This article was downloaded by: [Wendy Gardiner]On: 27 June 2012, At: 12:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

Coaches' and New UrbanTeachers' Perceptions ofInduction Coaching: Time,Trust, and AcceleratedLearning CurvesWendy Gardiner aa Elementary and Middle Level Teacher Education,National Louis University

Version of record first published: 27 Jun 2012

To cite this article: Wendy Gardiner (2012): Coaches' and New Urban Teachers'Perceptions of Induction Coaching: Time, Trust, and Accelerated Learning Curves, TheTeacher Educator, 47:3, 195-215

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2012.685797

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable

for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

The Teacher Educator, 47:195–215, 2012

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0887-8730 print/1938-8101 online

DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2012.685797

RESEARCH ARTICLE

COACHES’ AND NEW URBAN TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS

OF INDUCTION COACHING: TIME, TRUST, AND

ACCELERATED LEARNING CURVES

WENDY GARDINER

Elementary and Middle Level Teacher Education, National Louis University

Approximately 80% of new teachers have mentors, yet mentoring typicallyfails to foster new teachers’ professional learning—particularly in high-povertyschools. This qualitative study was situated within an urban teacher residencycontext and explored how six first-year urban teachers and the two inductionmentors with whom they worked perceived and experienced induction coaching.This study also seeks to understand the characteristics of mentored induction(called coaching) that facilitate or impede learning. Results indicate that men-toring contributed to new teachers’ professional learning and that (a) trustingrelationships were foundational to the coaching process and developed overtime; (b) coaching was aligned with new teachers’ needs and context; and(c) coaching was a scaffolded process that enhanced new teachers’ ability torespond to immediate needs, as well as identify and work toward long-terminstructional goals. Insights and recommendations are provided to guide thedevelopment of or strengthen induction programs. As mentored induction inhigh-poverty schools is typically insufficiently enacted, this study depicts howmentored induction can be conceptualized and executed in order to make adifference in new teachers’ professional learning.

Introduction

In order to improve teaching and learning, educators and policy makersadvocate for the continued expansion of mentored induction programs

Address correspondence to Wendy Gardiner, Elementary and Middle Level

Teacher Education, National Louis University, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60603,USA. E-mail: Wendy.gardiner@nl.edu

195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

196 W. Gardiner

(Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Strong,2005; Wang & Odell, 2002). Currently, approximately 80% of newteachers have mentors, a roughly 20% increase in the last 10 years(Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 2010).Additionally, the reauthorization of Title II of the Teacher QualityPartnership Grants earmarked $900 million for teacher preparationprograms such as urban teacher residencies (UTRs) that prepare teach-ers for high-need, high-poverty schools and provide mentoring andinduction support when teacher candidates become teachers of record(AACTE, 2009).

Research on mentored induction indicates that mentoring canhelp new teachers develop the dispositions and skills to continuouslyimprove both teacher and student learning (Carver & Feiman-Nemser,2009; Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000; Wang & Odell,2002). However, the implementation and impact of mentoring pro-grams varies greatly (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Kardos & MooreJohnson, 2010; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wei et al., 2010). Most men-toring programs are underfunded (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009),unevenly implemented (Kardos & Moore Johnson, 2010; Smith & In-gersoll, 2004, Wei et al., 2010), and geared toward socialization andemotional support, not professional learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a;Wang & Odell, 2002). Additionally, new teachers working in high-poverty schools are least likely to receive the types of mentored in-duction that enhance professional learning and development (Kardos& Moore Johnson, 2010; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wei et al., 2010).In short, despite the proliferation of mentoring programs, most failto improve teaching and learning with a disproportionate rate of in-effective mentoring occurring in schools with the greatest needs. Thejuxtaposition between what is possible with mentoring and what is preva-lent leads researchers to state that there is a critical need to exploreand understand the types of mentored induction that improves newteachers’ practice (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Wang, Odell, & Schwille, 2008).

The purpose of this qualitative study was to contribute to the schol-arship on mentored induction. Specifically, this study explored how sixfirst-year urban teachers, who were UTR graduates, and the two induc-tion mentors (referred to as coaches) with whom they worked perceivedand experienced induction coaching. Given the uneven impact of men-toring programs, especially within high-poverty, high-need schools, thisstudy seeks to understand the characteristics of mentored inductionthat facilitate or impede professional learning for new teachers workingin such schools. Insights and recommendations are provided to guide

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

Induction Coaching 197

the development of or strengthen mentored induction programs withinand beyond the UTR context.

Background

This study was situated within a UTR program—a grant supportedcollaboration between a large metropolitan Midwestern urban schooldistrict, a university, and an educational management organization thatinitiated and facilitates the multi-institution partnership (for furtherdetails see Berry et al., 2008; Gardiner & Kamm, 2010). The programwas developed to recruit, prepare, and induct socially motivated teachercandidates into the district’s high-need urban schools. The preparationprogram included graduate-level coursework leading to certificationand a master of arts in teaching; a one-year ‘‘teaching residency’’ with acarefully selected mentor in an urban ‘‘training academy’’; and a focuson rigorous, student-centered instruction. When teacher candidates,called ‘‘residents,’’ neared program completion, the UTR also helpedresidents secure a teaching position within district turnaround schoolslead by reform-oriented principals. Once residents became teachers ofrecord, 2 years of mentored induction was provided.

Coaches, employed by the UTR, provided mentored induction.To qualify for a coaching position, applicants were expected to have aminimum of 5 years urban teaching experience, taught in similar gradelevels as the new teachers whom they coached, and demonstrate and ar-ticulate principles of rigorous, reform-oriented instruction. Once hired,coaches received professional development in a collaborative, inquiry-based model aimed toward instructional improvement. Coaching wassite-based and coaches typically worked with new teachers three to fourtimes per week.

Conceptual Framework

Mentored induction can serve many purposes, and how induction isconceptualized and executed leads to significantly different outcomesfor new teachers (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Smith & Ingersoll,2004; Wang & Odell, 2002). Prototypically, mentoring is conceived asshort-term transitional support designed to socialize and retain newteachers by providing technical (how to and where to) and emotionalsupport (Wang & Odell, 2002). More recently, there has been a callto reconceptualize mentoring as part of a continuum of professional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

198 W. Gardiner

learning in which mentors help new teachers use the site of practiceas a source of collaborative, sustained learning (Feiman-Nemser, 1998,2001a, 2001b; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008; Wang &Odell, 2002). What follows is an overview of the common orientations—technical and emotional—toward mentored induction; a description of‘‘educative mentoring’’ as an alternative conceptualization; and factorsthat support and inhibit mentored induction.

In their macro-review of mentored induction, Wang and Odell(2002) found that new teachers and mentors typically define mentoringas providing technical and/or emotional support, not as developingprofessional capacity. Technical support includes offering advice, rec-ommending strategies, explaining policies and how to complete admin-istrative tasks, and helping the new teacher ‘‘fit in.’’ Emotional supportincludes providing encouragement, moral support, and a listening ear.In short, technical support transitions new teachers into an existing sys-tem and culture, and emotional support helps new teachers feel betterin hopes that they will remain in the profession and, ultimately, developinto effective teachers. Although technical and emotional orientationsserve to help new teachers negotiate the ‘‘transition shock’’ of beingteachers of record, neither orientation influences teaching and learningin substantive ways (Wang & Odell, 2002).

To move mentored induction beyond technical and emotional sup-port to impact professional learning and development, Feiman-Nemserdeveloped (1998) and referred to (2001b; Norman & Feiman-Nemser,2005) the construct of ‘‘educative mentoring.’’ From an ‘‘educative’’orientation, the purpose of mentoring is to help new teachers learnfrom and in their practice and to develop the skills and habits of mindthat lead to continuous professional growth. To this end, educativementoring entails a strong understanding of teacher learning, a visionof effective teaching, and carefully selected mentors who are skilled insupporting new teachers’ learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Norman &Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Wang & Odell, 2002; Wang et al., 2008).

Educative mentoring draws on social learning theories in whichlearning is situated in context, the learner is an active constructor ofknowledge, and learning is a scaffolded experience that is sustainedover time (John-Steiner, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978;Wenger, 1998). In practice, educative mentoring entails co-thinking,co-planning, modeling effective practices, connecting theory to prac-tice, problem posing and solving, providing positive and construc-tive feedback, supporting reflection and analysis, focusing beginningteachers’ attention to issues they may not notice, gathering and co-analyzing data pertaining to teaching and student learning, and help-ing beginning teachers identify and articulate problems of practice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

Induction Coaching 199

and then using these problems as a basis for ongoing professionallearning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005;Schwille, 2008). Through these actions, mentors facilitate professionallearning by helping new teachers explore the complexity of practicethrough inquiry and analysis into their teaching and develop thehabit of mind for collaboration, reflection, and continuous professionallearning.

It is important to note that mentoring from an educative stancerequires a skill base distinct from teaching, and being an effectiveteacher does not equate to being an effective mentor (Feiman-Nemser,2001a; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008). To this end,mentors need to be carefully selected, prepared to support new teach-ers’ learning and foster dispositions of inquiry, and receive continuedprofessional development to enhance their skills. Furthermore, reflect-ing the situated, contextualized nature of mentoring, the likelihood formentoring to foster growth increases when mentors and new teachersshare similar grade levels and content areas (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004;Youngs, 2007) and have sufficient release time to sustain joint inquiryinto teaching and learning (Schwille, 2008; Strong, 2005; Wang et al.,2008).

Indeed, reviews of strong mentored induction programs—programs that improve teaching and learning—indicate that sustained,situated, collaborative inquiry is a central feature (Howe, 2006; Schwille,2008; Strong, 2005; Wang & Odell, 2002). Unfortunately, despite thefact that 80% of new teachers experience mentored induction (Smith& Ingersoll, 2004; Wei et al., 2010), most programs do not qualify asstrong (Wang & Odell, 2002). In particular, new teachers working inhigh-poverty schools and with students of color are the least likely toreceive the types of mentoring that contribute to professional learning(Kardos & Moore Johnson, 2010; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wei et al.,2010). To begin, new teachers in schools serving low-income studentsand high percentages of students of color were less likely to havea mentor than those working in more affluent schools (Wei et al.,2010). Even if they do have a mentor, they are less likely to havea mentor who shares their grade level or content area; less likely tomeet on a regular basis, and when they do meet, they tend not totalk about teaching and learning (Kardos & Moore-Johnson, 2010). Tohighlight the lack of continuity that prevents opportunities for sustainedinteraction, Kardos and Moore-Johnson’s (2010) study of mentoringacross three states (two of which require and fund mentored induction)found that new teachers in high-poverty schools met with mentors lessthan three times in a year. Such conditions render it impossible formentoring to influence teaching and learning in substantive ways.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

200 W. Gardiner

Methods

Context

This study took place at two Pre-K–8 schools, ‘‘Madison’’ and ‘‘Harri-son’’ (pseudonyms), during the 2008–2009 academic year. As part ofdistrict reform initiatives, both schools were closed at the end of the2008 academic year and reopened in the fall of 2008 with new, reform-oriented leadership. The newly hired principals interviewed teachersand replaced virtually all the faculty. There were a total of five first-yearteachers at Madison and 10 new teachers at Harrison, and approxi-mately half the staff at both schools consisted of first-year teachers. Thestudent population remained the same. Madison had approximately300 students, 99% were African American and 98% were low income.Harrison had approximately 550 students, 98% were African American,and 100% were low income.

As part of the UTR collaboration, the principals hired to leadturnaround efforts at Madison and Harrison came to the trainingacademies to observe and interview teacher candidates—called ‘‘res-idents’’—in April 2008, as residents neared program completion.Principals were informed that residents would receive 2 years of site-based induction coaching funded by the UTR. Principals were asked,and agreed, to include coaches in leadership meetings in order tofoster stronger coherence between coaching and school professionaldevelopment goals. Principals were informed of the coaching model,the expectation that coaches would meet with new teachers three tofour times per week on average, and understood that coaches had acollaborative, not evaluative or hierarchical role.

Prior to working with new teachers, coaches received professionaldevelopment in a collaborative, inquiry-based coaching model designedto foster dispositions of reflection and analysis in order to improveteaching and learning. Coaches were provided with tools and protocolsto use to support goal setting, collaboration, and reflection and anal-ysis. Coaches also received ongoing professional development duringthe school year to enhance their data collection skills and capacity tofoster reflective and analytical dialogue with new teachers. Coaches andnew teachers met during summer faculty sessions prior to the startof the school year. It was emphasized that the coaching stance wascollaborative and aimed toward instructional improvement. At this time,principals also indicated their commitment to coaching.

Induction coaches traveled between the two schools supportingnew teachers in grade-level bands K–2, 3–5, and 6–8. Throughout theschool year, coaches met with new teachers three to four times per week

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

Induction Coaching 201

for classroom visits and face-to-face meetings. Additional observationsand meetings were scheduled as needed. The typical pattern for weekly‘‘standing appointments’’ was to meet briefly to determine a focus ofthe observation. The focus was set by the new teacher or in tandemwith her coach. During the observation, coaches would unobtrusivelycollect observational data pertaining to that focus. Within 24 hours afterthe observation, but typically on the same day, coaches and new teach-ers met for in-depth conversations. These conversations started withcoaches briefly recapping the events that pertained to the observationalfocus, without judgment. Then, coaches solicited new teachers’ analysesand reflections. During this time new teachers would interpret and co-analyze data, reflect on events, brainstorm ideas, and problem solve.Each conversation ended with new teachers determining ‘‘next steps’’for themselves (what they would do to ‘‘fine tune’’ or ‘‘strengthen’’their practice) and articulating what support they needed to accom-plish those next steps. Examples include having their coach obtain aparticular resource; coordinate a cross-classroom observation; co-lessonplan; model a practice such as a ‘‘mini-lesson’’ or Guided Reading; orobserve a specific student, lesson or strategy.

Participants

Participants included two induction coaches and six first-year teacherswhom they supported. Participants were female and ages ranged from24–36. Each participant self-identified as coming from a middle- toupper-middle-class, Midwestern background. Both coaches were Cau-casian and had previously taught in high-poverty urban schools. The‘‘primary coach’’ supported three K–2 teachers, and had 6 prior yearsof teaching experience. The ‘‘intermediate coach’’ supported three3–5 teachers and had 7 prior years of teaching experience. Of thesix new teachers (see Table 1), four teachers were African Americanand two were Caucasian. Participation was voluntary and all names arepseudonyms.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection included interviews, observations, and field notes. I con-ducted three in-depth interviews (Seidman, 1998) with each participantduring the fall, winter, and spring of the 2008–2009 academic year.Interviews typically lasted between 45–60 minutes and were conductedonsite before, during, and/or after school hours based on participants’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

202 W. Gardiner

TABLE 1 New Teachers’ Demographic Information

‘‘Name’’Gradelevel School Race

Residencyplacement

Emma K Harrison Caucasian KNoel 2 Madison African American 3Liana 2 Harrison African American 2Amara 3 Harrison African American 3Jasmine 4 Harrison African American 4Susan 5 Madison Caucasian 6

requests. Informed by the literature on educative coaching (Feiman-Nemser, 1998, 2001b; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008)and research indicating that new teacher induction typically attendsto new teachers’ emotional and technical needs rather than fostersinstructional growth (Wang & Odell, 2002), I developed a structured in-terview protocol to understand how coaches and new teachers perceivedand experienced induction coaching, how coaching unfolded over thecourse of the year, and to understand the types of coaching interactionsthat occurred. While I followed the protocol, at times I also askedadditional probing or clarifying questions in order to delve deeperinto topics pertaining to the coaching experience. After each interview,interviews were transcribed, and transcripts and interim analyses werereturned to participants for their review and to inform subsequentinterviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).

I also conducted a total of 34 observations. Observations werescheduled after each interview in the fall, winter, and spring. Eighteenclassroom observations were scheduled (three with each new teacher) inorder to gain an understanding of the classroom context, both instruc-tionally and relationally; how that context changed over time; and seethe extent to which the ideas and practices discussed during coachingconversations (either described or observed) were being implementedin practice. Whenever possible, I scheduled my observations to occurwhen coaches would also be in the classroom in order to observe waysin which coaches interacted in the classrooms. Classroom observationsranged from 30–60 minutes. I also observed two coaching sessions(typically held after school or during preparatory periods) with coachesand each new teacher in order to understand the coaching process, seehow it unfolded over time, to note patterns over time, and observefor similarities and differences within the coaching process betweenteachers. Finally, I shadowed each coach for a half day in the fall,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

Induction Coaching 203

winter, and spring in order to understand the range of their work,the practices they implemented, and to talk with them in the halls andduring transitions to gather ‘‘real time’’ insights into their thinkingabout coaching and their work with new teachers. During observations,I took field notes to capture descriptive data and, as Corbin and Strauss(2008) recommended to capture impressions and analytic insights.

Data analysis was ongoing and inductive, and occurred throughcomparative analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). After each inter-view/observation cycle, interviews, observational, and field notes werecoded first through open coding to identify recurring regularitiesand then axial coding to identify larger patterns of meaning (Corbin& Strauss, 2008). I followed a recursive pattern of making constantcomparisons across the growing data set in order to identify and/orclarify patterns, seek out contrasting experiences, and, ultimately,develop tentative themes. Throughout this iterative process, ongoingdata comparisons served to check the veracity of developing themes(Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Additionally,member checks were conducted to increase credibility (Glesne, 2005).

Results

Trust: The ‘‘Foundation’’ of a Coaching Relationship

New teachers and coaches consistently emphasized that trusting re-lationships were foundational to the coaching process. New teachersreflected that it took time for trust to develop. Reflecting her colleagues’statements, Noel said it took time to realize that their coach was notthere ‘‘to judge : : : but to help me improve my practice.’’ Coachesconcurred and stated that establishing trust was a priority, and withouttrust, professional learning would be hindered.

Coaches explained that they ‘‘intentionally’’ and ‘‘immediately’’sought to build trust. As the primary coach reflected, ‘‘If you don’thave trust, there is no basis for your coaching.’’ In order to learnhow best to work with new teachers, coaches made it a point to getto know each new teacher’s work and communication styles, personaland professional interests, and how and when they preferred to receivefeedback. Coaches stated that the challenge of the beginning of the yearwas simultaneously putting teachers at ease, establishing rapport, andworking to improve teaching and learning. The intermediate coach ad-vised that developing a holistic understanding of each new teacher andforging individualized relationships enhanced new teachers’ receptivityto coaching and coaches’ capacity to influence teaching. She explained:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

204 W. Gardiner

Build that relationship right away because you’re going to need to helpthem push their practice. Really work on that foundation of that rela-tionship because if you have that it’s easier to move practice : : : don’tshy away from pushing teaching practice but always, always be workingon that relationship.

When the school year began, most new teachers stated they were ‘‘ner-vous,’’ ‘‘stressed,’’ and ‘‘extremely uncomfortable’’ when their coachcame in to observe and talk with them about their observations. Re-flecting her colleagues’ concerns, Susan was initially unsure if her coachwas there to ‘‘support, judge, or evaluate.’’ Particularly during the firstmonth of school, new teachers stated they were struggling to managethe classroom and deliver effective instruction. They explained that theywere already being hard enough on themselves without someone elsemaking them feel poorly about their mistakes and struggles. Addition-ally, when new teachers sat down for ‘‘coaching conversations,’’ mostnew teachers stated they initially took a ‘‘passive’’ role and refrainedfrom asking questions for help for fear of looking ‘‘dumb’’ or ‘‘in-competent.’’ Liana reflected on how her relationship with the primarycoach changed:

I have become more open. I ask more questions. I now realize she ishere to help me become a better teacher. So, anything I need, now I’mnot afraid to ask. [The relationship has] grown. I wasn’t that way in thebeginning.

New teachers explained that coaches built trust by maintaining a‘‘supportive, not evaluative’’ stance, by helping them feel better ‘‘aftera lesson bombed’’ or the ‘‘classroom exploded,’’ and by demonstratingthat they were ‘‘partners’’ and ‘‘in this together.’’ Interviews and obser-vations indicate that coaches provided a great deal of moral support andcheerleading, particularly at the beginning of the year. New teachersindicated that their coaches were a source of support and comfort,particularly at a time when their efficacy was low. Coaches stipulated thatproviding emotional support was necessary, but not sufficient. Coachesindicated that they needed to help new teachers feel better in order tobring down their levels of anxiety and then help them take the nextstep of looking analytically at their teaching.

Coaches also stated that part of the trust-building process includedsituating themselves, as the intermediate coach described, ‘‘as collabo-rators with a little more experience,’’ and not as ‘‘experts.’’ Coachesbelieved that if new teachers saw them as experts it would intimidatethem, make them feel that they couldn’t make or share mistakes, or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

Induction Coaching 205

cause them to perceive coaching as a top-down relationship. The pri-mary coach intentionally shared mistakes she made in her teachingcareer, and believed that by doing so it made new teachers feel betterabout making mistakes, establish that everyone makes mistakes, andthat through their joint work teaching would be improved. She stated,‘‘I try to let them know I made some of the same mistakes for yearsbecause I didn’t have a coach. So, I try to put funny spin on it just torelax them. I think that’s really helped.’’

Furthermore, each new teacher indicated that from the beginning ofthe year, coaches provided suggestions and ideas that, as Jasmine stated,‘‘worked : : : or if it didn’t, she was back the next day with a new idea orsomething else to try.’’ Importantly, new teachers indicated that coaches’ideas were options, not mandates. Amara explained, ‘‘Nine out of tentimes, I’ll use [intermediate coach’s] ideas because they’re good. But if itdoesn’t work for me, I don’t.’’ Coaches stated that immediately startingoff the year by providing useful suggestions, as options not directives,simultaneously established credibility and trust. The primary coach ex-plained, ‘‘Once they get a good idea from you, they try it and it works.Then it’s like, ‘Ok, she knows what she’s doing. I trust that person.’’’

Without exception, new teachers stated that it took time for themto build trust with their coach and conceive of their coach as someonewho was there, as Amara explained, to ‘‘help us help ourselves.’’ As timeprogressed and new teachers determined that coaching was a processthat helped new teachers feel (and be) more successful; they beganto open up, engage in more honest and productive dialogue, and bemore proactive in identifying how coaches could help them improve.Noel recalled how she initially withheld from asking questions or raisingideas for fear of looking ‘‘dumb’’ and then, ‘‘Right around January orFebruary, I got over a hump. It just started feeling different. I can askher anything now. I definitely trust [primary coach].’’

Over the course of the year, coaches and new teachers consistentlyreferred to the importance of trust as foundational to the coachingprocess. Individual interviews indicate that each new teacher (and bothcoaches) identified the primary purpose of coaching as instructionalimprovement. These experiences reflect research, indicating that pro-fessional learning is enhanced by and predicated on trust (John-Steiner,2000). As Jasmine stated, ‘‘Coaches have to build trust with the teacher,otherwise it’s not going to work.’’

From Survival to Sustained Learning

New teachers and coaches indicated that the nature of coaching changed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

206 W. Gardiner

over the course of the year. In the beginning, new teachers describedthemselves as ‘‘overwhelmed’’ and struggling to establish a classroomcontext conducive to learning. As the year progressed, coaching tran-sitioned from helping new teachers weather the transitional shock ofbeing a new teacher in a turnaround school, to fostering reflection andscaffolding sustained learning.

At the beginning of the year new teachers found it challenging tocreate a positive, productive learning environment; plan and implementsuccessful lessons; and generally balance all of the requirements ofbeing the teacher of record. Even though their residency occurredin urban schools and new teachers believed they were well preparedto teach, they echoed Jasmine’s statement that their training academieshad ‘‘already been turned around.’’ As a result, new teachers explainedthat they did not feel prepared to meet the range of social, emo-tional, and academic needs their students presented. In each classroom,many students were resistant to learning, had frequent outbursts, andtested new teachers’ authority. As such, new teachers indicted theywere ‘‘stressed,’’ ‘‘overwhelmed,’’ ‘‘crying almost every day,’’ and felt‘‘incompetent’’ and ‘‘inadequate.’’

During the first few months, interviews and observations indicatedthat teachers wanted coaches to help them with ‘‘everything,’’ andthat coaching was focused primarily on finding ways to respond toimmediate classroom dilemmas, particularly in the realm of classroommanagement. At this point, new teachers wanted coaches to help them‘‘fix’’ what was wrong and just tell them what to improve. Liana re-called, ‘‘I was just trying to survive.’’ The intermediate coach describedcoaching at the beginning of the year:

Right now, it’s triage. My teachers are pulling their hair out. They havestudents exhibiting behaviors they’ve never seen and didn’t know what todo with. They need a more direct approach of me giving recommenda-tions about management and routines. I have to be less reflective at thispoint. New teachers just want answers.

Interviews and observations indicate that around December, there was ashift from working on everything and responding to crises to beginningto determine a sustained focus for learning.

Coaches explained that implementing the protocols they learnedduring their professional development provided a framework for help-ing new teachers reflect on and improve their instruction, and buildprofessional knowledge. The coaching cycle included setting a timeand focus for classroom observations, meeting for a ‘‘coaching conversa-tion’’ to collaboratively analyze and reflect on the observed lesson, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

Induction Coaching 207

then setting next steps to foster continuous learning. Throughout theconversation coaches asked facilitative questions to seek clarification; tohelp new teachers identify and articulate goals; to foster reflection andanalysis; and to determine actionable next steps to improve teachingand learning.

Coaches indicated that starting with ‘‘successes’’ and articulatingwhy something was successful bolstered new teachers’ efficacy, pro-moted reflection and analysis, and fostered transfer. The intermediatecoach explained that starting with ‘‘what’s working’’ is so importantbecause ‘‘they often don’t notice [what they are doing well], this helpsthem think about what they did, why they did it, and how they mightdo it again.’’ In this manner, by identifying and reflecting on successesnew teachers were more likely to recognize their own growth and applyan effective strategy or principle of teaching and learning to anothersituation.

As coaches and new teachers discussed challenges, next steps, andsupports needed; coaches facilitated learning by engaging in co-analysisand co-reflection, problem solving, co-teaching and modeling practices,identifying and obtaining potential resources, and setting actionablenext steps. For example, the primary coach described how she workedwith one new teacher who wanted to improve the way she implementedread-alouds so that they were more targeted to improving students’literacy skills:

We spent time doing professional readings about read-alouds and spenttime planning read-alouds with a focus in mind. Then, I’d come in andobserve her doing read-alouds and we’d discuss what went well, what wecould improve, and what the next steps would be : : : not just next stepsfor her, but next steps for me to help her as well.

New teachers stated that coaching provided consistent time and spaceto reflect on and analyze their teaching and maintain focus on theirgoals. Each new teacher talked about the busyness of their days and thatthey were ‘‘exhausted’’ at the end. New teachers explained, coachingprovided ‘‘regular, structured time to reflect’’ that ‘‘might not havehappened until the summer’’ or ‘‘not at all.’’

Coaches believed that sustaining a focus was necessary for in-structional improvement and that focus needed to originate from thenew teachers’ practice. Coaches maintained that it was their role tocollaborate with new teachers to support learning, not dictate whatnew teachers should learn. As the primary coach advised, ‘‘Coaching’sabout keeping their needs in mind and helping them meet theirgoals.’’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

208 W. Gardiner

Another Set of [More Experienced] Eyes

Coaches were in new teachers’ rooms between three to four times perweek for scheduled and unscheduled visits and coaching conversations.As coaches developed deeper knowledge of new teachers’ goals andcontexts, they helped new teachers ‘‘see’’ (and understand) their class-room and instruction in more nuanced or objective ways. Next, becausecoaches observed in multiple classrooms, they were in a position tohelp new teachers, as Noel stated, ‘‘see what’s happening in otherclassrooms and schools.’’ Finally, new teachers believed that coachesprior experiences in high-poverty urban schools and in similar gradelevels meant they had a more nuanced lens for helping new teachersunderstand classroom experiences and provide contextually responsiveinstructional support.

New teachers indicated that when their coach came in to observeinstruction they became ‘‘another set of eyes’’ that helped provide a‘‘clearer’’ or ‘‘more objective’’ view of students and instruction. Liana,like her colleagues, stated, ‘‘[Primary coach] has been in my shoes: : : :

She helps me to see things that I may not see’’ due to a lack ofexperience or trying to process so many experiences at once. Noelexplained:

I want her to look for areas of improvement. With your coach, you’vegot two sets of eyes, yours and hers. Then you talk about what you seeand what she sees and that’s very powerful: : : : So much I wouldn’t havethought of or picked up without years in the business.

Jasmine recalled a student she was struggling to support. She ex-plained that the student was frequently off task and would disrupt thelearning of those around him. She had tried a variety of strategiesbut did not feel that any were truly addressing the problem. Jasmineexplained that trying to balance focusing on delivering lessons andfocusing on that particular student was more than what she couldsimultaneously manage. In a coaching session, Jasmine asked her coachto come in the next day to observe and take notes on that particularstudent. Based on observational data, Jasmine stated she had a ‘‘morecomplete picture’’ of what was happening in the classroom and feltbetter equipped to make informed intervention decisions.

Along similar lines, Susan was concerned that her instruction lackedrigor. She explained that she had put so much effort into gettingstudents to respect each other and the learning environment that shehad not focused as much on the quality of their learning. Susan askedher coach to help her look at her teaching through the lens of rigor.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

Induction Coaching 209

The intermediate coach suggested a few ways of capturing information.Susan opted to have her coach to observe a lesson and transcribe allquestions asked, and then set a time and date for the observation andfollow up conversation. When Susan and the intermediate coach metto discuss the observation, the coach presented the data for the two ofthem to analyze, which consisted of a verbatim transcript of questionsalong with Bloom’s Taxonomy as a coding reference. Susan explainedthat having ‘‘that extra set of eyes on instruction was so helpful becauseit helped me see my instruction in more objective terms.’’

Next, as coaches regularly visited other rooms, they were able tosee (and share) practices occurring in other rooms or building of whichnew teachers may not be aware. Coaches intentionally connected newteachers with each other as resources for learning, and explained that‘‘buy-in’’ was increased when new teachers observed a peer demonstrat-ing a practice in which they were interested or that the coach suggested.Liana recalled:

My coach knew I wanted to start implementing reading centers. She toldme that Amara [another first-year teacher] was using them and suggestedwe talk, or maybe I observe in her classroom. I went to her room thatday and got some great ideas that I’m using now. If it wasn’t for [primarycoach] pointing that out, I wouldn’t have known.

New teachers found that fostering connections was needed because asNoel reflected, ‘‘I’m in these four walls and don’t always know what’sgoing on elsewhere.’’ Despite coming from the same preparation pro-gram, and developing strong relationships along the way, new teachersstated they simply did not have the time to step beyond their individualclassroom or grade-level team to connect with and learn with and fromeach other in the ways they would like and were able to do when theywere residents.

Finally, new teachers consistently emphasized that coaching quali-fications need to include both prior experiences in similar grade levelsand in high-need, high-poverty schools. New teachers maintained thatgrade level and urban experience was a necessary interpretive lens andexperiential background for helping new teachers understand students’needs and improve instruction. New teachers indicated that despitebeing prepared to implement rigorous, student-centered learning, theystruggled to do so in their new context. Furthermore, they echoedEmma’s statement when she said she did not feel prepared to ‘‘meet[my students’] social and behavioral needs.’’

New teachers recalled observing students’ behavior and seeinglessons fail, but not understanding why. They indicated that their coach

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

210 W. Gardiner

had the contextual background to provide a more nuanced pictureof what was occurring in the classroom, and insights that would helpnew teachers make what Amara referred to as ‘‘instructional tweaks’’that would help teaching and learning unfold in more desired ways.As Susan stated, ‘‘An urban coach has to have taught in the cityto really understand students’ needs and experiences, and how thatworks in a classroom.’’ Whereas research consistently indicates thatinduction support is enhanced when coaches and new teachers sharegrade-level experiences (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Youngs, 2007), eachnew teacher emphasized that both prior urban experience and similargrade-level experience needed to be a requisite to obtain a coachingposition.

Discussion

Despite the increase in mentored induction programs, most fail tofoster professional learning (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Feiman-Nemser, 2001a; Wang & Odell, 2002) with a disproportionate amountof ineffective mentoring occurring in high-poverty schools (Kardos &Moore Johnson, 2010; Wei et al., 2010). Problematically, Carver andFeiman-Nemser (2009) stated that too few examples of effective men-toring exist. To this end, Norman and Feiman-Nemser (2005) indicatedthat there is a ‘‘pressing need’’ to understand what kind of mentoringmakes a difference for new teacher learning. This study illustrated an‘‘educative’’ stance toward induction in high-poverty urban schools inwhich coaches and new teachers engaged in sustained, situated collabo-ration for the purpose of instructional improvement. Indeed, each newteacher echoed Amara’s statement, ‘‘Coaching accelerated my learningcurve.’’ The following discussion provides an analysis of why coachingmade a difference in new teachers’ learning and recommendations forthe field.

To begin, time was taken to build trusting relationships. Coachesstarted the year by seeking to learn new teachers’ needs, interests,and work preferences. When new teachers were facing the challeng-ing transition into being teachers of record, coaches demonstratedempathy, support, and withheld judgment. Reflecting John-Steiner’s(2000) research, teachers and coaches maintained that trust was thefoundation for collaboration and learning. Specifically, John-Steinerposited that trust fosters ‘‘emotional scaffolding’’—a safety zone inwhich support and constructive feedback can be effectively provided,risk taking fostered, and knowledge more effectively developed. In thecoaching context, it appears that if new teachers did not trust their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

Induction Coaching 211

coach, they may very well have refrained from asking for help andrevealing knowledge gaps. Instead, as trust developed, new teachersincreased their active participation in the coaching process, and hence,their learning.

The ‘‘standing appointments’’ embedded time and space into newteachers’ work day to analyze and reflect on classroom experiences andto work with a more experienced colleague (with deep insider knowl-edge) to improve their practice. Additionally, sustained and regulartime to meet was necessary as it took time for new teachers’ practiceto stabilize, for coaches to help new teachers move from ‘‘breadthto depth,’’ and for new teachers to take ownership of identifying ar-eas of practice on which to focus for sustained learning. This reflectsLave and Wegner’s (1991) finding and admonition that learning willbe stifled without continuous interactions and that it takes time forlearners to take on increased responsibility for and participation intheir learning. This also aligns with research indicating that strongmentoring programs provide ample time for new teachers and mentorsto work together (Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008;Strong, 2005; Wang et al., 2008).

Next, reflecting an educative stance (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Nor-man & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille, 2008), coaching was an individu-alized process of using the site of practice to help new teachers addressreal and immediate needs, as well as identify and work toward theirprofessional goals. To this end, frequent observations and conversationsallowed coaches to develop an in-depth understanding of new teachers’needs and context. Predicated on an insider’s knowledge and guidedby new teachers’ stated goals, coaches used conversational protocols,data collection tools, a wide repertoire of strategies (modeling, co-planning, providing resources, connecting new teachers to colleagues)to collaboratively improve teaching and learning. Importantly, the pro-fessional development coaches received simultaneously conceptualizedcoaching as a collaborative effort aimed at improving instruction andprovided coaches with a repertoire of tools to implement an educativeorientation in practice. As research indicates (Carver & Feiman-Nemser,2009; Feiman-Nemser, 1998, 2001a; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005,Schwille, 2008), coaching from an educative stance requires a sepa-rate skill set from teaching, and professional development is centralto actualizing an educative stance in practice. Additionally, reflectingresearch on optimal mentor-new teacher matches (Smith & Ingersoll,2004; Youngs, 2007), coaches’ grade-level experiences mirrored that ofthe new teachers with whom they worked. Furthermore, coaches alsohad prior experiences in high-poverty urban schools. As new teachersconsistently stated, coaches’ prior urban experiences were necessary to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

212 W. Gardiner

help new teachers make sense of experiences and to effectively translateideas into action.

Wang and Odell’s (2002) meta-analysis of mentored inductionresearch stated that most new teachers and mentors define mentoringin emotional or technical terms, not as a resource for professionalgrowth. Data indicates that coaches did provide emotional support andtechnical support (‘‘how to’s’’ and ‘‘quick fixes’’), particularly at thebeginning of the year, but that within a few months the preponderanceof interactions was focused around instructional improvement. Yet, pro-viding emotional and technical support responded to new teachers’ realand immediate needs as they faced the difficult transition into beingteachers of record. As such, it is important to recognize that emotionaland technical support can be an aspect of, and not in conflict with,educative coaching. To this end, coaches need to maintain what Nor-man and Feiman-Nemser (2005) described as a ‘‘binocular’’ vision—responding to immediate needs while maintaining a focus on sustainedlearning. This notion of responsive and varied coaching is important inthis era of standardization.

Grounded in an educative framework, the following recommen-dations are provided to inform mentored induction programs. First,conceptualize coaching as individualized, situated professional learn-ing in which new teachers’ needs and context provide the point ofdeparture for mentors to foster scaffolded, sustained, and collaborativelearning. Such a conceptualization shifts coaching from being a short-term retention intervention, to a process that facilitates continuousprofessional growth. Second, invest in and provide professional devel-opment for coaches that prepares them with the skills and knowledgebase required to foster collaboration, reflection, analysis, and learning.To this end, an investment in coaches is an investment in new teacherlearning. Third, ensure that coaches not only have strong grade-leveland content expertise, but also a deep contextual knowledge in order tohelp new teachers translate effective principles of teaching and learninginto successful classroom practice. Fourth, recognize that coaching re-lationships evolve over time and that successful mentoring relationshipsare predicated on trust. As such, coaches should begin the year buildingtrust and helping new teachers adjust to the transition of being teachersof record, while simultaneously maintaining a long-term perspective ofguiding new teachers toward deeper and more focused professionallearning. Fifth, allocate sufficient and regular time for new teachers’and coaches’ joint work. Such regularity provides continuity necessaryfor coaching to foster sustained learning. Securing sufficient time forcoaching also demonstrates the expectation for and commitment tocontinued professional learning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

Induction Coaching 213

It is clear that coaching made a difference to new teachers in thisstudy, and that coaching fostered learning as well as helped them nego-tiate the challenging transition into being teachers of record in high-poverty, turnaround schools. Importantly, each new teacher plannedto remain in her school the following year and stated she was lookingforward to continued work with her coach. When the National Com-mission on Teaching and America’s Future (2003) study reported anup to 75% new teacher attrition in high-needs, high-poverty schools,such retention statistics stand in stark contrast to the norm.

Additionally, the fact that mentored induction was sustained, situ-ated, collaborative, and fostered learning—attributes of strong mentor-ing programs (Howe, 2006; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Schwille,2008; Strong, 2005; Wang & Odell, 2002)—also stands in contrast tonormative induction experiences in high-poverty schools (Kardos &Moore Johnson, 2010; Wei et al., 2010). As educational policy and edu-cators increasingly rely on mentored induction to support new teachers’learning (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Wei et al., 2010), this studyspeaks to the importance of defining mentored induction in ‘‘educa-tive’’ terms. As research demonstrates that mentored induction in high-poverty schools is inadequate, this study portrays a more promisingvision of how mentored induction can be conceptualized and executedin order to make a difference in new teachers’ professional learning.

References

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (2009).Teacher quality partnership grant. Retrieved from http://aacte.org/index.php?/Grants/Government-Grants/teacher-quality-partnership-grants.html

Berry, B., Montgomery, D., Curtis, R., Hernandez, M., Wurtzel, J., & Snyder, J.(2008). Creating and sustaining urban teacher residencies: A new way to recruit,prepare and retain effective teachers in high-needs districts. Chapel Hill, NC: TheAspen Institute/Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED502406.pdf

Carver, C. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2009). Using policy to improve teachereducation: Critical elements and missing pieces. Educational Policy, 23(2),295–328.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). LosAngeles, CA: Sage.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Teachers as teacher educators. European Journal of

Teacher Education, 21, 63–74.Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001a). From preparation to practice: Designing a con-

tinuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6),1013–1055.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

214 W. Gardiner

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001b). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from anexemplary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17–30.

Gardiner, W., & Kamm, C. (2010). Urban teacher residencies: Collaborating toreconceptualize urban teacher preparation. In J. Slater & R. Ravid (Eds.),Collaboration in education (pp. 191–198). New York, NY: Routledge.

Glesne, C. (2005). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.).Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2000). Mentoring in the new millennium. Theoryinto Practice, 39(1), 50–56.

Howe, E. R. (2006). Exemplary teacher induction: An international review.Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 287–297.

John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford, UK: Oxford UniversityPress.

Kardos, S. M., & Moore Johnson, S. (2010). New teachers’ experience of men-toring: The good, the bad, and the inequity. Journal of Educational Change,11(1), 23–44.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitativeresearch interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2003). No dreamdenied: A pledge to America’s children (Summary Report). Washington, DC:Author. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/no-dream-denied_summary_report.pdf

Norman, P. J., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2005). Mind activity in teaching andmentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 679–697.

Seidman, I. E. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers ineducation and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers CollegePress.

Schwille, S. A. (2008). The professional practice of mentoring. American Journal

of Education, 115, 139–167.Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction

and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational ResearchJournal, 41(3), 681–714.

Strong, M. (2005). Teacher induction, mentoring, and retention: A summaryof the research. The New Educator, 1(3), 181–195.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher sociological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according tostandards-based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72,

481–546.Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on

beginning teachers’ teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal ofTeacher Education, 59(2), 132–152.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2

Induction Coaching 215

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development

in the United States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Develop-ment Council and the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudytechnicalreport2010.pdf

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Youngs, P. (2007). District induction policy and new teachers’ experiences: Anexamination of local policy implementation in Connecticut. Teachers College

Record, 109(4), 797–837.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wen

dy G

ardi

ner]

at 1

2:00

27

June

201

2