This article was downloaded by: [Wendy Gardiner]
On: 27 June 2012, At: 12:00
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
The Teacher Educator
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20
Coaches' and New Urban
Teachers' Perceptions of
Induction Coaching: Time,
Trust, and Accelerated
Learning Curves
Wendy Gardiner
a
a
Elementary and Middle Level Teacher Education,
National Louis University
Version of record first published: 27 Jun 2012
To cite this article: Wendy Gardiner (2012): Coaches' and New Urban Teachers'
Perceptions of Induction Coaching: Time, Trust, and Accelerated Learning Curves, The
Teacher Educator, 47:3, 195-215
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2012.685797
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
The Teacher Educator, 47:195–215, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0887-8730 print/1938-8101 online
DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2012.685797
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
RESEARCH ARTICLE
COACHES’ AND NEW URBAN TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS
OF INDUCTION COACHING: TIME, TRUST, AND
ACCELERATED LEARNING CURVES
WENDY GARDINER
Elementary and Middle Level Teacher Education, National Louis University
Approximately 80% of new teachers have mentors, yet mentoring typically
fails to foster new teachers’ professional learning—particularly in high-poverty
schools. This qualitative study was situated within an urban teacher residency
context and explored how six first-year urban teachers and the two induction
mentors with whom they worked perceived and experienced induction coaching.
This study also seeks to understand the characteristics of mentored induction
(called coaching) that facilitate or impede learning. Results indicate that mentoring contributed to new teachers’ professional learning and that (a) trusting
relationships were foundational to the coaching process and developed over
time; (b) coaching was aligned with new teachers’ needs and context; and
(c) coaching was a scaffolded process that enhanced new teachers’ ability to
respond to immediate needs, as well as identify and work toward long-term
instructional goals. Insights and recommendations are provided to guide the
development of or strengthen induction programs. As mentored induction in
high-poverty schools is typically insufficiently enacted, this study depicts how
mentored induction can be conceptualized and executed in order to make a
difference in new teachers’ professional learning.
Introduction
In order to improve teaching and learning, educators and policy makers
advocate for the continued expansion of mentored induction programs
Address correspondence to Wendy Gardiner, Elementary and Middle Level
Teacher Education, National Louis University, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60603,
USA. E-mail: Wendy.gardiner@nl.edu
195
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
196
W. Gardiner
(Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Strong,
2005; Wang & Odell, 2002). Currently, approximately 80% of new
teachers have mentors, a roughly 20% increase in the last 10 years
(Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 2010).
Additionally, the reauthorization of Title II of the Teacher Quality
Partnership Grants earmarked $900 million for teacher preparation
programs such as urban teacher residencies (UTRs) that prepare teachers for high-need, high-poverty schools and provide mentoring and
induction support when teacher candidates become teachers of record
(AACTE, 2009).
Research on mentored induction indicates that mentoring can
help new teachers develop the dispositions and skills to continuously
improve both teacher and student learning (Carver & Feiman-Nemser,
2009; Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000; Wang & Odell,
2002). However, the implementation and impact of mentoring programs varies greatly (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Kardos & Moore
Johnson, 2010; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wei et al., 2010). Most mentoring programs are underfunded (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009),
unevenly implemented (Kardos & Moore Johnson, 2010; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004, Wei et al., 2010), and geared toward socialization and
emotional support, not professional learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a;
Wang & Odell, 2002). Additionally, new teachers working in highpoverty schools are least likely to receive the types of mentored induction that enhance professional learning and development (Kardos
& Moore Johnson, 2010; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wei et al., 2010).
In short, despite the proliferation of mentoring programs, most fail
to improve teaching and learning with a disproportionate rate of ineffective mentoring occurring in schools with the greatest needs. The
juxtaposition between what is possible with mentoring and what is prevalent leads researchers to state that there is a critical need to explore
and understand the types of mentored induction that improves new
teachers’ practice (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Norman & FeimanNemser, 2005; Wang, Odell, & Schwille, 2008).
The purpose of this qualitative study was to contribute to the scholarship on mentored induction. Specifically, this study explored how six
first-year urban teachers, who were UTR graduates, and the two induction mentors (referred to as coaches) with whom they worked perceived
and experienced induction coaching. Given the uneven impact of mentoring programs, especially within high-poverty, high-need schools, this
study seeks to understand the characteristics of mentored induction
that facilitate or impede professional learning for new teachers working
in such schools. Insights and recommendations are provided to guide
Induction Coaching
197
the development of or strengthen mentored induction programs within
and beyond the UTR context.
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Background
This study was situated within a UTR program—a grant supported
collaboration between a large metropolitan Midwestern urban school
district, a university, and an educational management organization that
initiated and facilitates the multi-institution partnership (for further
details see Berry et al., 2008; Gardiner & Kamm, 2010). The program
was developed to recruit, prepare, and induct socially motivated teacher
candidates into the district’s high-need urban schools. The preparation
program included graduate-level coursework leading to certification
and a master of arts in teaching; a one-year ‘‘teaching residency’’ with a
carefully selected mentor in an urban ‘‘training academy’’; and a focus
on rigorous, student-centered instruction. When teacher candidates,
called ‘‘residents,’’ neared program completion, the UTR also helped
residents secure a teaching position within district turnaround schools
lead by reform-oriented principals. Once residents became teachers of
record, 2 years of mentored induction was provided.
Coaches, employed by the UTR, provided mentored induction.
To qualify for a coaching position, applicants were expected to have a
minimum of 5 years urban teaching experience, taught in similar grade
levels as the new teachers whom they coached, and demonstrate and articulate principles of rigorous, reform-oriented instruction. Once hired,
coaches received professional development in a collaborative, inquirybased model aimed toward instructional improvement. Coaching was
site-based and coaches typically worked with new teachers three to four
times per week.
Conceptual Framework
Mentored induction can serve many purposes, and how induction is
conceptualized and executed leads to significantly different outcomes
for new teachers (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Smith & Ingersoll,
2004; Wang & Odell, 2002). Prototypically, mentoring is conceived as
short-term transitional support designed to socialize and retain new
teachers by providing technical (how to and where to) and emotional
support (Wang & Odell, 2002). More recently, there has been a call
to reconceptualize mentoring as part of a continuum of professional
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
198
W. Gardiner
learning in which mentors help new teachers use the site of practice
as a source of collaborative, sustained learning (Feiman-Nemser, 1998,
2001a, 2001b; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008; Wang &
Odell, 2002). What follows is an overview of the common orientations—
technical and emotional—toward mentored induction; a description of
‘‘educative mentoring’’ as an alternative conceptualization; and factors
that support and inhibit mentored induction.
In their macro-review of mentored induction, Wang and Odell
(2002) found that new teachers and mentors typically define mentoring
as providing technical and/or emotional support, not as developing
professional capacity. Technical support includes offering advice, recommending strategies, explaining policies and how to complete administrative tasks, and helping the new teacher ‘‘fit in.’’ Emotional support
includes providing encouragement, moral support, and a listening ear.
In short, technical support transitions new teachers into an existing system and culture, and emotional support helps new teachers feel better
in hopes that they will remain in the profession and, ultimately, develop
into effective teachers. Although technical and emotional orientations
serve to help new teachers negotiate the ‘‘transition shock’’ of being
teachers of record, neither orientation influences teaching and learning
in substantive ways (Wang & Odell, 2002).
To move mentored induction beyond technical and emotional support to impact professional learning and development, Feiman-Nemser
developed (1998) and referred to (2001b; Norman & Feiman-Nemser,
2005) the construct of ‘‘educative mentoring.’’ From an ‘‘educative’’
orientation, the purpose of mentoring is to help new teachers learn
from and in their practice and to develop the skills and habits of mind
that lead to continuous professional growth. To this end, educative
mentoring entails a strong understanding of teacher learning, a vision
of effective teaching, and carefully selected mentors who are skilled in
supporting new teachers’ learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Norman &
Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Wang & Odell, 2002; Wang et al., 2008).
Educative mentoring draws on social learning theories in which
learning is situated in context, the learner is an active constructor of
knowledge, and learning is a scaffolded experience that is sustained
over time (John-Steiner, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978;
Wenger, 1998). In practice, educative mentoring entails co-thinking,
co-planning, modeling effective practices, connecting theory to practice, problem posing and solving, providing positive and constructive feedback, supporting reflection and analysis, focusing beginning
teachers’ attention to issues they may not notice, gathering and coanalyzing data pertaining to teaching and student learning, and helping beginning teachers identify and articulate problems of practice
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Induction Coaching
199
and then using these problems as a basis for ongoing professional
learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005;
Schwille, 2008). Through these actions, mentors facilitate professional
learning by helping new teachers explore the complexity of practice
through inquiry and analysis into their teaching and develop the
habit of mind for collaboration, reflection, and continuous professional
learning.
It is important to note that mentoring from an educative stance
requires a skill base distinct from teaching, and being an effective
teacher does not equate to being an effective mentor (Feiman-Nemser,
2001a; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008). To this end,
mentors need to be carefully selected, prepared to support new teachers’ learning and foster dispositions of inquiry, and receive continued
professional development to enhance their skills. Furthermore, reflecting the situated, contextualized nature of mentoring, the likelihood for
mentoring to foster growth increases when mentors and new teachers
share similar grade levels and content areas (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004;
Youngs, 2007) and have sufficient release time to sustain joint inquiry
into teaching and learning (Schwille, 2008; Strong, 2005; Wang et al.,
2008).
Indeed, reviews of strong mentored induction programs—
programs that improve teaching and learning—indicate that sustained,
situated, collaborative inquiry is a central feature (Howe, 2006; Schwille,
2008; Strong, 2005; Wang & Odell, 2002). Unfortunately, despite the
fact that 80% of new teachers experience mentored induction (Smith
& Ingersoll, 2004; Wei et al., 2010), most programs do not qualify as
strong (Wang & Odell, 2002). In particular, new teachers working in
high-poverty schools and with students of color are the least likely to
receive the types of mentoring that contribute to professional learning
(Kardos & Moore Johnson, 2010; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wei et al.,
2010). To begin, new teachers in schools serving low-income students
and high percentages of students of color were less likely to have
a mentor than those working in more affluent schools (Wei et al.,
2010). Even if they do have a mentor, they are less likely to have
a mentor who shares their grade level or content area; less likely to
meet on a regular basis, and when they do meet, they tend not to
talk about teaching and learning (Kardos & Moore-Johnson, 2010). To
highlight the lack of continuity that prevents opportunities for sustained
interaction, Kardos and Moore-Johnson’s (2010) study of mentoring
across three states (two of which require and fund mentored induction)
found that new teachers in high-poverty schools met with mentors less
than three times in a year. Such conditions render it impossible for
mentoring to influence teaching and learning in substantive ways.
200
W. Gardiner
Methods
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Context
This study took place at two Pre-K–8 schools, ‘‘Madison’’ and ‘‘Harrison’’ (pseudonyms), during the 2008–2009 academic year. As part of
district reform initiatives, both schools were closed at the end of the
2008 academic year and reopened in the fall of 2008 with new, reformoriented leadership. The newly hired principals interviewed teachers
and replaced virtually all the faculty. There were a total of five first-year
teachers at Madison and 10 new teachers at Harrison, and approximately half the staff at both schools consisted of first-year teachers. The
student population remained the same. Madison had approximately
300 students, 99% were African American and 98% were low income.
Harrison had approximately 550 students, 98% were African American,
and 100% were low income.
As part of the UTR collaboration, the principals hired to lead
turnaround efforts at Madison and Harrison came to the training
academies to observe and interview teacher candidates—called ‘‘residents’’—in April 2008, as residents neared program completion.
Principals were informed that residents would receive 2 years of sitebased induction coaching funded by the UTR. Principals were asked,
and agreed, to include coaches in leadership meetings in order to
foster stronger coherence between coaching and school professional
development goals. Principals were informed of the coaching model,
the expectation that coaches would meet with new teachers three to
four times per week on average, and understood that coaches had a
collaborative, not evaluative or hierarchical role.
Prior to working with new teachers, coaches received professional
development in a collaborative, inquiry-based coaching model designed
to foster dispositions of reflection and analysis in order to improve
teaching and learning. Coaches were provided with tools and protocols
to use to support goal setting, collaboration, and reflection and analysis. Coaches also received ongoing professional development during
the school year to enhance their data collection skills and capacity to
foster reflective and analytical dialogue with new teachers. Coaches and
new teachers met during summer faculty sessions prior to the start
of the school year. It was emphasized that the coaching stance was
collaborative and aimed toward instructional improvement. At this time,
principals also indicated their commitment to coaching.
Induction coaches traveled between the two schools supporting
new teachers in grade-level bands K–2, 3–5, and 6–8. Throughout the
school year, coaches met with new teachers three to four times per week
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Induction Coaching
201
for classroom visits and face-to-face meetings. Additional observations
and meetings were scheduled as needed. The typical pattern for weekly
‘‘standing appointments’’ was to meet briefly to determine a focus of
the observation. The focus was set by the new teacher or in tandem
with her coach. During the observation, coaches would unobtrusively
collect observational data pertaining to that focus. Within 24 hours after
the observation, but typically on the same day, coaches and new teachers met for in-depth conversations. These conversations started with
coaches briefly recapping the events that pertained to the observational
focus, without judgment. Then, coaches solicited new teachers’ analyses
and reflections. During this time new teachers would interpret and coanalyze data, reflect on events, brainstorm ideas, and problem solve.
Each conversation ended with new teachers determining ‘‘next steps’’
for themselves (what they would do to ‘‘fine tune’’ or ‘‘strengthen’’
their practice) and articulating what support they needed to accomplish those next steps. Examples include having their coach obtain a
particular resource; coordinate a cross-classroom observation; co-lesson
plan; model a practice such as a ‘‘mini-lesson’’ or Guided Reading; or
observe a specific student, lesson or strategy.
Participants
Participants included two induction coaches and six first-year teachers
whom they supported. Participants were female and ages ranged from
24–36. Each participant self-identified as coming from a middle- to
upper-middle-class, Midwestern background. Both coaches were Caucasian and had previously taught in high-poverty urban schools. The
‘‘primary coach’’ supported three K–2 teachers, and had 6 prior years
of teaching experience. The ‘‘intermediate coach’’ supported three
3–5 teachers and had 7 prior years of teaching experience. Of the
six new teachers (see Table 1), four teachers were African American
and two were Caucasian. Participation was voluntary and all names are
pseudonyms.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data collection included interviews, observations, and field notes. I conducted three in-depth interviews (Seidman, 1998) with each participant
during the fall, winter, and spring of the 2008–2009 academic year.
Interviews typically lasted between 45–60 minutes and were conducted
onsite before, during, and/or after school hours based on participants’
202
W. Gardiner
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
TABLE 1 New Teachers’ Demographic Information
‘‘Name’’
Grade
level
School
Race
Residency
placement
Emma
Noel
Liana
Amara
Jasmine
Susan
K
2
2
3
4
5
Harrison
Madison
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Madison
Caucasian
African American
African American
African American
African American
Caucasian
K
3
2
3
4
6
requests. Informed by the literature on educative coaching (FeimanNemser, 1998, 2001b; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008)
and research indicating that new teacher induction typically attends
to new teachers’ emotional and technical needs rather than fosters
instructional growth (Wang & Odell, 2002), I developed a structured interview protocol to understand how coaches and new teachers perceived
and experienced induction coaching, how coaching unfolded over the
course of the year, and to understand the types of coaching interactions
that occurred. While I followed the protocol, at times I also asked
additional probing or clarifying questions in order to delve deeper
into topics pertaining to the coaching experience. After each interview,
interviews were transcribed, and transcripts and interim analyses were
returned to participants for their review and to inform subsequent
interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).
I also conducted a total of 34 observations. Observations were
scheduled after each interview in the fall, winter, and spring. Eighteen
classroom observations were scheduled (three with each new teacher) in
order to gain an understanding of the classroom context, both instructionally and relationally; how that context changed over time; and see
the extent to which the ideas and practices discussed during coaching
conversations (either described or observed) were being implemented
in practice. Whenever possible, I scheduled my observations to occur
when coaches would also be in the classroom in order to observe ways
in which coaches interacted in the classrooms. Classroom observations
ranged from 30–60 minutes. I also observed two coaching sessions
(typically held after school or during preparatory periods) with coaches
and each new teacher in order to understand the coaching process, see
how it unfolded over time, to note patterns over time, and observe
for similarities and differences within the coaching process between
teachers. Finally, I shadowed each coach for a half day in the fall,
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Induction Coaching
203
winter, and spring in order to understand the range of their work,
the practices they implemented, and to talk with them in the halls and
during transitions to gather ‘‘real time’’ insights into their thinking
about coaching and their work with new teachers. During observations,
I took field notes to capture descriptive data and, as Corbin and Strauss
(2008) recommended to capture impressions and analytic insights.
Data analysis was ongoing and inductive, and occurred through
comparative analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). After each interview/observation cycle, interviews, observational, and field notes were
coded first through open coding to identify recurring regularities
and then axial coding to identify larger patterns of meaning (Corbin
& Strauss, 2008). I followed a recursive pattern of making constant
comparisons across the growing data set in order to identify and/or
clarify patterns, seek out contrasting experiences, and, ultimately,
develop tentative themes. Throughout this iterative process, ongoing
data comparisons served to check the veracity of developing themes
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Additionally,
member checks were conducted to increase credibility (Glesne, 2005).
Results
Trust: The ‘‘Foundation’’ of a Coaching Relationship
New teachers and coaches consistently emphasized that trusting relationships were foundational to the coaching process. New teachers
reflected that it took time for trust to develop. Reflecting her colleagues’
statements, Noel said it took time to realize that their coach was not
there ‘‘to judge : : : but to help me improve my practice.’’ Coaches
concurred and stated that establishing trust was a priority, and without
trust, professional learning would be hindered.
Coaches explained that they ‘‘intentionally’’ and ‘‘immediately’’
sought to build trust. As the primary coach reflected, ‘‘If you don’t
have trust, there is no basis for your coaching.’’ In order to learn
how best to work with new teachers, coaches made it a point to get
to know each new teacher’s work and communication styles, personal
and professional interests, and how and when they preferred to receive
feedback. Coaches stated that the challenge of the beginning of the year
was simultaneously putting teachers at ease, establishing rapport, and
working to improve teaching and learning. The intermediate coach advised that developing a holistic understanding of each new teacher and
forging individualized relationships enhanced new teachers’ receptivity
to coaching and coaches’ capacity to influence teaching. She explained:
204
W. Gardiner
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Build that relationship right away because you’re going to need to help
them push their practice. Really work on that foundation of that relationship because if you have that it’s easier to move practice : : : don’t
shy away from pushing teaching practice but always, always be working
on that relationship.
When the school year began, most new teachers stated they were ‘‘nervous,’’ ‘‘stressed,’’ and ‘‘extremely uncomfortable’’ when their coach
came in to observe and talk with them about their observations. Reflecting her colleagues’ concerns, Susan was initially unsure if her coach
was there to ‘‘support, judge, or evaluate.’’ Particularly during the first
month of school, new teachers stated they were struggling to manage
the classroom and deliver effective instruction. They explained that they
were already being hard enough on themselves without someone else
making them feel poorly about their mistakes and struggles. Additionally, when new teachers sat down for ‘‘coaching conversations,’’ most
new teachers stated they initially took a ‘‘passive’’ role and refrained
from asking questions for help for fear of looking ‘‘dumb’’ or ‘‘incompetent.’’ Liana reflected on how her relationship with the primary
coach changed:
I have become more open. I ask more questions. I now realize she is
here to help me become a better teacher. So, anything I need, now I’m
not afraid to ask. [The relationship has] grown. I wasn’t that way in the
beginning.
New teachers explained that coaches built trust by maintaining a
‘‘supportive, not evaluative’’ stance, by helping them feel better ‘‘after
a lesson bombed’’ or the ‘‘classroom exploded,’’ and by demonstrating
that they were ‘‘partners’’ and ‘‘in this together.’’ Interviews and observations indicate that coaches provided a great deal of moral support and
cheerleading, particularly at the beginning of the year. New teachers
indicated that their coaches were a source of support and comfort,
particularly at a time when their efficacy was low. Coaches stipulated that
providing emotional support was necessary, but not sufficient. Coaches
indicated that they needed to help new teachers feel better in order to
bring down their levels of anxiety and then help them take the next
step of looking analytically at their teaching.
Coaches also stated that part of the trust-building process included
situating themselves, as the intermediate coach described, ‘‘as collaborators with a little more experience,’’ and not as ‘‘experts.’’ Coaches
believed that if new teachers saw them as experts it would intimidate
them, make them feel that they couldn’t make or share mistakes, or
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Induction Coaching
205
cause them to perceive coaching as a top-down relationship. The primary coach intentionally shared mistakes she made in her teaching
career, and believed that by doing so it made new teachers feel better
about making mistakes, establish that everyone makes mistakes, and
that through their joint work teaching would be improved. She stated,
‘‘I try to let them know I made some of the same mistakes for years
because I didn’t have a coach. So, I try to put funny spin on it just to
relax them. I think that’s really helped.’’
Furthermore, each new teacher indicated that from the beginning of
the year, coaches provided suggestions and ideas that, as Jasmine stated,
‘‘worked : : : or if it didn’t, she was back the next day with a new idea or
something else to try.’’ Importantly, new teachers indicated that coaches’
ideas were options, not mandates. Amara explained, ‘‘Nine out of ten
times, I’ll use [intermediate coach’s] ideas because they’re good. But if it
doesn’t work for me, I don’t.’’ Coaches stated that immediately starting
off the year by providing useful suggestions, as options not directives,
simultaneously established credibility and trust. The primary coach explained, ‘‘Once they get a good idea from you, they try it and it works.
Then it’s like, ‘Ok, she knows what she’s doing. I trust that person.’’’
Without exception, new teachers stated that it took time for them
to build trust with their coach and conceive of their coach as someone
who was there, as Amara explained, to ‘‘help us help ourselves.’’ As time
progressed and new teachers determined that coaching was a process
that helped new teachers feel (and be) more successful; they began
to open up, engage in more honest and productive dialogue, and be
more proactive in identifying how coaches could help them improve.
Noel recalled how she initially withheld from asking questions or raising
ideas for fear of looking ‘‘dumb’’ and then, ‘‘Right around January or
February, I got over a hump. It just started feeling different. I can ask
her anything now. I definitely trust [primary coach].’’
Over the course of the year, coaches and new teachers consistently
referred to the importance of trust as foundational to the coaching
process. Individual interviews indicate that each new teacher (and both
coaches) identified the primary purpose of coaching as instructional
improvement. These experiences reflect research, indicating that professional learning is enhanced by and predicated on trust (John-Steiner,
2000). As Jasmine stated, ‘‘Coaches have to build trust with the teacher,
otherwise it’s not going to work.’’
From Survival to Sustained Learning
New teachers and coaches indicated that the nature of coaching changed
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
206
W. Gardiner
over the course of the year. In the beginning, new teachers described
themselves as ‘‘overwhelmed’’ and struggling to establish a classroom
context conducive to learning. As the year progressed, coaching transitioned from helping new teachers weather the transitional shock of
being a new teacher in a turnaround school, to fostering reflection and
scaffolding sustained learning.
At the beginning of the year new teachers found it challenging to
create a positive, productive learning environment; plan and implement
successful lessons; and generally balance all of the requirements of
being the teacher of record. Even though their residency occurred
in urban schools and new teachers believed they were well prepared
to teach, they echoed Jasmine’s statement that their training academies
had ‘‘already been turned around.’’ As a result, new teachers explained
that they did not feel prepared to meet the range of social, emotional, and academic needs their students presented. In each classroom,
many students were resistant to learning, had frequent outbursts, and
tested new teachers’ authority. As such, new teachers indicted they
were ‘‘stressed,’’ ‘‘overwhelmed,’’ ‘‘crying almost every day,’’ and felt
‘‘incompetent’’ and ‘‘inadequate.’’
During the first few months, interviews and observations indicated
that teachers wanted coaches to help them with ‘‘everything,’’ and
that coaching was focused primarily on finding ways to respond to
immediate classroom dilemmas, particularly in the realm of classroom
management. At this point, new teachers wanted coaches to help them
‘‘fix’’ what was wrong and just tell them what to improve. Liana recalled, ‘‘I was just trying to survive.’’ The intermediate coach described
coaching at the beginning of the year:
Right now, it’s triage. My teachers are pulling their hair out. They have
students exhibiting behaviors they’ve never seen and didn’t know what to
do with. They need a more direct approach of me giving recommendations about management and routines. I have to be less reflective at this
point. New teachers just want answers.
Interviews and observations indicate that around December, there was a
shift from working on everything and responding to crises to beginning
to determine a sustained focus for learning.
Coaches explained that implementing the protocols they learned
during their professional development provided a framework for helping new teachers reflect on and improve their instruction, and build
professional knowledge. The coaching cycle included setting a time
and focus for classroom observations, meeting for a ‘‘coaching conversation’’ to collaboratively analyze and reflect on the observed lesson, and
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Induction Coaching
207
then setting next steps to foster continuous learning. Throughout the
conversation coaches asked facilitative questions to seek clarification; to
help new teachers identify and articulate goals; to foster reflection and
analysis; and to determine actionable next steps to improve teaching
and learning.
Coaches indicated that starting with ‘‘successes’’ and articulating
why something was successful bolstered new teachers’ efficacy, promoted reflection and analysis, and fostered transfer. The intermediate
coach explained that starting with ‘‘what’s working’’ is so important
because ‘‘they often don’t notice [what they are doing well], this helps
them think about what they did, why they did it, and how they might
do it again.’’ In this manner, by identifying and reflecting on successes
new teachers were more likely to recognize their own growth and apply
an effective strategy or principle of teaching and learning to another
situation.
As coaches and new teachers discussed challenges, next steps, and
supports needed; coaches facilitated learning by engaging in co-analysis
and co-reflection, problem solving, co-teaching and modeling practices,
identifying and obtaining potential resources, and setting actionable
next steps. For example, the primary coach described how she worked
with one new teacher who wanted to improve the way she implemented
read-alouds so that they were more targeted to improving students’
literacy skills:
We spent time doing professional readings about read-alouds and spent
time planning read-alouds with a focus in mind. Then, I’d come in and
observe her doing read-alouds and we’d discuss what went well, what we
could improve, and what the next steps would be : : : not just next steps
for her, but next steps for me to help her as well.
New teachers stated that coaching provided consistent time and space
to reflect on and analyze their teaching and maintain focus on their
goals. Each new teacher talked about the busyness of their days and that
they were ‘‘exhausted’’ at the end. New teachers explained, coaching
provided ‘‘regular, structured time to reflect’’ that ‘‘might not have
happened until the summer’’ or ‘‘not at all.’’
Coaches believed that sustaining a focus was necessary for instructional improvement and that focus needed to originate from the
new teachers’ practice. Coaches maintained that it was their role to
collaborate with new teachers to support learning, not dictate what
new teachers should learn. As the primary coach advised, ‘‘Coaching’s
about keeping their needs in mind and helping them meet their
goals.’’
208
W. Gardiner
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Another Set of [More Experienced] Eyes
Coaches were in new teachers’ rooms between three to four times per
week for scheduled and unscheduled visits and coaching conversations.
As coaches developed deeper knowledge of new teachers’ goals and
contexts, they helped new teachers ‘‘see’’ (and understand) their classroom and instruction in more nuanced or objective ways. Next, because
coaches observed in multiple classrooms, they were in a position to
help new teachers, as Noel stated, ‘‘see what’s happening in other
classrooms and schools.’’ Finally, new teachers believed that coaches
prior experiences in high-poverty urban schools and in similar grade
levels meant they had a more nuanced lens for helping new teachers
understand classroom experiences and provide contextually responsive
instructional support.
New teachers indicated that when their coach came in to observe
instruction they became ‘‘another set of eyes’’ that helped provide a
‘‘clearer’’ or ‘‘more objective’’ view of students and instruction. Liana,
like her colleagues, stated, ‘‘[Primary coach] has been in my shoes: : : :
She helps me to see things that I may not see’’ due to a lack of
experience or trying to process so many experiences at once. Noel
explained:
I want her to look for areas of improvement. With your coach, you’ve
got two sets of eyes, yours and hers. Then you talk about what you see
and what she sees and that’s very powerful: : : : So much I wouldn’t have
thought of or picked up without years in the business.
Jasmine recalled a student she was struggling to support. She explained that the student was frequently off task and would disrupt the
learning of those around him. She had tried a variety of strategies
but did not feel that any were truly addressing the problem. Jasmine
explained that trying to balance focusing on delivering lessons and
focusing on that particular student was more than what she could
simultaneously manage. In a coaching session, Jasmine asked her coach
to come in the next day to observe and take notes on that particular
student. Based on observational data, Jasmine stated she had a ‘‘more
complete picture’’ of what was happening in the classroom and felt
better equipped to make informed intervention decisions.
Along similar lines, Susan was concerned that her instruction lacked
rigor. She explained that she had put so much effort into getting
students to respect each other and the learning environment that she
had not focused as much on the quality of their learning. Susan asked
her coach to help her look at her teaching through the lens of rigor.
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Induction Coaching
209
The intermediate coach suggested a few ways of capturing information.
Susan opted to have her coach to observe a lesson and transcribe all
questions asked, and then set a time and date for the observation and
follow up conversation. When Susan and the intermediate coach met
to discuss the observation, the coach presented the data for the two of
them to analyze, which consisted of a verbatim transcript of questions
along with Bloom’s Taxonomy as a coding reference. Susan explained
that having ‘‘that extra set of eyes on instruction was so helpful because
it helped me see my instruction in more objective terms.’’
Next, as coaches regularly visited other rooms, they were able to
see (and share) practices occurring in other rooms or building of which
new teachers may not be aware. Coaches intentionally connected new
teachers with each other as resources for learning, and explained that
‘‘buy-in’’ was increased when new teachers observed a peer demonstrating a practice in which they were interested or that the coach suggested.
Liana recalled:
My coach knew I wanted to start implementing reading centers. She told
me that Amara [another first-year teacher] was using them and suggested
we talk, or maybe I observe in her classroom. I went to her room that
day and got some great ideas that I’m using now. If it wasn’t for [primary
coach] pointing that out, I wouldn’t have known.
New teachers found that fostering connections was needed because as
Noel reflected, ‘‘I’m in these four walls and don’t always know what’s
going on elsewhere.’’ Despite coming from the same preparation program, and developing strong relationships along the way, new teachers
stated they simply did not have the time to step beyond their individual
classroom or grade-level team to connect with and learn with and from
each other in the ways they would like and were able to do when they
were residents.
Finally, new teachers consistently emphasized that coaching qualifications need to include both prior experiences in similar grade levels
and in high-need, high-poverty schools. New teachers maintained that
grade level and urban experience was a necessary interpretive lens and
experiential background for helping new teachers understand students’
needs and improve instruction. New teachers indicated that despite
being prepared to implement rigorous, student-centered learning, they
struggled to do so in their new context. Furthermore, they echoed
Emma’s statement when she said she did not feel prepared to ‘‘meet
[my students’] social and behavioral needs.’’
New teachers recalled observing students’ behavior and seeing
lessons fail, but not understanding why. They indicated that their coach
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
210
W. Gardiner
had the contextual background to provide a more nuanced picture
of what was occurring in the classroom, and insights that would help
new teachers make what Amara referred to as ‘‘instructional tweaks’’
that would help teaching and learning unfold in more desired ways.
As Susan stated, ‘‘An urban coach has to have taught in the city
to really understand students’ needs and experiences, and how that
works in a classroom.’’ Whereas research consistently indicates that
induction support is enhanced when coaches and new teachers share
grade-level experiences (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Youngs, 2007), each
new teacher emphasized that both prior urban experience and similar
grade-level experience needed to be a requisite to obtain a coaching
position.
Discussion
Despite the increase in mentored induction programs, most fail to
foster professional learning (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; FeimanNemser, 2001a; Wang & Odell, 2002) with a disproportionate amount
of ineffective mentoring occurring in high-poverty schools (Kardos &
Moore Johnson, 2010; Wei et al., 2010). Problematically, Carver and
Feiman-Nemser (2009) stated that too few examples of effective mentoring exist. To this end, Norman and Feiman-Nemser (2005) indicated
that there is a ‘‘pressing need’’ to understand what kind of mentoring
makes a difference for new teacher learning. This study illustrated an
‘‘educative’’ stance toward induction in high-poverty urban schools in
which coaches and new teachers engaged in sustained, situated collaboration for the purpose of instructional improvement. Indeed, each new
teacher echoed Amara’s statement, ‘‘Coaching accelerated my learning
curve.’’ The following discussion provides an analysis of why coaching
made a difference in new teachers’ learning and recommendations for
the field.
To begin, time was taken to build trusting relationships. Coaches
started the year by seeking to learn new teachers’ needs, interests,
and work preferences. When new teachers were facing the challenging transition into being teachers of record, coaches demonstrated
empathy, support, and withheld judgment. Reflecting John-Steiner’s
(2000) research, teachers and coaches maintained that trust was the
foundation for collaboration and learning. Specifically, John-Steiner
posited that trust fosters ‘‘emotional scaffolding’’—a safety zone in
which support and constructive feedback can be effectively provided,
risk taking fostered, and knowledge more effectively developed. In the
coaching context, it appears that if new teachers did not trust their
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Induction Coaching
211
coach, they may very well have refrained from asking for help and
revealing knowledge gaps. Instead, as trust developed, new teachers
increased their active participation in the coaching process, and hence,
their learning.
The ‘‘standing appointments’’ embedded time and space into new
teachers’ work day to analyze and reflect on classroom experiences and
to work with a more experienced colleague (with deep insider knowledge) to improve their practice. Additionally, sustained and regular
time to meet was necessary as it took time for new teachers’ practice
to stabilize, for coaches to help new teachers move from ‘‘breadth
to depth,’’ and for new teachers to take ownership of identifying areas of practice on which to focus for sustained learning. This reflects
Lave and Wegner’s (1991) finding and admonition that learning will
be stifled without continuous interactions and that it takes time for
learners to take on increased responsibility for and participation in
their learning. This also aligns with research indicating that strong
mentoring programs provide ample time for new teachers and mentors
to work together (Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008;
Strong, 2005; Wang et al., 2008).
Next, reflecting an educative stance (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008), coaching was an individualized process of using the site of practice to help new teachers address
real and immediate needs, as well as identify and work toward their
professional goals. To this end, frequent observations and conversations
allowed coaches to develop an in-depth understanding of new teachers’
needs and context. Predicated on an insider’s knowledge and guided
by new teachers’ stated goals, coaches used conversational protocols,
data collection tools, a wide repertoire of strategies (modeling, coplanning, providing resources, connecting new teachers to colleagues)
to collaboratively improve teaching and learning. Importantly, the professional development coaches received simultaneously conceptualized
coaching as a collaborative effort aimed at improving instruction and
provided coaches with a repertoire of tools to implement an educative
orientation in practice. As research indicates (Carver & Feiman-Nemser,
2009; Feiman-Nemser, 1998, 2001a; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005,
Schwille, 2008), coaching from an educative stance requires a separate skill set from teaching, and professional development is central
to actualizing an educative stance in practice. Additionally, reflecting
research on optimal mentor-new teacher matches (Smith & Ingersoll,
2004; Youngs, 2007), coaches’ grade-level experiences mirrored that of
the new teachers with whom they worked. Furthermore, coaches also
had prior experiences in high-poverty urban schools. As new teachers
consistently stated, coaches’ prior urban experiences were necessary to
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
212
W. Gardiner
help new teachers make sense of experiences and to effectively translate
ideas into action.
Wang and Odell’s (2002) meta-analysis of mentored induction
research stated that most new teachers and mentors define mentoring
in emotional or technical terms, not as a resource for professional
growth. Data indicates that coaches did provide emotional support and
technical support (‘‘how to’s’’ and ‘‘quick fixes’’), particularly at the
beginning of the year, but that within a few months the preponderance
of interactions was focused around instructional improvement. Yet, providing emotional and technical support responded to new teachers’ real
and immediate needs as they faced the difficult transition into being
teachers of record. As such, it is important to recognize that emotional
and technical support can be an aspect of, and not in conflict with,
educative coaching. To this end, coaches need to maintain what Norman and Feiman-Nemser (2005) described as a ‘‘binocular’’ vision—
responding to immediate needs while maintaining a focus on sustained
learning. This notion of responsive and varied coaching is important in
this era of standardization.
Grounded in an educative framework, the following recommendations are provided to inform mentored induction programs. First,
conceptualize coaching as individualized, situated professional learning in which new teachers’ needs and context provide the point of
departure for mentors to foster scaffolded, sustained, and collaborative
learning. Such a conceptualization shifts coaching from being a shortterm retention intervention, to a process that facilitates continuous
professional growth. Second, invest in and provide professional development for coaches that prepares them with the skills and knowledge
base required to foster collaboration, reflection, analysis, and learning.
To this end, an investment in coaches is an investment in new teacher
learning. Third, ensure that coaches not only have strong grade-level
and content expertise, but also a deep contextual knowledge in order to
help new teachers translate effective principles of teaching and learning
into successful classroom practice. Fourth, recognize that coaching relationships evolve over time and that successful mentoring relationships
are predicated on trust. As such, coaches should begin the year building
trust and helping new teachers adjust to the transition of being teachers
of record, while simultaneously maintaining a long-term perspective of
guiding new teachers toward deeper and more focused professional
learning. Fifth, allocate sufficient and regular time for new teachers’
and coaches’ joint work. Such regularity provides continuity necessary
for coaching to foster sustained learning. Securing sufficient time for
coaching also demonstrates the expectation for and commitment to
continued professional learning.
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Induction Coaching
213
It is clear that coaching made a difference to new teachers in this
study, and that coaching fostered learning as well as helped them negotiate the challenging transition into being teachers of record in highpoverty, turnaround schools. Importantly, each new teacher planned
to remain in her school the following year and stated she was looking
forward to continued work with her coach. When the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2003) study reported an
up to 75% new teacher attrition in high-needs, high-poverty schools,
such retention statistics stand in stark contrast to the norm.
Additionally, the fact that mentored induction was sustained, situated, collaborative, and fostered learning—attributes of strong mentoring programs (Howe, 2006; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille,
2008; Strong, 2005; Wang & Odell, 2002)—also stands in contrast to
normative induction experiences in high-poverty schools (Kardos &
Moore Johnson, 2010; Wei et al., 2010). As educational policy and educators increasingly rely on mentored induction to support new teachers’
learning (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Wei et al., 2010), this study
speaks to the importance of defining mentored induction in ‘‘educative’’ terms. As research demonstrates that mentored induction in highpoverty schools is inadequate, this study portrays a more promising
vision of how mentored induction can be conceptualized and executed
in order to make a difference in new teachers’ professional learning.
References
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (2009).
Teacher quality partnership grant. Retrieved from http://aacte.org/index.php?/
Grants/Government-Grants/teacher-quality-partnership-grants.html
Berry, B., Montgomery, D., Curtis, R., Hernandez, M., Wurtzel, J., & Snyder, J.
(2008). Creating and sustaining urban teacher residencies: A new way to recruit,
prepare and retain effective teachers in high-needs districts. Chapel Hill, NC: The
Aspen Institute/Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved from http://www.
eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED502406.pdf
Carver, C. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2009). Using policy to improve teacher
education: Critical elements and missing pieces. Educational Policy, 23(2),
295–328.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Teachers as teacher educators. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 21, 63–74.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001a). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6),
1013–1055.
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
214
W. Gardiner
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001b). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an
exemplary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17–30.
Gardiner, W., & Kamm, C. (2010). Urban teacher residencies: Collaborating to
reconceptualize urban teacher preparation. In J. Slater & R. Ravid (Eds.),
Collaboration in education (pp. 191–198). New York, NY: Routledge.
Glesne, C. (2005). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2000). Mentoring in the new millennium. Theory
into Practice, 39(1), 50–56.
Howe, E. R. (2006). Exemplary teacher induction: An international review.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 287–297.
John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Kardos, S. M., & Moore Johnson, S. (2010). New teachers’ experience of mentoring: The good, the bad, and the inequity. Journal of Educational Change,
11(1), 23–44.
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.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2003). No dream
denied: A pledge to America’s children (Summary Report). Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/no-dreamdenied_summary_report.pdf
Norman, P. J., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2005). Mind activity in teaching and
mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 679–697.
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.
Schwille, S. A. (2008). The professional practice of mentoring. American Journal
of Education, 115, 139–167.
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction
and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research
Journal, 41(3), 681–714.
Strong, M. (2005). Teacher induction, mentoring, and retention: A summary
of the research. The New Educator, 1(3), 181–195.
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.
Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on
beginning teachers’ teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(2), 132–152.
Induction Coaching
215
Downloaded by [Wendy Gardiner] at 12:00 27 June 2012
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development
in the United States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: 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.
Youngs, P. (2007). District induction policy and new teachers’ experiences: An
examination of local policy implementation in Connecticut. Teachers College
Record, 109(4), 797–837.
View publication stats