The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.tat

�CorrespondiE-mail addr

[email protected]

Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 179–193

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professionaldevelopment within school settings

Evan M. Glazera,�, Michael J. Hannafinb

aRoanoke Valley Governor’s School for Science and Technology, 2104 Grandin Rd, SW, Roanoke, VA 24014, USAbUniversity of Georgia, USA

Abstract

Professional learning is a social enterprise where peers rely on the expertise and support of one another to adopt

innovative practices. Reciprocal interactions in a community of practice, where teachers take responsibility for each other’s

learning and development, may provide an effective means of supporting situated professional learning. We propose a

collaborative apprenticeship model featuring reciprocal interactions as an approach to promote professional development,

encouraging peer-teachers to serve as modelers and coaches of strategies and ideas aimed at improving instruction.

collaborative apprenticeship is designed to help teachers learn and implement new teaching skills and strategies through

four development phases, beginning with implementation of best practices from a mentor to the development of their own.

Teachers, in turn, contribute new ideas to their teaching environment and become future mentors in order to sustain skills

and strategies across a community of teachers. In addition to the model, we discuss various influences related to affect,

beliefs, environment, culture, cognition, and personality that characterize the nature of reciprocal interactions in order to

stimulate collaborative apprenticeship.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Professional development; Collegiality; Group dynamics; Educational environment

1. Introduction

Professional development affects teacher growth,variations in instructional techniques, and improve-ments in student learning (Joyce & Showers, 1995).Teachers learn new ideas and strategies through avariety of venues, ranging from structured classesduring the summer to informal discussions duringlunch. In the United States, short workshops arecommonly used outside of the school day to give

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

e.2005.09.004

ng author.

esses: [email protected] (E.M. Glazer),

ga.edu (M.J. Hannafin).

teachers intensive and focused learning experiences.However, there is limited evidence that isolatedprofessional learning experiences of this natureimprove classroom practices (Fullan & Stiegelbauer,1991; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles,1998). Workshops are discrete experiences that failto provide ongoing support and continual feedbackto attain long-term, systemic improvements (Mou-za, 2002). Skills and strategies simply do nottransfer well when they are not learned in situatedcontexts (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989).Further, workshops enhance an individual teacher’srepertoire rather than influence a professionalcommunity, limiting collective understanding and

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

ARTICLE IN PRESSE.M. Glazer, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 179–193180

impact (McCotter, 2001). Researchers and practi-tioners need alternative and feasible methods thatsupport a teaching community’s development andimplementation of new practices, and sustain theircontinual learning and opportunities for profes-sional growth.

Professional learning is difficult when limitedopportunities, as well as time, are available forexploring, self-teaching, and reflecting due toteachers’ different roles and responsibilities. Inaddition, isolation is a challenge that can inhibitteachers’ learning if peers are not accessible to assist(Little, 1982). Research (cf., Lave & Wenger, 1990)has indicated that professional growth can bepervasive when learning is viewed as a collectiveenterprise, and stifled without continual interactions(Gallagher & Ford, 2002) where teachers sharesuccessful experiences and learn from each other’smistakes (Boyd, 1992). Through this approach,teachers continually utilize the instructional re-sources and skills of their peers to support mutualgrowth and attainment of shared instructional andcurricular goals.

Teacher support is widely considered mosteffective when it is situated in everyday experiences,such as in classroom settings (Fullan & Stiegel-bauer, 1991). Ideally, teachers receive support asneeded as they implement their instructional prac-tices. However, pragmatic constraints, such aslimited resources and school budgets, affect theamount and quality of ongoing support provided byinstructional and technical specialists. Ongoingsupport, where provided, is often isolated; anindividual teacher receives help to address a specificcrisis. The approach amounts to immediate, short-term triage for a systemic, long-term dilemma. Inaddition, the interactions typically are not recipro-cal; teachers passively wait for resolution to aproblem rather than proactively engaging theobstacle and participating in its remedy. Conse-quently, the support fails to encourage distributionof knowledge and strategies; teachers becomeunduly reliant on ‘‘others’’ to address instructionalproblems and fail to develop, refine, and sharestrategies as a community.

Ideally, teachers become empowered by teaching,learning from, and supporting one another during

their school day (Hall & Davis, 1995). Learningexperiences are enhanced when they are situated inthe context in which they will be needed (Brown etal., 1989). Teachers can engage in these experiencesthrough coaching and mentoring (Gottesman, 2000;

Joyce & Weil, 1996; Kruse & Louis, 1993), wherethey model instructional strategies, obtain feedback,offer suggestions in an effort to improve instruction,and derive a shared understanding within thecommunity (Browne & Ritchie, 1991). The mentor-ing process involves developing teaching expertise,fostering relationships between colleagues, andresponding to learning needs (Hertzog, 2002).Support becomes a mutual responsibility, whereindividuals interact reciprocally with the intent todevelop a common understanding that is distributedthroughout the community. For example, protegesin mutual mentoring relationships challenge ideas ofand formulate new ideas with their mentors(Beyene, Marjorie, & Sanchez, 2002). Thus, toprogress in their implementation of new ideas andstrategies, teachers need to employ methods thatsupport reciprocity in their collegial environment—opportunities to interact with and learn from oneanother.

This paper presents a model for improvingprofessional learning practices by cultivating teach-ing communities situated in school environments.We begin by defining reciprocal interactions, a keyfactor to enhance professional learning, and ex-plaining their importance when situated in acommunity of practice (Wenger, 1998). Then, wepropose collaborative apprenticeship, an approachdesigned to support and sustain professional learn-ing through stimulation of reciprocal interactions.Finally, we describe factors that influence reciprocalinteractions to cultivate professional learningthrough collaborative apprenticeship.

2. The value of reciprocity and community of

practice towards professional learning

Reciprocal interactions, for the purpose of thispaper, are defined as interactions demonstratingand influencing a mutual relationship supportingteacher learning and development (Chene & Si-gouin, 1997; Hall & Davis, 1995; Russell & Cohen,1997). The interactions can be expressed throughvarious forms of communication, such as in writing,verbal and non-verbal gestures, and physical move-ments. Reciprocal interactions can occur betweenindividuals, such as colleagues troubleshooting aninstructional problem, or among a community, suchas a group of teachers collaboratively designing acurriculum. In this process, learning can be stimu-lated through the interactions (Bandura, 1986)where individuals help one another maximize their

ARTICLE IN PRESSE.M. Glazer, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 179–193 181

learning potential, analogous to Vygotsky’s zone ofproximal development (1978). Table 1 illustratesseveral reciprocal interactions applied in the learn-ing and professional communities’ literature, andsome examples will be highlighted later in thediscussion of collaborative apprenticeship.

Reciprocal interactions are an example of mutualengagement in a community of practice (Wenger,1998). In a community of teachers, mutual engage-ment suggests teachers have opportunities to con-tribute and react to instructional, policy, curricular,and development decisions influencing their profes-sional environment. Mutual engagement, however,is not independent from shared repertoire and jointenterprise, two additional components to a com-munity of practice. Shared repertoire includes thecommon actions, language, and experiences ofparticipants. In teaching communities, shared re-pertoire encompasses the practices engaged by everymember of the community, such as teaching,learning, and curriculum. Joint enterprise, in turn,refers to the shared goals of a community.Individual members of the broader teaching com-munity focus on attaining common communitygoals, such as a core curriculum and instructionalmethods.

In a community of practice, knowledge, skills,and strategies become socially negotiated amongmembers in the community through legitimateperipheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1990)and sharing stories (Orr, 1990). Hence, mutualengagement in a community (Wenger, 1998) fostersreciprocal interactions so that newcomers are

Table 1

Potential reciprocal interactions in a community of teachers

Interaction Sources

Story telling Orr (1990), Rust (1999)

Backscratching Lee (1999), Waugh et al. (1994)

Discussing and resolving conflict Palmer (1993), Zahorik (1987)

Brainstorming Hasbrouck and Christen (1997),

Korinek and McLaughlin (1996)

Giving and seeking advice Hertzog (2002), Selwyn (2000)

Modeling Chene and Sigouin (1997), Kohle

et al. (1999)

Sharing ideas Clement and Vandenberghe

(2000)

Zahorik (1987)

Motivating and reinforcing Hall and Davis (1995)

Posing and responding to task-

based questions

Zahorik (1987)

continually supported and mentored. As a result,they become capable of contributing to anddeveloping the common goals of the community.In a teaching community, expert teachers passon experiences and strategies to novices in orderto familiarize new teachers with important princi-ples and goals. During the transition into theteaching profession, experts support novices untilthey become full participants in the community,contributing to the issues that affect learning intheir school and curriculum. As the new teachersgain experience, they contribute new ideas andstrategies to improve the practices of their peermentors.

3. Collaborative apprenticeship and situated

professional development: a model

Reciprocal interactions, in the context of asupportive community of practice, are neededto stimulate professional learning opportunitiesand overcome professional development barriers.Table 2 illustrates how professional develop-ment can be facilitated through collaborativeapprenticeships within the context of a teachingcommunity and the roles assumed by teacher-leaders and peers during the process; Fig. 1 depictsthe progressive nature of the collaborative ap-prenticeship. The collaborative apprenticeshipmodel incorporates four progressive professionaldevelopment phases: introduction, developmental,proficient, and mastery. While the model is intendedto be versatile for different professional learning

Examples of Purpose

Make sense of training; understand urban teaching

Exchange cross-cultural content; participate on peer projects

Address critical moments; overcome instructional challenges

Generate ideas and solutions; reflect on classroom

observations

Cope with instructional problems; pose questions to peer

experts

r Illustrate cognitive strategies; demonstrate instructional

strategies

Exchanging instructional materials

Share classroom experiences

Encourage improvement and disposition

Transfer knowledge and skill across community members

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Phases and roles to promote collaborative apprenticeships for professional learning in teaching communities

Phase Teacher-leader roles Peer-teacher roles Collaborative

partnership

Related sources

Introduction Promotes and models use of

strategies in workshop or

classroom environments

Observes and

participates in

learning applications

of new methods

Discuss and reflect on

teaching and learning

experience

Fairbanks et al.

(2000), Feiman-

Nemser (2001)

Developmental Provides scaffolding, coaching and

fading to design, develop, and

implement learning activities

Acquires skills and

strategies in context

of participation

Collaboratively

design, develop, and

implement learning

activities

McCotter (2001),

Swan et al. (2000)

Proficient Identifies areas for improvement

and exploration

Articulates

understanding by

autonomously

designing activities

Share experience and

ideas with peer

community

Browne and Ritchie

(1991)

Mastery Observes and participates in

learning applications of new

methods

Promotes and models

use of strategies in

workshop or

classroom

environments

Peer-teacher becomes

teacher-leader for

design and

development of

learning applications

Caverly et al. (1997)

Future Role of Teacher-Leader Following Proficient Phase

Peer-Teachers Contributions (Teacher as Protégé)

Introduction Proficient

Introduction Developmental Proficient

Mas

tery

intense interactions moderate interactions

more dependent more independent

Mastery

Introduction Developmental Proficient

Teacher-Leaders Contributions (Teacher as mentor)

Fig. 1. A community of teachers as collaborative apprentices in professional learning.

E.M. Glazer, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 179–193182

situations, we provide descriptions of these phasesand different reciprocal interactions through anexample of learning to design technology-enhancedactivities.

3.1. Introduction phase

The introduction of a new instructional strategyor resource follow the initiative of a teacher-leader


motivated to mentor peers, and a community ofpeers sharing a common goal to learn and developnew ideas (Keedy, 1999). For example, a teacherrecognizes that her technology-enhanced lessonsabout fractions are influential towards students’conceptual development and increased performanceon tests. Since fractions are also taught by her peers,the teacher decides she would like to share hersuccessful experience during a departmental meet-ing, a common planning period, or an inserviceteacher workshop. During this period, the teacherexplains her interest to teach her peers the strategiesshe uses to design the lessons through her mentor-ship, while her colleagues endorse this role andcommit their participation. The mentor teacherwilling to lead the apprenticeship is referred as theteacher-leader, and her colleagues or proteges arereferred as the peer-teachers.

During the introduction phase, the teacher-leadermodels the implementation of a new instructionalmethod or resource to peers who initially reflect onand discuss skills and strategies needed in theirdevelopment. Modeling describes the observablecharacteristics of effective design and instruction,but more importantly the thinking strategies a morecapable peer uses to create the activity and learningenvironment. In this case, the teacher-leader pre-sents a fraction lesson to the peer-teachers as if theywere her elementary students, or the peer-teachersobserve the teacher-leader’s classroom while she ispresenting the lesson to her classroom. The model-ing of activity for an actual classroom learningenvironment is important because teachers prefer tolearn new tools and strategies as intended for use intheir classroom (Little, 1994; Smylie, 1989).

The role of teacher-leader during the introductionphase of collaborative apprenticeship is analogousto Feiman-Nemser’s (2001) examination of qualitiesof an exemplary support teacher, who noted theimportance of giving ‘‘living examples’’ and model-ing ‘‘wondering about teaching’’ to novices.

Teachers reflect on the lesson modeled by theteacher-leader and analyze how their learningexperience can be applied to their own classroompractices. During this time, some teachers interactby posing and responding to task-based questions

involving the transfer of knowledge and skillsamong members of a community. Teachers mayhelp each other locate instructional resources(Zahorik, 1987), understand school policies, or seektechnical assistance to use various tools, such ascomputers and video equipment. These interactions

are considered reciprocal when teachers respondwith intent to contribute to their peers’ developmentrather than resolving another teacher’s problems.For example, the teacher-leader keeps a log ofquestions posed to her, discusses frequently askedquestions during the next meeting, and thenmonitors the peer-teachers’ retention over time.

Peer-teachers present the modeled lesson to theirown students and reflect on their experiences in agroup discussion following implementation. Tea-chers interact reciprocally through story telling as ameans of sharing and constructing knowledge andstrategies. Story telling helps teachers relate experi-ences in order to obtain a better interpretation ofimplementation strategies and expectations (Orr,1990) and provides a context to overcoming teachingchallenges (Rust, 1999). While peer-teachers usestorytelling to contribute their understanding ofinstructional strategies, the development and im-plementation of the learning activity in the intro-duction phase is primarily driven by the teacher-leader as indicated by the high density of points,with little contribution from the peer-teachers asindicated by the low density of points, in Fig. 1.

3.2. Developmental phase

The developmental phase of collaborative ap-prenticeship involves the teacher-leader and peer-teachers as a collaborative team in the design,development, and implementation of learning activ-ities that involve new instructional strategies orresources. This collaboration occurs in planned andinformal meetings to establish and support anongoing and sustained professional developmenteffort. In this case, the teachers design a technology-enhanced fraction lesson, new to both the peer-teachers and teacher-leader, to be used by all of theteachers. Successful peer collaboration occurs whenteachers share ideas and support each other’slearning through discussions surrounding similarinterests and goals (McCotter, 2001).

Initially, brainstorming is a useful reciprocalinteraction to gain insight into creating a newlesson, an instructional strategy they are using, orgenerating possible solutions to classroom chal-lenges (Hasbrouck & Christen, 1997; Korinek &McLaughlin, 1996; Pieronek, 2001). During thebrainstorming process, the teacher-leader facilitatesa discussion involving the knowledge and skills ofthe peer-teachers so they collaboratively develop thepurpose of the lesson and learning outcomes.


Rather than promoting skill mastery prior toimplementation, the teacher-leader legitimizes theparticipation of less-experienced peers by engagingthem collaboratively in the development of learningactivities (Lave & Wenger, 1990).

The teacher-leader initially assumes responsibilityfor managing the design and development process,then scaffolds and coaches the peer-teacher’s devel-opment and assists the novice in performing a task.For example, the teacher-leader revisits strategiesshe used to create the first fraction lesson as a newfraction lesson is generated collectively with thepeer-teachers. In contrast to many professionaldevelopment opportunities, the teacher-leader ismutually engaged with, and follows the progressionof, peer-teachers as they develop learning activities(Swan et al., 2000).

Teachers implement the lesson they create to-gether and then reflect on the experience collec-tively. During these conversations, teachers interactreciprocally by discussing and resolving conflict inorder to refine their design and instructionalstrategies for future lessons. Interactions to addressinstructional uncertainties provide teachers oppor-tunities to exchange ideas and create possiblesolutions (Zahorik, 1987). Teachers can contribute‘‘critical moments’’ (Palmer, 1993) from theirimplementation of the fraction lessons to refinetheir shared understanding of lesson design strate-gies and classroom implementation. Therefore, inthe next lesson, the teacher-leader will allocate moreresponsibility in the design process to the peer-teachers until they become autonomous. Thistransition in responsibility and participation isillustrated in the developmental phase of Fig. 1,where the density of points gradually shifts for boththe teacher-leader and the peer-teachers.

Throughout the developmental phase, the tea-cher-leader serves as a coach to her peers, where theteacher-leader makes observational and facilitativeefforts to support and encourage peer-teachers asthey design and develop instructional strategies. Thecoach interacts with her peers as a motivator thatencourages and reinforces improvement and dis-position. Hall and Davis (1995) described motiva-tors as peers that promote positive attitudes andbuild confidence by supporting, encouraging, andremaining active throughout a learning process.Story telling, pats on the back, and pep talks arecommon support actions used by motivators tosustain interest in new teaching activities. Motivat-ing may be perceived as an interaction that is not

reciprocal, although successful apprenticeships in-volve motivating from both mentor and protege(Hall & Davis, 1995). In collaborative apprentice-ship, a teacher-leader motivates a peer-teacher toimprove skills and strategies, while a peer-teachermotivates a teacher-leader by sharing new lessonideas based on her different perspective andexperience. As a result, the teachers’ sharedresponsibility for each others’ learning produces amutually beneficial relationship since the newlessons support the teachers’ instructional andcurricular goals.

3.3. Proficient phase

The proficient phase of collaborative apprentice-ship involves peer-teachers autonomously develop-ing learning activities. As shown in Fig. 1, theprimary responsibility for design, development, andimplementation of learning activities has shifted tothe peer-teachers. They demonstrate the capabilityto create technology-enhanced fraction learningactivities for their classrooms without directionfrom the teacher-leader, who instead assesses thepeer-teachers’ work and offers suggestions forimprovement and further exploration. Browne andRitchie (1991) described the transfer or responsi-bility as ‘‘empowerment’’ of teachers because theytake responsibility for the direction of their ideasand seek critical feedback from their peers. Giving

and seeking advice is an important reciprocalinteraction to maintain in the teachers’ repertoirein order to address teachers’ instructional andorganizational needs continually (Moore-Johnson,1990). During the proficient phase, teachers do notalways rely on the teacher-leader’s advice toprogress, as Hertzog’s (2002) study on noviceteachers showed that new teachers tend to trouble-shoot situations with each other prior to consulta-tion with an expert.

In the proficient phase, peer-teachers explorevarious uses of resources, such as different mathe-matics-based technology tools, and various instruc-tional approaches, such as exploratory or directedquestioning. Teachers evaluate these resources andmethods to distinguish when and how the strategiesintroduced by the teacher-leader are useful in theirlearning environments. This parallels the articulationphase in cognitive apprenticeships (Collins, Brown, &Newman, 1989), where learners verbalize their think-ing so they can generalize knowledge and generateheuristics. Articulation can help teachers to develop


and justify strategies for alternative activities in theirlearning environment. In professional communitiesusing reciprocal interactions, teachers articulate theirthinking and experiences by sharing ideas theydevelop with one another (Zahorik, 1987). This formof interaction differs from discussing and resolvingconflict because teachers provide ideas to one anotherwithout being prompted, such as discussing newteaching strategies or exchanging new instructionalmaterials (Clement & Vandenberghe, 2000). In thisprocess, teachers evaluate materials, discuss class-room experiences, and make decisions about theirfuture use.

Peer-teachers develop lessons for collective goalsas they become more confident in the skills andstrategies they have learned and articulated throughcollaborative apprenticeship. For example, thegroup of teachers may divide the instructionalpreparation for new lessons where teachers withtechnology-skills develop technology-enhanced ac-tivities and other teachers develop hands-on activ-ities. This ‘‘backscratching’’ approach has beensuccessful in collaborative projects where teachersrely on one another to contribute towards collectivegoals (Waugh, Levin, & Smith, 1994). After teachersdevelop new lessons, they discuss recommendationsto address special learning conditions, access totechnology, and time constraints. As a consequenceof backscratching, the shared knowledge, experi-ence, and learning activities can be used in multipleclassrooms within the community. Once sharedactivities are shown to be successful in otherteachers’ classrooms, social affirmation likely boostspeer confidence and motivation to continue effortand improve learning.

3.4. Mastery phase

Most professional development models focus onimmediate development, with little or no attentionto sustaining use of strategies and resources.However, relationships and roles among individualswithin a community evolve over time. As indivi-duals come and go, new opportunities and chal-lenges are confronted, and new ideas emerge.Therefore, professional development models needto account for changes among community partici-pants. During the mastery phase of collaborativeapprenticeship, peer-teachers have transformedfrom peripheral to central participants (Lave &Wenger, 1990) in their responsibilities to their peersand contributions to their teaching community.

Caverly, Peterson, and Mandeville (1997) describedthis as second and third generation mentors, whereeach protege, in turn, mentors a new set of peers.Hence, they become a new teacher-leader, capableof leading and supporting a new cohort of teachersin their professional learning.

Teacher-leaders assume different roles with theirpeers following the mastery phase due to the widerange of interests and goals across the community.An individual can simultaneously act as a teacher-leader for the development of learning activitiesusing a particular approach, and as a peer-teacherwhen participating in a different professionaldevelopment activity. As a consequence, the mentorrole of a teacher-leader may fade as she enters newprofessional learning activities. Over time, teachersin a community are involved in a network ofmultiple collaborative apprenticeships, where tea-chers share repertoire and assume responsibility foreach other’s overall learning and development indifferent ways.

3.5. Discussion

The flow and progressive nature of the collabora-tive apprenticeship is illustrated in Fig. 1, providinga systemic view of how the community enacts themodel. Since a community of teachers has a varietyof skills and experiences, there is no single entrypoint into the model. Peer-teachers need notparticipate in introductory lessons if they havealready learned how to use a resource or instruc-tional method and have seen it modeled effectively.However, teachers may still need support to designand develop instructional activities that integratethe resources or utilize the new methods. In thiscase, a peer-teacher begins at the developmentalphase. The teacher-leader works closely with a smallgroup of peer-teachers in the design process throughcollaborative brainstorming and planning sessions.Their newly developed learning activities gothrough several iterations until the group decidesto implement them. The teacher-leader providesfeedback and offers suggestions proven effective forher own classroom instruction, and the team ofteachers discusses accommodations to alternativelearning needs.

After implementation, peer-teachers reflect anddiscuss their findings and observations, and proposechanges for future classroom use among all membersof the community. Through successive activities,peer-teachers involvement gradually increases until


they demonstrate proficiency and preparedness tomentor other members of the community, ensuringsustainability of new methods or resource use withinthe community. During the mastery phase, the peer-teacher becomes a teacher-leader able to mentorother teachers, still relying on advice from currentand past teacher-leaders. Hence, support is bothongoing and distributed throughout the community.

Through mutual engagement, participation isbalanced and shared among teachers of the com-munity. A given teacher may have central participa-tion in one professional responsibility, such asdesigning calculator-based labs, and have peripheralparticipation in a different venue, such as designinginteractive geometry learning activities. Within thecommunity, different facets of professional devel-opment are based on the needs and capabilities ofindividual teachers, enabling ongoing opportunitiesfor various forms of participation and contributionto shared community goals.

Collaborative apprenticeships in teaching com-munities, then, provide a means to sustain profes-sional learning efforts by utilizing reciprocalinteractions and addressing the primary supportneeds of teachers—onsite, ongoing, and ‘‘just intime.’’ The model emphasizes the importance oflegitimizing the participation of all members of thecommunity through collaborative efforts, based ontheir expertise, so that all teachers contribute toshared goals. Effective leadership is necessary toorchestrate and support such a vision. Leaders donot solely manage, but also participate in the cultureof learning and development with their teachers,treating them with respect as peers and colleagues(Kleine-Kracht, 1993). They model positive beha-viors, demonstrate teaching, participate in teambuilding, and provide support to teachers (Huff-man, 2000). collaborative apprenticeship also re-quires the investment of strong teacher-leaders,those who support by being an advocate, and leadthrough example, guidance, and communication(Hurst & Reding, 2002). With the investment ofeffective leaders, the situated professional develop-ment effort (Swan et al., 2000) promotes learning asa continual activity that is both natural andexpected of the teaching community.

4. Influences of reciprocal interactions and

collaborative apprenticeship

We have discussed the importance of reciprocalinteractions in the use of collaborative apprentice-

ship. Thus, identifying factors to promote theseinteractions are critical to the success of the model’simplementation. A review of literature revealsreciprocal interactions are influenced by affect,beliefs, environment, culture, cognition, and per-sonality. Discussion of these factors can provideinsight into developing strategies to promotereciprocal interactions in a collaborative apprentice-ship. While we isolate these factors for clarity inTable 3, their role in stimulating reciprocal interac-tions is interactive in practice.

4.1. Affect

The affective domain, which comprises emotionsand attitudes, plays a valuable role in an indivi-dual’s decision to interact with a peer. For example,love, emotional support, and dependence promotingongoing interaction were exemplified by an instruc-tor and expected by students in a community ofadult learners (Chene & Sigouin, 1997). Silva andTom (2001) found that mentors who created acaring space for their interns to grow were able tofoster risk taking, idea generating, and opendiscussions. Teachers sometimes commiserate bysharing frustration, anxiety, and discontent withschool conditions, their students, or the teachingprofession. Manouchehri (2001) described this as‘‘getting something out of your system’’ (p. 93).Conversely, conflict among peers can inhibit inter-actions. Hawkey (1997) noted that mentoring canproduce stressful situations that result in ‘‘unspokenagreements between mentor and mentee to colludein retreating from the challenges they each face’’ (p.332). Kohler, Crilley, and Shearer (1997) noted thatteachers who reported being acclimated to usingtechnology in their classrooms were more satisfiedwhen working with a peer coach on their instruc-tional strategies; conversely, teachers did not inter-act with peers if they failed to recognize technologyas benefiting their students’ achievement.

Teachers perceptions about peers, collectively andindividually, also affects engagement. Glass andWalter (2000) noted a sense of belonging—beingacknowledged, feeling validated, and verbalizingvulnerability—as characteristics associated with‘‘connecting’’ among nursing students. Likewise,Grams, Kosowski, and Wilson (1997) describedconnecting among nurses as a form of bonding akinto the ties of family or a lifelong relationship.Bonding ‘‘encouraged a cohesiveness and a source

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Domains and factors affecting reciprocity

Domain Factors Sources

Affect Caring Chene and Sigouin (1997), Silva and Tom (2001)

Anxiety level Hawkey (1997), Manouchehri (2001)

Patience and sensitivity Waugh et al. (1994)

Enjoyment Kohler et al. (1997)

Connection to a group Grams et al. (1997)

Friendly climate Chene and Sigouin (1997)

Connection to an individual Hall and Davis (1995), Manouchehri (2001)

Respect Dillon and Stines (1996), Terehoff (2002)

Beliefs Teaching Arnn and Manigeri (1984), McCotter (2001)

Learning Manouchehri (2001)

Instructional design Carr (2002), Rogers (1999)

Social obligation Silva and Tom (2001)

Self-efficacy Bandura (1986), Hall and Davis (1995)

Environment Proximity Brown and Duguid (1991), Rossman (1984)

Shared time Clement and Vandenberghe (2000), Zahorik (1987)

Individual time Hunter (2001), Lohman (2000)

Human resources Sandholtz et al. (1994)

Physical resources Lohman (2000)

Accessibility Nisan-Nelson (2001)

Culture Leadership Carr (1997), Keedy (1999), Palmer (1993)

Professionalism Davies et al. (1999)

Curriculum Garet et al. (2001)

Mutual responsibility Showers (1985)

Peer feedback Kohler et al. (1999)

Shared tasks Jarveka et al. (1999)

Cognition Common understanding Hausman and Goldring (2001)

Priority Zahorik (1987)

Awareness of learning behaviors Arnn and Manigeri (1984)

Lower order thinking Hertzog (2002), Manouchehri (2001)

Higher order thinking Little (1982), Clement and Vandenberghe (2000)

Reflection McCotter (2001)

Personality Assertiveness Lohman (2000), Zahorik (1987)

Motivation Franke et al. (2001)

Responsibility Hunter (2001)

Autonomy Grossman et al. (2001)

Availability Sandholtz and Wasserman (2001)

Open-mindedness Chene and Sigouin (1997)

Organization Knapp (1997)

E.M. Glazer, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 179–193 187

of support and reinforcement that may not haveotherwise been available’’ (p. 13).

Chene and Sigouin (1997) created a ‘‘friendly’’climate by using positive words and gestures,acceptance of group members, equality of participa-tion, and the like. Person-to-person relationships alsostimulate reciprocal interactions. According to Man-ouchehri (2001), teachers reported being morecomfortable talking about various issues with specificteachers due to their personal relationship. Hall andDavis (1995) recognized the need for cooperative and

student teachers to ‘‘become friends’’ at times.Cooperative teachers recognized student teachers as‘‘buddies,’’ with whom they could share experiences,obtain support, and discuss ideas at the end of a day.In addition to friendship, respect for a peer’s knowl-edge and experience can influence collegiality andparticipation in group activities. An individual willlikely be more inclined to participate and contributeto group goals knowing that ideas are respected andencouraged into the community activities (Dillon &Stines, 1996; Terehoff, 2002).


4.2. Beliefs

The nature and strength of a teacher’s beliefsimpact willingness and interest to interact. Teacherbeliefs derive from experience as a learner as well aslearning preferences. McCotter (2001) reported thatteachers with similar beliefs tended to interact welltogether because they had common avenues to raiseissues and validate their ideas. However, Arnn andManigeri (1984) contend that it is more beneficial tofoster collaboration among teachers with variedbelief systems in order to promote diversity inunderstanding. The conflicting results in thesestudies suggest the productivity of the collaborationmay not have been solely based on teacher beliefs,but also other influential factors, such as theorganization, leadership, and context in which thecollaboration occurred.

In addition to their teaching practices, teachershave varied opinions about their learning anddevelopment, which in turn, may influence theirinteractions. Manouchehri (2001) found that tea-chers with different pedagogical styles tended tolack interest in learning new approaches, sometimesdeveloping stronger feelings about their instruc-tional preferences after observing different pedago-gy.Reforming instructional practices can be furthercomplicated when teachers hold different beliefsabout curriculum (Rogers, 1999). Moreover, jointplanning can be difficult for teachers of differentrepertoire, such as across grade levels, because theyconceptualize instruction differently, even whenthey use the same terminology (Carr, 2002).

Beliefs about personal contribution and self-worth also influence collegial interactions. Someteachers assume a social obligation to contribute totheir community’s shared goals and tasks based ontheir own personal growth in the community. Sincethey developed as a consequence of others’ con-tributions, many teachers reciprocate to the com-munity by contributing their knowledge and skills(Silva & Tom, 2001). Self-efficacy, ‘‘people’s judg-ments of their capabilities to organize and executecourses of action required to attain designated typesof performances’’ (Bandura, 1986, p. 391), mayaffects one’s role, responsibility, and willingness toengage and participate in reciprocal activities. Halland Davis (1995) found reciprocity between studentteachers and cooperating teachers was enhancedwhere cooperating teachers appeared confident andexperienced. Generally, high self-efficacy tends toperpetuate success; conversely low self-efficacy

engenders failure. However, where a communitymember has low self-efficacy, emotional supportfrom other members may help to build esteem anddesire for professional development (Chene &Sigouin, 1997).

4.3. Environment

Environmental factors affect an individual’sdesire to form and participate in mutual partner-ships. For example, Brown and Duguid (1991)noted opportunities to interact regularly, duringwork and at lunch, resulted in improvements inlearning and performance as individuals passed onstories to one another. By supporting proximalinteractions, learning is a participation-based activ-ity where experiences are shared and formalizedthrough informal means. Rossman (1984) createdintentional proximity by visiting students at theirhome and work, observing that her professionalrelationships improved as well. The physical pre-sence of a peer makes possible opportunities toshare time. Clement and Vandenberghe (2000)noted that teachers created opportunities to sharestories and provide help by scheduling 1 h a week tomeet outside of class. Without making time forinteractions, Zahorik (1987) found that teacherswere often unable to resolve problems and issuesduring the school day. Moreover, when teachershave inadequate individual time to complete paper-work and administrative responsibilities, they areunlikely to interact with and learn from peers toaddress instructional issues (Hunter, 2001; Lohman,2000).

Access also affects interactions among peers.When teachers realize their peers are routinelyavailable to help, they are more likely to seekassistance to resolve problems efficiently, andunderstand their peers’ growth through ongoingdialogue (Sandholtz & Wasserman, 2001). Experi-enced teachers can serve as a focal point ofinteractions as they share classroom stories withtheir peers (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1994).Over-dependence on the resident expert, however,can limit interactions unless attempts are made,such as collaborative projects, to draw strengthsfrom every teacher in the community (Sandholtz etal., 1994). Access to physical resources, such ascomputers, software, lesson plans, and resourcemanuals also affects interactions. Lohman (2000)found that lack of proximal resources interferedwith teachers’ development in that it became


difficult to exchange knowledge with peers, experi-ment with new ideas, and gather and exploreinstructional resources. Nisan-Nelson (2001) de-scribed a teacher who presumably could notintegrate technology due to continued frustrationwith scheduling lab time and failed collaborationwith the school’s media specialist. Thus, limitedaccess to resources may, in turn, isolate teachersfrom relevant interaction resources.

4.4. Culture

Interest in teacher-leadership is pervasivethroughout professional development literature asa means of promoting active involvement, collegi-ality, ownership in decisions, and professionalcommunity (cf., Carr, 1997; Keedy, 1999; Palmer,1993). In successful mentoring partnerships, men-tors exhibit a greater sense of professionalismtoward their peers in an effort to model positiveadult interactions, idealism in the classroom, andeffective teaching strategies (Davies, Brady, Rodger,& Wall, 1999). A shared curriculum also promotesadvice-seeking and strategic planning, as manyteachers collaborate to modify their curriculum toprovide the best possible learning opportunities(Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001;Manouchehri, 2001). Conversely, teachers who donot value the existing curricular materials maychoose not to interact with peers, especially thosewith different opinions.

The nature of efforts to promote collaborationalso influences peer interaction. For example,mutual responsibility among peers, whereby peerdependence is critical for professional improvement,can influence reciprocal behaviors. Reciprocal peercoaching ‘‘provides a safe environment in which tolearn and perfect new teaching behaviors, experi-ment with variations of strategies, teach studentsnew skills and expectations inherent in new strate-gies, and thoughtfully examine the results’’(Showers, 1985, p. 47).

Peer feedback also supports and sustains recipro-cal interactions. Kohler, Ezell, and Paluselli (1999)used peer-coaching techniques among teachers tolearn and compare instructional strategies. Peer-teachers observed each other’s classrooms, dis-cussed and evaluated each other’s activities follow-ing implementation, and reflected on how classroomexperience related to instructional goals. Finally,Hall and Davis (1995) noted the student teachingexperience involves shared tasks with a cooperating

teacher when planning and grading, as well asimplementing curriculum, instructional strategies,and discipline. Some student teachers were involvedin school meetings that emphasized decisions as a‘‘we’’ process, indicating mutual involvement andcontribution to school policy.

4.5. Cognition

Reciprocal interactions may be triggered by thelack of knowledge and skills and lower-orderthinking, causing individual to seek solutionsthrough interactions. Manouchehri (2001) notedthat one teacher in her study persisted in seekingcollegial interaction because she was ‘‘unsure’’about her teaching. The teacher sought informationfrom a more experienced peer with a mathematicsbackground due to her limited background in thecontent area. Conversely, a teacher learning newskills may be reluctant to interact until she believesthat her contributions are meaningful to thelearning environment. If the culture does not acceptor encourage dialogue to resolve a lack of under-standing, then interactions may not occur or may beisolated to few individuals (Hertzog, 2002).

Teachers might also engage in collegial discourseabout ways to resolve issues using higher orderreasoning, such as analysis, synthesis, or evaluation.For example, some teachers find it helpful to discussthoughts and ideas with peers and consider alter-natives before making decisions (Clement & Van-denberghe, 2000; Little, 1982). Reflection canstimulate reciprocal interactions. For example,McCotter (2001) encouraged teachers to be more‘‘wide awake’’ about their experiences by retellingan experience, learning though social interaction,understanding the context of the experience, andunderstanding emotions and ideology. Reflectioncan also provide a catalyst for discussing andresolving conflict through modeling and peer feed-back. To illustrate, Manouchehri’s (2001) teachersdiscussed reactions to instructional approaches afterobserving each others’ classrooms. Pairs of teachersused reflective activity to compare their experiencesand observations in an effort to stimulate futuredirections in their teaching. However, peers withconflicting beliefs or limited assertiveness failed tobenefit from the reflective experience.

In social settings, learning involves how indivi-duals think and respond to their peers’ under-standing, such as developing a commonunderstanding across peers engaged in the same


task. When teachers present the same lesson, theymight discuss prerequisite activities, instructionalstrategies, assessment instruments, and other chal-lenges in an effort to share perspective on the lesson(Talbert & McLaughlin, 1993). Shared understand-ing is important in promoting a professionalcommunity, and central to prolonged teachercommitment (Hausman & Goldring, 2001). Whenteachers need to accomplish a task in the nearfuture, or need ‘just in time’ support, they mayinteract with a peers to overcome the obstacle(Zahorik, 1987). Conversely, teachers may abandonplanned interactions if they need to address aseemingly more urgent problem.

Awareness of how to be a social learner, wherethe ‘‘individual learner’s learning system extends itscapacity to deal with the critical conditions oflearning by acquiring new ways to capitalize uponthe social surround’’ (Salomon and Perkins, 1998, p.5), is also important. If unaccustomed to sociallearning, individuals may not understand thebenefits of reciprocal interactions. Participants needto develop a sense of what social learning repre-sents, both personally and to the community, and tobecome familiar with negotiated expectations andunderstandings. Arnn and Manigeri (1984) de-scribed this as ‘‘having a keen awareness of theirimpact on others,’’ (p. 32) including knowing howothers view a teacher’s role and responsiveness in aprofessional community. With awareness across thecommunity, learning becomes a ‘‘reciprocal spiralrelationship’’ (Salomon & Perkins, 1998, p. 16)where individual action influences social behavior,and vice versa, in an iterative fashion.

4.6. Personality

Personality traits can either foster or hamperinteractions. A proactive personality is assertive-ness, evident where teachers make significantefforts, regardless of location or time, to interactwith peers, discuss ideas, and obtain advice (Zahor-ik, 1987). When not proactive, some teachersbecome isolated and limited to resources conveni-ently available (Lohman, 2000). Motivated teachersstrive continually to interact with peers in order toimprove their teaching (Manouchehri, 2001). Moreimportantly, the desire for professional growth andcollaboration focuses on thinking and learning inthe classrooms (Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Fenne-ma, 2001). Teachers who both take ownership oftheir professional growth and support the develop-

ment of their peers contribute uniquely to theprofessional community (Grossman, Wineburg, &Woolworth, 2001). Hunter (2001) found thatteacher dedication to achieve a common goal wasa principal factor in a teaching community’s abilityto overcome numerous environmental constraintsand effectively collaborate on a project.

Personality factors can also influence whetherinteractions are reciprocal. For example, whileautonomy empowers the teacher to make decisions,the teacher may become isolated, avoiding consulta-tions with peers believing that teaching is idiosyn-cratic, personal, and private (Zahorik, 1987).However, autonomy can also indicate that teacherswant to interact in order to gather a variety of ideasfrom their peers, and determine which ones are mostapplicable for their classrooms (Grossman et al.,2001). Similarly, open-mindedness is valued asteachers talk to one another about various issues(Chene & Sigouin, 1997). If peers are non-judgmentaland forgiving, then teachers are more inclined toexpress themselves to each other. Hertzog (2002), forexample, noted that new teachers confrontingproblems first consult fellow novices, or interperso-nal relationships, because they appear more receptiveto discussing difficult issues. Finally, since timeconstraints are widespread, an organized peer canbe an asset to provide assistance efficiently andeffectively. In professional development and reform,organizational routines, such as structured androutine gatherings, provide familiar mechanisms tofoster change and growth (Knapp, 1997).

The six factors to stimulate reciprocal interac-tions and promote collaborative apprenticeship arenot mutually exclusive. It remains unclear howspecific attributes catalyze others, or whether criticalcombinations are needed to induce reciprocalinteractions among a community and form asuccessful collaborative apprenticeship. For exam-ple, the introduction of tools and resources in anenvironment in combination with motivated tea-chers influences reciprocal interactions in a commu-nity. Other factors are more difficult to change, suchas beliefs and personality, raising doubts as towhether reciprocal interactions can be stimulated inless-than-ideal ideal communities and the degree towhich collaborative apprenticeship will be success-ful. It is important, therefore, to optimize ap-proaches designed to promote reciprocalinteractions to facilitate collaborative apprentice-ship and address the ongoing support needs ofteachers.


5. Implications for future research

In the collaborative apprenticeship model, anexpert or mentor initially leads a community ofteachers toward the design and development oflearning activities. The expertise and experiencesrequired of such a leader, however, are not welldefined. An individual may be more knowledgeableor experienced than her colleagues, but not neces-sarily able to develop and extend other teachers’ useof instructional settings. Thus, research is needed toexamine the factors needed to mentor teachers—initiative, preparation, and the like—to implement acollaborative apprenticeship model. Furthermore,we need to better understand how leadership andteacher attributes influence the collaborative ap-prenticeship experience—for both mentor andapprentice.

The role and potential of reciprocity in teachingcommunities also warrants additional study. Muchof the research about reciprocal interactions inlearning environments has focused on acquiringskills rather than improving practice. Althoughindividual teachers may vary in their instructionalpractices, the collective wisdom of the teachercommunity draws upon a far vaster set of experi-ences concerning curriculum and instructionalstrategies. Different combinations of reciprocityfactors may stimulate interactions among a com-munity of teachers not possible for a givenindividual. Efforts to promote reciprocal interac-tions among a professional community, such asteachers, may elicit qualitatively and quantitativelydifferent learning and development than for non-professional communities.

We must also better understand the culture andorganization of schools in order to provide oppor-tunities for teachers to engage in reciprocal interac-tions. Currently, many environmental barriers, suchas failure to provide a centralized teacher office andcommon planning periods, provide formidableobstacles to improved practice. Few teachers haveadequate preparation or collegial time to develop asa community. Rather, ‘‘planning time’’ is providedas segmented blocks of time that are rarely alignedwith colleagues who teach the same subjects orgrade levels. Consequently, reciprocal interactionsaffecting learning and performance are more likelyto take place during occasional professional devel-opment days or outside of the school day duringunscheduled time. As noted previously, this decon-textualization can be detrimental to both becoming

proficient in adopting instructional methods and tothe evolution of a sustainable, supportive commu-nity of professional teachers.

We also need to examine how teachers transitionfrom peripheral to central participants as commu-nity members. Professional development will likelycontinue to be ineffective until teachers assumegreater leadership roles for learning in their teachingcommunity. Although communities need to initiateintegration efforts under the tutelage of an expert-mentor, community members must assume respon-sibility to be mutually engaged and embrace jointenterprise in shared goals for multiple experts toemerge over time.

Finally, we need to refine our understanding ofhow reciprocal interactions influence professionallearning. Although we have suggested these factorsare interdependent, some elements may catalyze thedevelopment of other elements. For example,elements of the affective domain, such as caring,patience, and sensitivity, may influence dispositionsto engage in story-telling, sharing ideas, andresolving conflict. A closer examination and analy-sis of reciprocal interactions is needed to revealpotential relationships.

References

Arnn, J. W., & Manigeri, J. N. (1984). Teacher support teams:

An examination of dynamics. Action in Teacher Education, 6,

31–34.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A

social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Beyene, T., Marjorie, A., & Sanchez, W. (2002). Mentoring and

relational mutuality: Proteges perspectives. Journal of Huma-

nistic Counseling, Education and Development, 41(1), 87–102.

Boyd, V. (1992). School context. Bridge or barrier to change?.

Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition

and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and

communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working,

learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.

Browne, D. L., & Ritchie, D. C. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship:

A model of staff development for implementing technology in

schools. Contemporary Education, 63(1), 28–34.

Carr, D. A. (1997). Collegial leaders: Teachers who want more

than just a job. The Clearing House, 70, 240–242.

Carr, K. (2002). Building bridges and crossing borders: Using

service learning to overcome cultural barriers to collaboration

between science and education departments. School Science

and Mathematics, 102(6), 285–298.

Caverly, D. C., Peterson, C. L., & Mandeville, T. F. (1997). A

generational model for professional development. Educational

Leadership, 55(3), 56–59.


Chene, A., & Sigouin, R. (1997). Reciprocity and older learners.

Educational Gerontology, 23, 253–272.

Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ professional

development: A solitary or collegial (ad)venture? Teaching

and Teacher Education, 16(1), 81–101.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive

apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and

mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and

instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Davies, M. A., Brady, M., Rodger, E., & Wall, P. (1999). Mentors

and school-based partnership: Ingredients for professional

growth. Action in Teacher Education, 21(1), 85–96.

Dillon, R. S., & Stines, P. W. (1996). A Phenomenological study

of faculty–student caring interactions. Journal of Nursing

Education, 35, 113–118.

Fairbanks, C. M., Freedman, D., & Kahn, C. (2000). The role of

effective mentors in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher

Education, 51(2), 102–112.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach:

Lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of

Teacher Education, 52(1), 17–30.

Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001).

Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of

professional development in mathematics. American Educa-

tional Research Journal, 38(3), 653–689.

Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of

educational change (2nd ed). New York: Teachers College

Press.

Gallagher, K. L., & Ford, K. J. (2002). 90min a day aims to

create a new culture. Journal of Staff Development, 23(4),

65–68.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., &

Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development

effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.

American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

Glass, N., & Walter, R. (2000). An experience of peer mentoring

with student nurses: Enhancement of personal and profes-

sional growth. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(4), 1–6.

Gottesman, B. (2000). Peer coaching for educators. Lanham, MD:

Scarecrow Press.

Grams, K., Kosowski, M. M., & Wilson, C. (1997). Creating a

caring community in nursing education. Nurse Educator, 22,

10–16.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a

theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record,

103(6), 942–1012.

Hall, J. K., & Davis, J. (1995). What we know about the

relationships that develop between cooperating and student

teachers. Foreign Language Annuals, 28, 32–48.

Hasbrouck, J. E., & Christen, M. H. (1997). Providing peer

coaching in inclusive classrooms: A tool for consulting

teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 172–177.

Hausman, C. S., & Goldring, E. B. (2001). Sustaining teacher

commitment: The role of professional communities. Peabody

Journal of Education, 76(2), 30–51.

Hawkey, K. (1997). Roles, responsibilities, and relationships in

mentoring: A literature review and agenda for research.

Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 325–335.

Hertzog, H. S. (2002). When, how, and who do I ask for help?:

Novices’ perceptions of problems and assistance. Teacher

Education Quarterly, 29(3), 25–41.

Huffman, J. B. (2000). One school’s experience as a professional

learning community. Planning and Changing, 31(1/2), 84–94.

Hunter, B. (2001). Against the odds: Professional development

and innovation under less-than-ideal conditions. Journal of

Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4), 473–496.

Hurst, B., & Reding, G. (2002). Teachers mentoring teachers. Phi

Delta Kappa Fastbacks, 493, 7–42.

Jarveka, S., Bonk, C. J., & Lehtinen, E. (1999). A theoretical

analysis of social interactions in computer-based learning

environments: Evidence for reciprocal understandings. Jour-

nal of Educational Computing Research, 21(3), 363–388.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff

development (rev. ed). White Plains, NY: Longman, Inc.

Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1996). Models of teaching (5th ed). Boston,

MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Keedy, J. L. (1999). Examining teacher instructional leadership

within the small group dynamics of collegial groups. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 15(7), 785–799.

Kleine-Kracht, P. A. (1993). The principal in a community of

learning. Journal of School Leadership, 3(4), 391–399.

Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the

mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of

innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Re-

view of Educational Research, 67(2), 227–266.

Kohler, F. W., Crilley, K. M., & Shearer, D. D. (1997). Effects of

peer coaching on teacher and student outcomes. The Journal

of Educational Research, 90, 240–250.

Kohler, F. W., Ezell, H. K., & Paluselli, M. (1999). Promoting

changes in teachers’ conduct of student pair activities: An

examination of reciprocal peer coaching. The Journal of

Special Education, 33(3) 154–165+.

Korinek, L. A., & McLaughlin, V. L. (1996). Preservice

preparation for interdisciplinary collaboration: The Interven-

tion Assistance Teaming Project. Contemporary Education,

68, 41–44.

Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (1993). An emergent framework for

analyzing a school-based professional community. Proceedings

of the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Atlanta, GA.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate

peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

Lee, M. E. (1999). Distance learning as ‘‘learning by doing’’.

Educational Technology and Society, 2(3) Available online

http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_99/mary_e_lee.html.

Little, J. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation:

Workplace conditions of school success. American Educa-

tional Research Journal, 19, 325–340.

Little, J. W. (1994). Teachers’ professional development in a

climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and

Policy Analysis, 15, 129–151.

Lohman, M. C. (2000). Environmental inhibitors to informal

learning in the workplace: A case study of public school

teachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(2), 83–101.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E.

(1998). Designing professional development for teachers of

science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Manouchehri, A. (2001). Collegial interaction and reflective

practice. Action in Teacher Education, 22(4), 86–97.

McCotter, S. S. (2001). Collaborative groups as professional

development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6),

685–704.

http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_99/mary_e_lee.html


Moore-Johnson, S. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in

our schools. New York: Basic Books.

Mouza, C. (2002). Learning to teach with new technology:

Implications for professional development. Journal of Re-

search on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272–289.

Nisan-Nelson, P. D. (2001). Technology integration: A case of

professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 9(1), 83–103.

Orr, J. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: War

stories and community memory in a service culture. In D. S.

Middleton, & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective remembering:

Memory in society (pp. 169–189). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications.

Palmer, P. J. (1993). Good talk about good teaching. Change,

25(6), 8–13.

Pieronek, F. T. (2001). Inservice project: Upper primary Brunei

Darussalam teachers’ responses to using four specific reading

strategies. The Reading Teacher, 54(5), 522–532.

Rogers, B. (1999). Conflicting approaches to curriculum:

Recognizing how fundamental beliefs can sustain or sabotage

school reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(1), 29–67.

Rossman, G. B. (1984). I owe you one: Considerations of role

and reciprocity in a study of graduate education for school

administrators. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 15(3),

225–234.

Russell, A. L., & Cohen, L. M. (1997). The reflective colleague in

email cyberspace: A means for improving university instruc-

tion. Computers and Education, 29, 137–145.

Rust, F. O. (1999). Professional conversations: New teachers

explore teaching through conversation, story, and narrative.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(4), 367–380.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1998). Individual and social aspects

of learning. In P. Pearson, & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of

research in education, Vol. 23 (pp. 1–24). Washington, DC:

American Educational Research Association.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1994). The

relationship between technological innovation and collegial

interaction ACOT Research Report No. 13. Cupertino, CA:

Apple Computer, Inc.

Sandholtz, J. H., & Wasserman, K. (2001). Student and

cooperating teachers: Contrasting experiences in teacher

preparation programs. Action in Teacher Education, 23(3),

54–65.

Selwyn, N. (2000). Creating a ‘‘connected’’ community? Tea-

chers’ use of an electronic discussion group. Teachers College

Record, 102(4), 750–778.

Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational

Leadership, 42(7), 43–48.

Silva, D. Y., & Tom, A. R. (2001). The moral basis of mentoring.

Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(2), 39–52.

Smylie, M. A. (1989). Teachers’ views of the effectiveness of

sources of learning to teach. Elementary School Journal, 84,

543–558.

Swan, K., Holmes, A., Vargas, J., Jennings, S., Meier, E., &

Rubenfeld, L. (2000). Situated professional development and

technology integration: The CATIE mentoring program. In:

Proceedings of ED-MEDIA: World conference on educa-

tional multimedia/hypermedia & educational telecommunica-

tion, Quebec, Montreal.

Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Understand-

ing teaching in context. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin,

& J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding. Chal-

lenges for policy and practice (pp. 167–206). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Terehoff, I. I. (2002). Elements of adult learning in teacher

professional development. NASSP Bulletin, 86, 65–77.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher

psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Waugh, M. L., Levin, J. A., & Smith, K. (1994). Organizing

electronic network-based instructional interactions: Success-

ful strategies and tactics, Part 1. The Computing Teacher,

21(5), 21–22.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning,

and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Zahorik, J. A. (1987). Teachers’ collegial interaction: An

exploratory study. The Elementary School Journal, 87(4),

385–396.

Documents

The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings