© All rights reserved. This publication is protected by copyright and permission should be obtained from the author prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. The author can be contacted at: mjmoran@utk.edu

Abstract

It is the practice and inquiry of mentor teachers that is the focus of this article. In this study (that is a part of a longitudinal collaborative action research study) we reveal some of the ways three mentor teachers’ creation of video-narratives impacted their thinking and practice. Video-narratives are comprised of embedding video clips of supervisory conferences in text, through cycles of written and verbal micro-analyses by mentor teachers. Data are drawn from a series of one-on-one, semi-structured interviews, bi-monthly collaborative mentor teacher meetings, and analyses (both written and voiced) generated through the creation of video-narratives across four months. Findings include: (1) an increase in self-regulation of supervisory thinking and actions, (2) a sensitivity to ensure shared power and authority with preservice teachers for developing critical inquiry, and (3) the positive impact and valuable carry-over of analyzing discreet moments of supervision in day-to-day, “on the floor” practice. The coupling and embedding of text, film, and discourse are presented as a new methodology for the development of mentor teachers’ capacity to more effectively communicate and generate reflective practice and collaborative inquiry between themselves and preservice teachers.

Introduction

The development of teacher inquiry has become a central focus of contemporary teacher education programs in the U. S. (Burnaford, Fischer, & Hobson, 2001; Wenbaum, Allen, Blythe, Simon, Seidel, & Rubin, 2004; Moran, 2002). Recent school reform efforts and recommendations to raise professional standards for teacher certification (NCATE, 2002; NAEYC, 2003) require mentor teachers to create experiences that move novice teachers beyond a transmission orientation toward one of decision-maker, critical thinker, and inquirer. According to Feiman-Nemser, (2001a), the idea of educative mentoring is believed to be inspired by John Dewey’s (1938) concept of educative experiences.

Through such experiences teachers engage in cycles of inquiry, prepared to engage in subsequent similar ones while developing a stance as life-long learner. This “inquiry as stance” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993) orientation places increasingly challenging demands on mentor teachers to ensure preservice teacher practice is made visible and accessible for ongoing analysis and interpretation. The role of present-day mentor teachers, therefore, has evolved in complexity even as the role of classroom teachers of young children. No longer can we depend upon top-down, distal supervisory strategies but instead must create contexts for supervision that make visible teacher practice for joint scrutiny and reflection. Thus, a contemporary mentor teacher must now draw upon the use of technology in the form of film, in particular, to link in visible and “real time” ways the supervisory conference with classroom teaching.

In this age of technological advances, the creation of supervisory settings must contribute to developing both the skills and knowledge of novice teachers and consider the affective dimension of teaching. To make visible one’s teaching and mentoring through videotape, for example, exposes the various dimensions of interchange related to teaching including voice quality, body language, movement, feelings, and even the pauses we take when we are unsure how to act. Film, therefore, is a multi-dimensional visual medium that reveals the full-bodied nature of teacher practice and contributes to a context where vulnerability and emotion as well as skill and knowledge are revealed and exposed. For mentor teacher inquirers, the use of film provides rich evidence of both preservice and supervisory practice, often recording the nuances missed through other discursive practices, including reflective writing and discourse.

For the purposes of this study, our framework for inquiry includes a “tripartite set of relations among discursive practices, other practices and activities, and mediating objects and texts” (Burbules, & Bruce, 2001, p. 1103). This approach takes into account not only spoken language but also other forms of representation, namely reflective writing and film (Figure 1). These three are connected in a cycle of interfacing reflection and action that ultimately results in a video-narrative of mentoring moments. In this form, no single method is more or less critical to the process. Instead, video-narratives represent patterns of inter-related practice that include systematic and focused observing, talking, thinking, writing, and editing videotapes of mentor supervision. View Lisa's video-narrative.

While photography, and later film, have been utilized since early in the twentieth century to record practices and events in other fields of study (e.g., anthropology, sociology, photojournalism), the use of these media to record teacher and mentor practice are relatively new in teacher education (Moran & Tegano, 2005). As the movement to educate teachers toward inquiry has developed in earnest, mentor teachers have become increasingly dependent on film, in the form of videotape, as a visual language of teaching. For example, it is common practice for preservice teachers to videotape their teaching (especially when learning to teach), with tapes reviewed later. It is even more prevalent for teachers to engage in reflective writing. While teachers utilize videotape and reflective writing as parallel methods of inquiry, these practices are not typically embedded with opportunities to engage in reflective discourse as part of mentoring conferences. These methodologies of inquiry are certainly used less frequently by mentor teachers to develop their own practice.

It is the practice and inquiry of mentor teachers that is the focus of this article. In this study (that is a part of a longitudinal collaborative action research study), we reveal some of the ways three mentor teachers’ creation of video-narratives has impacted their thinking and practice, increasing their abilities to think more critically, articulate their practice more succinctly, and act more deliberately.

A video-narrative is created on a computer and embeds video in text through a process of iterative cycles of micro-analyses of videotape clips of supervisory conferences. Mentor teachers link snippets of videotape and reflective writing, and engage in discourse with others as they analyze small sections (from 15 to 60 seconds) of film, selected from hours of taped conferences with their preservice teachers. These three common methods of teacher inquiry are rarely coupled in a form that requires the inter-dependence and interchange of all three in the analyses of the supervision of teachers. The interactive process of micro-analysis is an example of the “rigorous use of a systematic experimental method…that requires a learner [the mentor teacher] to observe, understand the significance of what they observe and to make judgments based on such understandings” (Tann, 1993, p. 57). As a result, mentor teacher observations are focused on the relationship of critique and practice, assigning particular meaning to discreet images of practice and the process of meaning-making. The production of this unique visual language of inquiry represents our belief that to educate young teachers as critical thinkers we must also embrace and use similar practices to support our own education and development as mentors and teacher educators.

In the first part of this article we briefly describe the key tenets of sociocultural theory and dominant methods of inquiry including reflective writing, discourse, and videotape. In the second part we illustrate and discuss the outcomes of three mentor teachers’ micro-analyses of their supervision, ending with a discussion for the use of visual methodologies as points of entry into inquiry for mentor teachers.

Contributions of theory, research, and practice

Sociocultural theory and learning

The key tenets of sociocultural theory include the construction of shared knowledge within joint activity from which new understandings are generated and communicated through the use of mediational tools (Bodrova & Leong, 2007). The process of knowledge construction takes place through action and acting with others. As a result, knowledge or “Intelligences, rather, are distributed across minds, persons, and the symbolic and physical environments, both natural and artificial” (Pea, p. 47, 1993). Such cognitive activities are situated within contexts that represent the cultural mores, histories, codes, and meanings associated with particular artifacts, tools, and behaviors.

The social construction of knowledge is dependent upon mediational tools, both technical and psychological. Language is considered a universal, psychological tool because all people use language to communicate and think. Language, spoken and written, is used in both social and private activity to communicate with others as well as with one’s self. When language is used internally on the intramental plane of development, it enables us to self-regulate our behaviors, to revisit, reflect, and contemplate new understandings and actions.

Vygotsky posited that “mental tools extend the mind’s capacity to allow humans to adapt to their environment, and thus have a function similar to that of mechanical [or technical] tools….” (Bodrova & Leong, 2007, p. 16). Such mediational means are “embedded in a sociocultural milieu and are reproduced across generations in the form of collective practices … shaped in socioculturally specific ways” (Forman, Minick, & Stone, 1993, p. 344). As such, our methods for generating knowledge as well as the meanings associated with new knowledge are defined by and linked to the contexts in which we act and communicate with others.

Mediational tools serve as the “go between” function of knowledge construction amongst self and others and within self. The use of mediational tools such as computers and computer software, cameras, tape recorders, and writing utensils, to name a few, generate diverse semiotic artifacts such as film, photographs, audio tapes, and drawings. The use of tools affords us a range of modes to generate, represent, and study thought and action, resulting in a multi-layered process and related forms of knowledge construction. Thus, the use and outcomes of mediational tools are epistemic and representational, giving rise to new knowledge as we study representations of the known, while bridging the gap between the two (Moran & Tegano, 2005). Tools, processes of knowing, and related artifacts help us coordinate and negotiate meaning making with self and others. As Säljö (1998) notes,

The concept of mediation refers to the fact that our relationship with the outside world is always mediated by signs or artifacts. We do not encounter the world as it exists in any neutral and objective sense outside the realm of human experience. We learn to interact with it by means of the signs and tools provided by our culture and in terms of which phenomena make sense. In this sense, human cognitive socialization – learning and development - is a process of appropriating concepts that originate in communicative practices in our culture. (p. 55)

From this perspective, the processes of coming to know as well as what one knows is generated, communicated, and appropriated through the use of mediational tools and participation with others. Through a practice that Rogoff (1995) calls “participatory appropriation,” individuals transform their understandings and responsibilities within an activity as a result of their own participation; and through participation, individuals “become prepared to engage in subsequent similar activities” (p. 150). This notion of carrying forth both emerging understandings (both knowledge and the associated processes related to the tools of knowledge construction) into future, comparable activities means that the learner is positioned to apply and generalize knowledge in new settings.

For mentor teachers, the transference of inquiry from the supervisory conference setting to the classroom context is necessary to support similar abilities in preservice teachers. Likewise, when mentor teachers clarify their intentions and articulate these to others and self, they may be more likely to act deliberately, to self-regulate behaviors, and to create collaborative partnerships with those they supervise.

The languages of inquiry: Reflective writing, discourse, and film

Loris Malaguzzi, the founder of the Reggio Emilia approach to early education, has written that children have “one hundred languages” (1993) that represent their emerging understandings and experiences. He refers to the many forms of young children’s representational languages that include wire, drawing, sculpture, shadow, and painting. It has been shown that when children cycle through different media to represent knowledge, they are prepared to revisit and re-represent their earlier work with a more sophisticated view, a sharper perspective, and one that represents new knowledge generated by their prior experiences with diverse materials (Moran & Jarvis, 2001). For example, as children move from drawing a flower to creating a wire construction of a flower, and back to drawing again, they bring new understandings from their three-dimensional experiences with wire back to the two-dimensional form of drawing. Consequently, it is likely that a second drawing will reveal new details and understandings of form, shape, and spatial relationships not afforded through the act of drawing alone. There are times, therefore, when one media or material affords a better representation than another (Forman, 1994).

The same can be true for mentor teachers who engage in recursive cycles of inquiry characterized by revisiting and re-representing practice through the use of mediational tools and diverse forms of representing their thinking and practice. Through such processes mentor teachers can make visible their critical observations, discernments, reflections, and emerging understandings. As a result, they, too, may be better positioned to identify and critically study the representations of practice that include details, form, and relational aspects of their mentoring practice, returning to examples of earlier practice with new awareness and an ability to critically observe. As Dewey (1938) noted, “‘Observations’ need to be focused, not just on means-ends relationships, but on the relationships between means. The ends also need to be examined and there inter-relationships examined” (Dewey cited in Calderhead & Gates, p. 57, 1993).

Mentor teachers who engage in cycles of inquiry are sometimes referred to as reflective practitioners because they reflect on action and in action to frame, critique and respond to problems or questions (Schon, 1987). Through the analysis and editing of videotape augmented by text and discourse, mentor teachers are re-situated to observe their practice carefully, screening out non-seminal information as they interpret their intentions, their challenges, and their successes. As such, mentor teachers engage in what Schon (1983) describes as “problem-setting.” Problem setting is a process through which “we name the things to which we attend and frame the context in which we will attend to them” (p. 39). Through this meta-cognitive framing process, mentor teachers learn discernment, judgment, and decision-making skills that are critical to their development of focused attention. It is through focused attention on and analyses of discreet supervisory actions that mentor teachers begin to generate and communicate new understandings and, ultimately, ways to act intentionally, both “on the floor” and in the supervisory conference.

Reflective writing, discourse, and videotape have each been used as methods of teacher inquiry and at times have been used together. For example, mentor teachers use video-stimulated recall as part of supervisory sessions to help frame and focus discussions. In these settings, teachers or mentors select a video clip to analyze together. At times, teachers write about their discussions (LaBoskey, 1994; Zeichner & Liston, 1996) or view a videotape of teaching and then write reflectively. Dialogic and reflective journals are common practices in teacher education programs and children’s classrooms (Janesick, 2004).

One example of combining videotape and discourse is in the use of reflective dialogues, or the “RD method” developed by Moyles, Adams, and Musgrove (2002). The RD method exemplifies the development of inquiry that is dependent upon a “two-way discussion between research partners, intended to uncover significant thinking about day-to-day practice through the process of scaffolded discussions about images of that practice” (p. 465). In these cases, images are in the form of videotape that are selected by the practitioner (the teacher being taped) and then discussed with a researcher or “critical friend” (Francis, 1995).

Through iterative cycles of using film, writing, and discourse, mentor teachers draw upon diverse images and languages to study their practice. When these three forms are merged, linked, and embedded in the act of inquiry the entry points of critical viewing are amplified, the study of diverse forms of representation exposed, and the interpretation of the intricacies and complex nature of practice made visible. In the study described here, we wondered how this combination of representation would afford mentor teachers to more closely and critically study their supervisory practices. We hypothesized that through the toggling of talk, film, and text we could better assist mentor teachers in their critical analyses of their practice and co-construction of new understandings about their roles and habits of mind as mentor teachers.

Methodology

This study took place at a large, public university in the Southeastern region of the U.S. The mentor teachers (See Table 1) supervised undergraduate students (preservice teachers) enrolled in an early childhood teacher education program at the university laboratory school. The three mentor teachers whose work is discussed here are drawn from a total of eight participants who are part of a two-year collaborative action research project focused on studying ways to more effectively develop reflective practice among the students they supervise. Each mentor teacher created one video-narrative.

Table 1. Mentor teacher demographics

Procedures

MJ reads text back to Lisa (dictated by Lisa), about how she listened to her preservice teacher describe a challenging classroom scene. Listening to the text, Lisa then discusses her intention as she contemplates and edits the text.
MJ reads, ‘Basically, I was listening to her describe the scene.’
MJ: That’s true, isn’t it? This is what you want to write?
L: Uh huh. What it [the supervisory moment] made me do …was, uh. It made me think about what my questions to her [the preservice teacher] should be --- um [pause] how I was going to lead the conversation to help her understand that she doesn’t have to deal with everything, [pause] at once. Maybe I should write, ‘with both situations.’

Concurrent with the mentor teacher making decisions for what to keep and cut, the information technology specialist was managing the editing of the videotape. Often following a session, the mentor teacher reviewed copies of her text, and continued to reflect, talk, and edit, bringing back to the next session a new version in which to embed the very small micro-clips. The number and length of micro-video clips in each video-narrative ranged from six to nine with each clip lasting from 20 seconds to more than a minute. The sessions ended when the mentor teacher was satisfied that she had adequately portrayed her emerging understandings, intentions, and behaviors.


Teacher interviews

Each mentor teacher was interviewed every few months by the lead researcher, for a total of four interviews each. The purpose of these one-on-one, semi-structured interviews was to provide mentor teachers an opportunity to talk about their experiences in the study, in particular the impact of sharing “rough cut” video clips with colleagues, the use of supervisory strategies developed for classroom supervision, and the impact of the video-narrative process on their thinking and practice. These interviews lasted from 30-60 minutes and were held in the lead researchers’ office. Interviews were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions were read and reread using constant comparative methods (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to identify emerging themes and patterns. Transcriptions were uploaded into NUD*IST software and further analyzed.


Bi-monthly collaborative meetings.

Each collaborative meeting was attended by the eight mentor teachers who comprised the sample for the larger study, the lead researcher, and the information technology specialist. In addition, a graduate student working on the study attended and took notes, video, and audio taped each meeting. Audio tapes were transcribed verbatim and coded for emerging themes and patterns. Videotapes were transcribed loosely, with key phrases and exchanges of significance to the study transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions from both audio and videotapes were uploaded into NUD*IST software for further analysis.

Findings

As a result of the systematic and focused micro-analyses that are the basis of the video-narratives, mentor teachers’ practice and thinking began to change. Dominant patterns of change have emerged in two primary areas, self-regulation of behaviors and the creation of communities of practice in which the authority and responsibility for change was shared with others. Third, mentor teachers reflect on ways in which the meta-cognitive process of intensive analysis on discreet mentoring moments works—how attention to only a very few minutes of their supervisory lives begins to permeate many facets of their day-to-day practice as mentors.


Self-regulation of practice

All three mentor teachers reported that they act more intentionally and reflect in the moment more often than prior to the study. This intentionality is not only about what they say, but also about what they choose not to say. They comment on a sense of timing, timing of responses, allowing time to flow without filling the space with words, and slowing their pace of talk so that they can act more deliberately. This conscious practice occurred both in mentoring conferences and “on-the-floor,” in their act of selecting video clips to micro-analyze, and the linking of their micro-analysis experiences with their mentoring practices.

I’m aware of very specific behaviors like me tending to go on too long and give her too much information all at once. I notice little things like that my instinct is to interrupt and talk too much, talk too long, talk too often …. But changing it is something that is much harder and when I see it visually and had some time and space from that actual interaction, it helps me change or add to or decrease behaviors. It also allows me to be much more intentional. When I am aware of that then I am much better able to stop myself from doing it or change my behavior. So then I change the specific things that I notice in the micro-analysis. But then also, I apply the process to other situations. [Elizabeth]

The impact [of the micro-analysis] has been really big for me. Thinking-wise, I think before I speak much more than I used to. My questions are now intentional and better thought out than before. I don’t ask as many questions as I used to but I think the questions that I do ask are more important. So, I think more about what I’m doing – Should I intervene? Should I not? Or, should I ask a question? So, now I may take a couple more seconds than I used to but … I’m just learning to consider what they need from me before I give them what I think they need. I do this at two different times, in our moments of teaching [together] and when I’m talking with them individually, like one-on-one. [Heather]

The part of the clip I choose [to micro-analyze] is a part in which I was able to say these are the things that you told me you did—first you did this, then this, and one and on. And when I repeated those back to her, she heard them from someone else and she was able to analyze it in a different way. That is the first time that I think I ever did it really continuously. I think I was really thinking about it as I did it, and it was very clear in that moment that that is what I needed to say and that’s what I needed to do. So, it was very intentional and that’s what made the difference. I think the camera on me helps me to or forces me to slow down a little bit and think through what I’m saying a little bit more. [Lisa]

These mentor teachers are revealing a heightened self-awareness characteristic of what Max van Manen refers to as the “tact of teaching” (1991). This disposition is grounded in reflective practice and developed through deliberate choices to focus attention to affect change. This internal process of coming to know ourselves so that concomitantly we are better positioned to support the knowing of others is informed by dichotomous moments of knowledge construction that include, (a) the moments of coming to know and (b) the moments when we know that we know (Shor & Freire, 1987). It is the interplay between these two points that re-positions mentor teachers to create educative experiences for preservice teachers, influencing them not only in the moment but also in ways that propel them to share in the authority and take responsibility for guiding their own learning. See Heather's video-narrative and closing retrospective, in particular, as one example of this interplay.

Communities of practice

Shared authority and responsibility for teacher development and learning is the second dominant theme that emerged in this study. An historical role of what it meant to be a mentor for these three mentor teachers was challenged and changed as a result of their focused inquiry on their practice. Before the study, the mentor teachers all shared a belief that it was their responsibility to identify a wide range of ways a preservice teacher needed to develop. Often the demands of attending to procedural knowledge dominated time and attention with precious little time to devote to the development of pedagogical knowledge. However, as they critically observed their practice and reflected on the reasons for their actions they began to place more emphasis on sharing pedagogical decision-making with their students by focusing on fewer, yet fundamental, elements of teaching such as confidence, goal-setting, and developing relationships. This change was provoked by their invitations to preservice teachers to share in the decisions about what would be discussed, trusting them to set many of the agendas, and revealing their own vulnerabilities in the hopes of leveling the playing field of authority and control.

I see thousands of things that need to be worked on … but I now have a much better understanding through watching the videotapes … [that] I know what it looks like now, I know how to do it now, that it’s so much more effective to focus on a few achievable goals at a time rather than trying to help a student progress in twelve hundred ways. I think about it differently in terms of the break-down of roles. I used to view the process much more as one that had, I guess, more clear learner-teacher roles. I took on much more of the responsibility for the teaching which I think also took some of her responsibility for learning away. Now, I genuinely appreciate and acknowledge and address her agendas. Whether in a regular meeting or in a video clip analysis of my student’s teaching. Although I still and always will have goals for her that I identify, I rely much more heavily on her goals and the points that she brings up and the things that she says that she needs from me, rather than the things I think that she needs from me. As a result, what she needs from me and what I think she needs from me have merged …. [Elizabeth]

In terms of practice it’s changed me, the micro-analysis, because … I now switch roles with a student or have students mentor each other at specific times or just document each other as they teach, or you know, take notes of conversations or other things like that. The other things that I do much more is spend time, spend more time talking about their practice and not so much talking about who’s going to change a diaper or who’s going to wash hands. So, more practice related conversation and less instructional conversation, I guess. [Heather]

That part of it [the micro-analysis] has helped me to see that one of the most important messages that I think I can leave with students is that they have power, they have ownership, they have ability over their own teaching experiences. I’ve learned a lot from it [the micro-analysis] because it’s taken a role that I have had for years and defined the role better for me…it’s given me ways to give them more responsibility for what they’re learning so that it’s not just a burden that I carry, it’s a burden that, not even a burden, it’s a kind of journey that the student and I share together. [Lisa]

Here, in these excerpts, mentor teachers’ changing roles are revealed. They are beginning to take steps away from holding onto much of the power and control over agendas and pedagogical decisions toward creating collaborative partnerships with their students. As a result, there seems to be more opportunity to distribute knowledge and create a communal fabric of shared responsibility and blended roles. Additionally, there is emerging evidence that preservice teachers are placed in positions of mentoring each other and genuinely contributing to the direction they move with their own mentors. It is through the sharing of knowledge, roles, and the development of trusting relationships that true communities of practice are created. See Elizabeth's video-narrative that exemplifies the value of developing relationships as part of the mentoring process.

Micro-analysis as a mediational practice

All three mentor teachers identified viewing themselves on videotape, the process of editing tapes, and sharing those edits with peers as the most powerful and influential aspects of their developing inquiry. They used images and text as both representational and epistemic languages of new knowledge and coming to know, situating both the process and emerging understandings in their heads and within their mentoring practices. The experiences of micro-analysis made explicit tacit knowledge, as they made visible and went “public” with their thoughts, intentions, and new insights. It is through the interaction of media, cognition, and learning—mediated by talk, text, and tape— that they evidenced emerging clarity about the ways they are transforming their practice, becoming better prepared to engage in successive comparable activities.

I am aware of the process that I go through in the micro-analysis and then apply that process in other situations. I mean, just as I am aware of how long I am going on during that video clip, I’m also aware of during the micro-analysis the way that I’m looking at my behaviors and strategies and so I use that in other situations. I have a heightened awareness and take the time to analyze small moments. Breaking it down into such minute detail, it’s so tedious and I hate that sometimes, and yet that’s what forces me to see the detail. I reflect a lot in general, but usually much more “big picture” – I look at a lot more global things. Without the help of this process I tend to get overloaded. I think that it has been really powerful because it has changed my entire reflective process. … it is like analyzing a moment, within a moment, within a moment. [Elizabeth]

The project has let me see what I do. I think the most helpful for me has been the editing process because my thoughts can be all over the place. It [helps me] refine my thoughts to the meat or the point of what I’m trying to say that is important, and it helps me in the future because then I know more what I should say. The next time I do this, the next time I choose a clip I think my thoughts are clearer every single time. From the very first clip we chose - and I don’t remember how many edits that were done, quite a few - I wasn’t clear about exactly what I was talking about. But now, I feel like my thoughts are better stated than they were at the beginning and it’s made me know quicker what to work on. [Heather]

I think the most informative part is the talking about it because I get different perspectives, or I get affirmed in what I’m thinking. Editing is the hardest part because it becomes too intense for me and that’s when I start to feel pressure. As we talk about it a lot of the time I understand it better and it makes me a little bit more focused when I go back in to the next meeting [with my student]. I think my focus is a little narrower than what it used to be. I used to think I had to hit all these different things. What I really want now is to not have a perfect teacher at the end, but have a teacher who is able to think about her own actions and change them as a result of what she’s thought about and make it better the next time. [Lisa]

The emerging changes in mentor teachers’ thinking and practice in this study include both new knowledge about how to be a more effective mentor and how to transform practice in deliberate ways. Here, mentor teachers reveal how they carry their editing, talking, and viewing experiences with them, in their heads, as they return to their classrooms and mentoring conferences. No longer is the practice of micro-analysis bound to the research lab, but instead brought into mentor teachers’ daily lives enabling them to be “prepared to engage in subsequent similar activities” (Rogoff, p. 150, 1995).

Discussion

In this study the activities associated with the critical analyses of supervisory practices by mentor teachers was situated and structured with the intent of creating a community of inquiry. Inquiry was mediated by a merger of analytical languages in the form of text, discourse, and film. These three formed a tripartite structure for the participation of mentor teachers’ engagement in the critical observation and analysis of their practice. As a result, they began to transform their practice toward more deliberate thoughts and actions, develop clarity about their roles as mentors, and utilize an enlarging repertoire of strategies for communicating and generating inquiry.

The mentor teachers’ practice and learning described here was evidenced in their “increasing participation in communities of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1993, p. 49) with their students, the research team, and one another. Over time, the continuity of experiences related to their micro-analyses began to “spill over” into their day-to-day activities, “distributed—stretched over, not divided among—mind, body, activity and culturally organized settings” (Lave, 1989, p. 1). As members of a new and evolving community of inquiry, mentor teachers used the tools and practices of critical reflection, making them their own, sharing their experiences with others in implicit and explicit ways, and extending their knowledge and ways of knowing to others.

This “sharing” defined their relationships and membership in a community comprised of a “set of praxis … a way of exercising intelligence’ (Bruner, 1996, p. 154). They generated and communicated new knowledge about what it means to be an effective mentor and new ways of operationalizing that knowledge in practice. This “local knowledge” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, p. 45) contributed to a clarity and confidence about their roles as mentors, enabling them to share new understandings and the authority and responsibility for learning to teach with preservice teachers. In this context, they learned to see, and see again — their practice, thoughts, and intentions as they used the process of creating video-narratives to represent what it means, to them, to be an effective mentor teacher.

Guidelines for accessing video-narratives. 

Download this manuscript in pdf form here.

Video-narratives can be accessed in two ways. 

First, you can download these documents onto your computer, using Quicktime to view them.  Download the video-narratives here.

Second, you can request a DVD of the Video-Narratives by writing or emailing the first author.  Please note, you will be required to pay all postage and handling fees.

Mary Jane Moran, Ph.D.
Department of Child & Family Studies
1215 W. Cumberland Avenue, Room 115
Knoxville, TN  37996-1912
USA
mjmoran@utk.edu

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Lori Caudle, Meggan Terrill, and Burke Brewer for their assistance in analyzing data for this article.

References

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Burbules, N. C., & Bruce, M. C. (2001). Theory and research on teaching as dialogue. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1102-1121). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (Eds.). (2001). Teachers doing research: The power of action through inquiry (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Calderhead, J., & Gates, P. (1993). Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

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

Forman, E., Minick, N., & Stone, C. A., (Eds.). (1993). Contexts for learning Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Forman, G. (1994). Different media, different languages. In L. Katz & B.
Cesarone (Eds.), Reflections on the Reggio Emilia approach (pp. 41-53). Urbana, IL: ERIC.

Francis, D. (1995). The reflective journal: A window to preservice teachers’ practical
knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 229-241.

Janesick, V. J. (2004). Journal writing and critical thinking skills in classroom settings. In J. L. Kincheloe & D. Weil (Eds.), Critical thinking and learning: An encyclopedia for parents and teachers (pp. 259-263). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

Laboskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice: A study of pre-service teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lave, J. (1989). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life New York: Cambridge University Press.

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

Mallaguzzi, L. (1993). History, ideas, and basic philosophy: An interview with Lella Gandini. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education (pp. 41-89). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 887-904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Moran, M. J. (2002). Implications for the study and development of inquiry among early childhood preservice teachers: A report from one study. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 23, 39-44.

Moran, M. J., & Jarvis, J. (2001, September). Helping young children develop higher
order thinking. Young Children, 56(5), 31-35.

Moran, M. J., & Tegano, D. W. (2005). Moving toward visual literacy: Photography as
a language of teacher inquiry. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(1).

Moyles, J., Adams, S., & Musgrove, A. (2002). Using reflective dialogues as a tool for
engaging with challenges of defining effective pedagogy. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 463-478.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). ProfessionalStandards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education. Washington, DC.

Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salamon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp.188-228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch & A. Alvarex (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Säljö, R. (1998). Thinking with and through artifacts: The role of psychological tools and physical artifacts in human learning and cognition. In D. Faulkern, K. Littleton, & M. Woodhead, (Eds.) Learning relationships in the classroom. London, UK: Routledge.

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

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for
teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching. Albany: State University Press.

Tann, S.  (1993). Eliciting student teachers’ personal theories. In  J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Weinbaum, A., Allen, D., Blythe, T., Simon, K., Seidel, S., & Rubin, C. (2004). Teaching as inquiry: Asking hard questions to improve practice and student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.

Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zeichner, K., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed., pp. 298-330). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.

Return to the Main Index of Issues

Questions or comments? Please send us your feedback.