she admitted,
I can say that at my old placement I never planned for it [DBT], because there
was not support for it. My mentor hadn’t modeled it so I was nervous trying to
implement it. I think that just like when we try to teach students, we model it for
them. We explicitly model it. I don’t know why it’s any different for adults. When
you’re teaching teacher candidates how to teach, they need to watch people.
In the final interview (April 27, 2016), Cathy discussed how her observations of Kate and
opportunities for practice influenced her own teaching. She shared,
And did I totally and completely mirror her [Kate]? Has my teaching style very
much become like her? Yea, it has. But I love her teaching style. And it works
with who I am as a person and it makes me excited to teach. She has them talking
all throughout the day…so everyday I would plan for discussion-based teaching.
Table 5 shows evidence of how the opportunities for practice in each placement
influenced Cathy’s teaching. During her first placement, Cathy was only observed
implementing partner talk. During her second placement, Cathy was observed
implementing several DBT strategies, many of which are features of high-quality DBT.
The single asterisk represents a strategy that Cathy’s mentor teacher modeled for Cathy.
The double asterisk represents the strategies Cathy implemented that are considered highquality features of DBT.

	

99	

Table 5
Cathy’s enactment of DBT strategies
First Placement
(O=Observed at least one time;
OR = Observed Regularly)
• Partner talk (O)

Second Placement
(O=Observed at least one time;
OR = Observed Regularly)
• Partner talk (OR)*
• Whole group discussions (OR)*
• Small group, high-level tasks
(OR)* **
• Asking of high-level questions by
the teacher (OR)* **
• Asking of high-level questions by
the students (O)* **
• Teacher talk moves (OR)* **
• Student talk moves in small groups
(O)* **
• Norms and procedures for student
talk (OR)* **

Sarah, Cathy’s first mentor teacher, most often implemented a traditional recitation
approach in which she asked a student a literal question, evaluated their answer, and
moved on. Students also participated in quiet seatwork throughout much of the day. This
influenced Cathy’s ability to enact DBT because mentors need to provide opportunities
for modeling high-leverage practices. Features of high-quality DBT were observed
during center time, but it seemed to occur naturally. Therefore, Cathy was not able to see
the planning involved in implementing the features, such as setting up norms and
procedures. Although there is no evidence Sarah implemented partner talk, Cathy was
observed implementing it a couple of times. Partner talk is a relatively simple DBT
strategy and one that is often taught in methods courses, therefore it is not surprising
Cathy felt confident enough to try it.

	

100	

Kate, Cathy’s second mentor teacher, enacted DBT strategies on a daily basis.
Throughout the modeling and co-teaching/co-planning phases of Kate’s mentoring, Cathy
was able to observe Kate enact the strategies across the curricula. Cathy took notes on
what she saw and what Kate said, and she asked Kate questions to clarify how she
planned for the strategies. As a result, Cathy admitted she “completely mirrored” Kate.
Also during the co-teaching/co-planning mentoring stage, Kate and Cathy planned DBT
lessons together. During these conversations, Kate emphasized the importance of asking
high-level questions and she always encouraged Cathy to consider how she would help
students elaborate on their ideas. They also discussed the specific participation structures
they planned to use, such as partner talk, small group, or whole group discussions. During
the coaching phase of Kate’s mentoring, she and Cathy collaborated on a daily basis, and
often several times throughout the day. During these conversations, Kate provided Cathy
with opportunities for guided reflection. She listened closely to Cathy, asked questions,
and offered her suggestions only as needed. She also observed Cathy with a lens on the
ways in which Cathy implemented DBT strategies. This allowed Cathy to receive
focused feedback on her implementation of DBT.
Opportunities for practice in university courses. Much research has been
conducted to determine the ways in which opportunities for practice within university
methods courses can support undergraduate and graduate students learn to enact core
practices, such as DBT. For example, pre-service teachers learn about an instructional
activity that helps to develop DBT (i.e. through instructor modeling or videos), plan for
and rehearse the activity with their peers, enact the activity in a real classroom or with
their peers, and analyze their teaching to plan for next steps (Grossman, et al., 2009;

	

101	

McDonald, et al., 2013). This is an important point to acknowledge, because Cathy did
receive a few of these opportunities in her science and literacy methods courses senior
year. However, they fell short of providing her with the skills and knowledge she needed
to feel confident enacting the practice during her first placement. Had she not
experienced a second placement, it is likely Cathy never would have learned how to enact
high-quality DBT during her internship year. In the final interview, Cathy shared they
“talked about discussion-based teaching” a lot at the university, but,
You can’t do it until you practice it. You really can’t. Until you practice a lot. I
only now feel like I can do a discussion-based teaching lesson. But that’s been
two months- three weeks of me watching Kate do it and then more weeks of me
doing it- and in multiple subject areas, small group and whole group, even one on
one with students like trying to get them to talk.
Cathy also said she watched videos of DBT during her teacher preparation courses, but it
seemed this was not enough to give Cathy the tools she needed to implement the practice.
Cathy needed someone to “explicitly model it” in person, and multiple times. Cathy later
acknowledged a pre-service teacher could potentially learn how to implement a highleverage practice like DBT even if she does not have the opportunity to observe it.
However, she believed,
You have to have someone who is at least willing to learn. Maybe they’ll learn
right along side you. Maybe you two will read an article together and think of an
activity. You watch some videos online, right? Those are some things I think of
with my old mentor [Sarah]. Like had she been willing to do that, I think we
could have thought of some really cool things. (Final Interview)

	

102	

Cathy’s opportunities for practice and experiences working with her mentor
teachers played important roles in the ways in which she learned about and enacted DBT.
However, there were additional factors that influenced her implementation of DBT.
How do contextual and biographical factors influence an intern’s implementation
and learning about DBT?
The theoretical framework for this study (Figure 3) showed the interrelated
factors I assumed would influence Cathy’s learning about and implementation of DBT
prior to conducting the study. These factors were found in research about how novice
teachers learn to enact core practices.
Figure 3
Theoretical Framework

	

103	

In addition to the biographical and contextual factors I used to guide my study, an
additional unanticipated factor emerged, “perceived challenges”. In this section, I will
discuss the ways in which each factor influenced Cathy’s learning about and
implementation of DBT. I will also describe how each factor influenced the mentors’
understanding of the practice, and ultimately the support they were able to provide Cathy.
This section will conclude with a new model showing the interrelated factors that
influenced Cathy’s implementation and learning about DBT.
Conceptual and practical tools. Conceptual tools are theories and principles
about teaching and learning which teachers use to make instructional decisions. In her
final interview, Cathy explained, “Discussion-based teaching doesn’t happen in a day,
you have to spend weeks teaching and practicing norms and procedures”. She believed
the students in her second placement were successful in participating in DBT because her
mentor, Kate, spent so much time at the beginning of the year teaching the norms and
procedures, and the students were expected to follow them on a daily basis. Cathy’s first
mentor teacher, Sarah, never explicitly taught students how to talk for the purpose of
learning. Instead, Cathy said students in her first placement “got the message ‘don’t talk’
everyday”. Therefore, in the two placements, there were very different principles about
teaching and learning that were implicitly taught to Cathy. As a result, Cathy rarely
enacted DBT in the first placement and frequently enacted it during her second
placement.
Cathy gained knowledge of social learning theories during her teacher preparation
courses, which influenced her vision of DBT. She read about DBT, watched videos of it

	

104	

in action, discussed the importance of the practice, and planned some DBT lessons. These
experiences served as conceptual tools that she used when forming her teaching vision.
Similarly, Cathy’s second mentor, Kate, learned principles of DBT during her
own internship year through professional learning communities. She continued to receive
DBT professional development during her first year, and later through the university. In
her present role at the Montessori school, she received frequent DBT professional
development opportunities through the Kevin Feldman program. In contrast, Sarah’s only
DBT professional development opportunity she discussed was the problem-based
learning (PBL) training. Therefore, Kate had more conceptual tools that influenced her
decision to make student talk a priority, and she ultimately passed these tools on to
Cathy.
Practical tools are specific strategies that teachers can enact in classrooms. The
observation rubric Kate used while observing Cathy was both a conceptual and practical
tool that influenced Cathy’s enactment of DBT. As a conceptual tool, it put an emphasis
on principles of DBT, further making DBT a priority in both Kate and Cathy’s
instruction. As a practical tool, it provided specific DBT strategies on which Sarah could
focus while she observed and debriefed with Cathy.
The specific DBT strategies Cathy learned to implement during her university
courses and during her second placement were also practical tools. These included norms
and procedures for talk, partner talk, teacher and student talk moves, small group tasks,
and high-level questioning. The framework for many lessons Cathy taught during her
second placement came from the Teacher’s Curriculum Institute. This curriculum was
also an influential practical tool because it supported her enactment of DBT by providing

	

105	

ideas for high-level tasks and questions. In contrast, the district-mandated literacy
curriculum Cathy used during the second placement influenced her enactment of DBT in
a seemingly negative way, as it did not align with her vision of DBT; the texts did not
promote critical thinking or multiple perspectives. As a result, Cathy asked low-level
questions and followed the traditional recitation instructional approach during small
group reading instruction.
Opportunities for practice. Cathy’s opportunities for practice during her second
placement influenced her understanding and enactment of DBT. Her mentor teacher,
Kate, provided Cathy with modeling, co-planning, guided reflection, and focused
feedback. Cathy “mirrored” Kate’s enactment of DBT at the beginning of her placement,
and later felt confident enough to plan for and implement the practice on her own. By the
end of the semester, she was enacting features of high-level DBT regularly and across the
curricula. In contrast, because Cathy did not receive opportunities for practice during her
first placement, she struggled to learn about DBT and she rarely enacted the practice until
her second placement. Cathy participated in approximations of practice in the university
courses, in which she learned about DBT routines, planned for a couple DBT lessons, and
taught the lessons in real classrooms. These approximations of practice seemed to
influence her vision of DBT, but they did not play a significant role in her enactment of
the practice.
Learning in communities. The most influential member of Cathy’s learning
community was Kate. Kate and Cathy had structured conversations together in which
they reflected on student learning and their teaching. They collaborated regularly to
analyze data, solve problems, explore new resources and plan for next instructional steps.

	

106	

They both perceived these experiences, which were most often related to DBT, as
necessary to improve their instructional practices. Cathy’s university supervisor also
played a role in Cathy’s learning community. The supervisor provided Cathy with guided
reflection opportunities and provided feedback to support Cathy’s vision of DBT. For
example, in one observed debrief between Cathy and the supervisor, the supervisor
facilitated a discussion about how Cathy’s high-level questions influenced student
learning and participation. She encouraged Cathy to continue planning for questions that
promote critical thinking and multiple perspectives.
Cathy also viewed her fellow intern colleagues as members of her learning
community. When the interns met during courses, they were often given time to discuss
their experiences and reflections. However, in a conversation on April 20, 2017, Cathy
shared her disappointment in these opportunities because she believed the instructors
could have promoted deeper reflections. She believed the conversations typically
remained “surface-level”, promoted little participation, and resulted in more complaining
from her peers than problem solving. There was, however, one experience that stood out
to Cathy because it allowed her to share her vision of DBT with her colleagues. At the
end of the semester, pre-service teachers had the opportunity to observe colleagues from
other schools. Several colleagues chose to observe Cathy teach a discussion-based lesson.
That evening, a colleague from a first-grade internship placement called Cathy to share
how much she enjoyed watching her teach and how impressed she was at the “deep
questions” Cathy asked her students. The colleague admitted to only asking her students
surface level questions and rarely giving them opportunities to talk, so Cathy explained
how she had planned for the lesson. She said to her colleague, “You still have three days,

	

107	

try something!” (Conversation, April 27, 2016). The experience afforded Cathy the
opportunity to reflect on her teaching and share her expertise about DBT.
Professional identity. Identity refers to the beliefs, values, and attitudes that
constantly evolve as one becomes a teacher. A teacher’s professional identity is
dependent upon their background and past experiences in education, as well as their
visions and habits about teaching and students. Indeed, Cathy’s professional identity
changed throughout the year and it influenced her implementation of DBT. She began the
internship year with a vision of teaching that promoted DBT. However, she lost sight of
her vision during her first placement. She found herself with different ideas about her role
as a teacher and the students’ roles. These ideas aligned with the traditional ideas of
education, in which the teacher transfers knowledge and the students sit quietly unless
they are called upon. Kate’s vision of teaching, and the opportunities she gave Cathy to
observe and practice DBT, helped shift Cathy’s vision of teaching during her second
placement to one that again promoted DBT.
Kate and Cathy shared a common vision of teaching. They both believed in the
importance of discussion-based teaching to support student engagement and learning.
They believed students had the ability to ‘talk to learn’ as long as they had the proper
scaffolding and opportunities. Cathy and Sarah, her first mentor teacher, did not seem to
share the same vision of teaching. During her first placement, Cathy felt her and Sarah’s
roles were to “fill time” and “keep the students occupied”. She shared everything seemed
to be “busy work”, while in her second placement “everything had a purpose.” She
claimed, “I talk so much less here than I did in my first placement, and I love it!”
(Conversation, April 13, 2016).

	

108	

During a conversation on March 10, 2016, Cathy expressed how much her two
different mentors had influenced her vision of teaching. She said after several weeks into
her second placement, she was forming a “totally different belief system” about
classroom management and what students can do, and “should be aloud to do”. As an
example, she discussed a social studies lesson she had taught the previous week in which
students were working in groups. When the students’ voices got a little louder she at first
“felt her heart race and wanted to tell them to quiet down”, but then she realized it was
okay for the students to talk a little louder to one another if they were on task and as long
as they were not “yelling”. She said talking was considered a privilege (“it was always
the students ‘get’ to talk”) in her first placement, while in her second placement talking
was considered a right. She explained,
In this environment there’s so much room for kids to share what they know and
its valued. That's a big difference. Like I have the space here to value what they’re
saying, and l understand the value of getting kids talking.
When asked on multiple occasions about whether she thought the type of schools
played a role in her change of beliefs (the first school was in an urban setting, the second
was in a suburban setting), Cathy was adamant that it did not. In a conversation on
February 22, 2016, Cathy responded, “It doesn’t matter if its suburban or urban- all
students need support, it just might be different support. All students can absolutely learn
with the proper support. If they don’t learn, it’s my fault- I didn’t give them enough
scaffolding”.
The participants’ past experiences also helped shape their professional identities.
Cathy began her undergraduate career with ideas about teaching that contrasted with

	

109	

DBT. Because she had only been taught the “traditional” approach, it is all she knew at
the time. Yet, throughout her undergraduate years, her perceptions about teaching
“changed drastically” (Interview One, November 23, 2015) because her instructors
encouraged the co-construction of learning through discussions. The university methods
courses also promoted DBT through readings, video-viewings, discussions, and
assignments. These experiences helped shape the vision Cathy had of DBT when she
entered her internship year.
The mentor teachers’ prior experiences also influenced their own professional
identities. Cathy’s first mentor, Sarah, experienced traditional approaches to learning
when she was a student, and she received few professional development opportunities to
learn about DBT throughout her career. As a result, she implemented teacher-centered
approaches. Kate, on the other hand, participated in professional learning communities
focused on DBT during her internship year, and she received several university-based
and school-wide DBT professional development opportunities as a classroom teacher. As
a result of these experiences, Kate understood the value of DBT, and they also provided
her with the knowledge and skills necessary for her to enact the practice.
Knowledge and skills. Sarah had limited knowledge about DBT, which made it
difficult for her to give Cathy the support she needed to work towards her vision of the
practice. When responding to questions about DBT during her interview, she responded
with statements like, “I don’t really know” and “Am I correct or not?” She was not able
to share how she planned for DBT, even when pressed to do so during the interview, and
her skills for implementing DBT were only observed during center time. Sarah did
express knowledge of some DBT strategies, such as high-level questioning and partner

	

110	

talk, but she did not seem to understand how to successfully enact them. It also seemed
her knowledge of the teacher’s role and of the learners informed her decisions. For
example, she took on a more authoritative role in which she expected the students to sit
quietly and work independently during most parts of the day.
Kate showed she had knowledge of several high-quality DBT strategies, which
she gained through opportunities for practice. For example, during her own internship
year, she worked with colleagues in professional learning communities to plan for DBT,
share their expertise about the practice, and reflect on their implementation of it. As a
practicing teacher, Kate participated in professional development experiences that
focused on DBT. These opportunities allowed Kate to conduct inquiries about
implementing DBT, and collaborate and reflect about enacting the practice in learning
communities within and across local schools. As a result, she gained knowledge of how
to enact features of high-quality DBT across the curricula. In return, she was able provide
Cathy with opportunities for practice that allowed Cathy to gain the necessary knowledge
for enacting several high-quality features of DBT. Cathy watched Kate model DBT,
practiced DBT herself, after which she received focused feedback from Kate; and she
analyzed and reflected on her implementation of DBT with Kate’s guidance. Kate began
her internship year with knowledge of DBT strategies and theories of learning, but these
opportunities for practice during the second placement gave Kate the knowledge of how
to enact DBT in a real classroom setting, across the curricula, and on a daily basis.
Perceived Challenges. Although “perceived challenges” had not been initially
considered as an influential factor, it was found that all three participants perceived
several barriers that seemed to inhibit their abilities to fully and successfully enact their

	

111	

visions of DBT. I say these are “perceived” because, for example, Sarah believed the
students’ abilities posed a challenge, but Cathy did not see this as a barrier. Even so, any
challenge is real in the person’s mind and can potentially influence one’s practice, so they
cannot be ignored. They need to be realized in order to respond to them.
Both Kate and Sarah perceived “lack of time” to be the greatest challenge. They
both discussed how they would like to implement DBT more, but they did not have
enough time to plan for it. Time seemed to be more of a barrier for Sarah, because DBT
was not a “natural” part of her practice like it was for Kate; Kate had the skills and
knowledge to implement some DBT strategies (e.g. partner talk, high-level questioning,
and teacher talk moves) without spending time planning for them. Sarah also believed her
lack of professional development opportunities was a barrier to her learning about and
implementing DBT, as the PBL training seemed to be the only structured opportunity she
had for learning about the practice.
Cathy began the internship year feeling like many barriers were keeping her from
enacting DBT. She was concerned about losing control of the students and losing sight of
the learning objectives. She lacked prior experience implementing DBT, and she was not
receiving any modeling from her mentor. Finally, her classroom lacked norms and
procedures for student talk, and she was unsure how to establish them. By the end of her
second placement, she had overcome most of these challenges, although she still believed
teaching students to use talk moves and assessing all students’ understanding during
discussions were challenges to enacting DBT. However, the challenges did not inhibit her
from enacting several other features of high-quality DBT across the curricula. Kate’s
mentoring and the opportunities for practice she gave Cathy seemed to be the most

	

112	

influential factors that helped Cathy move beyond the challenges from her first placement
to implementing DBT in her second placement.
A New Model: Circle of Influential Factors
Findings from this study confirm and extend theories of how teachers learn about
enacting core practices. Several contextual and biographical factors influenced Cathy’s
learning about and implementation of DBT, although contextual factors seemed to play
the most important role, as represented in Figure 4. The factors lie on one line, or “circle
of influence”, to show how they were interrelated; all factors influenced Cathy’s
enactment of DBT, but also influenced each other.

	

113	

Figure 4
Circle of Influential Factors

Cathy’s mentor teachers, Sarah and Kate, were the most influential people within
Cathy’s learning community. They lie on the circle as a factor within her learning
community, but also as its own contextual factor. This decision was based on the
characteristics that define learning communities as members who participate in
collaborative learning, guided reflection and problem solving together. During Cathy’s
first placement, there was no evidence that her mentor teacher, Sarah, held these

	

114	

characteristics. Therefore, she was not part of Cathy’s learning community. Nonetheless,
she was an influential factor in the ways in which Cathy learned about and implemented
DBT, so in that sense she is a contextual factor on the circle. Cathy’s second mentor
teacher, Kate, played an influential role within Cathy’s learning community as she
supported Cathy’s vision of DBT through guided reflection, problem solving, and
collaboration. The model shows contextual and biographical factors connected to the
mentor to represent the factors that influenced their own learning about and
implementation of DBT, which ultimately influenced the ways in which they supported
Cathy’s vision of the practice. It was found that the same factors that influenced Cathy’s
enactment of DBT also influenced Sarah and Kate’s enactment. Kate’s own opportunities
for practice and her participation in professional learning communities that focused on
DBT influenced her professional identity and provided her with knowledge and skills to
support Cathy’s vision of DBT. Sarah’s lack of opportunities for practice and
participation in learning communities, as well as her perceived challenges, seemed to
influence her professional identity in a way that made her enact teacher-centered
practices. This, in addition to her limited knowledge and skills, influenced Cathy’s
learning and made it challenging for Cathy to enact DBT during her first placement.
Also important to Cathy’s learning about and enactment of DBT were her
opportunities for practice. The most influential opportunities for practice were those
provided for Cathy within her internship classroom, and specifically those within Kate’s
classroom. The opportunities for practice Kate provided Cathy allowed Cathy to
successfully work towards her vision of DBT. Without them, it is unlikely Cathy would

	

115	

have learned how to enact so many high-quality features of DBT during her internship
year. Therefore, this factor is at the center of the “circle of influence”.
Discussion
McDonald, et al. (2013) are calling for the preparation of teachers to enact core
practices. This requires a shift from focusing on what teachers need to know about core
practices to focusing on how teachers enact that knowledge in real classroom settings.
This study contributes to the research, as it is an example of how one intern learned to
enact her knowledge of discussion-based teaching during her internship experience.
Cathy’s second mentor, Kate, played the most important role in helping Cathy enact her
vision of DBT. Feiman-Nemser (2001) conceptually describes the characteristics of an
educative mentor, which she asserts will provide the most support to novice teachers.
This study extends Feiman-Nemser’s work by showing what one educative mentor did to
support an intern’s enactment of discussion-based teaching. Evidence suggests the
context in which student teachers are placed matters for two reasons: autonomy and
exposure are not enough to build complex learning and mentors need to be prepared as
educative.
Autonomy and exposure are not enough to build complex learning. The fact
that Sarah granted Cathy autonomy to try what she wanted seemed to be a benefit at the
start of the study. Indeed, this is a reason the two were chosen as participants. Yet,
evidence from this study shows autonomy is not enough to help novice teachers build on
their knowledge of discussion-based teaching and enact it in the classroom. Beginning
teachers need to be part of a learning community in which they can co-construct learning
of the practice. Furthermore, it is unlikely exposure to DBT, such as in university

	

116	

methods courses, will provide interns with the tools necessary to successfully enact highquality DBT across the curricula. Beginning teachers also need frequent opportunities for
practice in the real classroom in which they receive focused feedback and modeling.
Evidence from this study shows that under these conditions, beginning teachers can learn
how to enact core practices such as DBT.
Learning in Communities. Findings from this study confirm Wenger’s (1998)
extensive research on communities of practice that shows learning is a social practice;
specifically, teachers learn collectively through shared expertise and working towards
common goals. Novice teachers need be part of a learning community with at least one
person and evidence from this study suggests the mentor can be the most influential
participant in an intern’s learning community. Specifically, the mentor can play a vital
role in an intern’s enactment of DBT when they share a common vision of the practice.
Once a shared vision is established, the mentor needs to engage the intern in focused,
structured conversations in which she guides analysis of the intern’s (and the mentor’s)
implementation of DBT strategies, and helps determine productive next steps. Evidence
from this study shows conversations such as these are not only beneficial when they are
planned out and scheduled, but also when they happen on a whim; quick two-to-five
minute collaborative conversations in between teaching moments can support a novice
teacher’s enactment of DBT.
Opportunities for practice. Grossman, et al. (2009) call for approximations of
practice in which pre-service teachers learn about a specific teaching strategy, plan for
enacting it, and rehearse it with their peers. This all takes place in the university setting as
a way to provide scaffolding to pre-service teachers in a low-stakes environment.

	

117	

McDonald, et al. (2013) suggest a similar cycle that emphasizes the need for pre-service
teachers to enact the instructional strategy in a real classroom, then reflect on their
teaching with their peers. Evidence from the study confirms both examples of
approximations of practice can be beneficial to novice teachers’ learning about core
practices. They can provide PSTs with conceptual and practical tools that are necessary
for implementing core practices, and they can help establish a vision of enacting the core
practice. Nonetheless, findings from this study suggest approximations of practice alone
do not provide pre-service teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to
consistently enact core practices such as DBT in a real classroom. Evidence suggests
novice teachers can only learn to enact core practices when they have ample guided
opportunities in authentic classroom settings to see and implement the practice across the
curricula, receive constructive feedback, and reflect upon their enactment. Yet, this study
shows it cannot be assumed all pre-service teachers receive these types of opportunities
by simply being placed in a real classroom with a mentor teacher. They need to be placed
with educative mentors.
Mentors need to be prepared as educative. Over the past two decades, research
has shown the need for a shift in mentoring practices. Instead of the traditional mentoring
approach, mentors need to view their roles as teacher educators (Clark, Triggs and
Nelson, 2014). Bell, Stanulis and Maculoso (2015) argue this level of mentoring, or
educative mentoring (Feiman-Nemser, 2001), is essential to support new teachers’
learning of core practices. Findings from this study support this research. New teachers
need to be placed with mentors who provide modeling, targeted feedback and
collaboration, and regular opportunities for guided reflection around the core practice.

	

118	

The evidence suggests when new teachers receive a traditional style of mentoring, it can
be challenging to enact their knowledge of core practices. This is true even when the new
teacher wants to enact the core practice and has a foundation of conceptual and practical
tools.
Limits of traditional mentoring. Clark et al. (2014) describe several components
of traditional mentoring similar to what Cathy encountered during her first placement.
For example, her feedback was most often positive and surface-level, debrief topics
rarely went beyond classroom management, and although Sarah gave Cathy autonomy to
try new things, she seemed to encourage her to teach in ways that were already familiar
to her. Clark, et al. (2014) assert these components of traditional mentoring do not
typically lead to construction of new knowledge. Instead, it typically confirms what the
novices already know. Indeed, findings from this study suggest this type of mentoring is
insufficient to support a novice teachers’ enactment of complex practices like DBT.
Moreover, Stanulis and Brondyk (2013) determined mentor teachers struggled to help
their mentees enact discussion-based teaching until they began implementing it
themselves in their own classrooms and realized the benefits of it on student learning.
Yet, even if the mentor teacher is familiar with core practices like DBT and implements
them in her own practice, it might not be enough for the mentor to simply transfer that
knowledge to the intern. To improve the knowledge of both professionals, evidence from
this study suggests collaborative and reflective conversations around student learning and
the core practice also need to take place.
Creating conditions for educative mentoring. This study contributes to research
by shedding light on how educative mentoring can help new teachers learn about core

	

119	

practices, such as DBT. In accordance with researchers’ view of educative mentoring
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Bell, Stanulis, & Maculoso, 2015), findings from this study
suggest when the following conditions are present they can support novice teachers’
learning of core practices: (1) opportunities for collaborative learning and co-planning,
(2) facilitated conversations around problems of practice, (3) focused conversations on
student learning and specific teaching strategies, (4) opportunities for guided reflection,
(5) frequent observations followed by focused feedback, (6) modeling of the core
practice, and (7) a view that mentoring is beneficial to the mentor’s learning. Although
this study provides only one example of an educative mentor, findings seem to
demonstrate another important feature necessary for educative mentoring to support
novice teachers’ learning of core practices: the mentor needs to have a vision of the core
practice; she needs to view it as beneficial to student learning and it needs to be a part of
her own teaching. For example, perceived challenges seemed to influence how all three
of the study’s participants enacted DBT. While Kate and Cathy worked to enact DBT
despite their perceived challenges, Sarah was unable to do so, which in return influenced
Cathy’s enactment of DBT during the first semester. It seemed Kate was able to
overcome her perceived challenges because she had a clear vision of discussion-based
teaching and she believed it supported her students’ learning. Moreover, Kate’s vision
and practice with DBT supported her ability to implement many of the educative
mentoring moves that led to Cathy’s enactment of the practice (i.e. modeling DBT,
facilitating frequent conversations about DBT, helping Cathy reflect on her enact of
DBT, etc.).

	

120	

In sum, the findings from this study are consistent with previous research: mentor
teachers play the most influential role during the student teaching experience (Clark,
Triggs, & Nielson, 2014; Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009). In fact, these
findings suggest mentor teachers can be even more influential than university instructors
when helping pre-service teachers learn how to enact a core practice such as DBT. As
verified in this study, not all mentors are educative mentors. Therefore, these findings
support those who have determined the need for a collaborative relationship between the
university and the mentors (Clark, et al., 2014; Schuster, 2014; Stanulis & Brondyk,
2013). Because research shows most mentors take on a more traditional role of
mentoring, universities need to provide professional development focused on educative
mentoring practices. Likewise, research shows few teachers enact DBT due to the
complexity of the practice. Therefore, as Stanulis and Brondyk (2013) assert, universities
also need to provide mentors with professional development focused on DBT. In what
follows, implications for teacher preparation programs and suggestions for future
research will be discussed.
Implications and Future Research
Although there has been a lot of discussion around carefully selecting placements
for student teachers and mentor education, it seems not a lot has been done. Student
teachers need to be placed in contexts that foster growth. Teacher education programs can
help ensure this happens by preparing mentor teachers to be educative. We cannot
assume all mentor teachers have the vision and resources to support novice teachers as
they learn to implement core practices. Therefore, teacher education programs need to
provide mentors with focused PD around educative mentoring and core practices.

	

121	

Teacher education programs should also help mentors understand the importance of their
roles and assure mentors they are working as a team to support the needs of the interns.
As part of the PD, universities can help address several factors that influence a
teacher’s learning of core practices. For example, during the PD, they will provide
practical and conceptual tools, as well as opportunities for practice. This will take place
in a learning community, in which participants will co-construct learning, share their
expertise and reflect on their practice. As a result, participants will develop their
knowledge and skills of both educative mentoring practices and core practices, such as
DBT. It is likely the professional identities of the participants will also evolve as they
share their experiences and learn new ideas about teaching and learning. This study found
an additional factor, perceived challenges, to also play a role in the teachers’ enactment
of DBT. Therefore, PD facilitators need to understand the perceived challenges of the
mentor teachers and work to address them. For example, if teachers find it challenging to
“fit in” DBT, facilitators can suggest ways to integrate it with other mandated initiatives.
Some might claim such a program will require too many resources from the
university. However, this should be viewed as an investment program. First, the turnover
rate for the university’s mentor teachers may decrease when they receive mentoring
support and strategies they can immediately apply to their classrooms. Second, when
universities commit to supporting mentor teachers, they are committing to the
development of teacher leaders. Teacher leaders will not only support the learning of
their mentees, but they also have the potential to support their colleagues (Cooper, et al.,
2016). They can help develop new mentor teachers within their schools and share their
expertise about core practices. As teacher preparation programs continue their partnership

	

122	

with these schools, they can be assured mentors are working together to enact good
mentoring and teaching practices.
Still, preparing mentors to be teacher educators will be a challenging feat for
many universities. Therefore, research of teacher preparation programs that are working
to provide professional development opportunities for mentor teachers around core
practices and educative mentoring practices will need to be conducted. For example,
Launch into Teaching, a program directed by Dr. Randi Stanulis at Michigan State
University, provides mentor teachers professional development sessions focused on
educative mentoring practices and discussion-based teaching. Studying programs such as
this one will help create a model that other universities can build upon.
Moreover, exposure to DBT during Cathy’s undergraduate program was not
enough to give her the support she needed to enact DBT at the start of her internship year.
Therefore, undergraduate programs should ensure pre-service teachers (PSTs) are
receiving frequent modeling, focused feedback and guided reflection from an expert to
help the PST improve her practice. This expert might be the classroom teacher or the
course instructor. Because DBT has many components, it might benefit the PST to focus
on just one DBT strategy at a time, such as partner talk or a specific talk move, with the
support of the expert. This can help the PST move from knowing of many strategies to
being able to implement a few from the start of her student teaching experience, of which
she can build upon. It is important to continue research around teacher preparation
programs that are providing approximations of practice for specific core practices during
undergraduate methods courses. Research should especially focus on programs that
provide frequent opportunities for PSTs to teach in authentic classroom settings in which

	

123	

an expert is providing feedback and guided reflection. Insights into how PSTs in these
programs implement the core practice at the start of their internship year will be of
particular interest in this field of study.
Furthermore, this study provides support for the factors that may influence novice
teachers’ learning about and enactment of DBT. Further research should be conducted to
confirm or extend these factors. For example, the roles in which one’s biography and
context play in helping novice teachers learn about DBT will likely vary depending on
the case. As such, studying multiple cases across a diverse sample of K-12 placements
will provide greater insights into the common influential factors that teacher preparation
programs can address to better support new teachers. Moreover, this study focused on
one specific core practice. Future research connected to other core practices will be
beneficial. For example, do the factors found to be influential in this study also influence
how other core practices are learned? Again, this will provide insights for teacher
preparation programs so they can provide appropriate support for new teachers. Finally,
the factors that influenced the mentors’ enactment of DBT ultimately influenced how
Cathy implemented the practice. Therefore, more research on how specific factors, such
as perceived challenges, may influence mentor teachers’ enactment of the practice will
also benefit universities working to develop a professional development program for
mentors so that PD facilitators can acknowledge the factors and work to address them.
Limitations
This study focused on one intern and her two mentor teachers. As such, a
limitation to this study is its small sample size. The study aimed to develop an in-depth
understanding and a detailed description of the cases (Flyvbjerg, 2011; Yin, 2014). Yet,

	

124	

due to the nature of comparative case studies, the findings are not meant to be
generalizable. A larger, more diverse sample size may have provided deeper insights into
the research questions. For example, this study took place in two elementary placements.
Because research shows DBT is a difficult practice to enact in all grade levels, future case
studies should represent a diverse sampling of K-12 grade levels and content areas.
Conclusion
As universities prepare future teachers to enact discussion-based teaching, it will
require they invest more resources into mentor teachers. By providing focused
professional development around DBT and mentoring practices, mentors can provide the
opportunities for practice and educative mentoring novice teachers need in order to enact
high-quality features of DBT across the curricula. As the educational field continues to
focus on DBT and other core practices, it will be important to recognize the factors that
influence one’s learning about and enactment of each practice. This will help universities
prepare future teachers to teach ambitiously.

	

125	

Researcher’s Reflection: A Note to the Audience
You probably noticed the distinct differences between the populations at each
school, and you might be wondering if these differences played a role in how each
mentor teacher and Cathy enacted discussion-based teaching. It is true the first school
was made up of low-income, minority students while the second school was mainly
middle-class, white students. I considered these differences throughout my data collection
and analysis, thinking some kind of evidence- from an observation, an interview, a
passing conversation- would appear to show that the student population was indeed an
influential factor. After all, research shows minority students are often silenced in the
classroom. Nonetheless, I have no data to corroborate the assumption that the student
populations influenced the ways in which any one of the participant’s enacted DBT.
While Sarah did refer to “these students” during an interview, it was in the context of
‘these kindergartners are too young and immature to do group work’. Therefore, while
that phrase (“these students”) might have rubbed you the wrong way- as it did me- it did
not seem to be in reference to the fact they were minority students. As the author and
researcher, it is my responsibility to be true to the data and to the participants. With that
said, I will also admit that while I was surprised the student population was not proven to
be a factor, I was also relieved. I was relieved that this would not be another study that
shows discussion-based teaching is only happening at a certain school because it is made
up of mainly middle-class white students. I was relieved this would not be another study
that showed low-income minority students are being silenced because they are lowincome minority students. Rather, I was relieved this study shows factors that we can
control to be the most influential in helping Cathy learn about and implement DBT.

	

126	

I also want to return to my argument about focusing my theoretical framework on
only the biographical factors that have already been proven to influence teachers’
learning about core practices. As I said in Chapter Two, it would be nearly impossible to
examine all of one’s biographical factors. For example, I did not ask the participants
about conversations at their dinner tables growing up, or the ways in which they
communicate with their friends and family in this digital age. With the understanding that
examining biographical factors is quite an undertaking, I want to be clear that it is very
likely there are some, if not many, influential factors that were left uncovered during this
study.

	

127	

APPENDIX

	

128	

Appendix A
Semi-Structured Interview Protocols
Interview One
Research Question: How do contextual and biographical factors influence an intern’s
implementation and learning about DBT?
(Prior to asking the first question, participant and I will watch a video (representing a
classroom discussion. Note-taking prompts: What do you notice about the role of the
teacher? What do you notice about the role of the students?) 0-1:30 ; 4:12- 5:40; 6:25-end
1. Describe what you noticed in the video in regards to discussion-based teaching (DBT).
2. Possible follow-up prompts, if needed:
• What components of DBT did you notice?
• Tell me about the teacher’s role.
• Tell me about the student’s role.
• Explain the extent to which discourse seemed to influence the student learning
and in what ways.
• Is this an approach you would use in your classroom? Why or why not?
3. What factors do you take into consideration when planning for and implementing
DBT? Possible follow-up: What do you believe is the role of the teacher? Of the
students? In what ways, if any, does the topic or subject matter influence your planning
for and implementing DBT?
4. Can you talk me through some challenges and supports? Why do you think those
challenges exist? How do you overcome the challenge? Is there anyone you talk with
about the challenges or to support you with implementing DBT?
5. Why do you think it is important to implement DBT?
6. Where are you now in developing this practice? Where do you think you want to go?
Intern: Beyond the internship, where do you imagine yourself in enacting DBT?
Compared to now, how does it differ and why? What is preventing you or supporting you
in getting there?
7. How does your vision of DBT contrast with what you’ve experienced?
8. Is there anything else you would like to discuss in terms of how you implement DBT
and what influences your implementation of it? Your learning about it?
Research Question: In what ways do opportunities for practice influence an intern’s
enactment of DBT?
1. Tell me about your experiences with participating in DBT. Possible follow-up: Is
there a particular experience that stands out to you?
2. Describe your experiences with implementing DBT.
3. Tell me about a particular lesson where you implemented DBT. When did it happen?
What was the experience like for you? How did it compare to the lesson in the video?
(Prompt if needed for intern: Do you remember doing it in 405 and what was it like for
you? What did you think of it? What was your experience?)
4. How often do you plan for and implement DBT? Possible follow-up: How often do
you think DBT should take place?

	

129	

5. Is there anything else you would like to discuss in terms of your experiences with
implementing DBT?
Research Question: In what ways do the mentor and intern work together to promote
the intern’s vision of DBT?
(Mentor)
1. How do you view your role as a mentor? In what ways do you and your intern work
together? How do you determine the focus of the conversations? Tell me about a
conversation you had with your intern that you felt was especially productive.
2. Are there opportunities for the intern to practice DBT? For example, is the intern
seeing it from you or another teacher in the school?
3. How are you talking about DBT and analyzing it together? (Seeing it, enacting it,
analyzing it, reflecting upon it) Can you talk me through some examples?
(Intern)
1. In what ways do you and your mentor work together? How do you decide what
strategies/instructional practices you will use/try out? Tell me about a conversation
between you and your mentor that you felt was especially productive.
2. Are there opportunities for you to practice DBT? For example, are you seeing it from
your mentor or another teacher in the school?
3. How are you and your mentor talking about it and analyzing it together? (Seeing it,
enacting it, analyzing it, reflecting upon it). Can you talk me through some examples?
	
Interview Two (End of April)
Research Question: How do contextual and biographical factors influence an intern’s
implementation and learning about DBT?
(Intern)
1. After living with DBT for these past several months, what would you say now about
DBT?
2. In what ways, if any, has your vision of DBT changed throughout the year? Possible
follow-up: Did your vision change or just the way you enacted it?
3. What are the key components of DBT?
4. How did the student role and teacher role unfold in your classroom?
5. After trying elements of DBT in your internship year, what role do you see DBT
playing in your own classroom? Possible follow up: What tools/resources will you need
to enact DBT next year?
Research Question: In what ways do opportunities for practice influence an intern’s
enactment of DBT?
(Intern)
1. Tell me about your experiences with implementing DBT over the past several months.
Possible follow-up: Is there a particular experience that stands out to you?
2. Consider your first semester versus this semester. How would you compare and
contrast the your DBT experiences? The ways you enact DBT? Possible follow-up: What
do you think influenced the differences/similarities?

	

130	

3. What features of DBT made the students more or less successful? (i.e. the way you
structured participation- such as partner/whole/small- ways in which students
participated- such as hand signals, hand raising, etc. Were the features different from last
semester compared to this semester? If so, how? Follow-up: What role did you play in
making the features more or less accessible for students?
4. What do you think went well? What are you still concerned about?
5. How often did you plan for and implement DBT?
6. In what content area did you feel most successful and why? Were there principles or
ideas from that content area that you transferred to other areas?
7. Is there anything else you would like to discuss in terms of your experiences with
implementing DBT?
Research Question: In what ways do the mentor and intern work together to promote the
intern’s vision of DBT?
(Mentor)
1. How do you view your role as a mentor? In what ways have you and your intern
worked together?
2. How have you determined the focus of the conversations? Tell me about a
conversation you had with your intern that you felt was especially productive.
3. How have you been talking about DBT and analyzing it together? (Seeing it, enacting
it, analyzing it, reflecting upon it) Can you talk me through some examples?
(Intern)
1. In what ways do you and your mentor work together? How have you decided what
strategies/instructional practices you will use/try out?
2. Tell me about a conversation between you and your mentor that you felt was especially
productive.
4. How have you and your mentor been talking about it and analyzing it together?
(Seeing it, enacting it, analyzing it, reflecting upon it). Can you talk me through some
examples?
5. Do you feel like you have support for enacting DBT? Do you feel like you have the
resources?
6. Are the DBT experiences you have discussed different from your first context? If so, in
what ways? Possible follow-up: How would you describe your relationships with the two
mentor teachers?

	

131	

REFERENCES

	

132	

REFERENCES
Anderson, M. (2015, August 20). How having smartphones (or not) shapes the way teens
communicate. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org
Applebee, A.N., Langer, J.A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based
approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student
performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research
Journal, 40(3), 685-730.
Almasi, J.F. (1996). A new view of discussion. In Gambrell, L.B. & Almasi, J.F. (Eds.),
Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading (pp.1-24). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Anagnostopoulos, D., Smith, E.R., & Nystrand, M. (2008). Creating dialogic spaces to
support teachers’ discussion practices: An introduction. English Education, 41(1),
4-12.
Aquino-Sterling, C., Rodriquez-Valls, F., & Zahner, W. (2016). Fostering a culture of
discourse in secondary mathematics classrooms: Equity approaches in teaching
and teacher education for emergent bilingual students. Revista International de
Education para la Justicia Social, 5(2), 87-107.
Bali, M. (2014). MOOC pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs.
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 44-56.
Ball, D.L. & Cohen, D.K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward
a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes and DarlingHammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and
practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bell, J., Stanulis, R. & Maculoso, M. (2015). A tale of two mentors: Contrasting
educative and traditional mentoring in the induction years. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
Benard, R.M, Rojo de Rubalcava, B., St-Pierre, D. (2000). Collaborative online distance l
earning: Issues for future practice and research. Distance Education, 21(2), 260277.
Blazar, D. (2015). Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: Identifying classroom
practices that support student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 48,
16-29.

	

133	

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E. & Pittman, M. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering
productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 24, 417-436.
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking.
Broadway Paperbacks, New York.
Christoph, J.N & Nystrand, M. (2001). Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One
teacher’s transition toward a dialogic classroom. Research in the Teaching of
English, 36(2), 249-286.
Clark, A., Triggs, V., & Nielson, W. (2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher
education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2),
163-202.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1999) Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. American Educational Research Association,
24, 249-305. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167272
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). The common core state standards
initiative: Preparing America’s students for college and career. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org
Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Retrieved from
The Danielson Group website: http://www.danielsongroup.org/article.aspx?
page=FfTEvaluationInstrument
da Ponte, J.P & Quaresma, M. (2016). Teachers’ professional practice conducting
mathematical discussions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(1), 51-66.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., Shulman, L. (2005).
The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond and J.
Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world, pp. 390-441. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Del Favero, L., Boscolo, P., Vidotto, G., Vicentini, M. (2007). Classroom discussion and
individual problem-solving in the teaching of history: Do different instructional
approaches affect interest in different ways? Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 635657.
Drago-Severson, E. (2007). Helping teachers learn: Principals as professional
development leaders. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 70-125.
Emerson, R.M, Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (2011). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

	

134	

Ericsson, K.A. (2008). Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A
general overview. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15(11), 988-994.
Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
Computers and Education, 59, 423-435.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to
strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary
support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17-30.
Flores & Day (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A
multi-perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 219-232.
Flyvbjert, B. (2011). Case study. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 301-316. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ghousseini, H. (2015). Core practices and problems of practice in learning to lead
classroom discussions. The Elementary School Journal, 115(3), 332-357.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction, 4th edition.
Boston: Pearson.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2),
273-289.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M.,
McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L.
Darling-Hammond and J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing
world, pp. 358-389. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hobson, A., Ashby, P., Malderez, A, & Tomlinson, P. (2009). Mentoring beginning
teachers: What we know and what we don't. Teaching and Teacher Education,
25(1), 207–216.
Howard, J. R. & Weimer, M. (2015). Discussion in the college classroom: Getting your
students engaged and participating in person and online. Jossey-Bass. San
Francisco, CA.
Hung, D., Tan, S.C., & Chen, D. (2005). How the internet facilitates learning as dialog:
Design considerations for online discussions. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 32(1), 37-46.

	

135	

Jackson, K., Garrison, A., Wilson, J., Gibbons, L., & Shahan, E. (2013). Exploring
Relationships Between Setting Up Complex Tasks and Opportunities to Learn in
Concluding Whole-Class Discussions in Middle-Grades Mathematics Instruction.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 646-682.
Kardos, S.M., Johnson, S.M., Peske, H.G., Kauffman, D., Liu, E. (2001). Counting on
colleagues: New teachers encounter the professional cultures of their schools.
Educational Administration Quartely (37)2, 250-290.
Kathard H., Pillay D., & Pillay, M. (2015). A study of teacher-learner interactions: A
continuum between monologic and dialogic interactions. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 46, 222-241.
Kennedy, M.M., Ball, D.L., & McDiarmid, G.W. (1993). A study package for examining
and tracking changes in teachers’ knowledge. National Center for Research on
Teacher Education: East Lansing, Michigan.
Lampert, M., Boerst, T., & Graziani, F. (2011). Organizational resources in the service of
school- wide ambitious teaching practice. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 13611400.
Langer, J.A. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literacy understanding and literature
instruction. Teachers College Press: New York, New York.
Laursen, S.L, Hassi, M.L, & Hough, S. (2016). Implementation and outcomes of inquirybased learning in mathematics content courses for pre-service teachers.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,
47(2), 256-275.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(3), 149164.
Li, Li (2014). Understanding language teachers’ practice with educational technology: A
case from China. System, 46, 105-119.
Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of
participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported
collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 487-509.
Little, J.W. (2006). Professional community and professional development in the
learning-centered school. Retrieved from www.nea.org
Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic teaching: Discussing theoretical contexts and reviewing
evidence from classroom practice. Language and Education, 22(3), 222-240.
Maloch, B. & Bomer, R. (2012). Developing Discussion. Language Arts, 90(2), 129-137.

	

136	

Marzano, R., Schooling, P., & Toth, M. (2012). Examining the role of teacher evaluation
in student achievement: Contemporary research base for the Marzano causal
teacher evaluation model. Retrieved from Marzano Center website: http://
www.marzanocenter.com/Teacher-Evaluation-Resources/#EV
McCory, R., Putman, R., Jansen, A. (2008). Interaction in online courses for teacher
education: Subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 16(2), 155-180.
McDonald, M., Kazemi, E. & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of
teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal
of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378-386.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of
evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online
learning studies. U.S. Department of Education: Center for Technology in
Learning.
Michaels, S., O’Conner, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and
realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy
and Education, 27. 283-297.
Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course: A collaborative design model.
Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(4), 85-103.
National Council for Social Studies. (2013). Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for
Inquiry in Social Studies State Standards. Retrieved from
https://www.scribd.com/document/174991635/Final-Draft-C3-Framework-forSocial-Studies-State-Standards
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 19(4), 317-328
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated with
the NGSS. Retrieved from nextgenscience.org.
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and
learning in the English classroom. Teachers College Press: New York, NY.
Paine, L., Pimm, D., Britton, E., Raizen, S., & Wilson, S. (2003). Rethinking
induction: Examples from around the world. In M. Scherer (Ed.), Keeping good
teachers (67-80). Washington: ASCD.

	

137	

Pajares, F.M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Parrish, S. (2011). Number talks build numerical reasoning. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 18(3), 198-206.
Pedaste, M., Maeots, M., Siiman, L.A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S.A.N, Kamp, E.T,
Manoli, C.C., Zacharia, Z.C., Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based
learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 4761.
Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature
discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446-456. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01066
Richards, J. (2008). Second language teacher education today. Regional Language Centre
Journal, 39(2), 158-177.
Rodgers, C.R. & Scott, K.H. (2008). The development of the personal self and
professional identity in learning to teach. In Cochran-Smith, Feiman-Nemser and
McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Enduring
Questions in Changing Contexts (pp. 732-755). New York: Routledge.
Roth, W.M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment:
Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 33(7), 709-736.
Santori, D. (2011). “Search for the answers” or “talk about the story”?: School-based
literacy participation structures. Language Arts, 88 (3), 198-207.
Schuster, D. (2014). Creating more seamless connections between university-based
coursework and school-based mentoring. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 50, 170-174.
Sherin, M.G. (2002). A balancing act: Developing a discourse community in a
mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 5(3), 205233.
Silver, H., Strong, R., Perini, M., Tuculescu, G. (2004). The thoughtful classroom:
Making students as important as standards. Ho-Ho-Kus, NJ: Thoughtful
Education Press. Retrieved from
http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/strategies/topics/
Assessment%20Alternatives/silver.htm
Smith, A. (2015, April 1). U.S. smartphone use in 2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from www.pewresearch.org
Stanulis, R.N. (2014). Professional development PowerPoint presentation. Detroit, MI.

	

138	

Stanulis, R.N. & Brondyk, S.K. (2013) Complexities involved in mentoring towards a
high-leverage practice in the induction years. Teachers College Record, 115(10).
Stanulis, R.N., Little, S., Wibbens, E. (2012). Intensive mentoring that contributes to
change in beginning teachers’ learning to lead classroom discussions. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 28(2012), 32-43.
Stein, M.K., Engle, R.A., Smith, M.S., & Hughes, E.K. (2008). Orchestrating productive
mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show
and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313-340.
Tallent-Runnels, M.K., Thomas, J.A., Lan, W.Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T.C., Shaw, S.M.,
Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online : A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Tanner, K. (2013). Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student
engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12,
322-331.
Teaching Works. (2013). High-leverage practices. Retrieved from
http://www.teachingworks.org/ work-of-teaching/high-leverage-practices
Timperley, H.S. & Phillips, G. (2003). Changing and sustaining teachers’ expectations
through professional development in literacy. Teacher and Teacher Education,
19, 627-641.
Tolentino, E.T. (2013). Put an explanation point to make it louder: Uncovering emergent
writing revelations through talk. Language Arts, 91(1), 10-22.
Tsui, A. (2011). Teacher education and teacher development. In E. Hinkel (Ed.)
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 21-39).
Routledge: Florence, KY
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New
York: Penguin Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Von Renesse, C. & Ecke, V. (2014). Inquiry-based learning and the art of mathematical
discourse. Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate
Studies, 3, 221-237.
Wagner, D., Herbel-Eisemann, B., & Choppin, J. (2012). Inherent connections between
discourse and equity in mathematics classrooms. In D. Wagner, B. Herbel-

	

139	

Eisemann, B., J. Choppin, & D. Pimm (Eds.), Equity in discourse for mathematics
education (pp. 1-13). London: Springer.
Wang, Q. & Woo, L.H. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-toface discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 38(2), 272-286.
Weinstein, C.S., Roman, M.E., Mignano, Jr., A.J. (2011). Managing recitations and
discussions. In Elementary classroom management: Lessons from research and
practice (pp. 303-316). McGraw Hill: New York, NY.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williamson, P. (2013). Enacting high leverage practices in English methods: The case of
discussion. English Education, 46(1), 34-67.
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers’ learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new
infrastructure for the status quo? Teachers College Record 109(3), 699-739.
Yilmaz, D., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2011). The comparative effects
prediction/discussion-based learning cycle, conceptual change text, and traditional
instructions on student understanding of genetics. International Journal of
Science Education, 33(5), 607-628.
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zingaro, D. (2012). Student moderators in asynchronous online discussion: A question of
questions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 159-173.
	

	

140