Effects of collaborative mentoring on the articulation of training and classroom situations: A case study in the French school system

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�CorrespondE-mail addr

sebastien.chalie

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 550–563

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Effects of collaborative mentoring on the articulationof training and classroom situations:

A case study in the French school system

Sebastien Chaliesa,�, Stefano Bertoneb, Eric Flavierc, Marc Durandd

aGRIFEN, University Institutes of Teacher Training of Toulouse, 118 Route de Narbonne, Site de Rangueil, 31078 Toulouse, FrancebGRIFEN, University Institutes of Teacher Training of Nice, Nice, France

cGRIFEN, University Institutes of Teacher Training of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, FrancedUniversity of Geneve, Geneva, Switzerland

Received 27 March 2007; received in revised form 6 September 2007; accepted 28 September 2007

Abstract

This study assessed the effects of a collaborative mentoring sequence on the professional development of a preservice

teacher (PT). The analysis of data from observation and self-confrontation interviews identified work rules [Wittgenstein,

L. (1996). In G. E. M. Anscomb & G. H. Von Wright (Eds.), Remarques philosophiques [Philosophical investigations].

Oxford: Blackwell] that were learned and/or used by the PT and from which we were able to evaluate his professional

development. By following the trace of these rules, we showed that in some circumstances collaborative mentoring

provides a better articulation between traditional training situations (co-preparation and co-evaluation of lessons) and the

classroom situation than traditional models. From a description and discussion of these circumstances, the conditions for

applying these findings to optimize training programs are discussed.

r 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Teacher training; Collaborative mentoring; Preservice teacher development; Preservice teacher–cooperating teacher

interactions; Work rules

1. Introduction

This study was conducted within the frameworkof a much broader research program, following adecision by the French Ministry of Education torenew the forms and contents of teacher training inFrance. The main objective of the Ministry’s project

ee front matter r 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

te.2007.09.010

ing author. Tel.: +33 5 62 25 21 26.

esses: [email protected],

[email protected] (S. Chalies).

was to optimize professional training by alternatingbetween coursework at the University Institutes ofTeacher Training (UITT) and hands-on workexperience in the French school system. Theobjective of this study was to evaluate theeffects of modifying the traditional mentoringsituation by strengthening the collaboration be-tween preservice teachers (PT) and their cooperat-ing teachers (CT). More specifically, this studyassessed the quality of the articulation between thetraditional training situations (sessions dedicated to

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.010

mailto:[email protected],

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 550–563 551

lesson planning, analysis of the work to beincorporated into lesson plans, and post-analysisof lessons) and the situation of collaborativementoring in the classroom.

The importance of mentoring in teacher traininghas been demonstrated. CTs notably accompanyPTs as they (i) discover workplace reality (Hebert &Worthy, 2001), (ii) construct professional knowl-edge (Bertone, Meard, Euzet, Ria, & Durand, 2003;Chalies, Ria, Bertone, Trohel, & Durand, 2004;Hascher, Cocard, & Moser, 2004; Ponte, Ax,Beijaard, & Wubbels, 2004; Zanting, Verloop, &Vermunt, 2003), (iii) improve their reflective prac-tice (Ward & McCotter, 2004), and (iv) establishproductive relationships with their mentors, or CTs,that are founded on the CTs’ emotional support(Allen, Day, & Lentz, 2005; Awaya et al., 2003;Clarke & Jarvis-Selinger, 2005).

The efficacy of mentoring has nevertheless beendebated from time to time (for a review, see Chalies& Durand, 2000), with some studies indicating thatplacing a high value on the CTs’ emotional supportof their PTs may occur at the expense of a moreefficient, reflective mode of accompaniment (Abell,Dillon, Hopkins, McInery, & O’Brien, 1995; Arre-dondo & Rucinski, 1998; Stanulis & Russell, 2000).The lack of efficacy is attributed to the dilemmafaced by CTs: should they prescribe ready-made,short-term solutions for their PTs or should theycommit to the long-term construction of thesesolutions with their PTs (Bertone, Chalies, Clarke,& Meard, 2006; Bullough, 2005; Orland-Barak,2005; Weiss & Weiss, 2001)? In these interactions,CTs are acutely aware of their responsibilities andoften feel strong sentiments of guilt or compassionregarding their PTs (Bullough & Draper, 2004;Hastings, 2004; Young et al., 2005). They thus oftenreflect on their own on issues and events that arise,instead of working alongside their PTs to developtheir reflective practice (Loughran & Berry, 2005).As they lack real training in the techniques of post-lesson interviews (Orland, 2000), CTs in fact tend tointeract with PTs in a manner far more prescriptiveand controlling than they imagine (Beck & Kosnik,2000; Orland-Barak & Klein, 2005) and miss manytraining opportunities that arise in the course oftheir sessions (Carver & Katz, 2004). These diffi-culties are all the more striking when CTs, PTs anduniversity supervisors (US) are struggling to definetheir proper and consistent roles in alternatingwork-study programs, which incorporate ‘‘two

largely separate worlds’’ (Beck & Kosnik, 2000):

the university setting and the schoolroom (Bullough& Draper, 2004; Christie, Conlon, Gemmell, &Long, 2004).

In response to these inadequacies, some authorshave suggested that the traditional mentoringmodel be updated by making it more collaborative(Mullen, 2000). From this perspective, the PT, CT,and US would co-construct the training program(Paris & Gespass, 2001). This proposal is interestingbecause it would enable each participant to negoti-ate the work to be accomplished based on his orher own concerns, expectations, and possibilities(Awaya et al., 2003; Paris & Gespass, 2001) andwould encourage professional development(Beattie, 2002; Grisham, Ferguson, & Brink, 2004)through greater involvement during both reflective(Weiss & Weiss, 2001) and professional practice(Burbank & Kauchak, 2003). The exchanges be-tween the PT and CT would be more democraticand constructive than those of a predominantlyprescriptive relationship (Kochan & Trimble, 2000),as the basis is mutual trust and a willingness toshare and come to the other’s aid (Jipson & Paley,2000). Supported by their CTs, PTs wouldcommit themselves more fully to their professionalpractice by taking greater risks in the classroom(Stanulis & Russell, 2000) and in the post-lessonsessions, where requests for help are more easilymade (Eick, Ware, & Williams, 2003). Most studieshave dealt with the effects of a collaborativementoring situation on training with the goal offocusing on the quality of the post-lesson session.They note, for example, an improvement inreflective practice (Aufschnaiter, 2003; Parsons &Stephenson, 2005) or in the construction of profes-sional knowledge when PTs collaborate moreclosely with their CTs (Jenkins & Vael, 2004;Manouchehri, 2002). Some studies have discussedthe effects of collaborative mentoring on PTs’teaching. However, the results are generally limitedto and centered on the nature of PTs’ involvementwith their students, indicating that the PTs show agreater willingness to take risks (Burbank &Kauchak, 2003) or experience greater freedom totake the initiative (Bullough et al., 2003). Last, nostudy to our knowledge has evaluated the effects ofimproved collaboration with CTs on PTs’ teachingactivity. For example, no study has specified howbetter reflective practice or the acquisition of greaterprofessional knowledge affects PTs’ classroomactivity. The objective of this study was thus toevaluate these effects.

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 550–563552

2. Theoretical framework

This study was based on theoretical postulatesborrowed from (i) Vygotsky’s (1978) culturalistpsychology and (ii) Wittgenstein’s (1996, 2004)analytical philosophy. Although these authors didnot discuss training per se, we constructed anoriginal conceptualization of the professional devel-opment of teachers based on their thinking.

(i)
According to the culturalist approach, learninga profession takes place during training situa-tions. Most often taking the form of a dialog(for example, during sessions to prepare orevaluate a lesson), these situations encouragethe development of PTs’ professional activitythrough the concepts and instruments (Vygotsky,1978) co-constructed with CTs or USs as theyanalyze the work carried out in the classroom.PTs construct new ‘‘psychological instruments’’(Vygotsky, 1978) with the aid of CTs or USs onthese occasions. These instruments are then usedto refine and enhance PTs’ decision-makingactivity in future classroom situations. Notably,they help PTs to anticipate a wide variety ofclassroom situations, to perceive and makesense of new events, and to quickly determinethe actions that need to be taken in order toadapt (Bertone et al., 2003).
(ii)
These psychological instruments constructed intraining situations can be likened to ‘‘constitu-
tive work rules’’ (Searle, 1995; Wittgenstein,1996): resources that allow PTs to constructmeaning in new contexts of teaching and action.Learning these rules pre-supposes the construc-tion of an agreement between PTs and CTs toestablish ‘‘meaningful links’’ (Wittgenstein,1996) between what CTs consider to be ex-emplary classroom experiences and how, asprofessionals, they conceive and design them.Having learned the rules, PTs expect to be ableto perceive these remarkable situations pre-sented to them in training. These learned rulesare thus a kind of ‘‘yardstick’’ by which PTs canjudge, interpret, and/or act correctly; that is, inconformity with the rules (Wittgenstein, 1996,2004). In any case, these rules do not haveprescriptive force. They have authority only inthe social domain under consideration and, inthis sense, they can be used or not by the actoraccording to the circumstances of the situation(actor’s intentions, context for action, etc.).

Moreover, their meaning fluctuates with thecontexts and interactions in which they manifestand cannot be envisaged outside of the circum-stances in which the actor uses them (Wittgen-stein, 1996).

More broadly, this conceptualization belongs toSuchman’s ‘‘situated’’ perspective of professionaltraining (Suchman, 1987). Learning to be a teacherultimately means appropriating the rules of theprofession and, by using them, contributing to itsdevelopment (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

This study was designed to provide detailed dataon the potentialities of PTs’ learning (co-construc-tion of work rules with CTs in a training situation)and professional development (application of theco-constructed rules in the classroom) in a situationof collaborative mentoring. This case study is thepreliminary step in an investigation of broaderscope that we hope will yield new directions formentoring. Work rules were assumed to have beenlearned in training situations when the PT con-structed new expectations (Wittgenstein, 1996).Professional development was identified when theserules were expressed and mobilized by the PT in theclassroom as resources for judging, understandingand anticipating the unfolding situation.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

A PT in his final year of certification at a teachertraining institute in the south of France and his CTvolunteered to participate in this study. The PT was25 years old. His teaching experience totaled 7weeks over the 2 previous years of training. Thiswas his first year with full responsibility for a classfor an entire school year. The CT was anexperienced teacher (12 years of experience, with 7years in his current position) of approximately 40years of age. He was involved in the initial trainingof teachers and had undergone training for the roleof CT by the US (e.g., workshops on supervisionprovided by the PT’s teacher training institute). Hehad 7 years of experience as a CT.

This study was performed with physical educa-tion teachers for reasons having to do with the studycontext: (i) in this particular teacher traininginstitute, the stability of the role/function of theCT from 1 year to the next could be assured in onlyvery few subject areas and physical education was


one of the most stable and (ii) the CTs in physicaleducation were given training in implementing morecollaborative mentoring of PTs. The participantswere observed during badminton lessons in amiddle-school physical education class. The 24students were 13–14 years old. Both the PT andCT considered the students to be without significantacademic problems and none of them poseddiscipline problems.

3.2. Mentoring plan

We proposed a collaborative mentoring model toPT and CT whose principal objective was to involvethem in the construction and implementation of ashared teaching project. This objective was definedby taking into account the principal criticisms of thetraditional model as it is implemented in France:(i) training that occurs only during post-lessoninterviews; (ii) training that prescribes standardizedways of doing things based on theoretical orienta-tions; (iii) a clear separation between the responsi-bilities of each member of the training pair (PT isthe trainee, CT is the trainer); and (iv) no sharedproject for the PT and CT, and thus littlecollaboration or shared reflection and decision-making to optimize the teaching project.

For the study purposes, the ‘‘traditional model of

student teaching supervision’’ (Weiss & Weiss, 2001)was modified to follow the lines of ‘‘educative

mentoring’’ (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) and the propo-sals for ‘‘co-mentoring’’ (Kochan & Kunkel, 1998)or ‘‘co-teaching’’ (Eick et al., 2003). The sequence ofcollaborative mentoring proposed to the PT and hisCT comprised four successive steps over 2 con-secutive weeks in the third academic trimester of the2004–2005 school year: (i) the CT observed one ofthe PT’s lessons; (ii) at the end of the lesson, the PTand CT evaluated the lesson together and thenprepared for the next lesson (co-preparation);(iii) the lesson was co-taught by the PT and CTin the PT’s class (co-teaching); and (iv) at the endof this lesson, the PT and CT evaluated the lesson(co-evaluation).

The co-teaching sequence was presented to thestudents a week before its realization. The CT’sparticipation in the PT’s lesson was explained asarising from the desire to optimize the students’opportunity to learn a new skill. During the co-teaching sequence, the CT’s interventions with thestudents only concerned this objective. The PTmaintained full responsibility for managing the lesson.

3.3. Data collection

Two categories of data were collected: video-recording and self-confrontation data. The video-recording data were collected during the four stepsof the collaborative mentoring sequence using avideo camera and two HF microphones worn by thePT and CT. The self-confrontation data wereobtained in separate interviews with the PT andCT, during which each was confronted with thevideo recording of his own actions and those of theother teacher. These interviews were held after eachstep of the sequence. The researcher (R) conductedthe interviews in order to determine the judgmentsof the teacher being interviewed regarding his ownrecorded actions as well as those of the otherteacher. His questions were designed to encouragethe teacher to describe and justify his judgments(e.g., ‘‘What do you think of this remark?’’; ‘‘Does

this action here seem satisfactory to you?’’; ‘‘Do you

agree or disagree with this idea or this way of doing

things?’’). The R regularly asked for precisions on ajudgment just stated (e.g., ‘‘I’m not sure I understand

why you think this action is interesting. Could you go

over it again?’’) or confronted the teacher withapparent contradictions (e.g., ‘‘You say that the

students are quieter but you also say they are not

necessarily more attentive. Could you explain this?’’).This type of questioning was used by the R toassemble as many elements as possible to aid inreconstituting the rules learned by the teachers andused by them in making their judgments. During theself-confrontation interviews, the teacher beinginterviewed and R watched the video and couldstop it or return to events that seemed importantand that affected them. All interviews were tran-scribed verbatim.

3.4. Data analysis

We focused our analysis on the use of trainingexperiences during classroom situations or theinverse. To do so, we sought to identify the workrules addressed by the CT and applied by the PT intraining or teaching situations. The analysis wasperformed in four steps.

Step 1. After verbatim transcription of the foursequences and the self-confrontation interviews, thecorpus was decomposed into units of interaction.These units were delimited by the objects of thejudgments expressed by the teachers during the self-confrontation interviews. A new unit of interaction


was defined every time the object of a teacher’sjudgment changed.

Excerpt of a self-confrontation interviewbetween the PT and theR regarding the co-teaching situation

Analysis

PT: So, in fact, here atthis moment here, it’suhy It’s because uh,right away uhy I canfeel here that Olivier (theCT) carries a lot more

weight in the classy

Judgment: The CTcarries more weight withthe students than I do

Object of the judgment:The CT’s action ofimposing his weight on

the students

R: Just a minute. Whatdo you mean by that?
PT: Right from thebeginning (of thelesson), he carries a lot
more weight with the

students than I doy

Step 2. For each unit of interaction, the teacher’sjudgment and the support for this judgment wereidentified. The support for a judgment was associatedwith the set of elements the speaker relied on toexplain to the R how he set about making judgmentsabout professional actions and classroom eventsalways in the same way and with the same rule.

Excerpt of a self-confrontation interviewbetween the PT and theR regarding the co-teaching situation

Analysis

R: But how do you seethis (the fact that the CTcarries more weight withthe students)?

R’s request for support

for the judgment

PT: Well, he (the CT)puts pressure on them.He puts pressure on the

group and they’re notused to ity

PT’s support for the

judgment: The CTcarries more weight with

the students than I do

because he puts pressure

on them

R: OK, but where doyou see it—in what?

R’s request for supportfor the judgment

PT: I see it in thestudents’ behaviory


judgment: The CT puts

Overall, they’reythey’rey they’requieter, but you get thefeeling that, uh, thatthey’re not necessarily

more attentive

pressure on the group

because the students are

quieter but not

necessarily more

attentive

R: Wait—quieter butnot necessarily moreattentivey whichmeans what?

R points out acontradiction

PT: They’re quieter butyou can tell that they’realso, uh, more

distrustful. You see, youcan sense thaty they’resitting there but they’renot really interested inwhat’s happening


judgment: The CT puts

pressure on the group

because the students are

quieter and more

distrustful but not really

interested

Step 3. For each unit of interaction, the rule usedby the teacher to make his judgment was forma-lized. Each rule was labeled from (i) the object of thejudgment and (ii) the supporting elements for thejudgment. The form of each judgment was pre-sented thus: [‘‘Object’’ validated by ‘‘supportingelements’’]. To minimize R’s interpretations, eachrule was labeled using the teachers’ vocabulary.

Analysis

The rule used by the PT to make the judgmentabove can be formalized as: [‘‘To carry weight with’’amounts to ‘‘he puts pressure on’’, which amountsto ‘‘the students are quieter but not necessarily moreattentive or interested’’].

Step 4: All the formalized rules were thencategorized according to (i) their object and (ii)whether they were learned or used by the partici-pants. This was accomplished by adopting theprocedures recommended by Strauss and Corbin(1990) within the framework of Grounded Theory.The categories were defined step by step; that is, anew category was created for each unit that did notfit into an already existing category. This work wasbased on data from the self-confrontation inter-views. A rule was considered as learned when the PTspecifically noted it as new and interesting (e.g.,‘‘here I understand it here!’’; ‘‘this is all new to me’’)or when it was announced by the CT and addressedto the PT to influence his behavior or help in his

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Distribution of the rules learned and/or used by the PT during the

situations of the collaborative mentoring sequence and their

respective objects

Rules learned

and/or followed

according to

their object

Situations

Co-

preparation

Co-

teaching

Co-

evaluation

Total

Pedagogical content

Used 6 15 8 29

Learned 3 4 1 8

Total 9 19 9 37

Preservice teacher

Used 2 2 4 8

Learned 1 – – 1

Total 3 2 4 9

Cooperating teacher

Used 2 – – 2

Learned – – – –

Total 2 – – 2

Total

Used 10 17 12 39

Learned 4 4 1 9

Total 14 21 13 48

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 550–563 555

interpretation of the situation (e.g., ‘‘he’s question-ing me right here’’; and ‘‘here, he gets to me’’).

3.5. Validity of the data

The data validation procedure comprised twosteps.

Step 1. Each of the four researchers separatelyanalyzed the entire corpus to identify and formalize:(i) the units of interaction; (ii) the judgments andtheir supporting elements; and (iii) the rules used tomake the judgments.

Step 2. The four researchers together analyzed theentire corpus starting from their individual analysesof Step 1. They successively compared and discussed(i) the units of interaction, (ii) the judgments andtheir supporting elements; and (iii) the rules used tomake the judgments until consensus was reached. Incases of disagreement, the result in question wasrejected.

Of the entire corpus, less than 5% of the identifiedelements were a source of disagreement andrejected.

4. Results

The results of this study concern the effects of asequence of collaborative mentoring on the profes-sional development of a PT. They present (i) thedistribution of the rules learned and/or used duringthe different situations of the sequence and thecategorization of their objects and (ii) an analysis oftwo of the rules learned and used by the PT duringthe sequence.

4.1. Distribution of the rules learned and/or used and

their object categories

The traditional situation of mentoring wasadapted to ensure greater collaboration betweenthe PT and his CT; this affected the professionaldevelopment of the PT (Table 1).

We identified 48 work rules during the course ofthe collaborative mentoring sequence, 19% ofwhich were learned by the PT and 81% of whichwere used by him. The PT learned new work rules ineach of the situations although, proportionally,differences were noted between the situations. Helearned 28.5% of the rules identified during co-preparation, 19% during co-teaching and 7.5%during co-evaluation. The objects of the ruleslearned and/or used by the PT concerned pedago-

gical content (77%), the PT himself (19%), and theCT (4%) (Table 1).

The rules whose object concerned pedagogicalcontent (Schulman, 1986) dealt with instructions(e.g., ‘‘Keep to a rhythm when presenting the

situation’’ amounts to ‘‘when speaking, don’t drag

it out’’ amounts to ‘‘demonstrate what should be

done’’), the students (e.g., ‘‘The students excused

from participating are still part of the class’’ amountsto ‘‘give them responsibility during the lesson’’amounts to ‘‘regularly pay attention to what they

are doing’’ amounts to ‘‘encourage them in their work

as much as you do the other students’’), and lessoncontent (e.g., ‘‘Smash the shuttlecock’’ amounts to‘‘hit the shuttlecock with a lot of force straight on,with the wrist broken, orienting the racket down-

ward’’, amounts to ‘‘make it impossible for the

opponent to return it’’). Most often, the rules withthis object concerned how to put these elements intorelationship. For example, they concerned instruc-tions and the students (e.g., ‘‘Reorganize the work’’amounts to ‘‘change the situation’’, amounts to ‘‘lose

time gathering the students’’ amounts to ‘‘put the

students in a situation so they can listen’’) or thestudents and the lesson content (e.g., ‘‘The situation


is too lateral’’ amounts to ‘‘the students are trying to

win a rally by making their opponent move from one

side of the court to the other’’, amounts to ‘‘the

students are not hitting the shuttlecock with a

downward movement’’).The rules with the PT as the object concerned his

apprenticeship at the side of the CT during co-preparation (e.g., ‘‘Work with the CT to prepare a

lesson’’ amounts to ‘‘try to simultaneously partici-

pate in the construction of the lesson’’ and ‘‘figure out

how the CT sets about preparing a lesson’’, amountsto ‘‘often feeling a bit lost in the discussion’’), co-teaching (e.g., ‘‘Co-intervene with the CT’’ amountsto ‘‘don’t let the CT take complete charge’’, amountsto ‘‘keep control of the organization and unfolding of

the lesson’’, amounts to ‘‘stay attentive to what the

students are doing, decide when to stimulate the work

and respond quickly with students from the CT’sinterventions’’) and co-evaluation (e.g., ‘‘Do the

work of evaluation with the CT’’ amounts to ‘‘try

to participate in reconstituting what happened during

the lesson’’ and ‘‘also try to figure out how the CT

approaches his own lesson evaluations’’).The two rules with the CT as the object

exclusively concerned his function as trainer (e.g.,‘‘Advise PT’’ amounts to ‘‘know how to get him

to question his way of doing things’’ amounts to‘‘accept different ideas’’ and ‘‘open the discussion

with the PT’’).

4.2. Development of the rules learned and used by the

PT during the sequence of collaborative mentoring

Of the set of learned rules, only two were used bythe PT during the experimental sequence ofcollaborative mentoring: during the co-teachingsituation, the PT (a) used a work rule learnedduring co-preparation with the CT and (b) learned anew work rule and immediately used it. In thisstudy, our objective was to evaluate the quality ofthe articulation between training situations (co-preparation and co-evaluation) and classroomsituations (co-teaching) during a collaborativementoring sequence. We thus analyzed in detailonly the two rules learned and used by the PT.

4.2.1. Used a work rule learned during co-

preparation while co-teaching

During the co-teaching lesson, the PT used awork rule learned during the prior co-preparationsession with the CT. At this moment in the lesson,the PT and CT stood in a corner of the gym to

observe the entire group of students as they worked.They made the judgment that the students were notdoing what they had been asked to do (to score apoint by hitting the shuttlecock with a downwardmovement) and discussed the reasons for thedifficulty and the actions they could take to resolveit (Excerpt 1):

Excerpt 1

PT: I think we should come back to [he mimesthe action of hitting the shuttlecock downward]because they [the students] are ally like this [Hemimes the action of hitting the shuttlecock withan upward movement], you know?CT: YeahyPT: They [they students] are hitting it from below[He again mimes the action of hitting theshuttlecock with an upward movement]yCT: Yeah, we’ll have to demonstrate it!PT: Yeah, with, approaching the shuttlecock infront of you and breaking the wrist to send ittoward the ground [He mimes the gesture whilespeaking].CT: Yesy

During the self-confrontation interview, the PTjustified his actions with regard to the CT. Thefollowing excerpt allowed us to identify the workrule that the PT used during the lesson to guide hisinteraction with the CT (Excerpt 2).

Excerpt 2

PT: And there I’m practising, just like thatyIstart practising with him [the CT] the elementsthere, that I have to go back toy I’m almosttrying to put myself into the situation there.R: You’re practising with him [the CT]—what doyou mean?PT: I’m going through the list [of actions to take]so I don’t forget anythingy Break the wristy Infact, it’s about here that I realize I’m going tohave to say thisyR: OK! So here, in fact, you, you’re trying toprepare what you are going to say to thestudents?PT: Yes, something like that!R: And so you’re telling me I’m practisingy Canyou explain what you mean here?PT: It’s almost as if I’m explaining to him [theCT]y I’m trying to verbalize, to really clarifywhat I want to sayy So that later I can say it tothe studentsy And this is something [practicegiving the instructions before actually giving


them to the students] that he [the CT] does whenwe prepare togethery He does this [during theco-preparation of lessons].R: Which meansy?PT: In last week’s sessionywhen we werepreparing [the lesson], he [the CT] gave theinstructions [of actions to complete], but he did itas if he were actually speaking to the students y

The PT presented R with the support elementsthat gave us insight into how he used the rulelabeled: ‘‘Prepare to give the instructions to the

students’’, which required him to put himself ‘‘in the

situation’’ of presenting the operations to beperformed as if he were already speaking to thestudents. He tried to do this in front of the CT by‘‘trying to verbalize’’, by ‘‘practicing with him’’, by‘‘making a list’’ of the elements to be communicated,‘‘as if he were explaining it to him’’. By following thiswork rule, the PT expected to ‘‘really clarify’’ and to‘‘not forget’’ the information that had to be given tothe students during the demonstration.

Excerpt 2 also provides insight into how this rulehas been used by the PT, CT, and R in the past. TheCT first addressed this rule to the PT during the co-preparation of the lesson. It was then implementedby the PT in the classroom. The researcherformulated it during the self-confrontation inter-view, and it was then used by the PT to interpret hisrecorded classroom actions. The excerpt below fromthe self-confrontation interview following the co-preparation session with the CT provides furtherevidence that the PT learned this work rule duringthe co-preparation (Excerpt 3).

Excerpt 3

PT: Here I’m listening to him [the CT]. He’sdirectly constructing the lesson hereyAnd hereI’m thinking that he’sy In his head, when he [theCT] prepares for the situation, he’s alreadyformulating the instructions [the operations toperform] that he will give to the studentsyR: Can you come back to that? What is he doinghere?PT: He’s already in the class, alreadyy In fact,he’s preparingy In fact, in the way he prepares,he’s saving time and more than anything, he’syhe doesn’t miss anything, he doesn’t forgetanything onyOnce he’s in the field. Because bypreparing it, what he’s going to sayy We’regoing to do thisy We’re going to put them [thestudents] two-by-two on a court and have themwork on breakingy And he goes further than

thaty He says ‘‘I serve, the other one re-turnsy’’, and there he is already speaking tothe studentsy As if he was already speaking tothem.R: And you, what’s happening to you at thispoint?PT: Here I get it!R: The content?PT: No, the way to prepare for a class so that youcan be clear with the studentsy In fact, hepractices what he’s going to sayy He hasalready prepared what he wants to say and hepractices ity It’s the fact that he has alreadydecided on the instructions before he gives themto the studentsy

Excerpt 3 helped us to evaluate the quality ofthe articulation between the training situationof lesson co-preparation and the classroom situa-tion of collaborative mentoring. It shows thatduring the co-preparation the PT realized thatthis was ‘‘the way to prepare [the lesson] for a

class so that you can be clear with the students’’. Hethus learned a work rule by watching theCT’s actions that he then used during the co-teaching situation. The PT constructed a mean-ingful link between an experience that he consideredexemplary (‘‘And here I’m thinking that he’sy In his

head, when he [the CT] prepares for the situation,he’s already formulating the instructions [the opera-

tions to perform] that he will give to the studentsy’’,Excerpt 3) and a rule for action that was both ameans to elaborate his work and a yardstick bywhich to ‘‘measure’’ or interpret his classroomexperiences (‘‘And there I’m practising, just like

thatyI start practising with him [the CT] the

elements there, that I have to go back toy I’malmost trying to put myself into the situation therey

It’s almost as if I’m explaining to him [the CT]y I’mtrying to verbalize, to really clarify what I want to

sayy So that later I can say it to the studentsy,Excerpt 2).

4.2.2. Learned a work rule during co-teaching and

immediately used it

During the co-teaching lesson, the PT learned awork rule and then immediately used it. At thatmoment in the lesson, the PT and CT wereobserving the students as they worked. They notedthat the students were not doing what had beenasked of them (to score a point by hitting theshuttlecock toward the ground). The CT proposed


an interpretation of the difficulty they were having,and the PT disagreed (Excerpt 4):

Excerpt 4

CT: On the other hand, couldn’t it [theirdifficulty] be due to the fact that the one [thestudent] who sends up the shuttlecock, he sends itup high but in fact it’s not really high enoughy?PT: No, because I think that it’s more becausethey [the students] hit it [the shuttlecock] fromthe bottom so they can’tyCT: So they’re sending up?PT: Yeah, they’re sending it up.CT: So they’re playing the game?PT: Yeah, they’re playing the game.CT: I was afraid that they weren’t playing.PT: No, it’s OK! Looky

This disagreement was not a missed opportunityto learn. In this interaction with the CT, the PTin fact constructed a new interpretation ofthe difficulties encountered by the students, asthe following self-confrontation interview shows(Excerpt 5):

Excerpt 5

PT: Here, he [the CT] is asking good questions!He’s looking at all the parametersyR: Because you’re thinking of another interpre-tation of the problem, in fact?PT: I’m focused on the one [the student] who istrying to smash. He’s hitting the shuttlecockfrom below and so we’re going to have to dealwith thisy That he should hit it straight onyAnd I’m stuck on this parameter, in facty at thispoint I’m not taking into account that this couldbe a consequence [the difficulty encountered bythe students] of what the opponent is doingyR: So here it’s what he [the CT] gives you?PT: Yeah, here he’s the one who says ‘‘couldn’t itbe the consequence of what the opponent isdoing?’’y And here it hits me because he sees thesituation as an interactiony He’s asking ques-tions about all the parameters, in fact!R: So it hits you as an interesting point here?PT: Yesy It’s the need to look at the situation asan interaction. It’s true that I prepare a lot forthe person hitting and that I hadn’t preparedanything for the other player who was going tohave to send up the shuttlecock.

The PT presented the support elements regardinghis use of the rule formulated by the R: ‘‘Interpret

the difficulty encountered by the students’’. For the

PT, this rule amounted to ‘‘asking the right

questions’’, by questioning ‘‘all the parameters of

the situation’’, which the CT did in order to correctlyinterpret the students’ difficulty in smashing theshuttlecock. By engaging in this professional action,the PT now expects that he will not ‘‘focus’’ all hishelp on the students who are having difficulties insmashing, but rather that he will also be able to helpthe other students by specifying the operationsneeded to send the shuttlecock higher.

This excerpt not only formalizes the contents ofthe work rule followed by the CT but also providesinsight into how new this rule is for the PT (‘‘And

here it hits me because he sees the situation as an

interaction’’). The PT both learned and used the rule‘‘Interpret (with efficacy) the difficulty encountered

by the students’’ during the co-teaching session. Atthis point in the lesson, the PT stopped the studentsand asked two of them to demonstrate what hadbeen asked of them. He asked the other students towatch their classmates’ demonstration and evaluateit. As the following lesson excerpt shows, the PTthus used the work rule he had just learned to offerthe students an interpretation of the difficulty thatthey were experiencing (Excerpt 6):

Excerpt 6

PT: Let’s watch Yanis and Clement and youjudge if Yanis is making a good hit![The PT stands off to the side. The two studentsdo as they have been asked. Yanis does notmanage to quickly get into a volley of theshuttlecock.]PT: So, has there been a smash there?Students: No, not there!PT: Was Yanis able to smash it? Why?Students: Because it [the shuttlecock trajectory]wasn’t high enough.PT: Because it wasn’t high enough, all right! So theone who is here [the partner] has to send it up highenough to give him the time to hit it [shows withhis hand a high trajectory of the shuttlecock].

During the self-confrontation interview, the PTjustified his action with the students. The excerptthat follows shows that the PT interacted with thestudents by using the work rule learned with the CT(Excerpt 7):

Excerpt 7

PT: And there I jump on what he [the CT]showed mey He’s the one who made me realizethat smashing it [the shuttlecock] can depend on


how the other partner sends it up for him in thefirst placeyR: And there for you it’sy In fact, what I had ahard time understanding was that at first youhadn’t considered it as an interesting element andthen here youyPT: It’s the fact that he said it to meyR: You consider it important?PT: Yesy It’s obvious. It’s the consequence ofwhat the opponent does that is importanty Ifocus on that now because if there’s going to be asmash, the shuttlecock has to be in a situationwhere it can be smashedy

This excerpt shows that at the time of the co-teaching, the PT constructed the capacity to perceivenew facts (a difficulty of the students that he had notpreviously noticed) on the basis of the CT’s proposal(‘‘the one [the student] who sends up the shuttlecock, he

sends it up high but in fact it’s not really high

enoughy?’’, Excerpt 4). The CT’s formulation of anevent unperceived by the PT not only permitted thePT to perceive it for the first time (‘‘Because it [the

trajectory] wasn’t high enough !’’, Excerpt 6) but alsoto interpret the students’ actions differently (‘‘And

there I jump on what he [the CT] showed mey He’s the

one who made me realize that smashing it [the

shuttlecock] can depend on how the other partner sends

it up for him in the first placey’’, Excerpt 7). Ourinterpretation of the students’ difficulties in learningto smash was non-exhaustive (the quality of thehitter’s movements on the court and his positioningregarding the net were not considered, for example).The dependence of the PT’s activity on what the PThad learned from his CT beforehand may have beenrestrictive. This suggests that training may need to bemore detailed and selective. Even though the co-preparation or co-evaluation situations seem morepropitious for the PT’s training, the co-teachingsituation also contributed by enabling the immediateutilization, in the lesson, of a work rule that the PThad just learned. The results further indicate that themeaning of the rule broadened: what was initially aninstrument within the framework of a training dialogthen became a psychological instrument for inter-preting the unfolding situation and for makingdecisions and carrying out professional actions.

5. Discussion

This study (i) evaluated the advantages and limitsof a collaborative mentoring sequence regarding the

rules learned and/or used by the PT and(ii) identified the two circumstances that mostfavored the PT’s professional development. Giventhis aim, we discuss these circumstances in detail: (a)the PT learned a work rule by observing his CT’sactions or by listening to the CT’s proposals, whichbrought to light new facts, and then used the rule asa resource for action and (b) the self-confrontationinterview modified the PT’s interpretation of hisown professional experiences, thus indicating itspotential to contribute to teacher training.

5.1. Advantages and limits of a collaborative

mentoring sequence regarding the rules learned and/

or used by a PT

Our results agree with those of other studiesindicating the advantages of PTs collaborating withtheir CTs (Bullough et al., 2003; Mullen, 2000).Moreover, they provide additional detail by specify-ing the nature of the rules learned and/or used. Themajor finding is the importance of the co-teachingsituation to the PT’s development. The results clearlyshow that co-teaching the lesson was as important(Eick et al., 2003) as co-preparation and co-evalua-tion. During this situation, the PT not only used ruleshe had learned while co-preparing with the CT butalso learned new rules and immediately used one ofthem. Collaborative mentoring thus was shown todirectly break down the barrier between traditionaltraining time and classroom practice. The secondadvantage concerns the objects of the rules learnedand/or used during collaborative mentoring. The PTlearned or used rules that mostly concerned pedago-gical content (77%), whereas this type of rule wasnoted far less often during an analysis of a traditionalmentoring situation (39%) (Chalies et al., 2004). Thisfinding may be explained by the greater opportunityoffered by collaborative mentoring to construct agenuine ‘‘professional partnership’’ (Mullen, 2000) or,in broader terms, a ‘‘community of practice’’, betweenthe PT and CT (Sim, 2006).

By sharing a co-teaching project (Eick et al., 2003),the PT and CT transcended the usual trainingrelationship, which has been characterized by inter-actions that are artificial (Williams & Watson, 2004),inconsistent (Dunne & Bennett, 1997), and rarelyfrank (Lemma, 1993). Instead, their relationshipserved as a support for a shared and constructivereflective practice (Weiss & Weiss, 2001). They wereable to position themselves as ‘‘cooperative teachers-researchers’’ (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) or ‘‘critical


friends’’ (Paris & Gespass, 2001) and this form ofinteraction allowed the PT to develop professionalpractices in a personally appropriate manner (Kochan& Trimble, 2000). During training situations, parti-cularly co-preparation, this is particularly effectivewhen the PT feels directly concerned by the discus-sions with his or her CT (Parsons & Stephenson,2005). By sharing the same concerns and expectationsas the CT, the PT becomes deeply committed to theongoing reflection (Paris & Gespass, 2001) and endsup appropriating more knowledge about pedagogicalcontent (Chalies et al., 2004). During co-teaching, thePT’s appropriation of work practices depends greatlyon the impression of ‘‘comfort’’ offered by the CT’spresence (Eick et al., 2003). In addition to emotionalsupport (Eick et al., 2003), the CT provides the PTwith the opportunity to be an apprentice (Roth,Masciotra, & Boyd, 1999) by authorizing a certainnumber of risks and thus contributes to professionaldevelopment (Burbank & Kauchak, 2003).

Our results, especially because of the small numberof rules that were learned and/or used, neverthelessrequire a nuanced interpretation and careful con-sideration of the main limits of this mentoring model.The first limit is the length of time needed for the CTand PT to develop a constructive relationship.Building a professional partnership that will developinto genuine ‘‘collaborative co-mentoring’’ (Kochan& Trimble, 2000) requires time (Stanulis & Russell,2000). The transitory opportunity offered to the PTand CT in this study undoubtedly limited the results.The second limit is the strong contextual nature of therules learned, making it difficult for them to be usedby the PT in other contexts. It should be noted thatthe circumstances in which the PT learned and usedthe two rules examined in this study were similar. Alast limit concerns the lack of specific training incollaborative mentoring given to CTs. For example,although the CT allowed the PT to ‘‘explore his ownway of doing things’’ (Zanting, Verloop, & Vermunt,2003), the CT was unable to sufficiently justify thesechoices (Meijer, Zanting, & Verloop, 2002), whichlimited the possibilities for following the learned rules.

5.2. Circumstances favorable to the professional

development of the PT during the collaborative

mentoring sequence

5.2.1. The CT’s actions or proposals as resources for

acting

This study showed that learning work rules tookplace in situations where the PT was able to prepare

himself to act like his CT. Thus, for example, the PTobserved the CT’s actions in the classroom, thoseconcerning the instructions to give to the studentsand those concerning the analysis of their difficul-ties, and used them as resources to interpret theclassroom situation differently and to act appro-priately with the students. These results agree withthe conclusions of other studies on the interest ofPTs observing their CTs not only in the traditionaltraining situations but also in the classroom (Eick etal., 2003; Orland-Barak, 2005; Stanulis & Russell,2000). By allowing PTs to watch what they do insimilar teaching situations, CTs are more directivebut also, and above all, more explicit (Loughran &Berry, 2005).

One specific result of this study was that the PTwas able to construct the possibility to perceive andexpect events that he had not before been aware of.The CT’s proposals during co-teaching in fact hadthe effect of greatly reorganizing the meaning thatthe PT attributed to the professional experiencesthat followed. The observation of the CT’s profes-sional actions and the construction of new mean-ingful links in the co-teaching situation can both beconsidered as sources for the situated learning ofwork rules by the PT. The exemplary professionalactions noted in the course of these traininginteractions [co-preparation and co-teaching] func-tioned as veritable ‘‘yardsticks’’ (Wittgenstein, 1996)for the PT, permitting him to both act and makedifferent judgments regarding his own classroomexperience. A similar phenomenon was noted forthe PT’s construction of new expectations: duringthe co-conception of the instructions to give to thestudents, for example, the PT constructed expecta-tions by imagining the classroom context. The CThad contributed to this operation by himselfpractising giving the instructions ‘‘as if’’ they werebeing given to the students. During the co-prepara-tion session, the PT understood that this was aneffective means of preparing the lesson so that itwould be clear for the students. Last, the interac-tions concerning the analysis of the students’difficulties in carrying out the instructions yieldedsimilar information: the PT’s classroom verbaliza-tions provided insight into the construction of newexpectations and the broadening of the meaning ofwork rules learned in training, during the course ofsituated interactions with the students.

This study also permitted us to specify that thetransformation of training experiences during theclassroom situation was closely linked to the CT’s


presence as a recipient, at the same level as thestudents, of the PT’s actions. In addition to thepoints previously mentioned, the CT’s presence inthe classroom aided the PT’s professional develop-ment. One might conceive of the CT’s presence as a‘‘recipient of assistance’’ (Todorov, 1981), anencouragement to the PT to apply the rules hehad learned and to use them as so many ‘‘yard-

sticks’’ to judge the experience of the present class.More specifically, the CT’s presence in the class-room may have permitted his professional actionsand proposals to become intra-psychic instruments(Vygotsky, 1978) for the PT. The CT’s presence asthe destination of the PT’s actions in the class thusappeared as a circumstance that facilitated thebroadening of the meaning of the rules learned intraining and enhanced the power of the PT’s actionswhile teaching. The results of this study reinforcedthe idea that PTs’ decision-making activity in theclassroom is characterized by the conjuring up of allthe possible actions that can be performed inrelation to the meaningful others (recipients) in theunfolding situation (Bertone et al., 2003). They alsopermitted us to specify the quality of the recipientand accorded a substantial role to the participativecharacter of the actions and decisions carried out inthe classroom situation. In fact, the rules learned byPTs in training sessions are not applied in theclassroom when the training is limited to the co-analysis of past experience and the CT is presentonly as an observer during the lesson followingtraining (Bertone et al., 2003). The situations withhigh potential for effective professional training areinstead those that optimize the accompaniment ofthe PT by emphasizing co-teaching with the CT.

5.3. The self-confrontation interview as a tool in

teacher training programs

As previously underlined (Bertone et al., 2006),the self-confrontation interview can be consideredboth as a research tool to identify the bestmodalities for PTs to learn and develop profession-ally and as a motor to develop and broaden therules learned in training. In this study, the self-confrontation interview provided a setting whereinthe PT could use the work rules as resources for there-elaboration of his training experience, as well asfor future actions. Thus, for example, when the PTobserved the CT ‘‘preparing to give the instructions

to the students’’, the first transformation of atraining experience was noted in the self-confronta-

tion interview, during which the PT judged andformalized the experience on the basis of what hehad learned. It is thus possible that the act ofbecoming aware of a past experience by speakingabout in the self-confrontation interview contribu-ted to the PT’s training. However, it is important tonote that the circumstances were quite specific.First, the lesson following the self-confrontationinterview dealing with the co-preparation sessionwas co-taught. The CT was thus always present andwas the recipient of the PT’s actions in class, at thesame level as the students. These circumstancesdiffered from the more usual type of trainingprogram in which the CT is not always presentduring the lessons that follow training sessions.Second, the fact that the PT learned new work rulesby observing his CT while co-teaching and that heimmediately used them in his work with his studentsdoes not allow us to conclude that the self-confrontation interview had a determinant place inthe PT’s professional development. This observa-tion was in fact also reported in a similar study toevaluate training programs that were less collabora-tive (Bertone et al., 2006).

The self-confrontation interview can neverthelessbe considered as a training element in that it allowedthe PT to use the work rules he had learned andoffered a new context for broadening the meaningof these rules. The self-confrontation interview isthus useful not only in research but also in teachertraining programs to encourage a re-elaboration ofprofessional experience.

6. Conclusion

This study presents the effects of a sequence ofcollaborative mentoring on a PT’s professionaldevelopment. More specifically, it situates thecircumstances in which collaborative mentoringcan contribute to breaking down the barriersbetween the traditional training situations of co-preparation and co-evaluation of a lesson and thework of teaching itself. Several research directionswould logically extend and build on this work, anda collaborative mentoring program may be insti-tuted in the French University Institutes of TeacherTraining. The encouraging results of this case studywill need to be confirmed by further studiescomprising a much greater number of CTs andPTs involved in collaborative mentoring. Thesestudies should address two major preoccupations:the need to gather data on collaborative mentoring


programs in more academic subjects and the need togather data over much longer periods of time.Physical education classes are held in a context thatis unique in teaching and that may very wellfacilitate co-teaching. Data collected in more aca-demic settings would provide greater insight into theunique character of physical education teaching.Longer periods of collaborative mentoring betweenCTs and PTs would serve to confirm or invalidatethe findings of the present case study. In addition tothese research perspectives, many questions remainto be addressed. For example, the modalities fortraining CTs to participate in these new, morecollaborative relationships need to be developed,investigated, and formalized. The same can be saidfor the role of USs. In fact, this is the objective ofour current research. Last, thorough study ofcollaborative mentoring might reveal that it is adistinct and useful tool for training PTs, and notjust an updated version of traditional mentoring.

References

Abell, S. K., Dillon, D. R., Hopkins, C. J., McInery, W. D., &

O’Brien, D. G. (1995). Somebody to count on: Mentor/inter

relationships in a beginning teacher internship program.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 173–188.

Allen, T. D., Day, R., & Lentz, E. (2005). The role of

interpersonal comfort in mentoring relationship. Journal of

Career Development, 31(3), 155–169.

Arredondo, D. E., & Rucinski, T. (1998). Using structured

interactions in conferences and journals to promote cognitive

development among mentors and mentees. Journal of

Curriculum and Supervision, 13, 300–327.

Aufschnaiter, C. (2003). Interactive processes between university

students: Structures of interactions and related cognitive

development. Research in Science Education, 33, 341–374.

Awaya, A., McEwan, H., Heyler, D., Linsky, S., Lum, D., &

Wakukawa, P. (2003). Mentoring as a journey. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 19(1), 45–56.

Beattie, M. (2002). Educational leadership: Modeling, mentoring,

making and re-making a learning community. European

Journal of Teacher Education, 25(2–3), 199–221.

Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2000). Associate teachers in pre-service

education: Clarifying and enhancing their roles. Journal of

Education for Teaching, 26(3), 208–224.

Bertone, S., Chalies, S., Clarke, A., & Meard, J. A. (2006).

The dynamics of interaction during post-lesson conferences

and the development of professional activity: Study of a

preservice physical education teacher and her cooperating

teacher. Asian Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2),

245–264.

Bertone, S., Meard, J. A., Ria, L., Euzet, J. P., & Durand, M.

(2003). Intrapsychic conflict experienced by a preservice

teacher during classroom interactions: A case study in

physical education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1),

113–125.

Bullough, R. V. (2005). Being and becoming a mentor: School

based teacher educators and teacher educator identity.


Bullough, R. V., & Draper, R. J. (2004). Mentoring and the

emotions. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30(3), 271–288.

Bullough, J., Young, J., Birrell, J., Clark, C., Winston Egan, M.,

Erickson, L., et al. (2003). Teaching with a peer: A

comparison of two models of student teaching. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 19, 57–73.

Burbank, M. D., & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for

professional development: Investigations into effective colla-

boration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 499–514.

Carver, C. L., & Katz, D. S. (2004). Teaching at the boundary of

acceptable practice: What is a new teacher mentor to do?

Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 449–462.

Chalies, S., & Durand, M. (2000). L’utilite discutee du tutorat en

formation initiale des enseignants [The discussed usefulness of

mentoring during teachers’ training]. Recherche et Formation,

35, 145–180.

Chalies, S., Ria, L., Bertone, S., Trohel, J., & Durand, M. (2004).

Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and

knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews. Teach-

ing and Teacher Education, 20(8), 765–781.

Christie, F., Conlon, T., Gemmell, T., & Long, A. (2004).

Effective partnership? Perceptions of PGCE student teacher

supervision. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2),

109–123.

Clarke, A., & Jarvis-Selinger, S. (2005). What the teaching

perspectives of cooperating teachers tell us about their

advisory practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,

65–78.

Dunne, E., & Bennett, N. (1997). Mentoring processes in school

based training. British Educational Research Journal, 23(2),

225–235.

Eick, C., Ware, F., & Williams, P. (2003). Co-teaching in a science

methods course: A situated learning model of becoming a

teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 74–85.

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

Lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of

Teacher Education, 52(1), 17–30.

Grisham, D. L., Ferguson, J. L., & Brink, B. (2004). Mentoring

the mentors: Student teachers’contributions to the middle

school classroom. Mentoring and Tutoring, 12(3), 307–319.

Hascher, T., Cocard, Y., & Moser, P. (2004). Forget about

theory—Practice is all? Student teachers’ learning in practi-

cum. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(6),

623–637.

Hastings, W. (2004). Emotions and the practicum. The cooperat-

ing teachers’ perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and

Practice, 10(2), 135–148.

Hebert, E., & Worthy, T. (2001). Does the first year of teaching

have to be a bad one? A case study of success. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 17, 897–911.

Jenkins, J. M., & Vael, M. L. (2004). Preservice teachers’ PCK

development during peer coaching. Journal of Teaching in

Physical Education, 22(1), 20–28.

Jipson, J., & Paley, N. (2000). Because no one gets there alone:

Collaboration as co-mentoring. Theory Into Practice, 39(1),

36–42.

Kochan, F. K., & Kunkel, R. (1998). The learning coalition:

professional development schools in partnership. Journal of



Kochan, F. K., & Trimble, S. B. (2000). From mentoring to co-

mentoring: Establishing collaborative relationships. Theory

into Practice, 39(1), 20–28.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate

peripheral participation. New York: University Park Press.

Lemma, P. (1993). The cooperating teacher as a supervisor.

Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(4), 329–342.

Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher

educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 193–203.

Manouchehri, A. (2002). Developing teaching knowledge

through peer discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education,

18(6), 715–737.

Meijer, P., Zanting, A., & Verloop, N. (2002). How can student

teachers elicit experienced teachers’ practical knowledge.


Mullen, C. (2000). Constructing co-mentoring partnerships:

Walkways we must travel. Theory into Practice, 39(1),

4–11.

Orland, L. (2000). Reading a mentoring situation: One aspect of

learning to mentor. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,

75–88.

Orland-Barak, L. (2005). Cracks in the iceberg: Surfacing the

tensions of constructivist pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching:

Theory and Practice, 11(3), 293–313.

Orland-Barak, L., & Klein, S. (2005). The expressed and the

realized: Mentors’ representations of a mentoring conversa-

tion and its realization in practice. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 21, 379–402.

Paris, C., & Gespass, S. (2001). Examining the mismatch between

learner-centered teaching and teacher-centered supervision.


Parsons, M., & Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective

practice in student teachers: Collaboration and critical

partnerships. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,

11(1), 95–116.

Ponte, P., Ax, J., Beijaard, D., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Teachers’

development of professional knowledge through action

research and the facilitation of this by teacher educators.


Roth, W., Masciotra, D., & Boyd, N. (1999). Becoming in the

classroom. A case study of teacher development through

coteaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 771–784.

Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge

growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 12(2), 4–14.

Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York:

The Free Press.

Sim, C. (2006). Preparing for professionnal experiences—

Incorporating preservice teachers as ‘‘communities of prac-

tice’’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 77–83.

Stanulis, R. N., & Russell, D. (2000). ‘‘Jumping in’’: Trust and

communication in mentoring student teachers. Teaching and


Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research.

London: Sage.

Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated action. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Todorov, T. (1981). Mikhaıl Bakhtine: le principe dialogique

[Mikhaıl Bakhtine: The dialogical principle]. Paris: Seuil.

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

mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ward, J. R., & McCotter, S. S. (2004). Reflection as a visible

outcome for preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 20(3), 243–257.

Weiss, E. M., & Weiss, S. (2001). Doing reflective supervision

with student teachers in a professional development school

culture. Reflective Practice, 2(2), 125–154.

Williams, M., & Watson, A. (2004). Post-lesson debriefing:

Delayed or immediate? An investigation of student teacher

talk. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Re-

search and Pedagogy, 30(2), 85–96.

Wittgenstein, L. (1996). In G. E. M. Anscomb, & G. H. Von

Wright (Eds.), Remarques philosophiques (Philosophical in-

vestigations). Oxford: Blackwell.

Wittgenstein, L. (2004). In G. E. M. Anscomb, & G. H. Von

Wright (Eds.), De la certitude (On certainty). Oxford:

Blackwell.

Young, J. R., Bullough, R. V., Roni, J., Draper, J., Smith, L. K.,

& Erickson, L. B. (2005). Novice teacher growth and personal

models of mentoring: Choosing compassion over inquiry.

Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(2), 169–188.

Zanting, A., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2003). How do

student teachers elicit their mentor teachers’ practical knowl-

edge? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(3),

197–211.

Documents

Effects of collaborative mentoring on the articulation of training and classroom situations: A case study in the French school system