14

Click here to load reader

HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

  • Upload
    lyanh

  • View
    219

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001

HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACHLESSONS FROM AN EXEMPLARY SUPPORT TEACHER

Sharon Feiman-NemserMichigan State University

There is growing interest in the problem of teacher induction and widespread support for the idea ofassigning experienced teachers to work with beginning teachers. Still, we know relatively littleabout what thoughtful mentor teachers do, how they think about their work, and what novices learnfrom their interactions with them. This article describes how one exemplary support teacher definesand enacts his role with beginning teachers. On the basis of 10 hours of interview data and 20 hoursof observational data, the article illustrates specific principles and strategies that shape PeteFrazer’s mentoring practice and discusses how he learned to do this kind of work. As a close study ofthoughtful practice, the article offers a vision of “educative” mentoring and some ideas about theconditions needed to sustain it.

I want to be a cothinker with them so that I can helpthem to see new perspectives, new ways to solve theproblems they have.

—Pete Frazer during an interview (1988)

In this eloquent statement, Pete Frazer, a30-year veteran teacher, summed up the essenceof his work with beginning teachers.1 Releasedfrom classroom teaching for 2 years, Frazerworked full-time as a support teacher in aninduction/internship program jointly spon-sored by a university and a local school district.Assigned to help 14 beginning elementaryteachers, he spent most of his time visiting theirclassrooms and talking with them about theirteaching.

I first met Pete Frazer in 1986 while conduct-ing a study of an induction/internship programin which he was working. The research was partof the Teacher Education and Learning to Teachproject, sponsored by the National Center forResearch on Teacher Education at MichiganState University and carried out between 1985and 1990. The project combined case studies of11 teacher education programs (preservice,induction, in-service, and alternate route) withlongitudinal studies of teachers’ learning as

they participated in the programs and movedinto teaching (National Center for Research onTeacher Education, 1988). I decided to writeabout Pete Frazer’s philosophy and approach toworking with new teachers because he was soarticulate about his practice and because heoffers a vivid example of what I call “educative”mentoring (Feiman-Nemser, 1998).

The idea of educative mentoring builds onDewey’s (1938) concept of educative experi-ences, which are experiences that promoterather than retard future growth and lead toricher subsequent experiences. According toDewey, the educator is responsible for arrang-ing the physical and social conditions so thatlearners have growth-producing experiences.

Every experience is a moving force. Its value can bejudged only on the ground of what it moves towardand into. . . . It is the business of the educator to see inwhat direction an experience is heading . . . so as tojudge and direct it. (p. 39)

In this article, I use the term educative mentoringto distinguish Frazer’s approach to mentoringfrom more conventional approaches that em-phasize situational adjustment, technical ad-vice, and emotional support (Little, 1990).2

17

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001 17-30© 2001 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

Page 2: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

Educative mentoring rests on an explicitvision of good teaching and an understandingof teacher learning. Mentors who share this ori-entation attend to beginning teachers’ presentconcerns, questions, and purposes without los-ing sight of long-term goals for teacher develop-ment. They interact with novices in ways thatfoster an inquiring stance. They cultivate skillsand habits that enable novices to learn in andfrom their practice. They use their knowledgeand expertise to assess the direction novices areheading and to create opportunities and condi-tions that support meaningful teacher learningin the service of student learning.

A close study of a support teacher who exem-plifies this orientation is especially timely. Thereis growing interest in the problem of teacherinduction, and the idea of assigning experi-enced teachers to work with beginning teachershas received widespread support. Currently, 28states require districts to offer induction pro-grams. Eight states plan to implement a pro-gram in the next few years, and five more expectto expand their current programs (Sweeney &DeBolt, 2000). Most urban districts providesome kind of support to beginning teachers,usually in the form of mentoring (Fideler &Haselkorn, 1999). These induction initiativesare part of a larger effort to improve the qualityof teaching and learning in schools by focusingon the recruitment, preparation, induction, andrenewal of teachers (National Commission onTeaching and America’s Future, 1996).

Providing on-site support and guidance isespecially critical during the beginning years ofteaching. New teachers really have two jobs todo—they have to teach, and they have to learnto teach (Wildman, Niles, Magliaro, &McLaughlin, 1989). No matter what kind ofpreparation a teacher receives, some aspects ofteaching can be learned only on the job. No col-lege course can teach a new teacher how toblend knowledge of particular students andknowledge of particular content in decisionsabout what to do in specific situations.

Experienced teachers can help novices have asuccessful first year of teaching. They can alsoinfluence what novices learn from the experi-ence. Little (1990) distinguishes between emo-

tional support that makes novices feel comfort-able and professional support that fosters aprincipled understanding of teaching. Sheargues that the promise of mentoring lies not ineasing novices’ entry into teaching but in help-ing them confront difficult problems of practiceand use their teaching as a site for learning. As aresult, participating in a serious mentoring rela-tionship may actually make the first years ofteaching more strenuous in the short run whilepromoting greater rewards for teachers and stu-dents in the long run.

Assigning mentors to work with beginningteachers creates new incentives and careeropportunities for experienced teachers. It alsochallenges past assumptions about whereknowledge for teaching comes from and how itcan be learned. Implicit in the title “mentor” is“the presumption of wisdom . . . accumulatedknowledge that can serve as the basis of sensi-tive observation, astute commentary, soundadvice” (Little, 1990, p. 316). Yet, we know rela-tively little about what thoughtful mentors tryto teach novices, how they make their knowl-edge accessible, and how they think about theirmentoring in context. Some studies of thought-ful mentors at work have been conducted (seeDembele, 1995; Nevins, 1993), but more areneeded if we are going to understand the insidesof this important professional practice and itsinfluence on novices and their teaching. Thisarticle contributes to that agenda by describinghow one thoughtful support teacher definesand enacts his mentoring role and also how helearned to function so effectively in thatcapacity.

THE SUBJECT, THE DATA,AND THE ANALYSIS

Considered a legend in his district, PeteFrazer had been teaching elementary school formore than 30 years when I met him. He earned adoctorate in 1975 from the University of NewMexico where he worked with Marie Hughes, aprominent early childhood educator. Afrequentinstructor at the university and presenter at in-service workshops, Pete Frazer is a strong advo-cate of anecdotal records as a way for teachers to

18 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001

Page 3: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

study children and keep track of their thinkingand learning. When Frazer applied for the job ofsupport teacher, the program director won-dered whether others would be intimidated byhis reputation: “It was obvious that he couldwork with children. It was obvious that he couldwork with adults. And it was obvious that hewas open to learning. But was he so proficientthat he would be threatening?” So she askedhim, and his response allayed her concerns. “Hewas so modest and so willing to look at whatother people could teach him. It was very obvi-ous when I spoke to him.”

This article is based on 10 hours of interviewdata and an equal amount of observational datagathered in four visits spread over a period of 2years. Besides regular conversations withFrazer about the induction program, his partici-pation in it, and the progress of his interns, weconducted two formal interviews designed touncover Frazer’s reasons for becoming a sup-port teacher, his views of his role, how helearned it, and his thoughts about the impact ofthe work on his own teaching. In addition, weshadowed Frazer on three separate occasions,observing his interactions with eight beginningteachers/interns both in and out of the class-room and interviewing him about these interac-tions. We took notes about the teaching weobserved, taped Frazer’s conversations with his“clients,” and interviewed him about what wehad seen and heard. By watching Frazer inaction and talking to him about his practice, wesought a better understanding of how hethought about helping beginning teachers learnto teach.

In analyzing the observational and interviewdata with regard to Pete Frazer, I was struck bythe abundance of his strategic knowledge aboutteaching and mentoring and by the eloquenceand precision with which he talked about hisactions. Scattered throughout the interviewtranscripts were numerous instances whenFrazer labeled a specific principle or strategy oroffered a clear rationale for a particular inter-vention. As I thought about these examples inconjunction with the freestanding interviews, Ibegan to see powerful connections between theway Frazer defined his role and the way he

enacted it. Here was a fresh set of terms fordescribing particular mentoring moves alongwith a conception of role and purpose to givethem unity.

Much of the language of beginning teachersupport and assistance comes from the litera-ture on clinical supervision (e.g., Cogan, 1973;Glickman, 1985; Goldhammer, 1969) and coach-ing (e.g., Joyce & Showers, 1985). Althoughthese sources provide valuable models, per-spectives, and strategies, they are often repre-sented as technologies to apply or patterns ofaction to follow rather than as a set of ideas fromwhich a variety of actions could be generated.Focused on reflective conversation and targetedfeedback, they do not consider how mentorteachers can use their own practice as a site fornovices’ learning.

By fusing of values, theory, and action, PeteFrazer’s formulations differ from the proce-dural, morally neutral vocabulary of scripting,pattern analysis, conferencing, coaching, andfeedback. Frazer’s “moves” add nuance to acomplex practice, and his commentaries illumi-nate the kind of reasoning and improvisationcalled for in this form of professional develop-ment. Learning how one thoughtful mentorweaves showing and telling, listening and ask-ing together in support of beginning teacherdevelopment enlarges our understanding andour images of mentoring as an educationalpractice.

This wisdom of practice study highlights thecommitments, stance, and strategic knowledgeof one thoughtful support teacher. I begin withFrazer’s thoughts about teaching and learningto teach and his ideas about the role of the sup-port teacher. Next, I show how Frazer enacts hisrole by describing eight different moves that heidentified and that we observed or heard himtalk about. Third, I use one extended example toshow how several moves come together in adynamic whole. Finally, I briefly discuss howFrazer learned to work with beginning teachersand consider what we can learn from his exam-ple. Throughout the text, I make connectionsbetween Frazer’s skillful mentoring and keyissues in the literature on beginning teachersupport.

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001 19

Page 4: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

DEFINING THE SUPPORTTEACHER’S ROLE

Pete Frazer has very clear ideas about what itmeans to be a support teacher. His role defini-tion embraces a central tension between encour-aging personal expression and maintainingprofessional accountability, between support-ing the unique qualities of an individualteacher’s style and promoting a shared under-standing of good practice. Frazer wanted to cul-tivate the particular strengths of his new teach-ers. At the same time, he felt responsible forseeing that the novices’ teaching was respon-sive to the community, informed by develop-mental theories, and reflective of the best think-ing about learner-centered teaching. Theseobligations have their parallel in Frazer’s viewsof teaching.

Talking about what it means to be a supportteacher, Frazer identified two elements: (a)helping novices find ways to express who theyare in their work, and (b) helping novices de-velop a practice that is responsive to the com-munity and reflects what we know about chil-dren and learning. “Being a support teacher,” hesaid, “means helping people grow and becomegood teachers. It’s a combination of basingteaching techniques on what we know aboutchildren and learning and what we are like aspeople, our personalities, interests, inclinations.”

This role definition parallels Frazer’s ideasabout good teaching.

Part of what I would call good teaching is just idio-syncratic to me and to my readings and my studiesand my learning. Part of what I would call goodteaching is more generalizable . . . and would be rec-ognized by all.

By maintaining a double vision, Frazer triedto avoid two dangers in working with novices:“imposing his own style” and “sounding toolaissez-faire.” Committed to helping novicesfind their own way of doing things rather thancopy his, he did not want to give the impressionthat anything goes. As he pointed out,

We do know some things about teaching and learn-ing. We know some things about people and schoolsand communities. Hopefully the things that I knowabout, I can help them use, and not just be there andsay, “Gosh, whatever you’re becoming is wonderful.”

Pete Frazer captured the essence of what being asupport teacher means to him with the wordcothinker.

I want to be a cothinker with them so that I can helpthem to see new perspectives, new ways to solve theproblems they have. . . . And always, as they’re doingthe thinking, I bring to that as a listener my wholeworldview, my whole perspective about the natureof human beings and education. So when I makesuggestions, of course they have some relationshipto what I think is good schooling . . . but I try to keepan awareness that Frank or Ellen or Diane—each oneof them is in the process of developing their own setof things. So I certainly don’t want to impose mywhole view on them. . . . I just want to stand beside themand work and let them take from me what fits into the solu-tion of the problem they’re working on now [italicsadded].

Adopting the stance of cothinker rather than ex-pert, Frazer tried to balance his desire to sharewhat he knows about good teaching with hisconcern with helping novices figure out whatworks for them as they construct their own pro-fessional practice and identity. As an “educa-tional companion” to his novices, he offeredpersonal support and professional perspectivestailored to individual needs and purposes.

ENACTING THE ROLE

The moves and strategies Frazer used toenact his role and stance embody these princi-ples and values. Some reflect his respect fornovices as individuals in the process of develop-ing. Others express his commitment to baseemerging practices on self-study and relevantknowledge. Most striking is the strong parallelbetween the way Pete Frazer treated beginningteachers and the way he hoped they would treattheir students.

Finding Openings

A big issue for support providers and otherswho work with beginning teachers is decidingwhat to talk about so that the conversation willbe productive. The literature on clinical supervi-sion recommends that the supervisor andteacher choose a common focus during thepreobservation conference. The literature onadvising advocates working from the teacher’s

20 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001

Page 5: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

self-defined concerns (see, e.g., Devaney, 1978).Neither source pays sufficient attention to theprocess of interpreting teachers’ concerns, clari-fying their self-identified problems, or attend-ing to the challenges of problem framing as wellas problem solving. Recent literature on inquirycommunities, networks, and cooperating teach-ers and student teachers as collaborative teacherresearchers (e.g., Lieberman & Grolnick, 1999;Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992) emphasizes prob-lem posing, question asking, developing inter-pretations, and researching together; however,mentor training programs rarely tap thesesources.

Frazer conceptualized the process of figuringout what to talk about in dynamic terms. Hetalked about finding “openings,” fruitful topicsthat are salient to the novice and that lead to aconsideration of basic issues that all teachersneed to think about. The word productive charac-terizes the kinds of topics he looked for—notjust anything the novice brings up, but some-thing that would open up a “productive line ofthinking.”

The idea of “finding openings” came out inan interview following a visit to the classroomof Ellen, a beginning teacher. When I askedFrazer how the conference with Ellen went com-pared with what he had expected, he explainedthat they ended up discussing something quitedifferent from what he had anticipated.

Well, the only thing I had on my potential agenda go-ing in was to do some follow-up on the Chinese NewYear because the last time I had talked to her, she wasreal enthused about that. . . . As it turned out, theopening came in the direction of Ruben. And the keything, I decided, was seeing if there was going to besomething productive when I asked about the studentof the week and how well he does on reading theschool newsletter. That just opened the door to all thistalk about possible retention next year. It was somuch rich content there that it took all but 5 minutesof our half hour. (italics added)

Ellen had been worrying about whetherRuben would be ready to go on to second gradeby the end of the year. The school district re-quired teachers to notify parents early in theyear about the possibility of retention so thatthey would not be surprised later on by such a

recommendation. When Frazer noticed thatRuben was student of the week and asked howhe was doing, Ellen poured out her concernsabout what to do. This led to an extended dis-cussion about Ruben’s accomplishments todate, his likely progress by June, the pros andcons of holding him back or sending him on tosecond grade, and the problems caused by rigidgrade-level expectations. Frazer suggested thatEllen find out more about the philosophies ofthe second-grade teachers concerning readingso that she would be in a position to recommendan appropriate placement. Ellen had never con-sidered taking such a proactive stance. By ex-ploring Ruben’s situation in depth, Frazer notonly responded to Ellen’s immediate concernbut also raised broader issues about assessment,individual differences, and the teacher’s re-sponsibility to be an advocate for his or her stu-dents.

Because Frazer saw his novices once a week,he usually had some idea of what they wereworking on and some expectations about whatthey would talk about. At the same time, theunpredictability of classroom life meant that hehad to be prepared to deal with issues as theyarose. Because Frazer wanted to use his time inproductive ways, he did not take a catch-as-catch-can approach, talking about whatevercame up. For him, the challenge lay in findingsomething to discuss that was salient to theteacher but that would also move the teacher’spractice in fruitful directions.

Pinpointing Problems

A related strategy involved what Frazercalled “pinpointing problems.” In How WeThink, Dewey (1933) reminds us that problemsare not ready-made, that they must be con-structed out of a problematic situation. More re-cently, Donald Schon (1983) elaborated on thenature of problem finding and framing in thecontext of professional work.

When we set the problem, we select what we willtreat as the “things” of the situation, we set theboundaries of our attention to it, and we impose on ita coherence which allows us to say what is wrong

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001 21

Page 6: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

and in what directions the situation needs to bechanged. (p. 40)

The notion of problems as constructed ratherthan given seems absent from the literature onbeginning teacher concerns. For example, onefrequently cited review (Veenman, 1989)identifies discipline and management as themost pressing problems of beginning teachers.Yet problems so classified may have more to dowith curriculum and instruction. A little prob-ing reveals that such problems frequently arisebecause the teacher is unclear about his or herpurposes, has chosen an inappropriate task, hasnot given students adequate directions, or doesnot understand the content.

Frazer recognized that problems in teachingmust be identified or, as he put it, pinpointed.When Diane told him that she was not feelingvery good about reading, he suggested that theytalk about it next time. Later, he explained hisrationale to me:

I want to help her clarify, what does she mean by,“Reading isn’t going well”? I mean, let’s sort out theelements because it’s such a big statement—“Read-ing isn’t going well.” I’d like her to be able to get atthis . . . to pinpoint the problem . . . to come up withsome specifics about what about it isn’t as good as itcould be. . . . I’d like to think with her, to help her pin-point more exactly what she means by “Reading isnot going well.” And that means looking forstrengths as well as things she wants to change.

By working to pinpoint problems, beginningteachers practice talking about teaching in pre-cise, analytic ways. This is a critical tool in jointproblem solving and continuous improvement.Unless teachers can frame problems and com-municate them clearly to others, they will not beable to get assistance.

Probing Novices’ Thinking

To be a cothinker who engages in “productiveconsultations,” Pete Frazer had to know whatbeginning teachers were thinking about an is-sue. Sometimes he issued beginning teachers an“invitation” to share what was on their mindsby asking open-ended questions. Often, heasked probing questions to learn what novicesmeant by the things they said and to help them

clarify their ideas. He did not assume that he au-tomatically understood.

I want to get at what they’re thinking about an is-sue. . . . I don’t want to just assume that I know from afew words. . . . So I keep coming back with, What doyou think? What’s going on? I guess that’s a style ortechnique I use to make sure I’m getting enough in-put from them.

When Ellen commented that the children werereading the school newspaper more quickly,Frazer asked, “Why do you think the work withthe newsletter is going faster?” Later, he offeredthe following rationale for his question:

I was trying to get at what her picture is about whyprogress is occurring in reading. . . . What are herthoughts about why it is getting better? We don’t justneed to say, “They’re better at this, now that’s nice.”A more productive line of thinking is, “Why did itget better? What has led to that?”

Frazer offered a similar rationale for his ap-proach to Diane when she told him that “read-ing isn’t going very well.” Pete said he hopedshe would clarify her reasons for using the basalas they talked it through:

I’m not sure how much she’s thought of all the rea-sons, and I’m curious to know what her sequence is,why she’s doing this, where do you go next, how doyou help kids along the road to improvement? I’llthink with her on that and we’ll both learn from it.

Frazer sought knowledge about how his be-ginning teachers were thinking about their stu-dents and their work. By encouraging teachersto explicate their practice, he fostered an ana-lytic stance and precision that is unusual in dis-course among teachers (Ball & Cohen, 1999).Frazer wanted new teachers to have good rea-sons for the things they do and be able to explainthemselves to others, including principals andparents. He also believed that teachers shouldinquire into their practice not only when theyexperience problems but also when things aregoing well so that they can develop groundedtheories about teaching and learning.

Noticing Signs of Growth

As I observed Pete Frazer working with dif-ferent beginning teachers, I noticed that he regu-

22 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001

Page 7: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

larly complimented them on specific aspects oftheir teaching. He complimented Ellen on hownicely the children lined up and walked them-selves down the hall, saying, “That’s a testi-mony to the trust and respect that you give tothem.” He complimented Fran on the way shefostered thinking:

I don’t think I’ve ever been in a class where so muchthinking is going on. . . . You continually turn it backto them with an attitude that says, “Think about itbecause you’ll probably be able to figure it out.”

He complimented Diane on the way she han-dled the administrative intern: “You reallyshowed you were a strong teacher.”

When we questioned Frazer about this prac-tice, he offered a general rationale based on thebeginning teacher’s psychological or emotionalneeds:

In the 1st year, you have doubts, you need reassur-ance, you’re so overwhelmed by all the things youthink you’re not doing. “I’m not teaching enoughscience. I’m not teaching social studies in the rightway.” You need to know all the ways that you’re ef-fectively working. I don’t think you can ever get toomuch of that.

In reassuring his clients, Frazer tried to offerspecific feedback about individual accomplish-ments rather than general praise for doing agood job. Each instance of praise that we ob-served reflected an assessment of the teacher’sunique strengths and needs. Later, Frazer ex-plained that he tries to give compliments “thatare really true and aren’t just phony pats on theback.” For example, in response to our queryabout Ellen, he said:

I want her to see, sometimes she says things to methat make me wonder if she knows how good she is. Ithink she needs to hear in many ways what an excel-lent job she is doing. I do that a lot with her becauseshe says things like, “I don’t know if I’ve been doingthis right. What do you think?” I don’t think it’s fish-ing for compliments. I think she genuinely needs tohear a lot of times and in a lot of ways what a greatjob she’s doing in that room.

He complimented Fran on how she fostersthinking because he wanted her to see how herteaching reflects her own intellectual style.“You’re such a thinker. . . . The children in your

room, their thinking is starting to parallel yoursin so many wonderful ways.”

Frazer called this “noticing signs of growth.”Besides reinforcing his beliefs about good teach-ing and responding to novices’ needs for reas-surance, this practice fit with his view oflearning to teach as a process of development.When he noticed Fran’s dealing with a studentin a more direct way, for example, Frazer re-peated what she said and related that to her owndevelopment.

I can see you’re now more directive. Jose was not do-ing what he was supposed to and you said, “I’m go-ing to need to interrupt you. You really have aresponsibility over there that isn’t finished. Go getthat done and then come back.” That was more directand less beating around the bush than before [italicsadded].

In the same vein, he reminded Diane that earlierin the year, she would not have been able to ex-plain her position on reading to the administra-tive intern and principal. This kind of concreteand specific feedback helps novices visualizetheir evolving style, clarify what they need towork on, and concretize their own vision ofgood teaching.

Focusing on the Kids

In working with new teachers, Frazer kepthis eye on students. He regarded informationabout students’ thinking and sense making asinvaluable feedback to the teacher and a richsource of ideas for curriculum development.Focusing on the kids also took some pressure offthe beginning teacher by providing a “neutralground” for conversation. For Frazer, the chal-lenge was to “ask the question in a way thatdoesn’t make the teacher think he’s neglectedEric or that he doesn’t know what he’s doing.”

When Frazer visited classrooms, he often gotinvolved with the students, taking on the role ofcoteacher. This allowed him to gather informa-tion about pupils’ learning, which he couldshare with the teacher. If Frazer visited Bonnie’sroom when the children were writing, he wouldpull up a chair, sit down, and start helping themwith their editing. If he noticed something spe-cial about a pupil’s writing, he might call it to

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001 23

Page 8: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

Bonnie’s attention on the spot by going over andtelling her, “Jenny is doing this and this with herwriting and that seems to be such an improve-ment.” Alternatively, he might write a noteabout something a child did or said and give itto the teacher. The day Ellen introduced a read-ing activity using sentence strips, Frazer over-heard one of her students say that the strips ofpaper reminded him of Chinese fortune cook-ies. Frazer made a note about that and handed itto the teacher. Afterward, he explained his pur-pose to me:

I hope it helps her see. One of the ways you get feed-back about your own work is from little indices likethat during the day. For me, that kind of anecdotalinformation is so much more valuable for studyingyour own work than the test scores of children onstandardized tests.

In focusing beginning teachers’ attention onstudent thinking, Frazer departed from the con-ventional wisdom with regard to beginningteacher concerns. In her influential work on thissubject, Frances Fuller (1969) argues that thepreoccupations of beginning teachers follow a“developmental” pattern that starts with con-cerns about self, moves on to concerns aboutteaching, and finally arrives at concerns aboutpupils. Criticizing teacher educators for “teach-ing against the tide,” Fuller advocates a better fitbetween the curriculum of teacher educationand the concerns of beginning teachers.

Fuller’s developmental theory of teacher con-cerns may have face validity, but it confoundsdescription with prescription.3 Even if begin-ning teachers are preoccupied with their ownperformance, it does not follow that mentorteachers should avoid focusing their attentionon student learning. As Dewey (1938) explainsin Experience and Education, there is no point inbeing more mature if the educator, instead ofusing his or her greater insight to organize theconditions of experience, throws away his orher insight. Pete Frazer models how a supportteacher can help beginning teachers attend topupils’ thinking and sense making even whenthey are concerned about their own adequacyand teaching performance.

Reinforcing anUnderstanding of Theory

Increased reliance on experienced teachers tomentor beginning teachers means greateraccess to teachers’ practical wisdom. Whenmentor teachers have relevant theoreticalknowledge they can help beginning teachersmake meaningful connections between theoryand practice. Pete Frazer deliberately looked forsuch opportunities.

After listening to Ellen talk about reading,Frazer brought up Frank Smith’s (1985) researchabout “how kids bring their own meaning to apage.” Later, he explained his rationale to me:

She knows that theory, but I think we can neverknow it enough. . . . It needs to be continuallybrought up because the new paradigms for teachingreading and writing and language are so completelydifferent from the old ones that I think it’s a ca-reer-long process to keep looking at that.

By reinforcing theoretical ideas in context,Frazer helped novices develop usable knowl-edge and principled understandings. He be-lieved that teachers need a deep understandingof how children learn, enriched by theoreticalknowledge and informed by firsthand experi-ence. This was part of his induction curriculumfor beginning teachers.

Giving Living Examples ofOne Person’s Ways of Teaching

Teacher educators have long debated themerits of apprenticeship-type learning oppor-tunities. Ever since Dewey (1904/1965) distin-guished the “laboratory” view of practical workwith its emphasis on intellectual methods fromthe “apprenticeship” view with its focus on per-formance, the apprenticeship has gotten badpress in teacher education circles. Critics arguethat it encourages imitation rather thanunderstanding.

While the apprenticeship model does encour-age novices to learn the practices of the master, itdoes not preclude a consideration of underlyingprinciples or the development of conceptualunderstanding (Ball, 1987; Schon, 1987). Collins,

24 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001

Page 9: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

Brown, and Newman (1989) have coined theterm “cognitive apprenticeship” to describeexperiential learning situations in which teach-ers think aloud so that learners can not onlyobserve their actions but also see how theirteachers think about particular tasks orproblems.

The idea of a cognitive apprenticeship fits theintent behind Frazer’s use of demonstrationteaching, which he called “giving living exam-ples of one person’s ways of teaching.” Frazerhoped that novices would not only pick up par-ticular teaching ideas but begin to clarify gen-eral characteristics of good teaching. Thisrequired them to separate out those qualitiesunique to Frazer’s personality and style frommore general features of good practice.

When Diane expressed concern about how tomotivate her low reading group and what to dowith them for a whole hour, Frazer volunteeredto teach a reading lesson. He introduced andread a story from the basal reader about amouse. Then he read aloud from Stuart Little byE. B. White (1945), a classic children’s bookabout a distinguished mouse born into a humanfamily. During the lesson, he stopped to explainto Diane what he was doing and why. Here ishow he described the demonstration lesson tome:

I got myself all jazzed up about mice and I said, “Thefirst thing you need to do is get them so they want toknow more about mice.” So we did this activity toget them interested in mice and mice words. . . . Iwould stop as I was teaching and say, “This is whyI’m doing this.”

Frazer hoped that Diane would see “some spe-cific methods for getting across a reading les-son.” In particular, he wanted to show her howto integrate reading aloud good children’s liter-ature with lessons from the basal reader. At thesame time, he hoped that she could look beyondthe parts that were uniquely Frazer such as theway he imitated Donald Duck and pull outsome general features of good teaching—“Heresponded positively to children. He really lis-tened to children. He extended what they said.”

Demonstrations can help beginning teachersvisualize new practices and see how teachersenact particular values and principles. At the

same time, beginning teachers may not see whatexperienced teachers notice or intend becausetheir cognitive maps are less elaborated. Toensure that demonstrations are educative toolsin teacher development, mentors need to pointout what they regard as central and find outhow novices interpret what they see. Frazerunderstood that giving living examples ofanother person’s teaching could be an effectivestrategy, but he did not leave to chance what thebeginning teachers made of the experience.

Modeling WonderingAbout Teaching

Educators generally associate modeling withactions. Frazer also modeled “wondering aboutteaching,” which he saw as central to the im-provement of teaching.

It seems that wondering about our work and won-dering about kids is a major element in being able toimprove our teaching. . . . Part of the excitement ofteaching and also the effectiveness depends on asense of wondering.

The idea of modeling wondering aboutteaching came up in an interview with Frazerabout working with Frank on how to teach mul-tiplication to third graders. The extended exam-ple, which follows, illustrates how Frazermodeled wondering about teaching. It alsoshows how the other moves we have examinedcame together in practice. In this episode, wesee Frazer probing Frank’s thinking, focusingon students’ sense making, bringing in research,giving a living example of his teaching, andmodeling wondering about teaching.

Frank had asked Frazer to work with a smallgroup of third graders who were having troublewith multiplication. Frank had been doingsome skill and drill work with them, but he wasnot sure the students were getting it. On the wayto school, Frazer described his purpose to me:

I don’t have a very specific goal except that both ofus will think more about what goes on with kids. . . . Ithink we’ll both be trying to clarify what are we try-ing to get kids to understand when they multiplyand what can eight-year-olds [understand], whatkind of sense of it can they make and what kind ofmanipulatives can we use to help make sense of that.

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001 25

Page 10: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

Frazer met Frank in his classroom at 8:00, 30minutes before the children showed up. Hebrought a book about how children learn math-ematics and a bag of small game pieces and rub-ber bands to use in helping students get the ideaof separating things into sets. In his usual fash-ion, Frazer let Frank take the lead, listening pa-tiently while Frank described his confusionwith regard to the numbers in a multiplicationproblem—“Which is the number of sets andwhich is the number of items in a set?”

After a while, Frazer gently shifted the con-versation from Frank’s confusion to their plansfor the morning. “Would Frank like to see whathe was planning to do with the kids?” Frank lis-tened eagerly as Frazer described how hewould use the cubes and rubber bands to helpstudents represent the times tables. He also ac-cepted the extra materials Frazer had brought,putting aside the worksheet he had prepared forthem. When the children arrived, Frazerworked with one small group while Frankworked with another. Then Frazer left foranother appointment.

In the interview following the visit, Frazer(PF) explained to the researcher (R) that hewanted to show Frank the strategy of usinggame pieces and rubber bands, even though hedid not necessarily intend for him to “do it thatway.” He also planned to use data gatheredfrom working with the children to talk withFrank about how children make sense of mathe-matics. In the course of elaborating on this idea,he introduced the idea of modeling how hewonders about teaching:

R: What type of feedback will you give Frank?PF: It depends on what he brings up. One of the things

we can always keep thinking about . . . in a class of 24kids . . . how much variety there is in their under-standing of mathematics and how very individual itis. . . . I would like to highlight that with examplesfrom his group and my group. . . . I want to modelhow important I think it is to . . . maintain a balancebetween the information you are dealing with andthe individual realities of the kids.

R: When you say “model,” what do you mean?PF: Thinking about it, I guess. Say, for example, look at

Luis, I wonder if he was thinking this or I wonderwhat he was thinking, but I don’t have a theory. Itseems important to give him examples of how I wonderabout the work, as a teacher, how questions come up, how Isay, “I wonder what is going on here. It could be this, it

could be this. What are the factors contributing to this?”So that’s what I mean by modeling [italics added].

In this example, we see Frazer working onmultiple agendas. To help clear up Frank’s sub-ject matter confusion and add to his pedagogi-cal content knowledge, Frazer brought a bookand concrete materials to represent the opera-tion of multiplication. He also came prepared towork with students and gather data about howthey thought about mathematics. This wouldprovide the basis for a conversation with Frankabout what different children understood, whatthey found confusing, and what the teachersmight do to clear up confusions and strengthenunderstanding. In all this, Frazer would take thestance of coteacher and cothinker, using his ownpractice as a site for learning about studentthinking and for helping Frank learn aboutteaching mathematics for understanding.

LEARNING TO BE ASUPPORT TEACHER

How did Pete Frazer learn to work withbeginning teachers in this way? Where did hedevelop his ideas about the support teacher’srole? Without diminishing the contribution ofPete Frazer’s educational background, teachingexperience, and enormous personal resources, itis also true that he worked in an induction pro-gram that provided support teachers with thesame kind of backing and guidance offered tonovice teachers. Pete Frazer learned the role ofsupport teacher and developed his practice inthe context of a professional learning community.

Frazer was one of eight support teachersworking for 2 years (1986 through 1988) in theGraduate Intern/Teacher Induction Program, ajoint venture of the University of New Mexicoand the Albuquerque Public Schools. Throughan ingenious financial arrangement thatinvolved no additional cost to the district, theprogram released 15 experienced teachers fromclassroom duties to work full-time withpreservice and beginning teachers for 2 years. Itdid this by placing 28 interns in classroomswhere they carried out all the responsibilities ofa 1st-year teacher while earning half a begin-ning teacher’s salary. Interns also worked on a

26 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001

Page 11: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

master’s degree at the university. The moneysaved allowed the district to continue payingthe experienced teachers their full salaries.

Support teachers began learning about theirrole in a weeklong orientation before the start ofthe school year and continued studying theirwork in weekly, 3-hour staff seminars through-out the year. Conducted by the program direc-tor, a national expert on teacher induction, thestaff seminars provided a regular opportunityfor ongoing conversation about how to helpnew teachers. During the course of my research,I attended the orientation and observed six staffseminars over the course of 2 years. I also inter-viewed the program director about her goalsand the support teachers about the contributionof the seminar to their work with interns andbeginning teachers.

Presenting individual cases was a regularactivity in staff seminars. Support teachersraised specific questions or described particularsituations, which they needed help addressing.Besides talking about individual clients andhow to help them, the support teachers also readand discussed various articles about teachingand learning to teach selected by the programdirector. Combining discussions of specificproblems with more theoretical discussions andreadings helped support teachers articulatetheir knowledge, clarify their beliefs, develop ashared language, and construct an understand-ing of their new role.

From his fellow support teachers, Pete Frazerlearned a lot about how to work with beginningteachers. He also learned about the value of col-laboration. Like most teachers, he had had fewopportunities to learn with and from col-leagues. “It means a lot to me,” he explained.“As a teacher, I’ve gotten along well with mycolleagues . . . but mostly I’ve done my ownwork and didn’t work on a team.” In an inter-view, Frazer described what he found mostvaluable about the staff seminar:

The biggest part has been the review of individualcases, individual things that are actually going onwith one of my team members. I’ve got this and thisgoing on with a teacher and principal at my school.Then we all think together with that person. OK,what’s going on, in what ways can we put our heads

together to help you think of ways you can workwith them? That has been the most continuouslyhelpful thing for me.

Learning To Be More Direct

From colleagues and from firsthand experi-ence, Frazer learned to be more direct about get-ting into people’s classrooms. Compared withthe other support teachers during his 1st year,Frazer said he was “the most cautious.” By lis-tening to colleagues talk about “ways to worktheir way into thinking with their clients aboutproblems, ways to set miniagendas or ways toget into conversations that have depth andpotential” and by experimenting with differentstrategies, Frazer gradually learned to be moredirect.

When we returned in the 2nd year of thestudy to observe Frazer and talk to him abouthis work, he reflected on how he had grown as asupport teacher: “Last year, I waited more forthe clients to bring things up. This year, I bringthem up more myself. . . . I’m better at myjob . . . and it feels good.” Then he described ingreat detail how he had been trying to work hisway into the classroom of a very resistant begin-ning teacher. He started out indirectly butquickly surmised that that would not work. Sohe brought in a 10-sided die and showed theteacher some quick activities to do, hoping “thatwould make her know that I have practicalideas.” But she said, “Thank you very much.”And no invitation followed. Finally, he said di-rectly,

You know, part of my job is to come in the room andhelp people. I work in the rooms of all my clients,and I would like to come in and work in your room,but I need to know when and if you would like me.

She said she would let him know. “I’ve done ev-erything I can short of walking in there and sit-ting down. She doesn’t seem to have anythingto hide.” He had gone in at lunch time to dominiworkshops on math and science for this be-ginner and the teacher next door. “I’ve given ev-ery hint I can in every direct way, and no way,she’s not going to let me in her room.” Althoughthis seemed to be an extreme case, it was clear

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001 27

Page 12: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

that Frazer would not have taken such actionsthe previous year.

Learning New Approaches to Writing

Not only did Frazer develop his practice as asupport teacher; he also broadened his ideasabout teaching children, particularly in the areaof writing. Attending a district-sponsoredworkshop on the writing process with his in-terns and watching several of them start a writ-ers’ workshop in their classroom led Frazer torethink his approach to the teaching of writing.In the past, Frazer had had his students writestories about artificial topics (e.g., “A Martianlanded in your community. What did the com-munity do about it?”). During his tenure as asupport teacher, he came to see the significanceof grounding students’ writing in their own lifeexperiences. “You’re teaching them to look atthe world and write about things that they’veexperienced, that they’ve been through, andturning those into essays or stories.” The in-tense involvement of the students and the qual-ity of their writing persuaded Frazer that heshould consider incorporating writers’ work-shop into his own teaching.

I’m so amazed how kids can stay involved. Moreand more, I’m thinking, “When I go back to a class-room, I’ll try to make the writers’ workshop theheart of our writing.” It’s been a slow change for me.I didn’t know if it could work with kids, and it feltlike all these steps and if they’re spending so long onone piece of writing and thinking, “How will they doit?” And I see them doing it. It’s very developmen-tally sound. Each child will be at their own level ofwriting and the process will help them write moreand take them farther.

Pete Frazer not only contributed to the learn-ing of beginning teachers, but he himself alsolearned. The things he learned helped him be-come a better support teacher and a better class-room teacher. Both Frazer’s learning and thelearning of the beginning teachers occurredwithin a community of practice where col-leagues shared a vision of good teaching and acommitment to progressive public educationand valued collaboration and inquiry.

CONCLUSION

Mentoring entered the vocabulary of U.S.educational reform in the 1980s as part of abroader effort to professionalize teaching (Lit-tle, 1990). Mentoring’s early association withbeginning teacher induction often led to a nar-row view of mentoring as a form of temporarysupport to help novices cope with the demandsof their 1st year of teaching. Through the early1990s, as the idea of mentoring was extended tothe preservice level, researchers advanced vari-ous competing and complementary role defini-tions and specifications of mentors’ functions,characteristics, and qualities (e.g., Gehrke, 1988;Gray & Gray, 1985; Healy & Welchert, 1990).Most studies relied on self-report and took theform of program evaluation. Few reflected seri-ous conceptual clarification or attention to men-tors’ practice and the consequences for novices’learning (Little, 1990).

Situated in practice and in a relationship withan experienced educator, mentoring has thepotential to foster powerful teaching and todevelop the dispositions and skills of continu-ous improvement. At the same time, mentorsmay also perpetuate standard teaching prac-tices and reinforce norms of individualism andnoninterference. How mentors define and enacttheir role, what kind of preparation and supportthey receive, whether mentors have time tomentor, and whether the culture of teachingreinforces their work all influence the characterand quality of mentoring and its influence onnovices’ practice (Feiman-Nemser & Parker,1993).

This portrait of an exemplary support teacherprovides a vision of the possible in mentoringrather than a view of the probable.4 It showshow educative mentoring promotes beginningteacher development by cultivating a disposi-tion of inquiry, focusing attention on studentthinking and understanding, and fostering dis-ciplined talk about problems of practice. Con-ventional approaches to mentoring may offershort-term, feel-good support. Educative men-toring bears a strong family resemblance to otherforms of practice-centered, inquiry-oriented pro-fessional development that are linked to a vision

28 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001

Page 13: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

of powerful learning for all students and sup-ported by a collaborative professional culture(Ball & Cohen, 1999; Hawley & Valli, 1999; Little,1990).

If teaching is the profession that shapesAmerica’s future (National Commission onTeaching and America’s Future, 1996), theninvesting in new teacher development and thedevelopment of teachers’ mentors is an invest-ment in that future. As large numbers of newteachers are hired to meet growing needs and tofill gaps created by unprecedented amounts ofretirement and high rates of attrition in the earlyyears of teaching, serious attention to inductionand mentoring becomes even more critical. Pol-icy makers and the public must understand thatnew teachers, like other beginning profession-als, need continuing opportunities to hone theirknowledge and skills under the guidance ofmore knowledgeable and experienced practitio-ners (Darling-Hammond, Berry, Haselkorn, &Fideler, 1999). Educators and administratorsmust create the structures and culture thatenable all teachers to continue learning in andfrom practice as they address the complex chal-lenges of public education.

NOTES1. All names of teachers and students in this article are pseud-

onyms. I want to acknowledge the contribution of Michelle Parkerin gathering most of the data for this case study and express myappreciation to the support teachers and beginning teachers whoparticipated so generously in the research.

2. The concept of educative mentoring grew out of an analysisof Teacher Education and Learning to Teach data from two begin-ning teacher programs. Based on a comparison of mentoring prac-tice in these two sites, we identified three kinds of mentors: localguides, educational companions, and change agents (seeFeiman-Nemser & Parker, 1993). We continued to refine the idea ofeducative mentoring in a cross-cultural study of reform-mindedmentors in England, China, and the United States and through de-velopment work in a professional development school affiliatedwith Michigan State University (Feiman-Nemser & Beasley, 1998).

3. For a critique of Fuller (1969) and other developmental ap-proaches to teacher education, see Feiman-Nemser and Floden(1981).

4. Lee Shulman (1983) explains the value of such a strategy:

It is often the goal . . . to pursue the possible, not only to sup-port the probable or frequent. The well-crafted caseinstantiates the possible, not only documenting that it canbe done, but also laying out at least one detailed example ofhow it was organized, developed and pursued. (p. 495)

REFERENCESBall, D. (1987, April). “Laboratory” and “apprenticeship”:

How do they function as metaphors for practical experiencein teacher education? Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Associ-ation, Washington, DC.

Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, develop-ing practitioners: Toward a practice based theory ofprofessional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession:Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. New York:Houghton Mifflin.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). The newapprenticeship: Teaching students the craft of reading,writing and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,learning, and instruction (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., Haselkorn, D., & Fideler,E. (1999). Teacher recruitment, selection and induction:Policy influences on the supply and quality of teachers.In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching asthe learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice(pp. 183-232). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dembele, M. (1995). Mentors and mentoring: Frames foraction, ways of acting and consequences for novice teachers’learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MichiganState University, East Lansing.

Devaney, K. (Ed.). (1978). Teachers’ centers. San Francisco:Far West Laboratory for Educational Research andDevelopment.

Dewey, J. (1904/1965). The relation of theory to practice ineducation. In M. Borrowman (Ed.), Teacher education inAmerica. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: D. C. Heath.Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Col-

lier Books.Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Teachers as teacher educators.

European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 63-74.Feiman-Nemser, S., & Beasley, K. (1998). Mentoring as as-

sisted performance: The case of co-planning. In V. Richardson(Ed.), Constructivist teacher education (pp. 1-32). NewYork: Falmer.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R. (1981). A critique ofdevelopmental approaches in teacher education. Actionin Teacher Education, 3(1), 35-38.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. (1993). Mentoring in con-text: A comparison of two U.S. programs for beginningteachers. International Journal of Educational Research,19(8), 699-718.

Fideler, E., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urbanteacher induction practices in the United States. Belmont,MA: Recruiting New Teachers.

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001 29

Page 14: HELPING NOVICES LEARN TO TEACH

Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmentalconceptualization. American Educational Research Jour-nal, 6, 207-226.

Gehrke, N. J. (1988). Toward a definition of mentoring. The-ory into Practice, 27, 190-194.

Glickman, C. (1985). Supervision of instruction: A develop-mental approach. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methodsfor the supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Gray, W. A., & Gray, M. M. (1985). Synthesis of research onmentoring beginning teachers. Educational Leadership,43(3), 37-43.

Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effectiveprofessional development. In L. Darling-Hammond &G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Hand-book of policy and practice (pp. 292-312). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Healy, C. C., & Welchert, A. J. (1990). Mentoring relations:A definition to advance research and practice. Educa-tional Researcher, 19(9), 17-21.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1985). The coaching of teaching.Educational Leadership, 40(1), 4-11.

Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1999). Networks andreform in American education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learningprofession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 292-312).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Little, J. W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon. In C. Cazden(Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 297-351). Wash-ington, DC: American Educational ResearchAssociation.

Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (Eds.). (1992). Inside/outside:Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers Col-lege Press.

National Center for Research on Teacher Education.(1988). Teacher education and learning to teach: Aresearch agenda. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6),27-32.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.(1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future.New York: Author.

Nevins, R. (1993). Classroom teachers as mentors: Their per-spectives on helping novices learn to teach. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, EastLansing.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionalsthink in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L. (1983). Autonomy and obligation: The remotecontrol of teaching. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.),Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 484-504). New York:Longman.

Smith, F. (1985). Reading without nonsense (2nd ed.). NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Sweeney, B., & DeBolt, G. (2000). A survey of the 50 states:Mandated teacher induction programs. In S. Odell &L. Huling (Eds.), Quality mentoring for novice teachers(pp. 97-106). Washington, DC: Association of TeacherEducators and Kappa Delta Pi.

Veenman, S. (1989). Perceived problems of beginningteachers. Review of Educational Research, 54, 143-178.

White, E. B. (1945). Stuart Little. New York: Harper & Row.Wildman, T. M., Niles, J. A., Magliaro, S. G., & McLaughlin,

R. A. (1989). Teaching and learning to teach: The tworoles of beginning teachers. Elementary School Journal,89, 471-493.

Sharon Feiman-Nemser is a professor of teacher edu-cation at Michigan State University where she codirects a5-year, field-based teacher education program and teachesdoctoral students. For the past 10 years, Dr. Feiman-Nemser has been studying teacher induction and men-toring. She has written extensively about learning toteach, the curriculum of teacher education, mentoring,and new teacher induction.

30 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, January/February 2001