Teaching Education Mentoring two student teachers

This article was downloaded by: [Gardiner, Wendy] On: 4 August 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 925184370] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713447679

Mentoring two student teachers: mentors' perceptions of peer placements Wendy Gardinera a Elementary and Middle Level Teacher Education, National-Louis University, Chicago, USA Online publication date: 03 August 2010

To cite this Article Gardiner, Wendy(2010) 'Mentoring two student teachers: mentors' perceptions of peer placements',

Teaching Education, 21: 3, 233 — 246 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10476210903342102 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210903342102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Teaching Education Vol. 21, No. 3, September 2010, 233–246

Mentoring two student teachers: mentors’ perceptions of peer placements Wendy Gardiner* Elementary and Middle Level Teacher Education, National-Louis University, Chicago, USA (Received 29 March 2009; final version received 21 June 2009) Taylor and Francis Ltd CTED_A_434388.sgm

Downloaded By: [Gardiner, Wendy] At: 16:52 4 August 2010

Teaching 10.1080/10476210903342102 1047-6210 Original Taylor 302010 21 Dr [email protected] 00000September WendyGardiner &Article Francis Education (print)/1470-1286 2010 (online)

Research on peer placements suggests that partnering two preservice teachers with a mentor provides a better, more supportive context for learning to teach. As extant research has focused more on student teachers’ development, less is known about mentors’ perceptions and experiences. This qualitative study focuses on seven mentor teachers who have mentored one–three years in peer placements to provide a textured understanding of their perceptions and experiences. Results indicate: (a) peer collaboration provides important pedagogical scaffolding that helps student teachers plan and implement complex pedagogies; (b) peer–mentor observation helps student teachers feel more efficacious about their developing practice; (c) sharing responsibility for instruction and distributing roles and resources enables mentors to better meet the needs of student teachers and students; and (d) effective peer placements require mentors to conceptualize their work in different ways. Professional development recommendations are also provided. Keywords: peer placement; student teaching; mentoring; collaboration

Introduction A growing body of research suggests that peer placements, two student teachers paired with a mentor, provide a significantly better context in which to learn to teach than the traditional student–mentor teacher single placement model (Baker & Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009; Smith, 2002). By citing increased support, collaboration, and risk-taking as primary benefits to student teachers, these researchers advocate for the continued practice of and inquiry into peer placements. To date, the extant research has examined primarily how peer placements impact student teachers’ professional development. Research indicates that mentors are generally supportive of the model, but concerns have been raised regarding increased workload (Baker & Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003), difficulties in providing individualized feedback (Baker & Milner, 2006), and that pairing two preservice teachers is ‘unrealistic’ preparation for an autonomous profession (Bullough et al., 2002, 2003). This study seeks to contribute to the research on peer placements by employing qualitative methodology to provide a more nuanced understanding of how seven mentors perceived and experienced the benefits and drawbacks of peer placements – both for *Email: [email protected] ISSN 1047-6210 print/ISSN 1470-1286 online © 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/10476210903342102 http://www.informaworld.com


234

W. Gardiner

themselves and the student teachers with whom they work. Unlike prior research, five mentors in this study have mentored repeatedly in peer placements and have a greater breadth of experiences from which to draw. A more comprehensive understanding of how mentors perceive and experience peer placements is important because, ultimately, whether peer placements are a viable reform model for teacher education is dependent upon mentor teachers’ positive experiences with this model and their willingness and ability to host two, rather than one, student teachers. This paper begins by situating peer placements within a community of practice framework (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) and providing an overview of peer placement research. Next, the elementary professional development school context, in which this study took place, is described, as are how peer placements were made and the types of professional development provided. Then, the following findings are discussed: (a) peer observation and collaboration provide professional scaffolding in ways that helped student teachers conceptualize and implement challenging studentcentered pedagogies; (b) peer–mentor observation helped student teachers feel more efficacious about their professional development; (c) by distributing roles, resources, and responsibilities amongst mentors and student teachers, six mentors considered peer placements a more effective model for meeting the needs of students and student teachers (one mentor was undecided); and (d) mentoring peers, in a collaborative and distributive way, requires an additional set of skills and strategies. Finally, to provide insights to schools and universities interested in initiating or refining peer placements, an analysis of peer and peer mentor collaboration is discussed and recommendations to facilitate mentor–peer collaborations are provided.

Conceptual framework Collaboration and learning Learning is fundamentally social in nature (John-Steiner, 2000; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998) and ‘proceeds most effectively if it is… supported by membership in a learning community’ (Shulman & Shulman, 2004, p. 267). From a social perspective, learning is defined as a process through which individuals acquire increasingly full access to the cultural resources of one’s society (Vygotsky, 1978). In describing the social nature of learning, Wenger (1998) explains that learning occurs when members engage in the negotiating of meaning through mutual engagement in a joint enterprise. Through their mutual engagement, members learn from each other’s skills, knowledge, beliefs, and strengths, and are able to accomplish more collectively than they could achieve individually (John-Steiner, 2000; Rogoff, 1990; Wenger, 1998). While learning is enhanced through social membership, membership in a community does not automatically engender learning – the extent to which learning occurs is predicated on the following features. Members’ investment must be mutual and their joint work predicated on a shared vision. In addition, for learning to occur members need to be willing and able to collaboratively question, construct and negotiate meaning (John-Steiner, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). For example, if members are mutually engaged and share a vision of the purpose of their work, but do not enter into critical examination and discussion of practices, their engagement will most likely serve to maintain the status quo rather than serve as a foundation for learning. In the context of teaching, Feiman-Nemser (2001) cautions that without exploring

Teaching Education

235


multiple perspectives and alternatives, collaborative dialogue is antithetical to learning and merely reinforces existing or simplistic notions of teaching and learning. So, while the ‘emerging image of the professional teacher is one who thinks systematically about her practice in the context of educational research… working creatively and collaboratively as a member of a learning community’ (Burroughs, Schwartz, & Hendricks-Lee, 2000, p. 344), for this image of teaching to manifest, preservice teachers must be prepared to work collaboratively and inservice teachers need to develop skills for collaborative work (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Peer placements Bullough et al.’s (2002, 2003) comparative studies examined peer placements in an early field placement (2002) and in student teaching (2003). Both studies took place in elementary schools and were predicated on the importance of collaboration in education. In each study, researchers found that peers: (1) invest in and support each other’s development; (2) plan together, intervene and assist in each other’s lessons; and (3) develop more interesting lessons, take more instructional risks, and contribute more extensively to student learning than their single-placed counterparts. However, in both studies some participants registered concern that working together is not ‘realistic’ and does not prepare students for the solitary experience encountered in a ‘real’ classroom. Baker and Milner’s (2006) comparative study examined peer and single placements in a high school English student teaching experience. Their key finding was that student teachers in peer placements learned more from their mentors because talk focused more on pedagogical matters such as ‘what constitutes good teaching’ and ‘how to improve teaching’. In contrast, mentors’ talk with student teachers in single placements was more centered on personal matters. Baker and Milner suggest that in peer placements mentors are pushed to greater degrees of articulation about pedagogy and practice, whereas mentors in single placements respond more to individual traits and personality. Similar to Bullough et al.’s (2002, 2003) finding in elementary schools, Baker and Milner noted by co-planning, team teaching, and observing one another teach, peers support each other’s development. Smith’s (2002) three-year action research examined collaborative interactions in high school math classes and focused on student teachers’ engagement within each other’s zones of proximal development. While student teachers were instructed to plan and teach independently (as opposed to co-planning and co-teaching), they were encouraged to discuss their plans and provide assistance during instruction such as working with students or managing materials. To this end, Smith reports that presence of a peer during instruction, referred to ‘backup assistance’, facilitates risk-taking and enables student teachers to implement complex, student-centered pedagogies. Smith also explains that student teachers learn more from observing a peer than a mentor, as errors made by a novice are more transparent than those made by an experienced teacher. As such, peer observation provides vicarious experiences the non-teaching peer can draw upon for subsequent planning and instruction. However, Smith cautions that collaboration can be threatened by one peer’s domination over the pair. Interestingly, no other study reported competition or lack of parity. Gardiner and Robinson (2009) investigated the impact of peer placements in an elementary urban practicum. They also indicate that peer collaboration during planning and instruction helps student teachers take instructional risks. Specifically, they


236

W. Gardiner

explain that by brainstorming, co-planning, and assisting during lesson implementation, preservice teachers help each other bridge theory and practice and implement student-centered pedagogies that they were not seeing in their more teacher-centered field placements. They also found peer dialogue was more rich and open-ended than dialogue with mentors. Due to mentors’ competing responsibilities, peer–mentor dialogue tended to be directive and focused on issues such as which lesson to teach and what to do differently next time, whereas peer dialogue involved more brainstorming and problem solving. Peer feedback was also more frequent and specific than mentors’. Mentors’ perspectives on peer placement are varied. While mentors (Baker & Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003) were consistent in their belief that support and collaboration were clear benefits to preservice teachers, there was less coherence in how they viewed these placements in relation to their workload. Mentors in Bullough et al.’s studies indicated mixed feelings as to whether or not mentoring two student teachers was more or less work for them. In the study with student teachers (2003), one mentor stated the workload was increased; the second believed it was more at the beginning, but less towards the end of the semester; while the third felt it was less because the work was shared. When Baker and Milner (2006) surveyed the two mentors who participated in peer placements, mentors indicated that they did not regard the model as positively as their student teachers did. Mentors stated clear drawbacks revolving around constraints on time – specifically, finding time for individualized dialogue with each student teacher in light of their other responsibilities. Both mentors described feeling overstretched and less able to meet student teachers’ individual needs. According to one mentor, as a result, many conversations occurred collectively that she would have rather had individually. Context This study took place in a professional development school, ‘Washburne Academy’, that was part of a large, urban midwestern public school system. Washburne was a small PreK-8 school with two classrooms per grade level. Average class size was 26. Thirty per cent of the students spoke English as a second language. Fifty-one per cent received free or reduced lunch. The partnership between Washburne and a local university began in 2001. In this graduate program leading to elementary certification and a master of arts in teaching, elementary education students combined cohort-based graduate level coursework with a year-long urban student teaching placement (usually peer, but sometimes single) with a mentor teacher. Coursework began in the summer and continued in the evenings throughout the academic year. To qualify for a mentoring position, mentors were expected to have taught for at least five years, consistently received ‘superior’ performance reviews (the highest level in the school district), and to participate in ongoing professional learning with colleagues and student teachers. Peer placements, intended to promote collaboration, were the preferred model, but single placements also occurred depending on the number of student teachers enrolled in the program, grade level preferences, and student teacher attrition. Placements were made one week before the school year commenced and after preservice teachers had finished their first quarter of coursework together. To inform placements, preservice teachers were asked to: (1) list attributes desirable in a mentor; (2) select their top


Teaching Education

237

three grade level preferences; and (3) indicate three peers with whom they would most and least want to be paired. The school–university liaison and a member of the administrative team made the matches based on requests and their knowledge of preservice and mentor teachers. Professional development designed to promote reflective practice (Schon, 1983), occurred throughout the academic year. At the beginning of the year, mentors and student teachers attended a three-day session to construct a common goal of mentoring, building reflective practitioners, and to build or refine skills required for reflective coaching (Costa & Garmstron, 1994). This included the importance of explicating one’s thinking about practice; how to give positive and corrective feedback; how to collect data on a colleague’s practice (i.e., tallying number of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ level questions or charting wait time or movement around the room); how to coach a colleague’s practice; and how to promote and engage in reflective dialogue. Throughout the year, mentors attended regular meetings to promote program congruence, discuss issues and needs, or provide program updates. For example, mentors might review the competency appraisal and, in an effort to promote interrater reliability, discuss skills and attributes they perceive would correlate to rubric categories. Or, the sequence of student teachers’ increasing involvement would be discussed to ensure that across classrooms student teachers were having similar types of experiences. Quarterly professional development was also conducted with mentors and student teachers to support their co-engagement with and co-inquiry into practice. These sessions were individualized per team of mentor and student teacher/s. Included were strategies specific to the team to promote reflective discourse, to help team members identify and articulate areas for professional growth, to develop and refine skills for gathering data on a colleague’s practice, and how to use data to support professional growth.

Method Participants Mentors who were working in peer placements during the 2004–2005 academic year (when interviews occurred) and who had prior experiences with single placements were solicited for participation in this study. The seven K-5 mentors who volunteered (see Table 1) had taught for between eight and 28 years. All were female. Two were African American and five were Caucasian. Ages ranged from 28 to 53 years. All but one mentor had taught for at least five years in high poverty, high needs urban schools. Participation was voluntary without remuneration and all names are pseudonyms. Additionally, informal interviews were conducted with student teachers, the school principal, and the university–school liaison. These interviews provided additional background information and were, at times, conducted to corroborate or redirect data interpretations.

Data collection and analysis Data collection included individual and focus group interviews with mentors, observation, field notes, and document review. The interview cycle, two individual and

238

W. Gardiner


Table 1. Mentors’ demographic information. ‘Name’

Ethnicity

Amy Brenda Christina Karen Margaret Melodie Robin

Caucasian African American Caucasian Caucasian Caucasian African American Caucasian

Years teaching

Number of peer placements

Grade level

8 28 8 8 10 11 6

2 3 1 3 3 3 1

K 3 4 4 1 5 3

one focus group, took place during the 2004–2005 school year. In the fall, structured individual in-depth interviews (Seidman, 1998) were held to understand: (1) mentors’ professional experiences at Washburne and why they became mentors; (2) mentors’ experiences with mentoring, being mentored, and how they conceptualized their role as mentors; and (3) mentors’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of mentoring in single and peer placements. Informed by mentors’ individual interview responses and observations, in the winter, a semi-structured focus group interview was held to gain a deeper and more textured understanding of participants’ mentoring experiences, to discuss emergent themes, and for participants to elaborate upon each other’s ideas and respond to each other’s similar and/or contrasting experiences (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995). Finally, in the spring, semi-structured individual interviews were held to delve deeper into concepts derived from prior interviews and observations as they pertain to mentoring in single and peer placements, and ways in which/the extent to which roles and relationships change over the course of the year. After each interview, interviews were transcribed, and transcripts and interim analyses were returned to participants for their review, feedback, and to inform subsequent interviews (Kvale, 1996). Observations were conducted and field notes taken between 2001–2005 in each classroom and during coaching and planning sessions with student teachers, professional development sessions, and faculty meetings. Classroom observations focused upon developing an in-depth understanding of the roles, relationships, and interaction patterns enacted during planning, instruction, and reflection, while professional development and faculty observations were more general to understand the teaching, learning, and professional development culture of the school. Documents and materials pertaining to general program requirements, placements, and mentoring professional development were also reviewed. Data analysis occurred through comparative analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). After each interview cycle, transcript, observational and document data were coded through open, then axial, coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Then, I followed a recursive pattern of making constant comparisons across the growing data set in order to identify patterns of meaning, contrasting experiences, and develop concepts and tentative themes. Ongoing comparisons served to refine, revise, and synthesize conceptual codes into larger patterns of meaning from which themes were derived (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Throughout this process, member checks were conducted to increase credibility (Glesne, 2005).


Teaching Education

239

Results Peer collaboration: scaffolding a professional practice The curriculum at Washburne was student-centered, emphasizing inquiry and problem-solving. Reading was taught through guided reading (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001) and literature circles (Daniels, 1994). Manipulatives and other hands on materials were routinely used for math and science. Small group work and differentiated instruction were the norm across curricular areas. While the university coursework student teachers were concurrently taking was congruent with their field setting, this was most student teachers’ first exposure to student-centered learning. Enacting such pedagogies, mentors noted, often led to ‘apprehension’ and ‘uncertainty’ on the part of their student teachers. In this context of uncertainty and faced with new and challenging expectations for teaching, mentors stated that student teaching peers ‘learn and develop together’, ‘have each other to talk to and process with’, and, generally, make sense of and construct meaning from new experiences. Corroborating peer placement research, mentors indicated that student teachers’ peer collaboration facilitated their professional learning (Baker & Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009; Smith, 2002). In terms of planning and instruction, particularly towards the beginning of the year, a consistent practice among mentors was to have their student teachers work together to plan and implement lessons and units of study rather than work independently. Karen explained the relevance of having student teachers work together: I often have them co-teach and co-plan together. Especially in science where there are so many different hands on materials and it’s a different type of learning than what most student teachers are used to. There’s some apprehension on their part. So, it helps to scaffold them into learning to teach.

Mentors observed that when peers co-planned, they brainstormed, shared ideas, and drew upon each other’s backgrounds and perspectives. Melodie stated: With two student teachers, they can learn from one another. They have their own level and they can speak more freely with a peer than a mentor. They bounce ideas off of each other, [they] brainstorm… they learn and develop together and that collaborative effort allows them to get more from the experience.

Each student teacher had different talents, backgrounds, and experiences from which to draw. They also shared the same context – the same coursework, the same mentor, and the same students – within which to focus and combine their resources. For example, one student teacher’s prior experiences in journalism and their peer’s in science produced innovative ways of experimenting and disseminating results. Or, in another pair where one student teacher had a background in world history and the other in literature, these peers drew upon each other’s knowledge base to have students analyze historical events and write narrative interpretations of events from multiple perspectives. While individually talented, it was the combination of these attributes in planning and instruction that allowed student teachers to do more together than they would individually. Reflecting peer placement research (Baker & Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009), the coupling of skills and knowledge, mentors explained, most often resulted in dynamic and well-prepared lessons.

240

W. Gardiner

While peer collaboration typically led to varied and interesting lessons, this was not always the case. Particularly, at the beginning of the year, when student teachers were first beginning to collaborate, miscommunication or differences in personalities or work styles occasionally led to poorly prepared and implemented lessons. However, mentors found that such mistakes were rare or rarely repeated, as student teachers were conscientious and did not want to let their students or mentors down. So, while frustrating, mentors believed this was normal, a learning experience, and preparation for a collaborative teaching culture. Karen explained:


You will have occasions where student teachers may not personally, outside of school walls, seek each other out as friends, but this sort of teaches them that within school walls, you need to know how to collaborate with people who are very different from you, come from different backgrounds, they may or may not have had as much experience with that in their prior setting. So, it really helps to open their eyes up to that experience.

While all mentors stated that peer collaboration helped student teachers implement student-centered pedagogies, some also indicated that it helped them feel more confident having student teachers try out challenging practices such as small group or differentiated instruction, learning centers, or inquiry based lessons. For example, when one student teacher led instruction, their ‘non-teaching’ peer frequently provided what Smith (2002) describes as ‘backup assistance’, which in this study included retrieving materials, helping with transitions, redirecting student behavior, answering students’ questions, and working with individual or small groups of students. In this manner, student teachers could try out more complex, studentcentered pedagogies and know that there was a ‘safety net’ for them. In addition, because peers planned together, engaged in ongoing dialogue, and were familiar with the needs of students in the classroom, peer support and intervention was timely and congruent with the ‘lead’ teacher’s goals. Mentors encouraged this practice and indicated that along with providing a ‘safety net’ that supported student teachers’ emergent practice, peer intervention also ensured that students would be better supported. Several mentors explained that a challenging part of being a mentor was letting go of the class and allowing student teachers to explore and experiment, but that it was helpful to both her and the student teacher leading instruction to know that, as Robin stated, ‘there was someone motivated and knowledgeable and ready to jump in when needed’. So, not only were student teachers better able to, as Brenda explained, ‘take instructional risks’, but the ‘way they support each other’ helped her feel that student learning would be supported. Research indicates that student teachers are not only able to use more ambitious teaching strategies when they plan and teach collaboratively (Bullough et al., 2002, 2003; McIntyre & Hagger, 2004), but are also better able to positively impact students’ learning (Bullough et al., 2002, 2003). Mentors in this study found that to be the case, and each included this practice in their repertoire. Several mentors also provided new insights into the importance of peer observation, while Smith’s (2002) study explains that peer observation supports student teachers’ development because the mistakes of a novice are more obvious than those of an expert. In turn, these errors become experiences that peers can draw upon in subsequent planning of an instruction. In this study mentors indicated a different benefit derived from peer observation. They stated that observing a peer’s practice, in addition to a mentor’s, helped student teachers feel more efficacious about their early teaching experiences. Robin explained, ‘It’s good having two people coming in

Teaching Education

241

around the same place, who don’t have as much experience, and then are not comparing themselves with their mentor’. Similarly, Melodie reflected: I think having a peer makes them feel better about not doing things so well when you see that somebody else is having difficulty with it and ‘It’s not just me’. When you only have the mentor to look to, it’s a little daunting and it makes you feel incompetent when it’s just inexperience.

Amy noticed a stark difference in her preservice teachers’ expectations for themselves depending on if they were working with a peer or alone. She explained:


They have shared experiences when watching each other. Now that I have one, she thinks she has to be me. There’s a lot of pressure on her to be a teacher with eight years of experience and not a rookie. I think she’s trying to keep up with me. Two student teachers help each other see their mistakes and be ‘OK’ with them.

Peer–mentor collaboration: distributing (and learning to distribute) roles, resources, and responsibilities to meet individual needs Mentoring one or two student teachers entailed many of the same practices such as guiding, modeling, reflecting, discussing, encouraging, and analyzing teaching and student work. However, with two student teachers, there was more flexibility in how to share and distribute the roles and responsibilities for teaching and learning. In fact, six mentors believed that working with two student teachers allowed them to distribute responsibilities in ways that made it easier to respond to both students’ and student teachers’ individual needs (one was undecided), and for those reasons, mentors stated they preferred peer over single placements. Bullough et al.’s (2002, 2003) research indicates that students’ learning is better supported in peer placements because there are more hands to lend assistance and a greater range of skills and talents from which to draw. Corroborating this research, mentors found that collaboration with two student teachers led to more ideas, perspectives, queries, and interpretations; more extensive reflection and analysis on teaching and learning; and more hands to support student learning. Christina stated: With two student teachers the classroom is a lot more dynamic because they can offer different things. Mark has a different background coming from the business world. He’s a parent. They bring different things that are going to be strengths in the classroom and there’s more information for planning and looking at students. There’s more support. You can meet with individual groups more frequently, and when you have 28 students there’s more teacher–student contact.

Margaret explained that with two student teachers there were more perspectives, more interpretations, and more resources for meeting students’ academic and social needs: This environment, it’s all about collaboration…Constantly coming up with multiple ways of working with kids and… I mean, really, having multiple ways of looking at a situation. And, then thoughtfully and tactfully entering into trying to resolve issues or trying to deal with really sensitive situations.

Mentors specified that with two student teachers: (a) it was easier to provide small group and differentiated instruction; (b) there were more eyes to interpret and assess

242

W. Gardiner

student work, which led to quicker turnaround time for grading and feedback, and a more nuanced understanding and interpretation of student work; (c) students had less wait time for adult assistance; and (d) it was easier to implement creative and material rich lessons. Most mentors found that it was easier and more effective to meet student teachers’ needs when working with two student teachers. Amy explained that there was ‘more time for feedback and coaching when there’s two student teachers’. Melodie elaborated:


As a mentor it works to our advantage because there’s more people to share the work with. It [peer placements] frees you up to work one on one with a student teacher. When you have only one, it’s kind of hard to, I have one student teacher now, it’s hard for me to give her time during the day because there are only two of us. If there were three of us, one person could teach a lesson and I could have more one-on-one time with the student teacher as well.

A common practice was for mentors to distribute roles and responsibilities in order to have increased individualized time with one student teacher (or student). For example, one student teacher might lead instruction while the mentor worked individually with the ‘non-teaching’ peer. An alternative distribution was to have one student teacher lead instruction, a peer coach, and the mentor work individually with struggling student/s. Based on students’ and student teachers’ needs, mentors found a variety of ways of sharing the work as they provided targeted assistance to a student or student teacher, while ensuring that the needs of the other students or student teacher were being met. Although some mentors found that meeting students’ and student teachers’ needs was easier from the beginning of the year, Brenda believed that it took time to effectively distribute roles and responsibilities. She explained: The first semester is the most difficult. That’s where you’re showing them what you are doing and why you are doing it. They’re starting to make sense of it all, but once you get them to the point that you can divide them up. That’s a good thing for students and student teachers when it’s gets to that point.

Importantly, collaborating to support students’ and student teachers’ learning required forethought and intentionality. Particularly at the beginning of the year, Karen noted, and her colleagues concurred, ‘Mentors plan as much for student teachers as they do their students’. While mentors believed that student teachers were more than willing to work collaboratively, they felt that they had the responsibility to guide and support collaborative efforts in order to maximize potential for professional learning. Christina and Robin (mentors new to peer placements) discussed the learning curves they were undergoing in learning to mentor two student teachers. They explained that despite having prior mentoring experiences and ongoing professional development, they were working extremely long hours and, as Christina stated, ‘spending a lot of time thinking and talking about how to be better mentors’. Robin concurred, ‘We do this a lot informally, go into each other’s room, on the way to or from work, on cell phones’. However, both mentors believed the effort was worth it and both stated that peer placements was a better model than single placements for student teachers’ development. Six mentors stated they would rather mentor two rather than one student teachers. Brenda explained:

Teaching Education

243

It’s good for the two of them to have some support from each other and they’re looking at teaching and learning to teach in the same way. So, they develop together… And, you can share the work, divide up, team teach. There are more advantages to having two.


Melodie felt that not only was it better for student teachers, but it was also easier for her, ‘I would rather mentor two student teachers. It actually makes my year easier. I like the learning piece. It keeps me fresh and I know how much more effective it can be’. However, Margaret was uncertain. She explained, ‘You can gain time if you distribute. If you only have one student teacher you can’t pull as much time to work individually… But, sometimes I think I could go deeper and farther with one’. On the other hand, Robin stated, ‘With three that there’s more people to learn from’.

Discussion This study sought to understand mentors’ perceptions of and experiences with peer placement, both the student teachers’ with whom they worked and their own. Interviews and observations with mentors corroborate the value of peer collaboration (Baker & Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009; Smith, 2002), but also offer additional insights into the relevance of peer collaboration. Next, peer placements offer opportunities to share and distribute roles and responsibilities in ways that can help mentors more effectively meet student teachers’, and students’, needs. However, mentoring in peer placements requires additional skills and strategies, as well as dispositions favorable towards collaboration. To maximize the collaborative benefits, mentors need support and development to effectively mentor within this model. The following discussion elaborates upon these points. According to mentors, peer collaboration helped student teachers plan for and implement challenging student-centered pedagogies, as well as feel more successful in their professional development. To begin, as student teachers co-planned and cotaught they brainstormed, problem-solved, and built upon each other’s collective funds of knowledge to develop the complex student-centered lessons they were expected to teach. Next, as peers assisted their partners during instruction by answering students’ questions, managing transitions or materials, and working with individual students, they not only supported each other’s developing practice, but also students’ learning. In addition, when peers observed each other’s teaching, they were able to juxtapose their emergent practice with the practices of a similarly inexperienced peer and an experienced mentor. By observing a peer and a mentor, peers were better able to situate their performance as developing instead of judging themselves unduly in light of a mentor’s more accomplished practice. John-Steiner’s (2000) research on sustained collaboration indicates that peer collaboration allows partners to draw upon/appropriate each other’s individual resources (knowledge, skills, insights, and approaches), learn from each other’s styles and differences, and share the risk and responsibility of their joint work. In this manner, peer collaboration not only helps student teachers accomplish more collectively than they could do on their own, but also provides a foundation of success and successful self-image, which, as research (Bandura, 1986; John-Steiner, 2000) indicates, facilitates risk-taking and complex learning. So, peer collaboration not only supported peers’ learning, but also set a foundation for future learning and development, and, optimally, an understanding that one’s professional practice and learning are enhanced through collaboration.


244

W. Gardiner

Prior studies have indicated mixed responses as to the impact of peer placements on mentors. While some mentors valued the multiple perspective and extra set of hands derived from peer placements (Bullough et al., 2002, 2003), some also indicated that peer placements were more complex, more work, (Baker & Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003), unrealistic (Bullough et al., 2002, 2003), and prevented mentors from giving individualized attention and feedback (Baker & Milner, 2006). Mentors in this study valued the additional perspectives and help in the classroom derived from ‘triadic collaboration’, but also appear to have developed strategies for mitigating some of the concerns articulated in prior studies. What mentors in this study indicated was that triadic collaboration expanded and differentiated the amount and range of support that could be utilized in the classroom to support both student teachers’ and students’ learning. By sharing and distributing intellect, roles, and responsibilities between a peer and mentor, there were more resources for learning and for more possibilities for engagement in the classroom. Indeed, several of the experienced mentors found mentoring in peer placements easier and more effective. Of the extant research, only one mentor (Bullough et al., 2003) indicated the same perspective. It appears that one significant change/challenge for mentors in peer placements is to conceptualize, guide, and support a variety of collaborative arrangements that do not exist in the traditional mentor–student teacher dyad. Robin and Christina, two mentors who were new to peer placements, indicated that learning to work with two student teachers was definitely challenging and that they relied extensively upon their colleagues as sources of insights and information. As prior studies appear to explore peer placements with mentors experiencing this model for the first time, the additional role of structuring and supporting a different type of collaborative relationships without informed, experienced guidance could be the reason why a significant number of mentors indicated that they felt stretched and that the work was more complicated (Baker & Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003). Importantly, while mentors in this study, by and large, were very supportive of the model, they also appear to have developed some common skills to orchestrate collaborative work, and indicate a belief that professional learning is a process enhanced through collaboration. To begin, mentors described a repertoire of strategies for scaffolding student teachers’ (and students’) learning by distributing roles and responsibilities in response to emerging classroom needs. In this manner, mentors were able to provide more one-on-one attention to students and student teachers and able to receive the benefit of multiple eyes, hands, perspectives, and interpretations. Additionally, it appears that mentors did not view teaching and learning to teach as ‘sink or swim’ or an ‘isolated act’. This belief was evidenced through the collaborative work they did with their students, student teachers, and amongst themselves. The absence of such beliefs would quite probably result in different perceptions about the value and utility of the peer placement model. So, the extent to whether peer placements are seen as ‘realistic’ may be predicated upon what mentors perceive is ‘real’ in terms of teacher preparation and learning. If mentors conceptualize teaching as a process facilitated through collaboration, then peer placements are ‘realistic’. McIntyre, Hagger, and Wilkin (2004) state ‘the quality of school-based initial teacher education will depend crucially on the work of teachers in the role of mentors’ (p. 11). This statement takes on increased relevance in peer placements. McCorkel-Clinard and Ariav’s (1998) five-year mentoring study indicates that


Teaching Education

245

mentors are still conceptualizing their work during their third year of mentoring. In this study, mentors new to peer placements were struggling to work most effectively with two student teachers and prior research indicates that mentors have mixed feelings as to whether the model makes their role more or less challenging (Baker & Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003). Asking mentors to mentor two student teachers requires additional skills and strategies that need to be supported through professional development. The following recommendations are intended to guide those interested in implementing, or refining, peer placements. To begin, professional learning is enhanced when peers and more experienced teachers collaborate within a shared conceptual framework (Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005). Therefore, important first steps toward promoting effective and sustainable relationships are to ensure that mentors (and student teachers) have favorable dispositions towards collaborative work, possess a deep understanding of theories that underpin the relevance of collaboration, and understand the rationale for and anticipated benefits of peer placements. Next, to respond to the complexity of triadic collaboration, prior to engaging in peer placements, mentors need professional development that builds a repertoire of skills and strategies for collaborative work in order to maximize the exchange of resources, and conceptualize the various ways members can engage with students and each other to promote learning and development for the entire classroom community. Finally, as mentoring involved personalities and personal relationships (Young, Bullough, Draper, Smith, & Erickson, 2005), no two sets of peers will be the same. Therefore, support for mentors’ work must be ongoing and responsive to the changing relational and professional needs, and provide time and space for mentors to problem solve, and to share and analyze strategies that emerge from their practice. Peer placements have the potential to contribute to student teachers’ learning, facilitate mentors’ work, and support a more collaborative image of teaching. In peer placements, there are potentially more sources for support and resources for learning. Mentors indicated that peer and peer–mentor joint work supports student teachers’ development as professionals who collaborate, problem solve, share resources and perspectives, and conceptualize teaching as a process of learning. Mentors also indicated that peer placements create new opportunities to collaborate; build student teachers’ sense of accomplishment; yield a broader range of insights, ideas, and talents; and allow mentors to more effectively meet individual needs within the classroom community. This study also identifies a need for mentors who work in peer placements to build, share, and negotiate practices that will guide them in their efforts to lead and benefit from collaboration. If peer placements are to be a viable reform initiative, not only is support from mentors needed, but so is support for mentors as they undertake this work. References Baker, S., & Milner, J. (2006). Complexities of collaboration: Intensity of mentors’ responses to paired and single student teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 28(3), 61–72. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bullough, R.V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J.R., Clark, D.C., & Egan, M.W. (2002). Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68–80.


246

W. Gardiner

Bullough, R.V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J.R., Clark, D.C., & Egan, M.W. (2003). Teaching with a peer: A comparison of two models of student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 57–73. Burroughs, R., Schwartz, T., & Hendricks-Lee, M. (2000). Communities of practice and discourse communities: Negotiating boundaries in NTBS certification. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 344–374. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage. Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in the student-centered classroom. York, MA: Stenhouse. Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K, Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055. Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers: Teaching comprehension, genre and content literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. (2009). Paired field placements for preservice teachers: A means for collaboration. The New Educator, 5(1), 81–94. Glesne, C. (2005). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Holstein, J.A., & Gubrium, J.F. (1995). The active interview. Volume 37. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. McCorkel-Clinard, L., & Ariav, T. (1998). What mentoring does for mentors: A cross-cultural perspective. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 91–107. McIntyre, D., & Hagger, H. (2004). Teachers’ expertise and models of mentoring. In D. McIntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentoring: Perspectives on school-based education (pp. 86–102). London: RoutledgeFalmer. McIntyre, D., Hagger, H., & Wilkin. (2004). Introduction. In D. McIntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentoring: Perspectives on school-based education (pp. 11–20). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Seidman, I.E. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press. Shulman, L., & Shulman, J. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271. Smith, J.D. (2002). The development of tandem teaching placements. Mentoring and Tutoring, 10(3), 253–274. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher sociological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Young, J.R., Bullough, R.V., Draper, R.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.