The New Educator ISSN: 1547-688X (Print) 1549-9243 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utne20 Mentoring “Inside” and “Outside” the Action of Teaching: A Professional Framework for Mentoring Wendy Gardiner To cite this article: Wendy Gardiner (2017) Mentoring “Inside” and “Outside” the Action of Teaching: A Professional Framework for Mentoring, The New Educator, 13:1, 53-71, DOI: 10.1080/1547688X.2016.1258849 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2016.1258849 Published online: 28 Nov 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 45 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utne20 Download by: [FU Berlin] Date: 17 January 2017, At: 12:45 THE NEW EDUCATOR 2017, VOL. 13, NO. 1, 53–71 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2016.1258849 Mentoring “Inside” and “Outside” the Action of Teaching: A Professional Framework for Mentoring Wendy Gardiner Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, Washington, USA ABSTRACT This study seeks to contribute to the research on mentored induction by investigating the practices mentors employ in their work with new teachers in two high-need, high-poverty urban elementary schools. Informed by Schwille’s (2008) temporal framework of “educative” mentoring practices occurring “inside” and “outside” the action of teaching, this study investigated the range of practices mentors employed, new teachers’ perceptions of the practices, and if the practices contributed to new teachers’ professional learning. Participants included six new teachers and two induction mentors. Results indicate that “inside” and “outside” mentoring practices are complementary and should be conceived as assisted performance and judiciously selected to promote productive changes in new teachers’ practice. Recommendations for mentoring programs are provided. While 80% of new teachers have mentors, the effectiveness of mentoring to improve teaching and learning varies widely, largely due to how mentoring is conceived and implemented (Kardos & Moore Johnson, 2010; Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 2010). To increase the potential for mentored induction to make a serious and sustained difference in new teachers’ professional development, more nuanced conceptualizations of mentoring (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008) and more examples of effective mentoring are needed (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Wang & Odell, 2002). This call is particularly salient for high-need contexts where the mentoring practices implemented tend to be the least likely to improve teaching and learning (Kardos & Moore Johnson, 2010; Wei et al., 2010). The purpose of this study is to contribute to research on mentored induction by investigating the practices mentors employ in their work with new teachers in two high-need, high-poverty elementary schools. Questions guiding this study include the following: (a) What types of mentoring practices do mentors employ? (b) What are new teachers’ perceptions of these practices? and (c) Do the practices employed contribute to new CONTACT Wendy Gardiner gardinwl@plu.edu Assistant Professor, Literacy, School of Education and Kinesiology, Pacific Lutheran University, 12180 Park Ave. S., Tacoma, WA 98447, USA. © 2017 CCNY and ATE 54 W. GARDINER teachers’ professional learning? This study is informed by Schwille’s (2008) temporal framework of mentoring practices, mentoring “inside” and “outside” the act of teaching—a set of practices oriented towards instructional improvement. This study extends Schwille’s work by drawing upon and analyzing the experiences and insights of both mentors and new teachers. Furthermore, this study emphasizes that “inside” and “outside” should be conceived as complementary practices. Conceptual framework Feiman-Nemser (1998) developed and refers to (2001b; Norman & FeimanNemser, 2005) the construct of “educative mentoring” to conceptualize mentoring as individualized professional learning aimed at instructional improvement. Educative mentoring is a departure from the prototypical conceptualization of mentoring as a short-term intervention geared towards socialization and retention (see Wang & Odell, 2002). Instead, educative mentoring situates mentoring as part of a continuum of ongoing teacher professional development and is enacted to improve new teacher, and ultimately student, learning (Feiman-Nemser, 1998, 2001a; Gardiner, 2011, 2012; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008). Educative mentoring is predicated upon social learning theories postulating that learning is situated, collaborative, and scaffolded (John-Steiner, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998). To this end, mentors spend extensive time in new teachers’ classrooms to understand the classroom context and new teachers’ practice. Then, mentors apply their contextual understanding to help new teachers set professional goals. Subsequently, mentors scaffold new teachers’ professional learning, helping them learn in and from their practice through reflection, analysis, problem solving, and other forms of assisted performance (Athanases & Achinstein, 2003; Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Gardiner, 2011, 2012; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005). Schwille (2008) offers a temporal framework of “inside” and “outside” the action of teaching to describe a range of mentoring practices reflecting an educative stance. This framework was derived from an analysis of the mentoring practices that occurred within 26 mentor–novice pairs in the United States, England, and China. In this study, mentors were observed and interviewed to identify a range of practices they employed and the salience of those practices. From that analysis, mentoring practices were identified as occurring “inside” and “outside” the action of teaching. “Inside” the action mentoring occurs when teachers are working with students. “Outside” the action mentoring occurs before or after instruction. The “inside” the action mentoring practices identified include stepping in, collaborative teaching, and demonstration teaching. These practices are predicated on a belief that some learning is better supported in “real time” via intentional scaffolding. Examples of stepping in include brief consultation THE NEW EDUCATOR 55 during a lesson, when the mentor literally “steps in” and takes over a portion of the lesson and/or when the mentor provides nonverbal cues and feedback during a lesson. Collaborative teaching involves teaching together in a predetermined fashion. Demonstration teaching is a planned event that includes an observational focus. The “outside” the action practices identified include brief interactions, debriefing sessions, co-planning lessons, analyzing videotapes, journal writing, and demonstration teaching (the one practice identified as potentially occurring “inside” and/or “outside”). Brief interactions are quick conversations that occur on an ad hoc basis, such as during hallway transitions or other moments when the teacher is not providing instruction—the benefit deriving from accumulated conversations over time, as opposed to a single encounter. Debriefing sessions are longer, regularly scheduled sessions for guided in-depth reflection and analysis on teaching and learning that connect new teachers’ classroom practice with their movement towards attaining their professional goals. Co-planning is the joint construction of lessons and learning activities, as well as providing feedback on lesson plans. Videotape analysis entails viewing and analyzing a specific type of teaching or strategy being enacted. Journal writing includes recording and responding to questions and insights. Demonstration teaching is the modeling of practices during debriefing sessions when students were not present. Schwille’s (2008) analysis of these mentoring practices indicated that induction mentoring was more prevalent “outside” the action of teaching and that not all mentors employed all “inside” practices. Importantly, Schwille maintains that the “inside/outside” framework does not suggest that one form is preferable to the other. Rather, “inside” and “outside” are both important spaces in which professional growth can be supported. Furthermore, the framework can offer a broader conceptualization of mentoring possibilities, and a language of practice to specify a range of practices from which mentors can judiciously choose. Methods Context Data were drawn from a larger study that took place at two K–8 schools located in a large metropolitan Midwestern public school district. As part of district reform initiatives, both schools were closed at the end of the academic year and reopened in the subsequent fall with a new, reform-oriented leadership. The student population remained the same. At Porter and Ellington, respectively, 98% and 99% of the students were African American, and 99% and 100% received free or reduced lunch. There were approximately 300 students at Porter and 500 at Ellington. 56 W. GARDINER The newly hired principals interviewed teachers and replaced most of the faculty, recruiting extensively from an Urban Teacher Residency (UTR) program. Approximately half the faculty at both schools consisted of first-year teachers. There was a total of five first-year teachers at “Porter” and 10 at “Ellington,” all graduates of the UTR program. The UTR program was a collaboration between a large metropolitan school system, a local university, and an educational management organization that spanned recruitment, teacher preparation, and induction. The UTR recruited socially motivated candidates who wanted to teach in high-need urban schools. Theory and practice were integrated through a one-year “residency” with mentor teachers at district “training academies” while residents took graduatelevel coursework leading to a master’s degree and certification. To help support a more seamless transition between the pre- and in-service portions of the UTR program, all induction mentors were familiarized with the UTR preparation program. In addition, towards the end of the residency year all mentors observed residents and facilitated a series of professional development sessions. Furthermore, as residents approached program completion, the UTR helped residents obtain teaching positions, primarily in turnaround schools. To this end, principals observed residents teach in their training academies, were informed of the mentoring model (described below) and met with induction coaches. Hiring principals agreed to 2 years of site-based mentoring and understood that mentoring was intended to support professional learning and was not to be evaluative. Mentoring (referred to as coaching in this context) was site based and predicated on a collaborative, inquiry-based model aimed towards instructional improvement. Coaches were hired by the UTR and were “full release,” meaning they were released from their teaching responsibilities in order to work exclusively with new teachers. Coaches supported new teachers in the following grade-level bands: K–2, 3–5, and 6–8. To qualify for a coaching position, applicants were required to have at least 5 years of urban teaching experience within the grade-level bands in which they would coach and to be able to demonstrate and discuss principles of student-centered and rigorous instruction. Coaches received professional development prior to working with new teachers and attended half-day bimonthly staff meetings. Coaching was conceptualized in educative terms and included preparing coaches to enact the following: collect observational data, facilitate reflective and analytical conversations, negotiate challenging conversations and help new teachers collect and analyze a variety of data in order to inform instruction. Staff meetings typically included receiving program updates, problem solving, and discussing and refining coaching practices. The “inside/outside” framework was not used for professional development. THE NEW EDUCATOR 57 Participants Participants in the study included coaches and new teachers. Participants included two coaches, one primary (K–2) and one intermediate (3–5), and the six first-year teachers they mentored. Participants were female and ages ranged from 24–36. Participation was voluntary and all names are pseudonyms. Both coaches were Caucasian and previously taught in high-poverty urban schools. It was the primary coach’s first year coaching and the intermediate coach’s second year. The primary coach previously taught for 6 years in the first through eighth grades. Her last 3 years were in primary grades. The primary coach worked with five first-year teachers and nine second-year teachers. The intermediate coach taught for 7 years in the fifth and sixth grades. The intermediate coach worked with five first-year teachers and 10 second-year teachers. Four of the first-year teachers were African American and two were Caucasian. Two new teachers taught at Porter. “Meagan” taught second grade and “Cara” taught fifth grade. Four new teachers taught at Ellington. “Abbey” taught kindergarten. “Sandra” taught second grade. “Anya” taught third grade. “Jaymyne” taught fourth grade. The three K–2 teachers worked with the primary-level coach, and the three 3–5 teachers worked with the intermediate coach. Data collection & analysis Data included interviews, observations, and coaching documents. I conducted three individual, in-depth interviews (Seidman, 1998) with each participant—fall, winter, and spring. Teachers were asked to describe and elaborate upon (a) their teaching goals and if coaching helped them meet/move towards their goals, (b) their experiences with and perceptions of coaching, (c) the extent to which coaching did or did not influence their teaching and learning, (d) how or if coaching practices changed over the course of the year, and (e) what an induction coach should or should not do to support new teachers’ learning. Finally, teachers were asked to provide their recommendations for improving induction coaching. Coaches were asked to describe and elaborate upon (a) a typical coaching day and how that changed over the year, (b) the most prevalent type(s) of coaching and how or if that changed over time, (c) most and least useful coaching practices, and (d) challenges associated with coaching. Finally, coaches were asked to provide their recommendations for improving induction coaching and state what advice they would give to a new coach. Following each interview, interviews were transcribed and returned to participants for their review in order to enhance credibility (Glesne, 2005) and to inform subsequent interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). I conducted a total of 18 classroom observations in the fall, winter, and spring. Observations were scheduled after each interview and conducted to observe coaching activities, classroom instruction, and coaches’ actions while in 58 W. GARDINER classrooms. Observations lasted between 30–60 minutes and were typically scheduled when the coach was also in the classroom. In addition, after completing classroom observations, I also “shadowed” both coaches for a minimum of a half-day during the fall, winter, and spring of the academic year. During observations, I took descriptive data to capture analytic insights and impressions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Coaching documents were also analyzed. Coaching documents included coaches’ logs that described interactions with new teachers. These documents detailed the session focus (e.g., literacy, management), time spent working with new teachers, and types of interactions that occurred (e.g., reflective dialogue, demonstration teaching, co-planning). Data analysis was ongoing and inductive. After each interview/observation cycle, data were first coded according to the categorizations “inside” and “outside” the action. The initial codes, “inside” and “outside,” were intentionally broad and facilitated the next coding level that identified particular practices. Next, I created a matrix to facilitate analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) that indicated the identified practices, participants’ perspectives of that form of coaching, and the time of year in which that form occurred. Results Coaches in this study employed 8 of the 10 mentoring practices Schwille (2008) described—journal writing and co-teaching did not occur. Peer observations were an additional practice identified in this study. Both coaches implemented the same practices along a similar timeframe with one exception. The primary coach engaged in one instance of demonstration teaching in a second-grade classroom. The intermediate coach offered to demonstration teach, but new teachers requested other forms of support. What follows is a description of the “outside” and “inside” practices that occurred, the general timeline in which these practices occurred, and new teachers’ and coaches’ perceptions of those practices. “Outside” practices include brief interactions, data collection and debriefing, resource procurement and co-planning, video analysis, and peer observation. “Inside” practices included stepping in and one occurrence of demonstration teaching. “Outside” practices Brief interactions Brief interactions occurred regularly throughout the year. Coaches stated that they sought to connect daily with new teachers in person when they were in the same school and via e-mail, phone calls, instant messaging, or texting when they were in different schools. Coaches indicated that they employed brief interactions to see how new teachers were doing (instructionally and emotionally), to THE NEW EDUCATOR 59 provide advice or assistance, and to develop a more comprehensive picture of teaching and learning in individual classrooms. Even though new teachers’ preparation occurred in urban schools, each new teacher stated that the first months in their turnaround schools was rife with challenge as they sought to establish a productive teaching and learning climate. At the beginning of the year, each new teacher stated that she was “overwhelmed,” “barely hanging in,” “emotionally drained,” and “unprepared for the range of behaviors and needs.” The intermediate coach referred to mentoring at this point as “triage” and explained, “[T]eachers have students exhibiting behaviors they don’t know what to do with or have never seen.… Quick conversations provide non-threatening support and advice.” Throughout the year, coaches continued to initiate brief interactions on a daily to near-daily basis. The primary coach explained that school days and events were unpredictable and brief interactions were a means to “quickly check in to see if something came up with a student, schedule, or other issue that they might want me to help them with.” New teachers noted that brief interactions with coaches provided advice and assistance on immediate student, curricular, and scheduling concerns, which helped them respond to the complexities of being a teacher of record. Reflecting her colleagues’ statements, Jasmyne elaborated: [Intermediate coach] is great about coming in and asking, “Do you need anything?” Especially when [the] schedules change and we find out last minute. Or, we’ll talk in passing in the hallway. She’ll come by and say something really quick to me… See if I need extra copies, help with a student…that’s not what I expect a coach to do. Something as small as that makes a huge difference. The intermediate coach indicated that ongoing brief interactions lets “teachers see they can reach out anytime with anything, even if they think it sounds silly.” The primary coach concurred and explained that sustained brief interactions “build trust and shows that I’m there for them.” Furthermore, coaches explained that brief interactions provided additional observational data about teaching and learning that augmented scheduled classroom observations. The primary coach explained, “When I check-in quickly, I can see how things are going. I can see if there is something I may need to follow up in a quick conversation or more extensively in debriefing sessions.” While brief interactions served immediate needs, coaches also described an important cumulative effect. Both coaches explained that ongoing brief interactions fostered trust and demonstrated investment in and contribution to new teachers’ growth. Coaches further explained that trust and investment were “foundational” to the coaching process and provided a relational context that made it possible for them to have, as the primary coach stated, “hard conversations about teaching and learning.” 60 W. GARDINER Data collection & debriefing sessions Throughout the year, coaches scheduled weekly formal classroom observations and debriefing sessions. A recurrent coaching pattern was followed. Coaches and new teachers would establish a focus for their joint work. Examples include increasing instructional rigor and transitioning from whole-class instruction initiated at the beginning of the year to smallgroup, differentiated instruction—a transition new teachers were struggling to enact. In this regard, between October and June, each new teacher set goals that included implementing/refining Guided Reading, Math Centers, and/or Writing Workshop. Once a goal was identified, coaches and new teachers determined an action plan for how coaches would support new teachers’ learning while they were in the classroom and during subsequent debriefing sessions. For example, one coach and new teacher decided to focus on increasing rigor. Prior to the observation, the coach and new teacher decided to have the coach create a two-columned table identifying higher and lower order questions. During the lesson, the coach transcribed the language the new teacher used in the appropriate column. Then, during the debriefing session, the coach followed a protocol (described below) employed to guide analysis and to identify the next instructional steps. At the end of the debriefing session, a subsequent observation was scheduled and an observational focus was identified and agreed upon. Debriefing sessions typically lasted 45–60 minutes. These sessions began with coaches restating the instructional focus/goal and providing a short recap of what they observed in order to guide new teachers’ thoughts back to the classroom visit. Then, coaches followed a conversational protocol developed to solicit new teachers’ analysis and reflection. The protocol was sequenced as follows: What went well? What were the challenges? What next steps are needed? What support do you need? Debriefing sessions consistently closed with scheduling the next observation, the focus for the observation, how coaches would engage while in the room, and any other next steps that could enhance new teachers’ professional growth (i.e., follow up observations, resource procurement, etc.). In this manner an iterative cycle was established —classroom observations were explicitly linked to subsequent debriefing sessions, which informed future action. Coaches explained that starting with “What went well?” was important for several reasons. To begin, when new teachers articulated successes, it allowed them to recognize their strengths so that they could repeat their successes. Additionally, it helped new teachers to have a more balanced image of their performance and to recognize professional growth. Coaches also stated that when new teachers identify success, it put them in a better frame of mind to analyze and discuss challenges. THE NEW EDUCATOR 61 By subsequently analyzing the “challenges,” “next steps,” and “support needed,” new teachers and coaches explained that they were able to jointly and “objectively” deconstruct a lesson, identify where “breakdowns occurred,” “brainstorm,” “problem solve” and co-construct an action plan. In this manner, coaches indicated that new teachers were positioned as active constructors of professional knowledge. Meagan explained: Debriefing with [a primary coach] slows you down, really gets yourself in a mindset to reflect. I don’t know if I would make that time if someone wasn’t there keeping me accountable. And, you have a more experienced mind to help you think though things, where I might hit a dead-end. Sandra, Meagan, Cara, Abbey, and Jasmyne each explained that, while they may have reflected on their practice, without the guidance of a more experienced coach, reflection and analysis may not have led to productive ends. Jasmyne elaborated, “When you sit by yourself, you say, ‘That bombed! I wonder why that bombed!’ When you have your coach, you can sit down and go step by step.” Coaches believed that debriefing sessions, over time, helped new teachers build a stronger sense of their own professional acumen and the capacity to learn in and from their teaching. The intermediate coach explained: Our conversations are reflective. It’s using facilitative techniques to get them to come up with an idea or come up with the solution to the problem. So, when we sit back and actually look at what happened in that lesson, they are willing to make changes because they realize that they can make changes. Coaches and new teachers stated that debriefing sessions, and the observations upon which they were predicated, required a substantial time commitment. Yet, in individual interviews, each coach and new teacher indicated that debriefing sessions were the practice that most supported new teachers’ learning. The primary coach stated, “Debriefing sessions are the heart of coaching. It gets them to be reflective.” Coaches explained that by consistently following a protocol designed to engage in reflection, analysis, and problem solving, new teachers were not only supported to solve their immediate dilemmas but that reflective and analytical habits of practice were also reinforced. The intermediate coach explained, “It gets them in the habit of reflection…I’m not always going to be there.” Initially, four of the new teachers indicated that they did not want to commit time, in already time-crunched schedules, to weekly debriefing sessions. However, in both winter and spring interviews when new teachers were asked what type of coaching was most significant for her professional learning, each referred to debriefing sessions. Reflecting her colleagues’ views, Anaya said: You are constantly on the move. By the end of the day, you’re exhausted. Our [debriefing] sessions help me, make me think about my practice, how it’s working, how it can change. It’s really moved my practice forward…and helped me achieve my goals. 62 W. GARDINER Resource procurement & co-planning Resource procurement and co-planning were integrated practices that started in September and continued through the end of the school year. Decisions pertaining to resource procurement and co-planning were made during the “next steps” portion of the debriefing sessions. Based on new teachers’ needs, coaches procured resources to build background knowledge and/or to help new teachers implement a selected practice in their context. For example, when Sandra began to implement guided reading, she found that, while she taught second grade, most of her students required instruction “at Pre-K and K reading levels.” She stated that she completed her residency year in a thirdgrade classroom, and she did not have the background knowledge or materials to teach her students at their current literacy levels. Sandra described how her coach brought in print resources and videos for review and discussion (further described in video analysis section below), lesson-plan templates for co-planning, and books that reflected students’ reading levels. The primary coach explained that she sought to support Sandra by building background and knowledge pertaining to early literacy by jointly reading portions of professional books and viewing videos of guided reading. Then, they would discuss implementation in ways that reflected Sandra’s classroom context, would review student materials, and would co-plan lessons. Once lessons were planned, Sandra and her coach would schedule subsequent observations to be the basis for the next debriefing session. New teachers consistently indicated that, while they found their teacher preparation to be comprehensive, they were not prepared for the academic challenges and the wide range of differentiation required in order to respond to students’ needs. To illustrate, each new teacher stated that they struggled to implement the types of small-group, student-centered instruction that they learned in their teacher-preparation programs because of the range of student behaviors and skill levels. Anaya’s statement reflected her colleagues’ experiences, “It was shocking that some of my [third-grade] students were at a Pre-K reading level. It was shocking that some of my kids couldn’t write sentences.” In addition to the wide ranges in academic skills, new teachers stated that most students’ also lacked prior experience working collaboratively or in small groups. Jasmyne explained: It gets overwhelming. Looking at the pacing guide and my students. [Co-planning] brings my anxiety level down. Well, maybe they’re not ready for partner activities yet. Or, they aren’t ready for this concept because they need something else first. I think big picture, but [intermediate coach] helps to bring me it back. We plan the baby steps to get them there. In this manner, new teachers explained the importance of having a coach help them co-plan to differentiate instruction and to build students’ background knowledge and collaborative skills. THE NEW EDUCATOR 63 The primary coach described the interconnected approach between resource procurement, co-planning, and observation, “A teacher wanted more support around read alouds. We spent time doing professional readings about read alouds, spent time planning read alouds. Then I’d observe her read alouds.” Both coaches maintained that if resource procurement and co-planning were to lead to a “change in practice” rather than a change in the single lesson, these practices needed to be integrated into a larger coaching cycle of observation and reflection. Video analysis Starting after January, coaches and four new teachers engaged in video analysis. Video analysis occurred in two different ways: analyzing a practice taught by another person and analyzing one’s own teaching. As previously described, two primary teachers asked their coach to work with them on implementing guided reading. The primary coach brought in videos of that practice. Sandra explained, “We have watched videos of guided reading lessons. I’ve watched a video of my grade level partner doing this. I’m a visual learner. I need examples.” When Sandra, Meagan, and Jasmyne discussed viewing videos of a practice with their coach, they explained that they were able to deconstruct and identify the various aspects of a complex practice. Then, they worked with their coach to co-plan, to implement, and to analyze their own guided reading practice. The intermediate coach thought that viewing and analyzing a practice was an effective way to get teachers to take instructional risks. During the winter interview, she explained the salience of facilitating video analysis and peer observations (discussed next), “They have grown so much in their practice. Now, they’re starting to get comfortable. I want to push them. They’re ready for it. Seeing these practices in action helps them take that next step.” Two new teachers had their coach video their own teaching. Meagan and Anaya explained that the process of watching and discussing videos with their coach helped them to identify their strengths and areas for growth, to fine tune their teaching, and to provide insights into their own practice. Meagan stated: There are so many pieces…the way I ask a question, how students are engaged, the tone I use, the way I’m positioned that maybe the students can’t see. So many different little things that matter a lot. It’s made a huge impact seeing it for myself and discussing it with [primary coach]. The intermediate coach explained that part of the power of analyzing a video of one’s own teaching was that the coach’s interpretation during data collection was taken out of the equation. She stated, “Video is right there without bias attached. A teacher is able to see what they are actually doing while they are teaching. It holds the data within a real life example.” Even though both coaches stated that video was a highly useful tool, they explained that many of their new teachers were uncomfortable with that 64 W. GARDINER practice. As such, coaches indicated that they did not press too hard when new teachers stated they did not want to be videotaped. Peer observations Between January and May, both coaches facilitated observations in another new teacher’s classroom. For example, Jasmyne, the fourth-grade teacher at Ellington, wanted to implement math centers. The intermediate coach scheduled an observation in Cara’s classroom, the new fifth-grade teacher at Porter, who had been employing math centers. Together, Jasmyne and her coach observed Cara’s instruction, debriefed afterwards and determined how best to sequence a plan for Jasmyne to implement centers. This same process was followed when other new teachers engaged in peer observation. Of the four new teachers who observed a colleague, each felt that it was highly beneficial and that they came away with ideas and a process for implementing those practices in their own classroom. Both coaches believed facilitating peer observation was an important coaching practice. The intermediate coach stated that it was “more powerful when new teachers observed another new teacher” because they could see a novice implementing a practice they struggled to enact. The primary coach elaborated, “I think the buy-in from them is greater, when they see a practice working for a peer, right now in a school just like mine.” Furthermore, coaches maintained that for peer observation to be productive, coaches needed to co-observe and discuss nuances of practice and to integrate insights from the observation into subsequent coaching activities such as co-planning, observations, and debriefing sessions. “Inside” practices Stepping in Stepping in occurred intermittently in each classroom throughout the year and tended to be subtle. Stepping in at the beginning of the year was most frequently a quiet classroom-management intervention involving one or a few students. As the year progressed, stepping in was oriented towards instruction, typically a quiet exchange between the coach and teacher to get a lesson back on more solid footing. Less frequently, stepping in was what I will refer to as a “quick interjection” intended to facilitate a minor adjustment to a lesson in progress. Coaches did not step in and take over portions of a lesson. Particularly at the beginning of the year, stepping in was a management intervention in which coaches sought to redirect behavior through the use of proximity, a quiet whisper, or a “look.” Coaches explained their subtle stance, stating that new teachers were struggling to manage their classroom and that they did not want to usurp the authority the new teachers were attempting to establish. The primary coach explained, “When you step in and redirect a THE NEW EDUCATOR 65 student you don’t want to take the power away from the teacher… I try to step in a little bit more in the background.” During fall interviews, new teachers stated that classroom management was their greatest concern at the beginning of the year. New teachers stated the subtle management interventions at the beginning of the year were “extremely helpful” and helped buoy them through the turbulent transition into being the teacher of record in a turnaround school. Beginning around November, stepping in was increasingly employed to influence instruction and can be conceptualized in what will be referred to as “subtle interventions” and “quick interjections.” At times, when coaches saw a lesson was starting to veer off course or that a minor adjustment would make a solid lesson better, coaches would pass a post-it with a suggestion, provide nonverbal cues or walk around with the new teacher having a quick whispered conversation. On a few occasions, coaches interjected into a lesson. When they did, it was a quick interjection such as when the primary coach asked if she could script students’ ideas on chart paper as they were brainstorming. Both coaches indicated that they employed “quick interjections” if they thought they could quickly and easily clarify an ambiguity that was causing confusion. Yet, both indicated a reticence to step in too frequently or too overtly. The intermediate coach stated that she struggled between wanting to “step in so they swim, not sink” and not wanting to appear to “take over a lesson.” Similarly, the primary coach explained that she worked hard to situate herself in a collaborative, not authoritative, role and did not want to “make it seem like my room or my way.” Coaches indicated that knowing when to step in was, as the intermediate coach stated, “a delicate dance.” They explained that they wanted to support new teachers but were wary of unintended consequences that could inhibit future coaching efforts. New teachers indicated that they appreciated the subtle interventions, as they served to help maintain order, to adjust instruction, and to assist with instructional decisions. Abbey, Anya, Cara, Jasmyne, and Sandra each stated that they preferred minimal stepping in and did not want coaches to overtly take over a lesson. They explained that while valuing some subtle interventions or interjections, they typically preferred that coaches, as Cara stated, “blend in and observe unobtrusively,” gather observational data and then problem solve during debriefing sessions. Demonstration teaching Demonstration teaching occurred in one classroom at one point in time during the winter. Meagan was seeking to transition from whole-group reading instruction to guided reading (differentiated, small-group instruction). To help Meagan make that transition, the primary coach stated, “I demonstrated a guided reading lesson for her. I typed up the lesson plan and gave it to her. I suggested what she look for when I was teaching. It put me in 66 W. GARDINER the ‘hot seat’ before she was.” Meagan discussed the impact of connecting demonstration teaching with subsequent discussions, observations, and coplanning sessions: We set the goal of implementing guided reading. [Primary coach] modeled lessons for me with my students. It blew my mind. I may think I know what it looks and sounds like, but when she modeled the lesson in my classroom, I really absorbed it. Then we co-planned and watched videos of her teaching guided reading together. It really helped me put the pieces together. Now, before she observes, we’ll talk about what part of the lesson I want her to watch, and later we’ll pull it apart, discuss what went well and what we need to improve and how. While other teachers were also working on making the shift to small-group, differentiated instruction in reading, math, and writing, no one else requested or accepted offers for classroom demonstrations. Coaches indicated that, while they offered demonstration or co-teaching, all but one new teacher, Meagan, requested other coaching practices, typically observation followed by reflection. In fact, both coaches indicated a reticence to demonstration or co-teach, indicating that facilitating a peer observation was preferable because new teachers could see a peer enacting a practice as opposed to a more experienced teacher. Perceptions of coaching Consistently, each new teacher indicated she valued working with her coach and that coaching improved her teaching. At the end of the year, each new teacher indicated that she was returning the next year, that her coach made a significant impact on her practice, and that she was looking forward to continued work with her coach. Examples of improved practice credited to coaches included increasing instructional rigor, teaching students how to work in collaborative groups, and implementing student-centered, differentiated practices like guided reading, writing workshop, and math centers. Furthermore, coaching was collaborative and individualized, which reflects research coaching stances that accelerate learning (Gardiner, 2011, 2012; Howe, 2006; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Strong, 2005). To this end, coaches described the importance of knowing new teachers’ goals, needs, and coaching preferences in order to make coaching decisions. As the primary coach emphasized, “You need a big range of practices because each teacher’s styles, needs, and personality are different. You need to make sure you can address whatever needs teachers have.” Discussion Throughout the year, a range of “outside” and “inside” practices were employed to help new teachers attain their instructional goals and to respond to pressing needs and concerns. “Outside” practices included brief interactions, data THE NEW EDUCATOR 67 collection and debriefing sessions, resource procurement and co-planning, and video analysis. An additional “outside” practice, peer observation, was also identified. “Inside” practices included stepping in and demonstration teaching in one instance. The following discussion seeks to situate “inside” and “outside” practices in complementary and more holistic ways, to analyze why “inside” the action coaching may not have been as prevalent, and to provide implications for coaches’/mentors’ professional learning. Labeling specific coaching practices as “inside” and “outside” can be simultaneously beneficial and potentially detrimental. The benefit is that labeling specific practices can expand a coach’s repertoire and create a common language that coaches and new teachers can employ in their work together. A potential limitation is that separating coaching practices into “inside” and “outside” categories and discretely labeling practices (i.e., stepping in, co-planning, debriefing) could promote misconceptions. One misconception could be a stance that one form, “inside” or “outside,” is preferable to another, whereas data in this study indicate that new teachers benefitted from a range of coaching practices. Labeling practices can also make coaching appear to be a discrete set of practices that exist in isolation from each other, whereas results from this study show that coaching practices were used in integrated ways, over time, to help new teachers attain their instructional goals. In this manner, the central work of coaches was to help new teachers identify goals to improve their practice and to apply a range of coaching practices to scaffold new teachers’ professional learning. To do so, coaches employed a range of “inside” and “outside” practices in flexible and integrated ways to help new teachers attain their instructional goals. To begin the process, goals were established early in the year. To sustain continuity, at the end of each debriefing sessions, goals were refined or new goals were set. Once goals were set, coaches and new teachers jointly determined how goals were to be attained, leading to actionable change through assisted performance. The ways in which guided reading was implemented in different classrooms illustrate the complementary nature of coaching practices, the conception of coaching as scaffolded assistance, that coaching is an individualized process informed by a knowledge of new teachers’ needs, preferences, and goals, and the need for continuity. Several new teachers set implementing guided reading as a goal. While there were guiding principles to inform how coaching unfolded, the way in which new teachers were supported to implement guided reading was determined by the new teacher–coach dyad and unfolded differently. In each case, coaches facilitated a cycle of goal identification, a path to implementation, observation, reflection, and analysis, identification of subsequent steps, and commencement of a new cycle (by refining the focus or determining a new focus). Yet, the materials (video, background reading, student materials) and experiences (co-planning, demonstration teaching, video analysis) were determined by new teachers’ needs and preferences. For example, one coach 68 W. GARDINER demonstration taught, co-planned and used video to capture Meagan’s practice when she began teaching. Whereas Sandra preferred to watch professional development and peer videos, do background reading (provided by her coach) and have her coach collect observational data when Sandra taught. The means varied but the commonalities reflective of an educative stance (Feiman-Nemser, 1998; Gardiner, 2011, 2012; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008) were that coaches (a) assisted professional learning and practice by offering a range of options to help new teachers implement guided reading, (b) observed new teachers as they implemented guided reading and (c) conducted debriefing sessions to help new teachers reflect upon and analyze their guided-reading practice and identify next steps to refine their guided-reading practice or set new instructional goals. In this regard, coaches employed multiple means (“inside” and “outside”) to provide the types of scaffolding needed to improve new teachers’ professional learning and practice. Coaching is intended to change practice, and for this to occur, as Dewey (1938) maintained, continuity is necessary. The examples demonstration teaching a guided-reading lesson, viewing a guided-reading video, or facilitating (and attending) a peer observation illustrate this point. An observation can clarify a practice and situate it within the new teacher’s or a similar context. Yet, the likelihood that the observation would manifest into the new teachers’ classroom practice is increased when discussion, problem solving, analysis, and next steps for implementation occur in a debriefing session. Additionally, subsequent observations and debriefings provide implementation support. Indeed, new teachers consistently took the next step to implement observed practices. It is questionable if new teachers would have felt or been as successful without the continuity of support offered both “inside” and “outside” the action, and the continuity was sustained over a series of observations and debriefing sessions. Reflecting Schwille’s (2008) research, “outside” practices occurred more extensively than “inside.” Stepping-in was the “inside” practice that occurred most frequently. Stepping in can occur in a range of ways from taking over a portion of a lesson to providing nonverbal cuing. In this study, stepping in was most often a quiet conference, nonverbal cue, and on rare occasions a quick interjection. At no point did coaches step in to lead or co-lead instruction. Furthermore, co-teaching did not occur and demonstration teaching occurred once. When applying an educative lens, the infrequent occurrence of “inside” practices could represent missed opportunities for coaches to provide, as Vygotsky describes (1978), the assisted performance that could more quickly scaffold new teachers’ transition to independent practice. The following explores why “inside” coaching may have occurred infrequently. Reflecting research on effective mentoring (Gardiner, 2011, 2012; Howe, 2006; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008; Strong, 2005), coaching in this study was collaborative and aimed at instructional improvement. While THE NEW EDUCATOR 69 there are many ways to support professional learning, the collaborative aspect appears to have dictated the range of mentoring practices coaches employed. Both coaches were very careful to ensure that the coaching practices implemented were desirable to new teachers. As such, one tension is to what extent can or should coaches press to enact a wider repertoire and still maintain the trust and mutual respect that research (John-Steiner, 2000) indicates is necessary in productive collaborative relationships. Additionally, mentoring “inside” the action contrasts with norms of noninterference and learning through trial and error, which research (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a; Wang & Odell, 2002) indicates many induction mentors hold. It also is a departure from the traditional model of supervision in which observation is intentionally unobtrusive. To this end, coaches may have not only taken their cues from new teachers but may have been guided by cultural norms. Similarly, coaching “inside” the action may not reflect new teachers’ prior experiences and may position them to work in ways they are not accustomed to working. It may also disrupt pervasive notions that many teachers hold about autonomy and individuality (Britzman, 2003; City, Elmore, Fiarman, Teitel, 2009; Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Goodlad, 2004). In addition, new teachers were very satisfied with the coaching they received and felt it contributed to their professional growth. They particularly valued the time to discuss, to analyze, and to reflect upon their teaching during debriefing sessions with a more experienced colleague who understood their goals and knew their context. As such, perhaps new teachers felt that they were getting what they needed, and more overt forms of coaching were unnecessary. However, it is possible that increased growth opportunities could have been fostered if a wider range of “inside” the action mentoring was employed. The limited use of “inside” practices suggests that there may have been an untapped or potentially underutilized range of mentoring strategies. As research indicates (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Feiman-Nemser, 1998, 2001a; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008), providing professional development for mentors is central to actualizing an educative stance. Furthermore, research also indicates that mentors may need to unlearn deep-seated notions of mentoring (Cochran-Smith, 2004). In this study, coaches received professional development in accordance with an educative stance, but the “inside/outside” framework was not employed. If coaches’ professional development employed the “inside/outside” framework and asked them to analyze their use of coaching practices along the temporal framework of “inside” and “outside,” would their range of practices increase? If coaches used the temporal framework to analyze and problem solve around “inside” coaching, would they be more likely to press new teachers to try more “inside” practices? The following recommendations are provided to enhance coaches’ and mentors’ professional practice reflecting an educative stance. First, use the temporal framework of “inside” and “outside” in initial professional development prior to 70 W. GARDINER work with new teachers. This can help mentors reconstruct their conceptions of effective mentoring and the roles and practices they can and should comfortably assume. Next, employ the framework during ongoing professional development as an analytical structure for mentors to analyze and evaluate the range of and rationale for the practices they employ. In this manner, mentors can develop their practice as they identify patterns and potential gaps in their mentoring. Additionally, help mentors understand the dynamic fluidity between “inside” and “outside” practices, and that the various practices are complementary. Furthermore, maintain that mentoring is a continuous process seeking to sustain productive changes in practice. Finally, help coaches develop, and problem solve around, a language of practice that can press new teachers to step outside of their comfort zones and to engage in a wider variety of mentoring practices. Educative mentoring frames teaching as complex work in which a mentor helps new teachers grapple with the intellectual and interactive aspects of teaching (Schwille, 2008). Grappling with the intellectual and interactive aspects of teaching suggests that mentoring is a comprehensive practice that can and should occur in complementary ways, over time, both inside and outside of the action of teaching. Mentoring must also be conceived of as challenging intellectual, practical, and affective work (Gardiner, 2011). To this end, mentors must be provided with robust professional development that supports their judicious implementation and integration of a range of mentoring practices sequenced to support improved learning and practice. Given the frequent underconceptualization of mentoring, particularly in high-need contexts (Kardos & Moore Johnson, 2010; Wei et al., 2010), a more robust and integrated image of and language for mentoring can increase the likelihood that mentoring will make a difference, particularly in the contexts where effective mentoring is least likely to occur. References Athanases, S., & Achinstein, B. (2003). Focusing new teachers on individual and low performing students: The centrality of formative assessment in the mentor’s repertoire of practice. Teachers College Record, 105, 1468–1520. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00298 Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Carver, C. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2009). Using policy to improve teacher education: Critical elements and missing pieces. Educational Policy, 2(23), 295–328. City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, E. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). The problem of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 295–299. doi:10.1177/0022487104268057 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Las Angeles, CA: Sage. THE NEW EDUCATOR 71 Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Teachers as teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 63–74. doi:10.1080/0261976980210107 Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001a). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013–1055. doi:10.1111/ tcre.2001.103.issue-6 Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001b). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17–30. doi:10.1177/ 0022487101052001003 Gardiner, W. (2011). New urban teachers experience induction coaching: “Moving vision toward reality.” Action in Teacher Education, 33, 359–373. doi:10.1080/01626620.2011.620525 Gardiner, W. (2012). Coaches’ and new urban teachers’ perceptions of induction coaching: Time, trust, and accelerated learning curves. The Teacher Educator, 47(3), 195–215. doi:10.1080/08878730.2012.685797 Glesne, C. (2005). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Goodlad, J. I. (2004). A place called school (20th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Howe, E. R. (2006). Exemplary teacher induction: An international review. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 287–297. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00195.x John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kardos, S. M., & Moore Johnson, S. (2010). New teachers’ experiences of mentoring: The good, the bad, and the inequity. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 23–44. doi:10.1007/ s10833-008-9096-4 Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Norman, P. J., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2005). Mind activity in teaching and mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 679–697. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.006 Schwille, S. A. (2008). The professional practice of mentoring. American Journal of Education, (115), 139–167. doi:10.1086/590678 Seidman, I. E. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Strong, M. (2005). Teacher induction, mentoring, and retention: A summary of the research. The New Educator, 1(3), 181–198. doi:10.1080/15476880590966295 Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher sociological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 481–546. doi:10.3102/ 00346543072003481 Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. National Staff Development Council and the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/news/ NSDCstudytechnicalreport2010.pdf. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.