Intramural Teaching: A Team Approach to Mentoring
Tara
Rosselot-Durbin
If schools became places where teachers
studied their own practice together and were rewarded for doing so, future
teachers would be inducted into a professional community where collegiality and
experimentation were norms. In such a setting observation and conversation
among persons at different career stages would expand the alternatives
available to the novice and dramatize the limits of personal and local
experience. Future teachers would get the message that learning from teaching
was part of the job of teaching. (Feiman-Nemser and Buchman, 1985, p.64)
As teacher education reform continues to develop, the importance of how educators train proteges remains in the forefront. Eighteen years ago, Kenneth Zeichner (1980) first called for a constructivist research approach in order to glean information about the mentoring process. He stated that such ethnographic approaches would help us build a firmer knowledge of what is learned during the student teaching experience and subsequently offer possible solutions to ease the complex transitional period of preservice teaching. This paper delineates such an approach to enhance our understanding how the conventional boundaries of mentoring dynamics can be further examined by exploring a team’s mentoring interactions and conversations and juxtaposing those dynamics with what we know of the dynamics of traditionally-paired dyads.
Research
has shown that our proteges are “active agents” (Lacey, 1977) in their
socialization as professionals, not puppets mimicking the cooperating teacher,
and that working with an experienced teacher will help shape a beginning
teacher’s beliefs and practices (Cochran-Smith, 1991; Huling-Austin, 1990;
Staton & Hunt, 1992). We also understand that there is more to teaching
than our performance in front of a class of children. Beginning teachers are
emergent professionals and so must be versed in a range of teaching activities:
curriculum development, staff development, school policy and new forms of
collaborative relations with colleagues (Lieberman, 1989). A variety of forces
shapes the neophyte teacher, thus an “ecological” (Copeland, 1982; Goodlad,
1994; Yinger & Hendricks-Lee, 1993) approach to teacher preparation has
been heralded by reformers in the field. These approaches consider the
systemic/holistic influence of context upon teacher learning and socialization.
Given the importance of how teacher
proteges are being prepared for their changing roles as teachers, the purpose
of this study was to look closely at one mentor teacher group in order to
examine the intricacies of team mentoring dynamics and to determine how and
what interns learn from their mentoring experience with multiple personnel as
opposed to traditional mentoring dyads/triads operating with a single
cooperating teacher/mentor. Practice and theory converge as this study explores
how teachers are being socialized by a team approach to mentoring. Questions to
guide this study include: What is the structure of the mentoring team? How does
it operate? How are responsibilities and roles divided? What does the team do?
What kinds of talk occur during the mentoring experience? How do the dynamics
of traditional dyads differ from those of the team? What advantages
/disadvantages are there to the team? What effect does this approach have
specifically on proteges?
An Ecological
Framework
Context
and conversation are key words in the conceptualization of intern growth and
learning. Acquiring high-level “working knowledge”(Yinger &
Hendricks-Lee,1993) and developing a practice that differs greatly from what
we, ourselves, may have experienced as student teachers is greatly enhanced
through learning opportunities that extend beyond traditional single cooperating
teacher supervision. The new world of teacher preparation and socialization
provides effective contexts for teacher learning which combine colleges of
education with community schools and provide opportunities for doing and
reflecting, collaborating with other teachers, looking closely at students and
their contexts, and encouraging ecological learning – in other words, a team
approach to mentoring. The cement for these concentric layers of context is the
common language shared by a community of learners. This common language allows
us to talk “clearly and straightforwardly about teaching without offending the
teacher” thus enabling us to “describe and demonstrate underlying principles of
teaching and learning” (Little & Nelson, 1990, p.4).
Darling-Hammond
(1994) states that the professional teacher is one who learns from teaching
rather than one who has finished learning how to teach, and the job of teacher
education develops the capacity to inquire systematically and sensitively into
the nature of learning and the effects of teaching. Professional development
strategies that work in improving teacher learning and socialization into the
profession share several features (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1996,
p.203). They tend to be experiential, engaging teachers in concrete tasks of
teaching; grounded in participants’ questions, inquiry and experimentation as
well as profession wide research; collaborative, involving a sharing of
knowledge among educators; connected to and derived from teachers’ work with
their students as well as to examinations of subject matter and teaching
methods; sustained and intensive--supported by modeling, coaching and problem
solving around specific problems of practice; and connected to other aspects of
school change. This investigation utilizes these theoretical frameworks to
examine the workings of one mentoring team and unravel the dynamics that
enabled them to operate as a collaborative learning unit.
A Redefinition of
Teacher Education: The Sociocultural Perspective
Teacher
knowledge is often tacit knowledge and a great deal of expertise about teaching
resides in the heads of experienced teachers. Literature is presently focusing
on the knowledge of teachers about their craft (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1993; Feiman-Nemser, 1990), but, as now organized, schools do not provide for
professional development or for the introduction of innovations in teaching
practices (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). New sources of learning are extremely
limited and studies of teachers of varying lengths of service show that most
experienced teachers who work in isolation from peers continue to do the same
thing they did when they first entered teaching 10,15 or 20 years ago and now
they find their jobs monotonous and unchallenging. Beginners develop initial skills
by trial-and-error learning and begin to deplete their fund of ideas after
about the fifth year of teaching (Rosenholz, 1986, p.524).
Proposed
reforms such as higher standards for entry into the field, better salaries,
merit pay and career-ladder plans will not be enough. These won’t change
teaching practices unless we change the settings in which teachers work at the
same time. “Teachers’ skill development depends heavily on collaborative
support and exchange” (Rosenholz, 1986, p.518) and teaching cannot be reformed
until it is understood that schools must be a context for teaching and that
context itself must be a “teaching context” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p.6).
The basis
for this theory of ongoing teacher education is derived from the contextualist
and interactionist schools of human development relating back to Vygotskian
notions. Vygotsky (1978) argued that higher-order functions develop out of
social interaction and that development cannot be understood by mere study of
the individual. We must also examine the “external social world” in which that
individual has developed. Information regarding “cultural tools and practices”
is transmitted from experienced members to inexperienced members allowing
growth to occur in the “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978)--a place
where the learner has partially mastered the skill but can successfully employ
it and internalize it with the assistance and supervision of a veteran. Our
beginning teachers operate in this “zone of proximal development”. An approach
to teacher education that optimizes this type of “scaffolding” (Wertsch, 1979)
by supporting the learner’s extension of current skills and knowledge to a
higher level of competence provides the collaborative support and exchange that
is truly teacher education reform. Social interaction with colleagues who are
more expert in the use of the conceptual tools of the culture is an important
“cultural amplifier” to extend the cognitive processes (Rogoff & Gardener,
1984, p.97). Veteran teachers can thus “amplify” the apprenticeship of
beginning teachers and ease their socialization into the profession through
situational guidance that offers both support and challenge.
Methodology
This
research incorporated qualitative methods, and emerged as a sociocultural
exploration of a mentor team in the context of an innovative teacher education
program. Data consisted of interviews, reflective journals, observation of
teachers teaching and document analysis. Data gathering and analysis occurred
simultaneously over a twelve month period. Mentors involved in this state’s
induction program were expected to prepare beginning teachers to satisfy the
state’s updated criteria for continuing education. This description offers a
holistic view of how that evolved.
The team
site to be studied was situated in a Paideia middle school in an urban
Midwestern area. The school was involved in a university-school partnership and
had been so involved for eight years. This Professional Development School
(PDS) serves an 83 percent minority student population and is situated in a
lower socio-economic community. The
The
primary informants were the seven mentor team members. All team members are
white and two are males. All team mentor teachers have at least ten years of
teaching experience. Two had not previously served as mentors and none have
received any formal mentor training. I operated as a participant observer on
the mentor team and interviewed and documented the conversations with
teachers-in-residence about traditionally-paired dyads. These observations, as
well as observations of interns’ teaching and document analysis of personal
reflection journals and intern preparation guidelines provided for additional
triangulation of interview perspectives.
Interns
requested the schools in which they were placed and many (including Damon, an
intern studied in this research) returned to schools where they had previously
been “teaching associates” in the fourth year of their practicum. For the fifth
year of the teacher education program, they were placed in a school for one
year, paid the equivalent of a substitute teacher and regarded as “the teacher”
by both faculty and students from day one. This necessitated an extensive
orientation program through the university and the partnering schools. All
mentor participants on our particular team taught at the same grade level and
all had 10-21 years of experience teaching. Throughout the school year, both
interns on our team experienced a process of socialization into teaching--a
process in which they became active participants. That became the focus of this
exploration. I wanted to know how the team facilitated that socialization.
Their stories, unearthed in initial interviews, revealed several categories of
concerns: instructional concerns; management concerns; assessment and
evaluative concerns (both for themselves and their students) and
social/personal concerns. Analysis clarified how the interns “worked through”
these challenges with the support structure of the mentor team throughout that
first year of teaching. The findings in this article pertain to the two
interns’ case stories and all names used within the paper are pseudonyms. As
Damon and Jamie (the interns) embarked on a year of becoming teachers and
eventually emerged as teachers, we team members analyzed and documented their
progress.
Qualitative
research methods depend upon the collection of abundant data and a systematic
analysis of that data to reveal its meaning. Interviews in this study were
audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed. Analysis of the data was
ongoing, interactive and emergent as I noted reflections; sifted through
materials to identify similar phrases, relationships, patterns and themes;
isolated commonalities and differences of themes and then took them out into
the field on the next wave of data collection. Data reduction, data display and
conclusion drawing/verification were interwoven before, during and after data
collection in parallel form (Miles & Huberman, 1994) as basis for analysis.
I used
triangulation to reinforce data interpretation. The data set contains
information from a variety of sources including conversations, document
analysis, and observations along with reflective journals--providing a
connected view of the multiple aspects of beginning teacher socialization.
Member check also provided an essential component of triangulation. Fellow
mentor teachers on the team and the PDS coordinator shared perspectives
regarding the interns’ teaching experiences. The interns themselves saw
preliminary glimpses of the data and were asked to share their insights. Team
participants gave feedback about my interpretations throughout the duration of
the research.
Teachers-in-residence
who worked with traditionally-paired mentoring dyads, and scholars at the
university reviewed the data and shared additional insights. We met regularly
throughout the year-long project at two-week intervals to compare the
traditional dyad mentoring experience with that of the mentor team.
The Team-A Community
of Learners
The data
analysis process included the creation of the interns’ narratives relating to
their experience on the team. Following are their stories as they told them
over the course of the year. Even though our interns had been prepared by the
same university program, they were very different people. Their connection to
the team community was not automatic, but for Jamie, the transition to teacher
seemed to be seamless. Jamie was mature even beyond her 27 years and
competently fielded all problems with her 7th grade class, “the Mariners,” in a
respectful yet nurturing manner. She shared a classroom with Ms. Able, a
veteran of 14 years and commented:
When I watch Ms. Able teach
and work with the other mentors on the team, I see what teaching is all about.
I tried to be a friend, then a disciplinarian, but I learned that to teach is
to be a facilitator. I have watched each of my mentors teach and although their
approaches are different, their goal is the same. We help our students make
informed choices and it’s our job to help them be informed. My role now is much
different when compared to the one I entered the teaching profession with. Through
growth and the support of the various personalities on the team, I have learned
to look at my previous mistakes, critically reflect, and truly begin to focus
on what made my teaching work. (
It was a
team practice to script as we observed interns (several mentors used laptops
for this) and to include several comments/suggestions in our notes to the
interns. These notes were then copied and given to the intern and all other
team members. Eight themes guided our observations/conversations, and these
themes reflected the attributes of effective teachers as per the teacher
education program at the university. They became a common language we used to
talk about our teaching that was specific and non-judgmental. They grounded our
observations in authentic language that was familiar so that we could “describe
and demonstrate underlying principles of teaching and learning” (Little &
Nelson, 1990, p.4). Our common themes included: learning, instruction, content,
curriculum, context, professional growth and development, grounded theory and
knowledge, and collaboration. These themes correlate with Student Teacher
Performance Based Licensure and Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (INTASC) components of effective teaching for student teacher
standards. The common theme “learning," for example, states that learning
is an
Active, goal oriented, constructive process dependent on the mental activities of the learner. Learners are seen as producers of their own knowledge, not merely consumers of information delivered to them. This constructivist view of human cognitive learning addresses various mental activities involved in human information processing. (Cincinnati Initiative for Teacher Education [CITE] Handbook, 1997,p.3)
As Jamie
discussed reflection she was talking about several opportunities. After the
observation the interns typically read the scripted notes from the mentor and
reflected privately about their performance prior to the debriefing. At a later
time, intern and mentor had a post conference touching on highlights of the
lesson, problems and concerns. At the next team meeting, discussion and “social
reflection” followed as we focused on the authentic critical activities of
teaching and learning rather than abstractions and generalities. Interns also
kept a reflective journal for their portfolio.
Often, at
the team meetings, which were held every other Tuesday before school, the
interns focused the discussion according to their areas of need or expertise.
Jamie was very organized. Her evaluation and assessment of students and her
implementation of reading workshop procedures enlightened our mentor team on
several occasions. No teacher taught during these meetings--no individual was
in charge. We negotiated topics according to our needs as a group.
Besides Jamie’s presentation
on the workshop approach and managing the gradebook, we heard from other team
members about classroom management, portfolios, writing the curriculum vita,
teacher as researcher, formative evaluation procedures (for interns), peer
coaching, use of the team’s language framework, scripting, pre/post evaluation
conferencing, and adapting to the context of school and community. The interns
contributed as “experts” in matters of pedagogy, management, and content, as
did the veteran teachers. We shared from our authentic experience, and our
common language enabled us to delve into the deeper meaning of “why” things
worked through our reflection and discussion. We all mentored each other.
At the
end of her internship, Jamie described herself in a reflective journal entry.
I now realize how unprepared I was to take on a full load and begin
teaching. I’ve had friends who had nightmare experiences with their cooperating
teacher because their personalities clashed or the mentor teacher didn’t
approve of the way the mentee taught. That didn’t happen here. I was given the
support of a university liaison, mentors, professional practice and career
teachers, as well as other interns in my same position. The professional support
and leadership I received from the team
was guidance that was invaluable. (4/13/98)
In an exit interview as I was leaving the field, Jamie referred to the team as a “collection of peers who are all concerned with becoming better teachers” (5/12/98).
Damon did
not have the same seamless transition into teaching. One might say his threads
indeed got tangled. At a team meeting early in the year the following exchange
took place. At 8:09 one Tuesday morning Mr. Newton (Damon’s classroom mentor)
addressed the team.
In answer to all of your unspoken questions, I do not know where Damon is. He knew about the team meeting. We discussed it yesterday when we went over lesson plans. I am concerned about the fact that he’s been late 3 days in the last week. That’s a pattern that needs to stop.
Jamie’s discomfort was
obvious--a fellow intern was struggling she asked: “Do I need to leave?” A potential trash-talking session was
avoided as two other mentor teachers got the meeting focused. Ms. Liber asked
that we proceed with the scheduled topic, student assessment. "Jamie, did
you bring your print out sheets for recording student work? Let’s take a look
at those as we’d planned." Another mentor, Ms. Able responded: "Let’s
proceed with the business at hand and maybe he’ll arrive. We need to focus on
punctuality and professionalism in our personal de-briefings with Damon."
At 8:21 a rumpled Damon arrives. “I’m sorry; I forgot all about the meeting.” (10/8/97).
The
beginning of this example sets the tone for the mentor team as community, but
it also reveals the way authentic, day-to-day personal problems of the interns
were dealt with. The situation with Damon’s tardiness was not an isolated
incident, but the suggestion that we work it out personally with Damon as we
debriefed was an acceptable measure. Jamie’s discomfort was real and warranted.
In a community, problems and conflicts arise and the equitable problem solving
of the group adds to the cohesion of the community unit. Damon, in the
beginning of his internship, had trouble connecting to peers as professionals
(9/9/97). Even though he had taught in the same classroom the year before as a
teaching associate and felt he had a good working relationship with at least
one of the team members, Damon admitted he lacked organizational skills and
personal confidence (9/9/97).
Later,
Damon attested to the value of regularly reflecting on his teaching and
collaboratively discussing those reflections with other colleagues.
The regular meeting time every other Tuesday morning is so helpful, and
I know I need the help. I just don’t feel like a teacher. I’m stuck with that
“friend versus teacher” relationship with my students and my peers. I don’t
feel responsible enough to be a teacher. I know I need to get organized. (10/29/97)
As a team, we made a
concerted effort to get Damon to organize himself by discussing the rationale
behind teacher behavior, although my first reaction was to think "he’s
just not trying--he needs to get serious." It’s a good thing I wasn’t his
single cooperating teacher. Initially Damon had a hard time “doing his
homework." He thought he could stand in front of the class and “wing
it”--that’s what being a teaching associate was like last year, but that was
one day a week (10/29/97).
Damon’s lesson plans and directions
to the students were also abstract. His long term plans for the first quarter
of language arts instruction merely stated “READ." Transitions were a
problem. Damon was personal and natural outside of class, but while teaching
for long periods, he developed a monotone. Class disruptions became more
frequent. In an observation (9/12/97) that was fairly typical for Damon’s
teaching early in the year, Mr. Newton noted these questions after scripting:
1. The timing technique for free-writing may be creating a problem--is 20 minutes too long?
2. The instructions seem very abstract. Notes on the board? Examples? Student generated work? I couldn’t determine the focus of the lesson. What curricular objectives did you have in mind? The students are quiet, but are they engaged and learning?
3. Is the homework connected to the lesson?
Observations
and scriptings by other team members yielded similar comments, yet as Damon
read and reflected, restructured and de-briefed, he did not appear to become
discouraged. As a team, our strategy was to focus on the rationale for clear
statements of expectations, relevant homework assignments, maintaining
curricular coherence and developing a teacher persona. Each of us had something
to offer and Damon reacted to our comments in the spirit in which they were
given.
I began my year with a lot of uncertainty in terms of planning. My personality and lack of experience led me into the year “flying by the seat of my pants” and going without solid lesson plans. My problem was, in all honesty, I was getting away with it for awhile. But with six other team members keeping an eye on you, it’s hard to “pull the wool over anyone’s eyes." Plus, I had many different kinds of suggestions. The team began to help. They knew I was in trouble, but it was never a team meeting about “Damon’s incompetence." Ms. Able showed me some ways to write lesson plans that are short, but detailed. You reviewed the curricular objectives to focus my planning and we made a grid sheet to check things off. Mr. Newton cautioned me about the overuse of threats and detention, Ms. Liber taught me the value of being flexible, and Ms. Weber proposed a homework collection strategy that saves time and disruption. I am pleased with the way the team helped me deal with the losses I’ve had to take. I’m the rookie. But I have grown. (3/12/98)
The team took an active role in allowing
me to become a better teacher. I never felt for a second that any team member
was “downing” me for doing something in a way they would not have done it. I
was encouraged to develop my style and use it. (4/8/98)
About Damon’s growth, one
team member commented:
You set a standard. You became reliable, dependable, and open to change. You taught me about perseverance and hard work. We know now what an intern can be, and we’ll settle for nothing less. (Ms. Weber, 5/12/98)
Damon ended the year feeling
like a teacher. In fact, by June 20th of that year he already had a job--he was
a teacher! In an exit interview Damon said:
This mentoring all falls together as a team process. It was
non-judgmental colleague support. Personality conflicts aren’t a real issue
because so many personalities work for a goal--to be better teachers. It’s kind
of like the intramural hockey team I play on. We discuss techniques and strategies
by reviewing the events of our games. Then we work to become better
players--together. Occasionally we consult a rulebook or expert on game
strategy, but basically it’s us helping
ourselves. (5/12/98)
Conclusions
and Implications for Practice
In retrospect,
maybe Damon’s intramural concept has some real merit. People generally
participate in intramural activities because they want to. That idea of “want
to” is an important concept. Our mentors were volunteers. Mentors should want
to be mentors; they should not just want an extra salary boost. Are all
teachers who teach children good at teaching teachers? Current data tells us
that is not the case (Little & Nelson, 1990), and unfortunately our mentors
are often selected in these ways.
The team
aspect of the intramural metaphor certainly fit with our mentoring procedure.
We called ourselves a mentor team. We met regularly at scheduled times and
focused on the needs and areas of expertise of our participants. We re-played
our own practices, and had other colleagues observe so that we could improve on
our shortcomings. There was no “coach” because we were all coaches--we coached
each other, and on game day we supported each other. We had expectations for
hard work, constructive criticism, reflection on our own practice and
restructuring if necessary. We practiced together to improve the team as a
whole. The rookies, as well as the veterans, had a voice and our common
language helped to facilitate our plans for success. When we had a victory we
celebrated together and when we lost, it was not one person’s defeat, it was an
opportunity for growth as a collective group. Our evaluation of our progress
was formative and we dealt with each contest as it came. Improvement was our
desired outcome and we were only as strong as our weakest member.
Some who had not
participated on a team before needed training and support to collaborate with
other team members, but as long as the “want to” was there, success was
eminent. My son’s football team had an expression that seems apropos: Pride, poise, persistence. The team
concept works because the pride, poise and persistence of individuals combines
to create motivation for modeling and learning together.
This
study is by no means a prescriptive or portable answer to the problems we
currently face in preparing productive student teachers. More research on the
effects of mentoring is immediately necessary as states implement their own
mentoring standards. This is a study of ecology, and a description of one
mentor team--their conversations and their contexts. This study serves as a
reminder of the human side of mentoring. It clarifies the complex and
problematic side of teaching, the dynamics of the relationship between mentor
and protege, and the richness of interaction that is possible through
community. By inducting interns into an environment of conversation and
collegiality through examination of our own practice, we are encouraging them
to become professionals who value collaboration, experimentation, and inquiry
through ongoing growth and learning.
References
Cincinnati Initiative for Teacher Education. (1997). Secondary handbook (2nd ed.) [Brochure]. Cincinnati, OH: Author.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Reinventing student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,42,104-118.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside out: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Copeland, W.D. (1982). Student teachers’ preference for supervisory
approach. Journal of Teacher Education, 33 (2), 32-36.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing
professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994).Developing professional development schools:
Early lessons, challenge and promise. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1996). Policies that support
professional development in an era of reform. In M. McLaughlin and I. Oberman
(Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies,
new practices. Columbia University: Teachers College.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and
conceptual alternatives. In W.R.Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.212-233). New York:
Macmillan.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchman, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in
teacher preparation. Teachers College
Record, 87(1), 53-65.
Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational
renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships.
In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of
research in teacher education
(pp. 535-548). New York: Macmillan.
Lacey, C. (1977). The
socialization of teachers. London: Metheun
Lieberman, A. (1989). Building a
professional culture in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Little, J.W., & Nelson, L. (Eds.). (1990). A leaders guide to mentor training. San Francisco: Far West
Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Rogoff, B., & Gardener, W. (1984). Adult guidance of cognitive
development. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social contexts (pp.95-116).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rosenholz, S.J. (1986). Career ladders and merit pay: Capricious fads
or fundamental reforms? Elementary School
Journal, 86 (4), 513-529.
Staton, A.Q., & Hunt, S.L. (1992, April). Teacher socialization:
Review and conceptualization. Communication
Education, 41, 109-137.
Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in
society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V.
John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological
process: A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development, 22, 1-22.
Yinger, R., & Hendricks-Lee, M. (1993). Working
knowledge in teaching. In C. Day, J. Calderhead, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Research on teacher thinking: Understanding
professional development (pp.100-123). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Zeichner, K. (1980). Myths and realities:
Field-based experiences in preservice teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, XXXI (6), 45-55.