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