MD. 97 43p. - ERIC · 2014. 5. 14. · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 402 555 CS 012 666 AUTHOR Hudson-Ross, Sally; Graham, Peg TITLE Complexities of a Collaborative Inquiry Community: Mentor

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 402 555 CS 012 666

AUTHOR Hudson-Ross, Sally; Graham, PegTITLE Complexities of a Collaborative Inquiry Community:

Mentor Teachers' Growth within a High School EnglishTeacher Education Program. Reading Research ReportNo. 70.

INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;National Reading Research Center, College Park,MD.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 97CONTRACT 117A20007NOTE 43p.PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Case Studies; *College School Cooperation; *English

Teacher Education; Higher Education; High Schools;Interprofessional Relationship; *Mentors; ProgramEffectiveness; Teacher Role; Theory PracticeRelationship

IDENTIFIERS *Collaborative Inquiry; Teaching Research

ABSTRACTA case study of 6 high school English teachers

illustrates their attitudes, perspectives, and experiences as theybecame immersed in the first year of a collaborative inquirycommunity of school and university-based colleagues who redesigned ateacher education program together. Three major categories of growthemerged: (1) perceptions of English teaching; (2) understanding therole of mentor teachers; and (3) impact of the collaborative inquirygroup on individual participants. (Contains 20 references, 1 table ofdata, and 4 notes. Appendix A presents an application form for astudy of the National Reading Research Center. Appendix B presents anextensive discussion that focuses on issues of power, communication,and community; yearlong interaction and collaborative growth; and howteacher research connects theory and practice.) (Author/RS)

***************1***************************************************** .

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

******************************;,AA**************************************

Complexities of a Collaborative InquiryCommunity: Mentor Teachers' Growthwithin a High School EnglishTeacher Education Program

Sally Hudson-RossPeg GrahamUniversity of Georgia

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

his document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

1:1 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

MAC NationalReading ResearchCenter

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 70

Winter 1997

2

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

Complexities of a Collaborative Inquiry Community:Mentor Teachers' Growth within a

High School English Teacher.Education Program

Sally Hudson-RossPeg Graham

University of Georgia

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 70Winter 1997

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Center Project of the Universityof Georgia and University of Maryland. It was supported under the Educational Research andDevelopment Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Officeof Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings andopinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the NationalReading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.Department of Education.

3

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter.

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jamie Lynn Metsala, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Betty Shockley-BisplinghoffClarke County School District, Athens, Georgia

Linda DeGroffUniversity of Georgia

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesLinda DeGroff, Editor

University of GeorgiaJames V. Hoffman, Associate Editor

University of Texas at AustinMariam Jean Dreher, Associate Editor

University of Maryland College ParkInstructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of GeorgiaResearch HighlightsWilliam G. HollidayUniversity of Maryland College Park

Policy BriefsJames V. Hoffman

University of Texas at AustinVideosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerKathy B. Davis, Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, Albany

Ronald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment

Marsha T. DeLainDelaware Department of Public InstructionCarl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Barbara McCombsMid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory (MCREL)Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5Kalispell, Montana

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Peter WinogradUniversity of Kentucky

Production EditorKatherine P. HutchisonUniversity of Georgia

Dissemination CoordinatorJordana E. RichUniversity of Georgia

Text FormatterAngela R. Wilson


NRRC - University of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: [email protected]

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: [email protected]

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) isfunded by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education toconduct research on reading and reading instruction.The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the Univer-sity of Georgia and the University of Maryland CollegePark in collaboration with researchers at several institu-tions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to discover and documentthose conditions in homes, schools, and communitiesthat encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic,lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed toadvancing the development of instructional programssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva-tional factors that affect children's success in reading.NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conductstudies with teachers and students from widely diversecultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kinder-garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projectsdeal with the influence of family and family-schoolinteractions on the development of literacy; the interac-tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; theimpact of literature-based reading programs on readingachievement; the effects of reading strategies instructionon comprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learning; thepotential of computer technology to enhance literacy;and the development of methods and standards foralternative literacy assessments.

The NRRC is further committed to the participationof teachers as full partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of how teachers view the development ofliteracy, how they use knowledge from research, andhow they approach change in the classroom is crucial toimproving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi-cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRCactivities. Information on NRRC research appears inseveral formats. Research Reports communicate theresults of original research or synthesize the findings ofseveral lines of inquiry. They are written primarily forresearchers studying various areas of reading andreading instruction. The Perspective Series presents awide range of publications, from calls for research andcommentary on research and practice to first-personaccounts of experiences in schools. InstructionalResources include curriculum materials, instructionalguides, and materials for professional growth, designedprimarily for teachers.

For more information about the NRRC's researchprojects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Peter AfflerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jane AgeeUniversity of Georgia

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

Janice F. AhnasiUniversity of Buffalo-SUNY

Patty AndersUniversity of Arizona

Harriette ArringtonUniversity of Kentucky

Marna BanningUniversity of Utah

Jill BartoliElizabethtown College

Eurydice BauerUniversity of Georgia

Janet BentonBowling Green, Kentucky

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary School

Falls Church, Virginia

David BloomeVanderbilt University

John BorkowskiNotre Dame University

Fenice BoydUniversity of Georgia

Karen BromleyBinghamton University

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne ClewellMontgomery County Public Schools

Rockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle CommeyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City Schools

Shaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of Education

Hartford, Connecticut

Jim CunninghamGibsonville, North Carolina

Karin DahlOhio State University

Marcia DelanyWilkes County Public Schools

Washington, Georgia

Lynne Diaz-RicoCalifornia State University-San

Bernardino

Mark DressmanNew Mexico State University

Ann DuffyUniversity of Georgia

Ann Egan-RobertsonAmherst College

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Linda GambrellUniversity of Maryland College Park

Mary GrahamMcLean, Virginia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Frances HancockConcordia College of Saint Paul,

Minnesota

Kathleen HeubachVirginia Commonwealth University

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Georgia

Cynthia HyndUniversity of Georgia

Gay IveyUniversity of Georgia

David JardineUniversity of Calgary

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Michelle KellyUniversity of Utah

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Kate KirbyGeorgia State University

Linda LabboUniversity of Georgia

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Donald T. LeuSyracuse University

Susan LytleUniversity of Pennsylvania

Bert ManginoLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan MazzoniBaltimore, Maryland

Ann Dacey McCannUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Veda McClainUniversity of Georgia

Lisa McFallsUniversity of Georgia

Randy McGinnisUniversity of Maryland

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Barbara MichaloveFourth Street Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Elizabeth B. MojeUniversity of Utah

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MurrayAuburn University

Susan NeumanTemple University

John O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Marilyn Ohlhausen-McKinneyUniversity of Nevada

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

Barbara M. PalmerMount Saint Mary's College

Stephen PhelpsBuffalo State College

Mike PickleGeorgia Southern University

Amber T. PrinceBerry College

Gaoyin QianLehman College -CUNY

Tom ReevesUniversity of Georgia

Lenore RinglerNew York University

Mary RoeUniversity of Delaware

Nadeen T. RuizCalifornia State University-

Sacramento

Olivia SarachoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Betty Shockley-BisplinghoffBarnett Shoals Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Wayne H. SlaterUniversity of Maryland College Park

Margaret SmithLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Bernard SpodekUniversity of Illinois

Bettie St. PierreUniversity of Georgia

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Roger StewartBoise State University

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research

and Improvement

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Bruce VanSledrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara WalkerEastern Montana University-Billings

Louise WaynantPrince George's County Schools

Upper Marlboro, Maryland

Dera WeaverAthens Academy

Athens, Georgia

Jane WestAgnes Scott College

Renee WeisburgElkins Park, Pennsylvania

Allan WigfieldUniversity of Maryland College Park

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

Josephine Peyton YoungUniversity of Georgia

Hallie YoppCalifornia State University

7BEST COPY AVAILABLE

About the Authors

Peg Graham is Assistant Professor of LanguageEducation at the University of Georgia. Shereceived her doctorate in English education at theUniversity of Iowa after teaching English in publichigh schools for 17 years. Her research focuses onthe conceptualization of mentoring roles and theinfluence of power, knowledge, and gender onmentor-teacher/student-teacher relationships. Shehas been a trainer of teacher assessors for theNational Board for Professional TeachingStandards Early Adolescence/English LanguageArts and a member of the redesign team forEA/ELA assessments for NBPTS certifiedteachers.

Sally Hudson-Ross works primarily with second-ary preservice teachers and their mentor teachers inlocal high schools through the Language Educationdepartment at the University of Georgia. In 1993-1994, Sally exchanged jobs with Patti McWhorter,a local English teacher and department chair inanother NRRC project entitled The SYNERGYProject. Insights they gained from doing oneanother's jobs as teacher educator and high schoolteacher for a year directly influenced the Collabo-rative Inquiry Project reported here. Details of theSYNERGY Project are reported in other NRRCreports.

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and MarylandReading Research Report No. 70Winter 1997

Complexities of a Collaborative Inquiry Community:Mentor Teachers' Growth within a High School

English Teacher Education Program

Sally Hudson-RossPeg Graham


Abstract. Cases of six high school English teachersillustrate their attitudes, perspectives, and experi-ences as they became immersed in a collaborativeinquiry community of school and university-basedcolleagues who redesigned a teacher educationprogram together. Three major categories of growthemerged: (a) perceptions of English teaching, (b)understanding the role of mentor teachers, and (c)impact of the collaborative inquiry group on individ-ual participants. An extensive discussion focuses onissues of power, communication, and community;yearlong interaction and collaborative growth; andhow teacher research connects theory and practice.

Although the concept of "learning to teach"has been a primary focus of teacher education,only recently have researchers begun to sys-tematically frame this question and study itcarefully (Carter, 1990; Shulman, 1986a,1986b). While previous studies focused onbeginning teachers' observable behaviors or theskills needed for effective teaching in general,recent investigations explore teachers' develop-ing knowledge and growing perceptions oftheir disciplines from an interpretive stance(Zeichner, 1987), and the critical role that the

1

supervising teacher plays in the development ofsuch perspectives (Goodlad, 1990; Graham,1993). Shulman (1986a) has called for investi-gations which highlight: (a) the transformationof teachers' subject matter knowledge as theyprepare and begin to teach; and (b) the devel-opment of pedagogical thinking in both novicesand experts.

The purpose of our investigation was toexamine how mentor teachers' and preserviceteacher-candidates' knowledge about literacyteaching is acquired and develops over timewithin a collaborative, school-based teacherdevelopment program. This study focused onthe attitudes, perspectives, and experiences of:(a) a group of mentor teachers (MTs) of sec-ondary English as they became immersed in acollaborative inquiry community; and (b) agroup of teacher candidates (TCs) as they wereinducted into the profession through carefullystructured experiences guided by a team ofschool and university practitioners who workedclosely with them during a 1-year program.

9

2 Hudson-Ross & Graham

The following questions guided our re-search:1. How do TCs' and experienced MTs'definitions and concepts of English and ofteaching evolve over time as a result of participation in a collaborative inquiry community?2. How does their immersion in collabora-tive inquiry affect experienced teachers' andTCs' pedagogical choices in the classroom?

In this report, we will focus on the MTs'growth and change across the first year of theproject as they interacted with university facul-ty, their MT peers, and their TCs. We firstpresent an overview of the teacher educationprogram we developed to establish a collabora-tive inquiry community. We then discussspecific research methodology that led to threemajor categories of growth for MTs. In partic-ular, we illustrate from in-depth phenom-enological interviews (Seidman, 1991) andparticipant observation field notes how MTsevolved in their perceptions of: (a) Englishteaching; (b) the role of MT; and (c) the impactof the collaborative inquiry group on theirgrowth.

Overview of the Collaborative InquiryTeacher Education Program

The teacher education program we designedwas based on our own experiences as teachers,researchers, and teacher educators (see Gra-ham, 1993; Graham & Hudson-Ross, 1996;Hudson-Ross & McWhorter, 1995; McWhorter& Hudson-Ross, 1996). Our Language Educa-tion Department's philosophy has long beenbased on the assumption that TCs should beeducated in the same kind of supportive, stimu-

lating, and student-centered environment thatthey are expected to provide for their students.We believe that teachers learn by observingtheir students, creating environments for learn-ing, and having inquiring, open-minded viewstoward learning. (See Ellis, 1976, for historicalbasis of department in this outlook.)

We also firmly believe that teachers shouldbe equal and contributing partners in the devel-opment and implementation of any teachereducation program; that, however, has beendifficult to arrange except informally. ThisNRRC project allowed 2 university faculty and25 MTs to work together for twelve months' todevelop a project which includes the followingprecepts:

A group of MTs plan and collaborate withthe same university faculty throughout theprogram including all campus courses, schoolactivities, and professional and personal con-nections and on-going communication;

Yearlong placement of TC with MT;Integration of campus methods courses in

composition, literature, language, curriculum,and methods with school experiences;

Teacher research as a world view (e.g.,learning from and with students as a way toteach in both school and university settings);and

School-based planning and curriculumdiscussions.

In this section, we describe how a programbased on these precepts was initiated anddeveloped in the 1994-1995 school year.

'We are now beginning our third year of the project,the last 2 without funding to support participation.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 70

1 0

Complexities of a Collaborative Inquiry Community 3

Table 1. Demographic Data for Six Participating High Schools

School Number of StudentsEuropean-American

African-American

OtherGroups

A-1 1590 40 53 7

A-2 1440 45 50 5

B 1050 90 10 0

C 1096 90 10 0

D 1214 92 8 0

C 594 41 59 0

Selection of Schools

In the spring of 1994, English teachers fromhigh schools in the counties surrounding theuniversity were invited to apply to be partici-pants in this teacher education project. (Seeapplication form in Appendix A.) We askedthat teams of 2-5 teachers from one schoolapply together and that all be committed toprofessional and personal growth; otherwise,these are very "normal" teachers, not theexceptions, not doctoral students, not purpose-fully selected (Goetz & LeCompte, 1993) as"good" or "best" teachers or mentors. Sixschool groups, including 25 teachers, wereinvited to participate. Basic school data isreported in Table 1.

The six schools are in five racially diverseschool systems, from rural to urban. SchoolsA-1 and A-2 are located in the school system ofthe university town and are similar to manysmall urban schools. Schools B and C arelocated within 30 miles of the university andare predominantly rural in nature. School B

competes with a local city school system forstudents and is located near a thriving freewaymall area. School D is just outside the universi-ty town, is becoming more and more suburban,and has experienced significant growth inrecent years. A large private school pulls somestudents from the area of Schools A-1, A-2,and D. School E is 50 miles from the universi-ty and predominantly rural.

Mentor Teachers

The MT group met once before the close ofthe 1993-94 school year to build relationshipsand receive an overview of the project. Formany MTs, this meeting renewed old contacts

from their own undergraduate and graduatedays. Many had previously worked with theLanguage Education department as supervisingteachers in a traditional manner (e.g., oneacademic quarter of student teaching) andbrought concerns about that experience withthem. Those attending the meeting remember


Hudson-Ross & Graham

our frustrations of that night: school, students,our lives were exhausting and exasperating.We shared a common bond' in our plight, abond that would change and deepen significant-ly across the year.

Investigators conducted semi-structuredinterviews with each MT in April or Mayfocusing on their knowledge, beliefs, and prac-tices regarding literacy teaching as well as onaspects of their literacy instruction which theywould like to change. They were also askedabout their perceived roles in socializing begin-ning teachers. These interviews provided afoundation for the current report.

During the summer of 1994, the MT groupmet weekly over potluck dinners to explorewhat student teaching supervisory experienceshad been like for them, what they thought itshould be, and how we could reorganize ourprogram as a one-year in-school experience.Together the group read two texts, Mayher'sUncommon Sense (1990) and Cochran-Smithand Lytle's Inside/Outside: Teacher Researchand Knowledge (1993). Topics discussedincluded what student teachers need to learn oncampus and in schools, ways in which teacherscan support TC growth, content of the on-cam-pus courses, and how we could make teacherresearch a foundation for collaboration amongall participants. MTs received a stipend fortheir participation.

'This is no idle statement. At the time, Hudson-Rosswas teaching high school full time in a job exchange withPatti McWhorter, a co-investigator and one of the MTgroup, and Graham was just out of graduate school after17 years in the secondary classroom. (See Hudson-Ross& McWhorter, 1995).

This time was used to build trust and asense of community, a critical component ofthe project, and very clearly to devise a pro-gram for which we had no map. Mentors wereat first distrustful of university faculty, unsureof what the agenda might be, and expecting tobe "used" in ways to which they were accus-tomed. Tensions ebbed and flowed, but MTsand university faculty worked together to buildmeaning. One example from a July transcriptwhen some teachers began to distrust theconcept of teacher research is illustrative.(Sally and Peg are the university faculty; allothers are MTs.)Chandra: I think I'm confused.Sally: Good, you're honest.Chandra: What is the collaborative inquiry?Sally explains her perspective of the project.Peg: Does that seem to be what you got

in here for?Chandra: I felt that I was involved in more

than one thing. TCs, collabora-tion . . .

Peg: It is complex. That's the way ourschool works also.

Susan: I think that this is, as I have readand been in here, this is different. Ithought the focus was totally on theTCs and what if they spend a yearunder our wing instead of a quarter.I sensed that it might focus on how. . . , I was just helping you out bytaking on the student teacher. Itmight be a pain. As we have movedmore and more and read the propos-al and listened to you talk, I realizethat my own teaching is being heldup for scrutiny. I'm being asked todo more theoretical thinking and



research about my own teaching. Ithink I have mixed feelings. I mis-understood or things were so vague.It would be easy to feel I'd beenmisled. On the other hand, I'm notopposed to holding up my teachingfor scrutiny. In reading the book, Ifind me and my colleagues do this;we just don't keep the written rec-ord. I think that good teachers dothat already. They are talking aboutproblems and saying things thataren't going right. I'm wondering ifin November or January if theremight be a little bit more though .

Dena: My confusion is like Susan; I don'tknow if I fit in. I don't know if Ipass. I have a fear of the unknown.

Lillian: What if they come to me and aren'tsure I know what to do. Can I helpa TC if I'm examining my ownteaching?

John: The concept of what we'll do withthe TC. I've had this feeling . . .

that this person is just out of col-lege. . . . They've been through lotsof theory and stuff; they're current.I'm not reading the research; theyare. My fear is that they will bemore on top of this than me.

Barbara: I hope I'm not jumping in. . . .

What's going to happen is when thetheory doesn't work, you'll be thereto help them adjust. It's almost thatyou learn in hindsight, by doing.

Roger: When I first read this proposal, Ihadn't had a TC in years. I thought

"I'm going to learn something my-self." I did not even think of theTC. I'm tired of doing things thesame way, and I want to refurbishmy whole program. That's when Isaw that not only would the TC beinvolved but also other teachers inthe building. We could strengthenthe department somehow. So that'swhere I was in coming to this. I

didn't read, I scanned. I didn't seethe TC extent as backbone of all ofthis.

John: I've been thinking about the re-search aspect. We have research,TC, and our input. All three have tomeld. How would it be if the schoolitself, there are 6 of us and the 6TCs, how would it be if we workedmore as a group of 10-12 as aresearch team? Maybe we couldwork regularly, not so in isolation.I had the same feeling: How willthis help me? I've felt stagnant. Thisway we could work together andhave TCs there. . . .

Eventually across the summer, MTs came torealize and appreciate that they would be majorplayers and decision-makers in this program.Together, the group began to confrontbut notalways resolveimportant issues and learnedto like one another. Full understanding of anew relationship continued to emerge acrossthe year, as we will explore below.

MTs agreed that they wanted to continue tomeet. Therefore, MTs met each quarter both insmall groups of school representatives and asan entire group to continue to build community


13


and to negotiate issues of mentoring and pro-gram experiences and goals. As a result of ourdiscussions, two TCs' placements werechanged to make better matches, MTs came torely on one another as resources for mentoringquestions, and solidarity across schools contin-ued to grow.

MTs met all day on May 9, 1995 (withsubstitutes paid by the project), to assess theyear, and they met during the summer of 1995(without financial support) to plan the secondyear of the project. Five teachers chose not toor were unable to continue into the next year asfull-time mentors, and one school was droppedas a result of teacher resignations. However, 5new MTs (recommended by their colleaguesfor having a positive outlook, collegiality, andinterest in professional development) joined usand the project continued in 1995-1996 with 20new TCs in five of the six original schools.3

Teacher Candidates

Also in the spring of 1994, 21 preserviceTCs, 8 undergraduates, and 13 master's stu-dents (one dropped out in December due topersonal problems) self-selected themselvesinto this experimental "field center" rather thana traditional field center also offered in the

'During the 1995-1996 school year, the program willbe expanded to 16 schools, some 60 MTs and 50 TCs (intwo separate groups), and 4 university faculty who teachall courses in the program, supervise school time includ-ing student teaching, and teach one graduate course eachoutside the projectall within normal course loads at amajor research institution.

Language Education Department.4 They metfor one hour in the spring of 1994 and by Julysubmitted a resume and cover letter addressedto their (at that time unnamed) MT.

Importantly, the MTs had decided that agroup composed of one representative from

°The university Language Education Department hasprepared secondary English teachers for certification ingrades 7-12 for over 20 years through a nationallyrecognized teacher education program (Ellis, 1976). Theprogram consists of a comprehensive series of coursesand professional activities culminating in the AdvancedProfessional Education Course Sequence (APECS) thefinal year. Students are either undergraduates or seekingcertification through a Modified Master's program.

The undergraduate major is based on a strong liberalarts core including 20 hours of introductory English, aforeign language and a cross-cultural course (oftenTeaching for Cross-Cultural Understanding, or a similarcourse designed to introduce students to a culture otherthan their own), public speaking, arts, sciences and math,and physical education. The English Education majorthen takes 55 hours in field, including 40 hours inEnglish, linguistics, drama, and/or comparative literatureat the junior or senior level.

The final content hours begin the APECS with thethree departmental "gateway" courses, Literature Studyin Secondary Schools, English Language Studies forTeachers, and Composition in Elementary and SecondarySchools, Completing the APECS are two quarters ofField CenterEnglish Curriculum in Secondary Schools,Methods of Teaching English in Secondary Schools, andTeaching Reading in Secondary Schools, plus 15 hours ofStudent Teaching. All courses in the APECS are part ofthe current study.

The Modified Master's program is open to studentswho have the equivalent of an undergraduate degree inEnglish. Through the 60-hour program they completeeducation and APECS requirements and further graduatecourses for the master's degree. Many students are"mature," having returned to school after 1 or moreyears in business, journalism, or other fields.


14


each school, in collaboration with the universi-ty faculty, would make student-teaching place-ments using the resumes and cover letters.Placements were announced to the mentorgroup at one of the summer meetings, andmentors then wrote to their assigned TC toannounce the placement and welcome them tothe program and their school for the preplan-ning week.

TCs began the 1994-1995 school year witha 2-week practicum at their schools includingpreplanning and the first week of school. Theyset up classrooms, arranged books, producedmaterials, sat in on meetings, got to know thestaff, ran errands that helped them identifylocations in the school and became knownthere.

The School/University Program

Hudson-Ross and Graham, the two universi-ty professors, were assigned to teach fivecourses (all courses for these TCs except onewinter-quarter course through another depart-ment) and supervise the student teaching of all20 TCs during the entire school year. Theprofessors spent preplanning week in schoolsinterviewing and helping to do mundane butnecessary chores (e.g., copying handouts,painting walls, running errands, collating,numbering books, etc.). Throughout the year,we continued to be a part of the six schools inspecial, somewhat unique ways. We visited toobserve MTs and their students so as to under-stand TCs' classes, we chatted informally asfriends, we sat in with TCs as they began toteach classes, and we continued interviews fordata collection and program input.

Once university fall-quarter classes began,TCs were engaged in 15 hours of coursework(Teaching of Writing, Adolescent Literature,and Language Studies for Teachers) team-taught in an integrated fashion by Graham andHudson-Ross during four mornings on campus;TCs also spent 12 hr in the school each week,including all day Monday and at least oneafternoon. During the winter quarter, thisarrangement continued with campus classesshifting to afternoons (including Curriculum,Methods, and the Teaching of Reading whichwas taught by a separate professor). At school,TCs observed classes, managed classroomchores, became familiar with materials, inter-acted with students, got to know their schools,visited other schools in the project, and gradu-ally began planning and teaching lessons orshort units. Most importantly, TCs got to knowthe high school students they would teach boththrough the course of normal classroom inter-actions and through their own research (seebelow). They came to be recognized by bothteacher and students as a teaching and learningpartner in this setting.

We made every effort to connect campuswork to TCs' experiences in school. Eachweek, TCs and the two university professorswrote "think pieces"freewritten, typed pa-pers, 3-5 pages long, reflecting on a burningissue for them in school at the time. For anhour on Friday, we read and wrote notes toeach other in the margins; from the readaround, a discussion of these issues evolved.Think Pieces were recognized by all partici-pants as an especially powerful community-building aspect of the program.


15


As we read professional books and articles,TCs also conducted research projects with theirstudents. Analyzing and sharing data in classconfirmed and added depth and reality to ourreadings. In four whole-class projects, TCstaped and transcribed everyday student conver-sations as language samples; interviewed andsurveyed students about reading, writing, andadolescent culture; examined written products;and videotaped students reading and writing.They also wrote profiles of themselves aslearners, writers, and readers. Together theclass shared and compiled their data for eachproject. Using standard research processes(Hubbard & Power, 1993), they sought pat-terns or themes across the data first in pairs,then in groups of four. Finally, each TC tookall compiled findings of the class, applied themto their own situations, and reflected upon themin an extended journal (Graham & Hudson-Ross, 1996). In almost every case, TCs cameto see the obvious link between what studentstold them and what they had read or discussedin classes.

In an independent research project, TCswere to develop questions with their teachers,collect and analyze data, and develop a presen-tation for a state conference of English teachers(see McDuffie & Graham, 1996). We learneda lot about this process during this first year.TCs assumed this was their own researchproject, and many did not explain the projectthey chose to do with their MTs or engagethem as participants. While this effort to exam-ine, interpret, and share their own classroomfindings with the larger profession led to aheightened sense of professionalism and worthamong the TCs, the MTs were left out of the

process to a large degree. (We changed thefocus in the second year to a MT-sponsoredquestion to greater success. As MTs learnmore about and gain more respect for teacherresearch, they are taking on stronger guidanceand leadership roles with their TCs as co-re-searchers.)

In further efforts to connect school anduniversity experiences and knowledge, a week-ly bulletin written by university professors wasdistributed to all TCs and MTs to keep every-one informed of work done, decisions made,and opportunities available (conferences, etc.).MTs maintained dialogue journals with theirTCs throughout the year, and reading andresponding to these allowed university facultyto stay in touch with issues emerging atschools. Patti McWhortera co-investigator,Hudson-Ross's job exchange partner in 1993-1994 (Hudson-Ross & McWhorter, 1995), andkey school colleagueand other teachers andhigh school students presented information,participated in panel discussions, and workedin support roles with TCs and university facul-ty in the campus setting.

Throughout the year, TCs encounteredmaterial that was newand sometimes antithet-ical to what they understood schooling to be.On campus and often in teacher workrooms,TCs read current texts and journals on teachingEnglish language arts through writing as aprocess, reader response, and language-based,meaning-making approaches. Often theseresources struck cords of relevance to them,and they were ready to attempt recommendedmethods. Sometimes, methods were discountedas not possible, or inappropriate. Strong,successful English majors, many TCs were


16


uncomfortable with the workshop-based, stu-dent-research-centered approach to the classes.They were encouraged to argue these is-suesteacher-centered versus student-cen-tered, grading and evaluation, content versusstudents as the core of the curriculum, and soforthwith MTs and then explore them furtherin campus discussions, peer-read think pieces,and informal and formal talk with their univer-sity professors. Because they were teachinglessons themselves a little at a time, they cameto realize that there were no easy answers.Most taught lessons that failed, but they wereable to back away and assess the reasons.

TCs sometimes received mixed messages intheir discussions with their school and universi-ty colleagues. We came to realize that suchmessages, when voiced by caring, committedmembers of the school/university community,are valuable, not misleading. They force TCsand MTs and university colleaguesto thinkdeeply and learn that they cannot rely on acorrect answer. As TCs came to evaluate thecredibility of what they encountered, theyentered an honest professional dialogue. Asthey raised issues, MTs and university facultywere forced to bring their assumptions aboutteaching and learning to conscious levels forexamination and reflection.

During the winter quarter, TCs, universityfaculty, and MTs engaged in collaborativeplanning for the spring quarter when TCswould take over full-time. MTs delineated thematerial and/or objectives to be covered,provided useful files and support materials, andbrainstormed with their TCs. TCs broughtthese parameters to campus where whole-groupworkshop time was devoted to planning. By

now, TCs had developed a collegial relation-ship. They trusted one another and enjoyedwatching each other succeed. Although severalstill sought answers and replicable plans, mostrealized that planning depended upon their ownstudents whom they had come to know well.Boundaries blurred as the work of the schoolpervaded TCs' lives. They continued to teach,write and share case narratives of their experi-ences, and hear from teacher and studentpanels (by choice focused on multiculturalissues), but their planning processes eventuallytook precedence. By March, TCs had re-searched, planned, and had accepted by theirteachers all plans for spring quarter. All ofthese activities encouraged the development ofa community of learners, one in which all of uswere researchers, learners, and respectedcontributors. They also led to the evolution ofan emerging, shared knowledge among partici-pants.

TCs taught four classes full time in thespring. Many MTs now took on the role ofresearch assistants, providing feedback anddata for discussion rather than playing thetraditional evaluative role. University supervi-sors visited each school every other week toobserve and/or talk with TCs and MTs, andconducted weekly seminars on campus. TCsentered student teaching confident, planned,eager, and unstressed. They knew students,place, colleagues, reliable resources, andprocedures; they recognized that learningandeven failureis what teaching is about; theyunderstood the pace and demands of teaching(although they were very tired); and theycontinued to think as teacher researchers.Dialogue journals begun in August continued


17


and blossomed, and TCs met with the twouniversity professors in weekly after-schoolseminars to continue the teacher talk they hadcome to depend on earlier in the year. Not alllessons were successful, struggles continued,but in general, relationships became stronger.Within this community, TCs had many depend-able colleagues to turn to in times of need.

TCs met on June 8-9, 1995, to compile allproject data that had been copied and collectedfor and by them, to organize and review thatmaterial, and to write reflections .on theirexperiences. As a result of their input and thatof MTs, we moved into our second year of theproject with clearer assignments, experiences,and materials. Of the original group of 21 TCs,1 had to drop out due to family problems, 1chose to attend graduate school in anotherfield, and the other 19 were hired by Septem-ber and are currently teaching middle or highschool English in Georgia.

Procedures for Data Collection and Analysis

Data for the entire project include twostructured interviews with each MT, one priorto the project and one at the end of the firstyear; five interviews with each TC in August,October, December, March, and June; andwritten reflections from MTs at a full-daydebriefing meeting in May and from TCs asthey reviewed all of their own data (listedbelow) during the 2-day debriefing meeting inJune. We collected the following data fromTCs throughout the project year:

class papers and weekly "think pieces"research projects including one presented ata state professional conference

dialogue journals with their MTsportfolios and syntheses of their work eachquarterlesson and unit planshigh school students' work with TC re-sponses and gradesassessment and other teaching materialswritten observations by MTs and universitysupervisorsvideo- and audiotapes of TC instruction inclassrooms (taped by the TC)Analysis for this report focuses on the

repeated, in-depth phenomenological inter-views (Seidman, 1991) with MTs and onprimary investigators' participant observationfield notes. These data were analyzed induc-tively and compared continuously until patternsemerged (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Goetz &LeCompte, 1993). The major patterns dis-cussed below focus on the evolution of MTs'definitions and concepts of English teaching,the role of the MT, and the impact of thecollaborative group.

MTs Growth and Shared Knowledge

Most of the 25 MTs had previous experi-ences with student teachers placed for only onequarter in the schools. Although all MTs real-ized unique relationships with their TCs in thisyearlong program and illustrated varyingdegrees of growth as a result of their new andextended mentoring experience, we would liketo deal with six strong MTs and the changesthey underwent as examples of patterns re-vealed across the group. The six MTs dis-cussed include seasoned veterans who havetaught more than 15 yearsFern, Sheila, and


1.8


Lauraand experienced teachers who havetaught fewer yearsDebbie, Betsy, and Celeste.

When the MTs applied to participate in themodel program, they each evinced a stronginterest in personal and professional growth,appreciating the complex demands and uncer-tainties surrounding their work. We assumedthat many definitions of effective teachingexisted and that teachers who wanted to growprofessionally would represent a number ofdifferent starting points. Therefore, we did notseek teachers who had "arrived" at a particulardefinition of English teaching, but insteadembraced the wonderful range of good teachingpossible. All six of these teachers worked froma firm foundation of beliefs about Englishteaching: Celeste and Betsy grounded theirteaching in a strong set of student-centeredtheories, believing that students' needs andinterests should guide most of a teacher'sdecisions, and that learning should connectmeaningfully to students' lives; Debbie andFern were moving toward more student-cen-tered learning opportunities in their classroomsas a result of deep reflection on past practicesand selected "failures"; and Laura and Sheilafelt a more teacher-centered pedagogy suitedtheir students' needs and their teaching person-alities. Each teacher's concept of the mentorrole was an outgrowth of their beliefs aboutteaching and learning; beliefs that were af-firmed, elaborated, or modified as a result oftheir partnership with their TC and/or thelarger collaborative inquiry community. Identi-fication with the MT community in this pro-gram also had implications for how teachersviewed themselves as professionals.

Definitions of English Teaching and Percep-tions of the Mentoring Role

Betsy. Both Betsy and Celeste entered theMT-TC relationship convinced that studentsshould be the center of curricular and instruc-tional decisions. Betsy had taught for 10 yearsand thought of herself as a facilitator, one who"traveled together" with her students from"different beginning points each year." As ateacher who concentrated on "knowledge thatstudents must own in order to become life-longlearners," she emphasized students gaining"knowledge about self." As a result, Betsy waskeenly aware of the need to adjust both hercurriculum and her instructional methods to fitthe students who walked through her door atthe beginning of each school year. Unlike mostother MTs, she felt she had moved beyonddependence on units she could pull out of herfile cabinet each year, opting instead to rein-vent her teaching based on her students' "be-ginning points." Not only did she want tounderstand her students as individual learners,but her goal was for students to "understandand accept who they are as readers, writers,and learners." Her overall goal as an Englishteacher was for students to "push themselves todo something they haven't done before,"reflect deeply on those experiences, and gainself-esteem in the process. A good example ofwhat Betsy wanted her students to experiencein English class occurred when she gave anexam that required students to revise a para-graph they had written and placed in theirwriting folders. "And they had to go throughthis whole reflective questioning of what wasgood, what was bad, how they're going to fix


19


it, what are their strengths. And [one student]came up to me and said, 'This is the first timerevising for me wasn't rewriting it neatly."

Similarly, Betsy was convinced no "oneright way" to teach English existed. As ayounger teacher, she had "mimicked" highlysuccessful teachers in her school and becamedismayed when those teachers changed theirideas about teaching over time. Laughing,Betsy explained her "teaching story": "I. wasPatti McWhorter's student teacher. I did every-thing like she did and damn it, she went andchanged. How dare she? How dare she?" Betsyrealized the "idols" she had copied were con-stantly evolving as teachers themselves, arealization which positioned her to see teachingas "an evolution" and confirm her belief inconstant growth and change. "Being a teacherand being an educator means you are constantlyshedding skin and you never find the right wayto do it. There isn't one right way. It's not likefilling out the papers to close a house. It's notlike how you open a bank account. It's con-stantly changing." But Betsy was quick to pointout that her evolution as teacher was not simplya search for a bag of tricks to pull out onMonday morning. She believed one of thebiggest problems in education was that "we areso hungry for something that works that wegrab at everything. It's almost like the grease ison fire on the stove. Baking soda, not enough.Flour, oh, what a mess . . . Get the warmwater running so we can clean this up and turnon the fanwe're just constantly looking forways to make it better and sometimes we don'tthink through what we're looking at." Betsy,however, had thought through what she waslooking at in her classroom.

Betsy's grounded theory of teaching andlearning predisposed her to embrace the oppor-tunity to work with a TC, anticipating how aTC could promote reflective practice andcontribute to her growth as a teacher. "I wanta TC who is a listener because I want to articu-late how I got where I am and where I want togo. My TC needs to see teaching is an evolu-tion and none of us wants to be a stagnantprofessionaleven if at that stagnant state, weare teacher par excellence." At the same time,Betsy didn't envision her relationship with aTC to be a one-way conversation, but rather a"partnership" in which the two of them sup-ported each other's inevitable evolution/de-velopment as teachers. She felt that she wascommitted to allow the TC "room to experi-ment and grow while providing nurturingsupport."

Thus, Betsy's ideas about English teachinghad strong implications for her TC partnership.Just as she placed the development of individu-al students with their many different "begin-ning points" at the center of her teachingconcerns, she realized that she would be atdifferent points, too, and anticipated that TCswould arrive in her classroom with varyingdegrees of preparedness to work with teenag-ers. In Betsy's opinion, the most successfulTCs were the "ones that taught day camp, orthe ones that are youth directors at church. Ithink the ones that really flounder, they think[teenagers] are all like they were, and they'renot."

An important aspect of Betsy's mentoringgrew from her realization that she did not wantor expect her TC to be exactly like her. Sheinsisted student teachers "observe teachers


20


around the building . . . master teachers withdifferent stylesfrom the comic that gets kidsthrough humor to the strict disciplinarianwhom every kid adores and [for whom s/he]toes the line. I want them to see all the differ-ent styles and appreciate them."

Having worked with several outstandingTCs in the past, Betsy was prepared to "spendthis year practicing all the things I've learnedabout being a supervising teacher." But thesustained relationship with Frank, her studentteacher, moved the experience beyond herexpectations of "focusing on skills such asproximity, asking . . . questions, opening alesson, closing a lesson, bridging lessons,building for transfer. What I found was a team-teaching situation that was a joy to be a part ofeach day. I taught, I learned, I shared, I'mspoiled." For example, one class period duringtheir winter quarter study of Hamlet, Betsy wasconfronted by a sobbing student whom she tookout of the room. "When I came back Frank[had] started class. He's so intuitive about whatneeds to be done. And so I just sat down untilhe came to a stopping point and he looked atme and I picked it up and then when I gotstumped, I looked at him. And I think especial-ly for second period class, which is our largestgroup of seniors, we've really presented ateam, two people working together, not oneperson doing what the other person says." Likeothers in the mentor group, Betsy was able tomove beyond the conceptualization of mentoras "supervising teacher" and realize a genuinepartnership based on MT and TC as a "team."

Celeste. Like Betsy, Celeste had tried throug-hout her four-year teaching career to imitate the"great successes" she had read about in her

teacher education program and throughout hermaster's program. Most recently, though, shehad become more dependent on her knowledgeof students and the student-centered theoriesshe embraced to guide her curricular andinstructional decisions. Celeste sought to knowher students well. She had come to realize that"even though I lived in this county for all mylife, I never realized [many students had]different needs, different backgrounds; schoolis not a priority when you're coming from ahome where you don't feel education is impor-tant." She wanted to help kids "find an appre-ciation for reading and writing and find someway to make it useful in their lives." Althoughshe worked in a school that dictated particulartexts be covered in the English curriculum,Celeste contested such tight control, explainingit worked against her major goals for the ap-plied communications students she taught. Shesought to find "something that works for eachstudent," particularly "lower level kids." "Idon't feel that our curriculum is really doingthem justice." As a teacher, she wanted moreflexibility: "So if I get a group of students thatmaybe Julius Caesar's not going to work forthem or Tom Sawyer's not going to be appro-priate, I don't want to have to feel the pressureto struggle through it, you know, and wastetheir time."

Celeste wanted students to become apprecia-tive writers and readers who could connectthose skills to their lives, but she also cited"learning to respect each other" as highlyimportant since many students were "close-minded" or "wore blinders" about anyonedifferent from them. In an effort to promotebetter relationships among students, Celeste


21


wanted to provide an "environment where theyfeel safe" and have opportunities to workcollaboratively with one another. The past 4years had been "experimentation every day"for her, but she thought she had "become morein tune to my students' needs, if nothing else. . . a little more confident and a little moreflexible in when and what works for them atthe time." Those experiences convinced her.that collaborative learning experiences motivat-ed kids and led to better learning.

Clearly, Celeste considered herself to beevolving as a teacher, and her one previousexperience with a student teacher had con-vinced her that she was unsure how to enact thementor role. She recalled that "when I wouldgive suggestions, [the student teacher] took thatas criticism and I. didn't mean it that way at all. . . what little experience I have, I was tryingto give her some hints." In August, Celesteconceptualized her mentor role as "I'm there asa guide." However, the yearlong relationshipbetween Celeste and her TC, Adele, produceda partnership more descriptive of equal-statusinteractions, one mutually beneficial to TC andMT. Celeste described it as "getting to knowAdele by us working together, rather than hercoming into an automatic role where I'm some-how above her and she's below me and I'malways telling her what to do. . . . She came inand I could say, 'Well, this is my perspectiveon this,' and she could say, 'Well, I saw this adifferent way.' I mean, you don't ever havethose opportunities. I can tell a colleague aboutan experience in the classroom; but until theysee it, they can't really give me their perspec-tive of it. . . . I can't imagine not havinganother person now." In Celeste's case, her

mentor role actually helped to shape her ideasabout English teaching. She felt less isolatedwith a teaching partner with whom she couldconstruct options and entertain possibilitiesabout teaching dilemmas she faced. But mostimportantly, the experience encouraged her toassume a teacher-researcher stance whichoffered her a powerful way of viewing her ownclassroom.

Betsy and Celeste did not significantly altertheir views of English teaching during theirexperiences with their TCs except to affirmtheir beliefs and encourage both of them to useteacher research as a way of knowing evenmore about their students. Betsy's departmenthad been involved in The School ResearchConsortium (SRC) of NRRC for several years,so she had designed and performed teacherresearch, written about that experience (Tatum,1995), and was convinced of its efficacy.Celeste found that having another adult in theclassroom made it possible for the first time tointerview students and collect data which"validated" her teaching. She explained thatshe could not "even put into words how muchit's meant to me to be able to learn these thingsabout the students. It has really validated . . .

my teaching [that] they do feel they havelearned something worthwhile." In that re-spect, having another adult in Celeste's class-room enabled her to collect data she needed tosupport her student-centered theories aboutEnglish teaching. In Celeste's words, "it'spriceless to have that other person."

Debbie and Fern also wanted to create amore student-centered approach. As teacherswho earlier in their careers had practiced moreteacher-centered approaches and watched their


22


students' interest fade, they were determined tolearn from their "failures" and revise theirpractice in order to engage students moreactively in learning.

Debbie. Debbie was "constantly thinking"about how to make what she was teaching morerelevant to her students' lives. She felt thatgoal, however, was particularly difficult be-cause of the controlled currriculum she wasgiven. She thought that "most of my studentsdon't like to read, and they struggle with TheScarlet Letter and Julius Caesar." After 11years of teaching, Debbie felt frustrated abouthow English class unfolded and articulated hermost pressing concern: "I'm still trying tofigure out how to cover as much as I have tocover in a less painful way for all of us. . . .

For the last couple of years I've rushed sothrough a curriculum in order to present acurriculum, that I'm not sure I'm actuallyteaching students." Debbie wanted to developa practice that was more sensitive to her stu-dents' individual needs, but because she wasalso teaching upperclassmen, she felt the pres-sure to cover a large number of required textsfor collegea tension that undermined hermajor goal to "give students tools to find outmore. . . . I want to give students a way offinding out more." As a particularly nurturingteacher, Debbie enjoyed warm relationshipswith her students and was disturbed whenstudent engagement did not match her expecta-tions. In order to address that felt need, Debbieturned to her most valued source of inspirationand information for ideas about how to changeher pedagogy: "I went to every other teacher Iknew that I was able to sit and talk with andasked, over and over and over again, 'What

works for you, how does it work, why does itwork, what works with a particular student,how do you take care of this?' I just asked andasked and asked and asked."

In some important respects, Debbie's con-ceptualization of the mentor role was conflatedwith her conceptualization of her teacher role.For example, in much the same way she want-ed to "give" students the tools they needed tobecome independent learners, she also wantedto "give" TCs what they needed to know aboutteaching. Her complaint about a previousstudent teacher had been that he was "notwilling to listen to what I had to say, thoughthe already knew everything and . . . I was justsomebody who didn't know anything. . . . Heneeded to listen to me." In August, then,Debbie expected that she would function as asource of information for a TC in much thesame way her teaching peers acted as sourcesof knowledge for her, answering her manyquestions about how and why particular prac-tices "worked" for them.

What may have been a sufficient mentoringstance with student teachers from the formerprogram, however, seemed insufficient toDebbie for the new program that fostered acollaborative inquiry approach and develop-ment of a TC across an entire school year.Instead of merely "covering the curriculum" apreservice teacher should have in the allotted10 weeks, Debbie was able to establish themore "collegial relationship" she had envi-sioned previously but lacked the luxury of timeto realize. Across their yearlong relationship,Debbie and her student teacher, Roberta, likeBetsy and Frank and Celeste and Adele, devel-oped as a teaching "team," a partnership which


23


was "like two horses pulling instead of one."Because she had learned so much through herown "failures," Debbie focused on sharingthose failures with her student teacher. As sheexplained, "I've had failures in the classroomand Roberta has seen that I have. And then wejust went on from there, looked at it, whathappened, what went wrong. Okay, can weimprove this or do we junk it?" Instead ofpassing on answers, Debbie allowed the teamto focus on her own failure and what could bedone differently. As a result, she became alearner with Roberta, not an all-knowingsource of information.

The centerpiece to their MT-TC relationshipwas their joint research efforts. Poised toexplore her teaching practices in some system-atic way, Debbie began to exploit the potentialoffered by the teacher research projects her TCbrought to the classroom. Eventually, the twoof them were very deliberately collecting datain order to address specific questions andconcerns about their students, such as how todocument a problematic student's behaviors inorder to convince the mother that a problemexisted ("It was great because she could bevery unobtrusive about it; whereas when I wastrying to do it when Roberta was not in theclassroom, he knew I was documenting"), ortheir collaborative research into the question ofwhy a particular class did not do homework("Roberta interviewed the students and talkedto them about their attitude toward homeworkand their reading, and did this wonderfulresearch project, finding out that even some ofthe students we thought were doing the readingweren't"). What was particularly worthwhilefor Debbie was having Roberta present as a

research aide to document student responsesand behaviors early in the year while Debbiewas teaching. Together, they used the data tomake decisions about what teaching strategieswere effective with particular students/classes,what activities to retain and what approaches toalter. As a result of that experience, instead ofassuming the evaluative, judgmental stance ofa supervising teacher when her student teachertook over classes, Debbie simply reversed theresearcher role with Roberta, providing herwith the descriptive information Roberta need-ed to reflect upon her own teaching decisions.

In a very real way, Debbie's altered visionof the MT-TC relationship fed into her ques-tions about her English teaching, providing herwith a systematic way to reflect upon why herstudents' were or were not engaged. Debbiealso used a dialogue journal with her studentteacher, a reflective "tool" she found to be"quite valuable." She admitted that she "hatedsitting down and writing, but it has made meclarify my thoughts, and it's let me know whatRoberta's thinking or let her know what I'mthinking."

Fern. Fern had taught about 4 years longerthan Debbie, but had undergone dramaticphilosophical changes in those last 4 years ofher teaching career. She described the changeas "drastic," as she moved from a completelyteacher-centered approach that included lectureand resistance to any kind of cooperativelearning or group work, to a much more stu-dent-centered pedagogy. Fern had carefullyobserved her students and eventually realizedthat she "wasn't succeeding and that the class-room was becoming almost a battlefield." Ahighly reflective teacher, she knew she "just


24


wasn't doing a good jobthe students weren'thappy. I wasn't happy, and so I try new tech-niques constantly." For the past several years,she had consciously sought to remove herselffrom the position of "knower" and encouragemore student talk and interaction. As a result,she felt happier and more "relaxed" in herprofessional life, believing her students couldteach her as well as learn from her.

Her relatively new outlook on Englishteaching had implications for her mentoringrole. She anticipated her student teacher, Jake,would be a new source of knowledge for her.But the more important growth for Fern result-ed from the teacher research she conductedwith Jake. Fern and Jake used a behaviorjournal early in the year. At Fern's invitation,Jake described in their dialogue journal every-thing he observed during Fern's teachingincluding students' time on and off task, whatpreceded those behaviors, what triggeredproblems and what engaged students. Fern'sclassroom appeared less and less like a "battle-field" in her eyes as she pinpointed specificmoves on her part that allowed the lesson to"break down." In addition, rather than merelytrying "new techniques constantly," Fern wasable to analyze her teaching more deliberatelyand speculate about cause-effect relationships.

That kind of learning also encouraged her tocritique her past relationships with TCs. Shefelt that she had a "tendency not to give praise.. . . And that's one of the things I.wanted towork on this year. I've been aware with pastTCs that I haven't given enough praise."Ironically, however, she had come to questionwhether praise was something Jake reallyexpected from his MT, and whether praise

would offer TCs the benefits she had imagined.By the end of their yearlong association, sheanticipated future TCs might require morepraise, but each TC was going to have a uniqueset of needs. She saw learnersteacher candi-dates or studentsas individuals with differentpoints of view on effective social interactionsand power relationships; as a result, sheviewed even simple answers such as, "Praisethe TC more," as dependent upon future con-texts and personalities.

From their different beginning points, bothDebbie and Fern made conscious efforts toexpand the boundaries of their past teachingpractices; not surprisingly, they found many ofthe tentative answers they sought by conduct-ing teacher research with their. TCs. In effect,TCs assigned to conduct research about theirstudents as readers, writers, speakers, andmembers of adolescent culture mandated MTs'observation and participation in teacher re-search efforts. Both Debbie and Fern had hadlimited exposure to teacher research, but Deb-bie spoke for many of the teachers in ourgroup when she said, "I always thought thatfor research to be worthwhile, I had to havecontrol groups, as well as experimental groups,great statistical numbers, and formulas. Thesimple research done showed me that I hadbeen doing research for years and it was and isworthwhile." More sure than ever that student-centered classrooms were the direction fortheir pedagogies to proceed, Debbie and Fernwere equally sure students could become thesources of the data they needed to inform theirchange processes. As a result of their collabo-rative inquiry with student teachers, they feltconfident about how to collect that information



systematically and looked forward to usingteacher research methods more extensively thefollowing year when they would again haveTCs from the yearlong program.

Other MTs in the program found a teacher-centered approach _to be more effective in theirclassrooms. We feel this is important to empha-size since our program does advocate teachingEnglish language arts through writing as aprocess, reader response, and language-based,meaning-making approaches. At the same timewe seek change in traditional schooling culture,however, we realize that effective teachingcannot be clearly defined and assumes manyfaces. Sheila and Laura, each having taught formore than 23 years, defined their practicesomewhat differently from the previous fourMTs, but similarly benefited from the yearlongexperience with TCs.

Sheila. Prior to the project, Sheila describedher teaching as "traditional." She wantedstudents to be able to "identify a time period inliterature and recognize it when they see itagain." She preferred working from a scriptedplan since she was less comfortable being"spontaneous," or "shooting the bull" in herclassroom. She gave oral quizzes that sent themessage to her students that "this is your dayto respond to my questions and let's see howyou do." She tended to judge her teaching byhow well students were able to perform on thetest ("If the numbers are good, you feel likeyou've done well"), and believed a "controlledclass" was not incompatible with studentshaving "a good time." She felt teachers neededa firm grasp of their subject matter, needed to"be able to communicate with young people,"

and needed to maintain a certain "barrier"between students and teacher.

She had similar expectations for at thebeginning of the year. That is, she expectedthat they would arrive knowing the "contentarea, professionalismhow to dress, act, getalong with students." Likewise, she recognizedthat past "successful student teachers con-formed to the way I want things done betterthan the [less successful student teachers] did."However, after spending eight months workingwith Grace, her TC, Sheila had developed adifferent outlook on mentoring and changedher concept of a TC "conforming" to the wayshe wanted things done. "I saw a lot of holes[in Grace's teaching] but I didn't want to giveallnot that I could give all the an-swersbecause I thought she'd learn more ifshe did it. . . . But I think [being allowed tofail] was a definite learning experience forher."

Sheila also realized that she and Grace didnot like confrontation, a trait which she discov-ered about her TC over time, a shared attitudethat made them "compatible." Although inAugust she had thought a dialogue journalwould be too time consuming, she found it auseful tool when she needed to discuss difficultsituations with Grace. "You can read betweenthe lines a lot of times . . . and you see what'sreally bothering her or maybe what I've doneis bothering her. And I think we respond betterto each other that way."

Sheila was most affected by this experienceof keeping a dialogue journal with her TC("And I think if ever I'm not in this program,and I still have student teachers, I would usethat tool"). In effect, the dialogue journal


26


became a kind of inquiry into their sharedpractice. Sheila and Grace wrote regularly,exchanging observations about students andconversing about new problems that occurreddaily in their teaching life. It was also the firsttime Sheila had allowed herself the time towrite in a journal, and she found the experienceboth exhilarating and educative. For the firsttime, she actually wrote in a way that she hadasked students to write, "throwing it down" onpaper without worrying "about punctuation andsentence structure." In August, she had de-scribed journals as being "repulsive." Howev-er, by the end of the year, she described thedialogue journal as a "valuable tool" that madeher "feel like a writer" for one of the firsttimes in her life, an experience that altered herthinking about the teaching of writing, inparticular, and learning and teaching in gener-al. As Sheila explained in May: "I guess myconcept of English teaching has not changed,but I have become more open and willing totry, research, and experience different thingswhether it be from the [students'] suggestionsor from my TC. My classes are more variedand more fun for the students and the teacher.My goals are to continue with the open-mindedviewpoint of research and continue to benefitfrom the sharing" with a TC.

Laura. Laura, like Sheila, was concernedthat students receive a particular content. Shewanted students to know grammar "for practi-cal usage things" and how to write. She la-mented that TCs from the University "haven'tknown enough grammar for the kind of empha-sis" it was given at her school. At the sametime, she entertained the question "Why don'tkids learn grammar even when I teach it so

well?" She felt literature should be connectedto students' lives in ways that would be mean-ingful to teenagers. And she had a specialinterest in the school's infusion program whichplaced special education students in her class-room and allowed her to team teach with thespecial education teacher. In recent years, shehad "learned about writing process" from oneof her previous student teachers. In that re-spect, she felt she had learned something usefulfrom each of her student teachers, but she alsofelt the former University program exerted"too much pressure to do group work."

Although Laura described herself as atraditional and structured "cooperating teach-er," one who had done the same things in herclassroom for 23 years, she felt "like there area lot of new things out there that I could do."She constructed her mentor role as co-learnerwith her TC, Brett, anticipating that he wouldbring new ideas to her classroom and revitalizeher teaching while she helped him to "deviseunit plans" and determine what he would teachduring the spring quarter. The idea of a studentteacher being a source of "new ideas" for theteacher established a fairly traditional way forLaura to learn from a TC.

In hindsight, the yearlong placement wasimportant for Laura and Brett's relationship tobe fully realized. Laura reported actuallyfeeling intimidated by Brett early in theirrelationship as he observed her teaching be-cause she was "unsure he always thoughthighly of [her] practice." Brett, an older gradu-ate student in the program, acknowledged thatthe teacher image he had developed for himselfdiffered from the one Laura exemplified.Without any direct confrontations about their


27


competing pedagogies, Laura's level of com-fort was strongly challenged by Brett's implicitjudgments of her teaching. As a result of thosetensions, Laura reflected on her concept of thementor role and revised it for the upcomingyear to be more collegial.

Unlike Sheila, she had not kept an activedialogue journal with her TC, but influencingher thinking was the discovery that her TC'ssimple surveys and student interviews resultedin remarkable insights into her students' previ-ous learning, their feelings about school andbeing an adolescent. In the future, she wantedto establish a more collaborative relationshipwith her TC by becoming more involved incarrying out teacher research. ("[Brett and I]have finally really worked together as a team,"she said in May.) By the end of her work withBrett, Laura understood teacher research meth-ods better and viewed research as a morepowerful way to be a co-learner with her TC.Through collaborative research efforts, shecould critique her practice by having betterinformation about the learners in her class-roomdata easily collected with her TC'shelpand simultaneously establish a moreauthentic collegial relationship with her studentteacher, one that would modify the impulse tojudge teaching performances rather than toevaluate student learning.

Regardless of the beliefs that fueled theirpedagogical choices or the influences on theirconception of the mentor role, a strong patternacross these MTs' experiences grew fromparticipation in teacher research and jointreflection with a TC. As Debbie said, she hadbegun to realize that she had conducted re-search throughout her teaching career, but

without being conscious of what she was doingor how she was doing it, the effort felt "hit ormiss." All of these teachers could now identifyquestions about their students and their practiceand consider various ways to collect data inorder to address those questions. In every case,their willingness to reflect on their practiceresulted in some sort of affirmation or growthin their ideas about English curriculum and/orinstruction, an experience which inevitablyshaped their concept of the mentor's role.Laura and Sheila reassessed their prior expec-tations for TCs to "conform" to their ways ofdoing things in order to avoid failures, or formentors to "judge" rather than "describe" theirTCs' teaching performances. Both discoveredthe researcher role as a more effective stancefor the MT, one they would be better preparedto implement in the upcoming year becausethey considered it a valid way of knowing andbecause it offered them "proof" that otherteaching approaches were also effective withstudents.

Debbie and Fern uncovered both methodsand means for systematically revising theirpractice; they posed specific questions aboutstudent learning and motivation, which theywere able to answer tentatively by reflecting onthe data collected by their TCs. Their realiza-tions occurred during their work with TCs andallowed them to actually implement changes intheir practice while they participated in the newprogram.

Celeste and Betsy, due to their outlook onlearning as socially constructed, entered veryearly into partnerships with their TCs; relation-ships based on shared reflections and genuineteaming approaches that altered the traditional


28


power relations between the mentors and theirstudent teachers. Celeste experienced validationas a result of investigation into her students'voices and perspectives on her teaching, anopportunity made possible by the presence ofanother adult in her classroom. Betsy realizeda team teaching situation that she consciouslycultivated in order to reflect more deeply onher evolution as a teacher. Like many otherMTs, Betsy found the sustained relationshipwith her TC enabled her to extend and deepenher inquiry into her own teacher evolution atthe same time she helped her TC to grow.Impact of the Group in a Collaborative Inqui-ry Community: The Mentor Perspective

When MTs first met in May prior to theinitiation of the model program, they wereexhausted. Many like Betsy questioned theirdecision to "volunteer for this program" sincethey were at a point of "burnout" from thedemanding school year. However, that firstmeeting established a bond that revitalized andrenewed teachers. Celeste commented that"from the first meeting in May, I realized wewere all in this together, fighting the same typebattles [politics, lack of parental involvement,lack of student motivation]. I received encour-agement and strength from just knowing otherswere in the fight with me." Thus, the experi-ence of expanding their professional networkand breaking their shared sense of isolationquickly established their dependence on the MTgroup. The simple act of informal conversationwith her peers allowed Debbie to "grow as I'vebeen able to listen to other English teachersdiscuss problems and solutions in their class-room. I have had my own teaching confirmedas well as seeing other teachers' classroom

practices confirmed for them." This sharing ofprofessional uncertainties and insecuritiesencouraged Celeste to reconceptualize herworld view of teaching: "Real teaching isabout always taking a step, sometimes up andsometimes down, but I needed to learn to behappy with my small daily successes whileplanning for future ones." The experience ofparticipation in a group of committed profes -.

sionals also had implications for the mentor'srelationships with TCs, department members,and school colleagues and administrators.

Teacher candidate partnerships. A sharedview of teaching as learning characterized theMT group and allowed them to view TC part-nerships as potentially productive and educa-tive for the mentor as well as the preserviceteacher. By using a collaborative inquiryapproach, seasoned veterans like Sheila wereable to adopt an "open-minded viewpoint ofresearch and benefit from the sharing of theparticipants and the TCs." Shedding the eval-uative stance of supervising teachers in theformer program, the mentor group agreed withDebbie that "all of this has made me feel morelike a professional who is constantly searchingfor answers and growing in my job." Laura'sTC partnership prompted her to "look long andhard at my own teaching" and "make changeswhere I felt they were needed. I have learnedmuch from working with Brett. We havefinally really worked together as a team." Fernalso realized she had "been more willing torelinquish control (in a positive sense) of myclasses and [had] been more comfortable withthe TC." As Laura and Fern pointed out, thework with TCs had the effect of simultaneouslyencouraging the MTs to scrutinize their own


29


teaching, perhaps because focusing their atten-tions on the TCs' development provided a safervantage point for teachers to see themselves.

Department relationships. Departmentmembers applied as a group to participate inthe model program, a move which insured thatevery MT had at least one department col-league who also assumed this newly definedmentor role. In many cases, their shared workwith TCs reshaped relationships within depart-ments. Even in a department like Betsy's wherecollaborative efforts were already well-estab-lished, she noted that "as we work togetherwith student teachers on a yearlong basis, wehave begun to share and mesh our philosophiesof teaching and supervising. There seems to bemore sharing of how to work with studentteachers, and we have been able to get to knowall the student teachers better."

In other departments like Debbie's, thegroup bonded personally through the sharedrole of mentor. "Our department has growncloser together personally as we have sharedcommon goals, problems, solutions, and evenour student teachers. Through common meet-ings and assignments, we have been able to getto know each other better personally and, thus,been able to share more. " Celeste, from thesame department, agreed: "Now that ourstudent teachers have taken over, we actuallyhave time to share teaching ideas and strategiesand specific problems we may have in theclassroom. This has been valuable both person-ally and professionally." Although this "re-lease" time was available to cooperating teach-ers working within the more traditional stu-dent-teaching field experience, a lack of ex-tended preparation time with TCs had kept

MTs on alert and unable to relax and share.Similar testimony to the power of departmentcollaborations were apparent when teachersfrom within departments petitioned to join theMT group when vacancies occurred in thesecond year of the programeven though therewere no stipends for teacher involvement inYear 2.

Group membership and school status.Teachers spread the word about the modelprogram most effectively within their ownschools. For Debbie, the "impact of our allhaving had student teachers in the building allyear has been interesting. Other faculty mem-bers have asked us what is happening, andwe've been able to share with them the year-long program. The idea of what we're doinghas been met with only approval and approba-tion by all." In some schools, the mentors whohad participated in the program were consid-ered expert mentors by other supervisingteachers in their schools. When student teach-ers from other programs that sponsored only a10-week student-teaching experience arrived inLaura's school, she was asked to "talk to otherteachers about problems and frustrations" thenew TCs were experiencing. She and herdepartment colleague "had group-wide sessionswith around 25 [mentor] teachers and TCs" inwhich they "shared many things we havelearned over the year, especially the journalwriting." Sheila acknowledged that "adminis-trators" were "enthusiastic" about the programand "other departments within the school [had]shown a marked interest." As a result, some ofthe mentors in the program were awarded anelevated status by their administrators andpeers. Said one administrator in an unsolicited


30


note to the college, this approach "is a wonder-ful experience for preservice teachers. I recom-mend that other departments consider similarprograms." As Celeste observed, "Otherteachers are constantly asking questions about[the program]. I thoroughly enjoy tellingpeople and having them say, 'Why hasn'tanyone thought of that before now?"

Summary and Discussion

We began our investigation by posing twoquestions: (1) How do experienced MTs'definitions and concepts of English and ofteaching evolve over time as a result of partici-pation in a collaborative inquiry community?and (2) How does their immersion in collabora-tive inquiry affect experienced teachers' peda-gogical choices? Three aspects of our experi-ences in building a collaborative inquiry com-munity of MTs, TCs, and university facultyhave proved most valuable to build upon as wemoved into our second year:1. a conscious effort to change existing powerrelationships and communications amongparticipants in the teacher education program;2. yearlong placements of teacher candidatesand interactions among all participants; and3. teacher research as a way of knowing forteachers at all stages of career development.We present our findings (in Appendix B) as anoutline for further discussion.

School and university teacher educatorsseeking to replicate this program might do wellto discuss these components with their ownparticipants as they begin to shape their ownbrand of collaborative inquiry community. Weimagine that no two groups of MTs and univer-

sity faculty will evolve in exactly the sameway. (We will begin a second field center witha new group of MTs, 2 new university faculty,and 50 TCs in the 1996-1997 school year toexamine that assumption.) However, similarfindings such as these across collaborativeinquiry groups dedicated to teacher educationmay provide a rich new data source for futureresearchers wishing to explore novice andexperienced teachers' growth in naturalistic,collaborative settings.

It is important to note in closing that thiswork is not done. New issues arise as theproject continues:

Can a new group of MTs create an equallystimulating collaborative inquiry communi-ty?How do MTs stay involved yet get breaksfor private reflection in some years in theirown classrooms?How do we select and initiate new MTs intothe program and the shared history andfriendship of the collaborative community?What effect will physical distance of schoolsfrom the university have on TC participa-tion in school activities?How will other university faculty balanceservice, teaching, and research goals withinthis program?What impact does this program versus atraditional program have on the first yearsof teaching?Can MTs or university faculty continue togrow or will plateaus have an impact on theprogram?We look forward, as teacher researchers, to

exploring these questions and others that arise,knowing full well that our MT, first-year


31


teacher, and new TC colleagues are as interest-ed in the results as we are.

References

Carter, K. (1990). Teachers' knowledge and learn-ing to teach. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbookof research on teacher education. New York:Macmillan.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (Eds.). (1993).Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge.New York: Teachers College Press.

Ellis, W.G. (1976). What is it, and how did it getthat way? The University of Georgia teachereducation program in English. English Educa-tion, 7(4), 218-235.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discov-ery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. New York: Aldine.

Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M.D. (1993). Ethnographyand qualitative design in educational research(2nd ed). New York: Academic Press.

Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation'sschools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Graham, P. (1993). Curious positions: Reciprocityand tensions in the student teacher/cooperatingteacher relationship. English Education, 25(4),213-230.

Graham, P. & Hudson-Ross, S. (1996). Teachercandidate research on literacy in high schoolclassrooms (Instructional Resource No. 19).Athens, GA: NRRC, Universities of Georgiaand Maryland College Park.

Grossman, P.L., & Stodolsky, S.S. (1995). Con-tent as context: The role of school subjects insecondary school teaching. Educational Re-searcher, 24(8), 5-11.

Hubbard, R.S., & Power, B.M. (1993). The art ofclassroom inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-mann.

Hudson-Ross, S., & McWhorter, P. (1995). Goingback/Looking in: A Teacher educator and, high

school teacher explore beginning teaching to-gether. English Journal, 84(2), 46-54.

Hudson-Ross, S., & McWhorter, P. (1996). Find-ings from a yearlong job exchange: A mentorteacher's bill of rights in teacher education(Reading Research Report No. 74). Athens,GA: NRRC, Universities of Georgia and Mary-land College Park.

Mayher, J. (1990). Uncommon sense. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann/Boynton-Cook.

McDuffie, J., & Graham, P. (1996). Small groupbook shares in secondary schools. InstructionalResource submitted for publication, NRRC,Universities of Georgia and Maryland CollegePark.

McWhorter, P., & Hudson-Ross, S. (1996). Stude-nt-centered literacy instruction in high school: Iwant to, but how? (Instructional Resource No.29). Athens, GA: NRRC, Universities of Geor-gia and Maryland College Park.

Seidman, E. (1991). In-depth interviewing: A quali-tative approach to research in education. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L. (1986a). Paradigms and researchprograms in the study of teaching: A contempo-rary perspective. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed).New York: Macmillan.

Shulman, L. (1986b). Those who understand:Knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher, 15, (2), 4-14.

Tatum, B. (1995). Capturing authentic conversa-tions about literature. Unpublished EDS project,University of Georgia.

Zeichner, K. (1987). The ecology of field experi-ence: Toward an understanding of the role offield experiences in teacher development. In M.Haberman & J.M. Backus (Eds.), Advances inteacher education, Volume 3. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.


32


Appendix A

Application Form ForA study of the National Reading Research Center (NRRC)


33

APPLICATION FORM FORA STUDY OF THE NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER (NRRC)

Primary Investigators:Sally Hudson-Ross, Peg Graham, Patti McWhorter, Connie Zimmerman, Dana Fox

"Growing Together through Collaborative Inquiry:Case Studies of Beginning and Experienced Teachers in Secondary School Literacy"

School System:

System Contact Person:Position:

School: Name of school:Address of school:

School Administrator:Position:

Phone number/school:

Participating Teachers:(minimum of two per school; list others on a separate page)

Name:Address (home):

Phone (home):


Phone (home):


Phone (home):

34


Phone (home):


Phone (home):

SUPPORTING RESPONSE FOR OUR APPLICATION:The school team should prepare and submit a response to show how they, as a groupand individually, meet the following criteria for acceptance. The response may be inthe form of a written proposal (5-10 pages maximum), creative resumes, a portfolio, avideo, etc., or any combination thereof. Any creative and informative format isacceptable.

Our response, in the form of , shows that we(write in type of response)

as individuals and a school team are:1. committed to self-exploration2. committed to mentoring beginning teachers3. interested in improved teaching in English/literacy/reading4. open and ready to grow, read, study5. willing to lead among peers6. at least two teachers in a school team7. committed to a 2-year project8. supported in this project at both the school and system levels

STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT. Participants will:* Sincerely explore own teaching, independently and with the group of

teachers and student teachersParticipate in all activities: seminars, group conversations, independentinvestigations, outside reading and writingWork with a student teacher in 1994-1995, including fall and winterpracticums and full-time (turning over 4 classes) in the springAgree to be interviewed by project members at convenient timesAgree to be observed by project members at convenient timesAgree to videotape your classroom at convenient times

35

We the undersigned have read this statement of commitment and agree to meet theserequirements if selected for the project. We understand that no remuneration will bemade to an individual unless all requirements are met by that individual.

Signature of school system official/contact person:

Signature of local school administrator:

Signatures of all participating teachers:

Date:

Mail or deliver application and supporting response to:Dr. Patti McWhorter, Department of Language Education,

125 Aderhold, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.(706-542-5674).

36


Appendix B

Outline of Findings for Further Discussion


37

I. Power, Communication, and Community

Equal status of university faculty and MTs means everyone is a teacher educator interested in thegrowth of themselves and all other participants. University faculty, MTs, and TCs perceive themselvesas teachers who learn by conducting research in their own classrooms and beyond. All are involvedin helping teachers learn to teach better.

A. MTs form and work as a collaborative, on-going community of learners. They meet insummers to enjoy one another, plan, and make placements; quarterly to negotiate, share ideas,and learn together; and year-end to wrap up and evaluate the year. Within the group it isacceptable to express concerns, discuss problems, admit failures, and celebrate successes.Concerned talk of students and schools is the norm.

B. University faculty take on new roles. They perceive themselves first as teachers, and secondlyas teacher educators. They are often in schools, not to give help or judge or evaluate, but toobserve and get to know individual high school students and classes, to support MT and TCneeds, to provide everyday kinds of aide to teachers, to get to know the context of and playersin each school, to chat informally as friends and colleagues, and to interview participants bothfor program input and to make their words available to participants for reflection. Theyrespect all teachers and administrators as dedicated professionals at a variety of developmentalstages and appreciate the difficulties of school-based work as a result of their own real andrecent experience. They seek professional outlets for all participants to share and build on theiremerging knowledge.

C. School and university-based colleagues communicate often and openly, and respect and learnfrom productive disagreement. Three-way dialogue journals, sharing of campus and schoolprojects, weekly bulletins of events and opportunities and ideas, and constant interactions(phone, visits, e-mail) keep everyone informed and engaged in lively discussions of thecontradictions and uncertainties of teaching and learning. The group moves away from seekingright answers from someone in authority to excited and thoughtful professional dialogue basedon our own classrooms and research. Everyone's voice and experience is valued.

D. In the meantime, TCs build their own community of peers. Through interactive think pieces,dialogue journals, research projects, discussions, seminars, presentations at conferences, andso forth, TCs do not experience the isolation of teachers in the past but come to appreciateearly in their careers the power of a collaborative inquiry community. They accept the fact thatteachers feel pain, failure, frustration, and insecurity at times, but that these tensions arecauses for teacher research, not for demeaning self, students, parents, or school. They builda closeness based on their shared endeavors.

E. School-based assignments are privileged with campus time. Teacher talk time, group analysisof research data from TCs' own classes, think pieces based on school experiences, andlesson/unit planning during campus workshops all lead TCs to realize that MTs and universityfaculty equally value their work and immediate felt-needs at the schools. Issues emerging fromschool drive the campus curriculum. It is okay to discuss the realities of preplanning, facultymeetings, curriculum mandates, the effect of homecoming on students, final exams, lessonplans, student crises, parent conferences, senior skip day, graduation, school board meetingsand politics, book fine collection, racism, and grading policies, not just texts on teaching.

F. MTs and their TC partners form teams for collaborative exploration of how best to teach theirshared high school students. Extended time to work together and equal status interactionsallow MTs and TCs to avoid isolation and a judgmental stance, and reduce stress. Time and

38

opportunity allow pairs to address personal tensions, build trust, and become a team. Bondingoccurs because "no one can see our kids as we do." As MTs gain voice in the program, theyrisk offering a similar voice. to TCs about classroom practice, particularly as they come toknow each other better over time. In some cases, that voice is also extended to high schoolstudents as well.

II. Yearlong Interaction and Collaborative Growth

Those who begin, continue, and end a school year together grow in important ways. They are ableto collaborate within the natural cycles of school and students to build theories about learning andteaching. Teachers know that each school year is a story; it is difficult to enter late or leave early andtruly understand what the story was about. As a result, short-term placements of student teachers leadto tensions for MTs (giving up their kids to a stranger) and TCs and university faculty (figuring outwhat's going on here), reduce collaboration to sharing "new" ideas from campus or survival skillsfrom school (both detached from theoretical grounding), and leave little time for reflection or growthfor participants. A yearlong collaboration forces new views of the roles of and relationships amongMT, TC, and university faculty. In reconstructing these roles and relationships, all participants growin productive ways.

A. MT growth across the year.1. All MTs enter a collaborative inquiry community at different starting points, and that is

just fine. All teachers can and do develop in their own ways if they are committed topersonal and professional growth. MTs examining their own practice realize that they arethe products of biography, school culture, gender, apprenticeships of observation, careerstage, students, and prior experiences with student teachers. Acceptance of this stance withMTs as well as with students, is a major step in reaching a sense of equality (see above).Teacher education programs need not seek only "the best" teachers as models; instead,any willing teacher can be appreciated as a model of professional growth.

2. Teacher research encourages awareness of one's own students. As they learn with theirTCs, MTs are likely to move toward more student-centered teaching in their classrooms.Data from their own students confirm the need for and effectiveness of new theories oflearning and teaching in ways that no outside influence can.

3. MTs' definitions of English influence how they mentor and may be altered as the mentoringrole shifts. As the mentor role shifts within the yearlong program to a teacher-researcherstance, MTs make subtle changes in their own work with students, thus changing theirdefinitions of English over time, an inside-out rather than top-down conversion.

.4. MTs in a collaborative inquiry community have support for their continuing growth andjoint reflection. They are no longer isolated but instead have a range of partners acrossschools, in their own classrooms, and at the university.' They relax and see failure aslearning and take on professional opportunities to share. The dialogue journal makes theirown knowledge and learning visible to them as well as to the TC.

5 Most Professional Development Schools exist at the elementary school level. In the high school, commiting allteachers to shared development is more difficult primarily because of differences in departmental structures, needs, andgoals. (See Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995.) Working in a content-based collaborative inquiry community across schools,however, provides the same rich opportunities for growth and comraderie at the high school level.

39

5. MTs are free to be co-learners rather than all-knowing experts passing on unexaminedpractice. If they have not already experienced it, MTs learn a teacher research stance fromtheir TCs, a far more valuable classroom tool than the "cute ideas" from campus of thepast. Fitting the old saying, it is far better to learn to fish than to be given one.

B. TC growth across the year.1. TCs, like their MTs, grow in personal and yet parallel ways. Like their MTs, TCs begin

at different starting points and arrive in different places by the end of their yearlongexperience. Personal issues such as starting points, history as a learner, age and maturity,and time management and organizational skills influence depth and direction of growth asmuch as theory or opportunities to practice. As a result, development is unique for eachindividual. At the same time, however, shared experiences and emphasis on teacherresearch lead all TCs to some degree of more student-centered practice.

2. A focus on teacher research across a full school year balances prior content-orientedapprenticeship of observation with in-school experiences. As successful English majors,TCs enter the program seeking to be taught and to teach as they were most commonlytaught in Arts and Sciences programs. Learning with and from their students counteractstheir prior teacher or content-centered approach enough to lead TCs to recognize the valueof attending to student needs more than content coverage. If we want a student-centeredprogram, it makes sense to focus at least a year of attention on students rather than texts.

3. A yearlong placement allows TCs to reach more deeply held and personally meaningfultheories of teaching and learning. Traditional or rotating quarters of school experiencesrequire attention to a range of contexts, materials, inputs, and issues. A stable, yearlongexperience, on the other hand, allows TCs to work through basic issues and stresses earlyon so that they can focus calmly on honing and living their theories in one school setting.

4. TCs in a collaborative inquiry community receive the support needed to move beyond seek-ing answers to exploring options through teacher research. Because they are allowed toexperiment and fail early, return to campus for in-depth reflection, work through personalissues, and share tensions comfortably with peers, TCs come to accept the complexity ofteaching in public schools today. They are less likely to blame and more willing to acceptchallenges as new opportunities to learn.

5. Examining their own words across time allows TCs to observe their own growth andchange. By rereading transcripts of their own interviews', dialogue journals, papers, andresearch, TCs gain a broad sense of their own development. In effect, they become theirown research subjects and are able to objectively examine their progress.

6. Definitions of English and of the role of teacher are integrally entwined for TCs. Tensionsthat each TC experiences are generally signs of a discontinuity between these definitions.Unconsciously, they strive to match their definitions so as to achieve a coherent theory fortheir own practice. Like MTs, TCs shift definitions of English as their concepts of theteaching role change. When the focus of a program is on developing a stance as a thought-ful, reflective teacher researcher, we suspect that improved content teaching follows. Asone TC noted, "teaching is not separate from our own identity."

6 In Year 2, without funding for transcription, we taped and then asked TCs to transcribe their own voices fromAugust preplanning interview, which proved to be invaluable for quarter-end portfolios and synthesis.

40

7. TCs grow as a result of sustained interactions with a range of professional resources. TCsin this program valued MTs, university instructors, texts, professional journals and confer-ences, peers, and especially students as sources of information. The collaborative inquirycommunity established in their last year of college is one that could continue to sustainbeginning teachers, yet most do not carry with them or find such a community in their firstyear of teaching. Finding ways to develop collaborative communities for beginningteachers is a desperately needed area of program development and further research.

C. University faculty growth across the year. Although we have not focused on our own personalgrowth in this piece, we realize that our position as co-participants influences not only our ownprofessional development but also our understanding of and compassion for the experiencesof all other participants.1. Team-teaching allows university faculty to experience the partnerships that MT/TC pairs

experience and to avoid the isolation of teaching at the university level. Just like MT/TCpairs, we study our students (TCs) as a way to teach better. Because we accept the samerole as teacher researcher in our setting, we understand the constraints, power, andrequirements of such practice for all participants.

2. Developing and participating in a collaborative inquiry community with MTs and one'sstudents allows university faculty to combine service (staff development), research,anduniversity teaching in one co-reform effort. Although we spent a great deal of time inthe first year developing, maintaining, and revising this program, the second year runssmoothly with little extra time. In our second year, Graham will teach other courses whileremaining a part-time partner in the winter and spring quarters. We have new time nowto write, publish, and share our findings. We expect that as the community develops, wewill find a balance that allows us to work comfortably within the context of a majorresearch university setting.

3. University faculty get to be a part of schools as team members. We visit schools on aregular basis all year (once a month to weekly). We get to know administrators and otherfaculty and play important roles as support staff for very busy teachers. At all times, weconsider our job to be finding out what people need and how we can help meet that need(materials, e-mail accounts, release time or travel funds through grants, a listening ear,another point of view on a special student or class). Our own needto assist and examinenovice and experienced teachers as they growis open-ended; therefore, we privilege theschool's and individual teachers' agendas, not our own, as a requirement of honest collab-oration. As a result, we do not lose touch with schools as living entities but constantlyrenew our sense of "the real world" and feel like valued and welcome colleagues.

4. On-going collaboration with MTs provides a community of learners wherein we too areallowed to fail, experiment, grow, and learn. As teachers, program managers, andcolleagues, we are viewed by MTs as evolving and learning as much as they. Our wordis not final, our program is not perfect, and our decisions are not arbitrary or disconnectedfrom the group. As a result, we no longer feel like "they" when we visit, suggest changes,offer insights or assist. Instead, we are graciously considered partners.

III. Teacher Research Connects Theory and Practice

A focus on teacher research as a way to learn and improve teaching allows all participants at alllevels to begin where they are and grow. Because TCs are in the schools working with their MTs andtheir shared students and because MTs and university faculty together explore how to better mentornew TCs, we all find reality-based connections between theory in texts and the profession at large andour own practice.

41

A. The teacher research stance creates new safe and collaborative relationships for MT/ TCpartners to grow within. The TC serves as a research aide helping the MT see his/her class-room during the first quarters of the school year. As the TC learns from teacher research, theMT has an opportunity to examine collected datawhich they are unlikely to have time tocollect on their.ownas well. During the spring quarter, the MT more easily accepts a roleas research aide rather than evaluator. Both stances contribute to growth rather than judg-mental observations. Partners provide a service to one another, all for the good of studentlearners.

B. Keeping the focus on the learner (high school students or TC) helps both TC and MT to changeself. Traditionally, TCs perceive they are constantly being judged and must perform perfectlywhile teachers perceive they are to be "fixed" when engaged in staff development programs.Through a teacher researcher stance in a collaborative inquiry community, both TC and MTexamine learners under their care and make more informed decisions as a result ofcollaborative discussions, writing, and experimental practice. TCs are able to move beyonda locus of attention on themselves and immediate teaching situations. This focus on the learn-errather than the participanttakes away a sense of threat and empowers MT and TC to belearners in ways and directions they want to go in a setting of mutual trust.

C. Teacher research (interviews, shadowing, data analysis, think pieces) allows TCs to bringschool experiences and questions to campus for comparison to the professional literature, thefindings of others in other settings. TCs value the time to and collegiality of reflecting on theirexperiences with early lessons, interactions with kids, and insights into the nature of schools.Their questions drive what happens on campus. Orchestrated readings and research questionsand collecting and analyzing data from high school readers and writers does what no methodstext alone can accomplish: with the hands-on approach of the teacher researcher, TCs provefor themselves that student needs and preferences are closely reflected in the theory and re-search they read.

D. The advantages of a yearlong placement outweigh the benefits of multiple placements in arange of settings when TCs work within a collaborative community which shares experiencesacross school settings. As teacher researchers, TCs compare data on similar projects acrosssix diverse schools and a wide range of students. They hear the voices of 25 MTs and literallythousands of high school students in their collaborations as researchers. They visit each others'schools with knowledgeable peer guides serving as lenses for interpretation. Thus, althoughthey do not get to teach in several settings, they learn from their peers' issues and experiences.Given that it is impossible in most programs to provide both a yearlong experience andmultiple settings, we feel that the safety and depth allowed through the yearlong setting is en-hanced by the spirit and shared knowledge which evolves within a collaborative inquirycommunity.

E. TCs, MTs, and university faculty energized by new knowledge they have discovered in theirown classrooms are inspired to contribute knowledge to the greater profession. Professionalismand positive dependence among and between the MT and TC communities is also fostered byplanning and presenting their research together at state and national conferences. Those expe-riences allow TCs to develop a better understanding of how to enter into the professional dia-logue and how controversies we engage in on campus reflect those entertained within theEnglish teaching profession. Likewise, MTs' professional influence and understandings movebeyond the context of their individual schools when they attend conferences as participants inan extended collaborative inquiry community. Seeking affirmation, innovation, and elaborationof their practices, all participants emerge with a renewed sense of efficacy as English teachersand members of the larger professional community.

42

raMCNational

Reading ResearchCenter318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-71253216J. M. Patterson Building, University of Marylan4 College Park, MD 20742

43

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERO

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

RIC1

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

Documents

MD. 97 43p. - ERIC · 2014. 5. 14. · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 402 555 CS 012 666 AUTHOR Hudson-Ross, Sally; Graham, Peg TITLE Complexities of a Collaborative Inquiry Community: Mentor