This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 26 October 2014, At: 15:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Faculty Mentors in Teacher Induction: Developing aCross-institutional IdentityEmily R. Smith aa Fairfield UniversityPublished online: 02 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Emily R. Smith (2011) Faculty Mentors in Teacher Induction: Developing a Cross-institutional Identity, TheJournal of Educational Research, 104:5, 316-329, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2010.482948

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.482948

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Educational Research, 104:316–329, 2011Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0022-0671 print / 1940-0675 onlineDOI:10.1080/00220671.2010.482948

Faculty Mentors in Teacher Induction:Developing a Cross-institutional

IdentityEMILY R. SMITHFairfield University

ABSTRACT. Though the knowledge base on mentoring newteachers has grown exponentially in the past 30 years, re-searchers know less about university involvement in induc-tion, and even less about the role that faculty mentors mayplay in induction. Drawing on interview, e-mail, and observa-tional data from a yearlong mentoring relationship between afaculty mentor and 7 new teachers, the author examined a fac-ulty mentor’s role in supporting beginning teachers. Findingshighlight the importance of identity development in assuminga cross-institutional role as a faculty mentor. The transitionfrom teacher educator to teacher mentor requires the devel-opment of a mentor identity that is recognized and valued inthe community of practice inhabited by classroom teachers.

Keywords: induction, mentoring, university faculty identity

I n an era of high-stakes accountability and increas-ing diversity in PreK–12 classrooms, the need to sup-port beginning teachers has never been more impor-

tant. The importance of mentoring and induction programsfor beginning teachers’ success is well noted by PreK–12schools and institutions of higher education (B. A. An-drews & Quinn, 2005; Boreen, Johnson, Niday, & Potts,2000; Darling-Hammond & Berry, 1999; Feiman-Nemser,1996; Huling-Austin, 1990; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003).Effective mentoring increases teacher retention (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Kennedy & Burstein, 2004; T. M. Smith& Ingersoll, 2004; Whitaker, 2000; Wilkins & Clift, 2006),develops teaching expertise and confidence (Evertson &Smithey, 2000; Fluckinger, McGlamery, & Edick, 2006;Turley, Powers, & Nakai, 2006), reduces isolation (Krueger,2001), and fosters beginning teachers’ reflection and devel-opment (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Pedro, 2006).

The growing importance and implementation of mentor-ing programs nationwide has not been matched, however,with a viable strategy for ensuring every beginning teachinghas an effective and accessible mentor. Many mentoring pro-grams rely heavily on full-time teachers who do not have thetime needed to effectively mentor beginning teachers (Kil-burg & Hancock, 2006). In addition, mentoring programsare uneven in quality, and, at times, problematic (Amos,

2005; Angelle, 2002; Conway, 2003; Meyer, 2002). Al-though some mentors provide educative support (Feiman-Nemser, 2001), other mentors simply check in and helpwith administrative duties (Watkins, 2005). What’s more,many mentoring programs are underfunded or have men-tors who are not trained or rewarded (Glassford & Salin-itri, 2007; Kardos & Johnson, 2007; Stanulis, Burrill, &Ames, 2007). Despite good intentions, many new teachersare not adequately supported by their district-based mentorteacher.

The documented and persistent challenges of relying onindividual mentors to provide effective mentoring for be-ginning teachers beckons us to look beyond traditional,one-size-fits-all models of mentoring (Norman & Ganser,2004). Recent research on induction calls for teacher edu-cation institutions to collaborate with PreK–12 schools tosupport new teachers (Anhorn, 2008; Berry, 2006; Bianchini& Cavazos, 2007; Boyer, 2005; Conway, Krueger, Robinson,Haack, & Smith, 2002; Friedrichsen, Chval, & Teuscher,2007; Luft, 2007; Luft, Roehrig, & Patterson, 2003; Peter &Du Mez, 1997). Consequently, more and more universitiesare getting involved in induction, providing support fromfaculty members in online communities and new teachernetworks (Carr & Evans, 2006; Davis, Resta, Higdon, &Latiolais, 2001; DeWert, Babinski, & Jones, 2003; Gilles,Cramer, & Hwang, 2001; Hines, Murphy, & Pezone, 2003).Extending the role of teacher education beyond graduationcan help ease the transition between preservice and inser-vice education and help new teachers to enact practiceslearned during their teaching preparation program (Flores,2007; Greiman, Torres, Burris, & Kitchell, 2007; Inman &Marlow, 2004; Nagel & Guest, 2006; Whitaker, 2003). De-spite logistical challenges in supporting faculty to mentornew teachers (Conway et al., 2002; Olebe, 2005), the needfor effective mentoring warrants further exploration of thisoption.

Address correspondence to Emily R. Smith, Fairfield University, De-partment of Curriculum & Instruction, 1073 N. Benson Rd, Fairfield,CT 06824, USA. (E-mail: esmith@fairfield.edu)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Educational Research 317

In the present study I set out to better understand theuniversity teacher educator’s role in supporting beginningteachers. Though the knowledge base on mentoring newteachers has grown exponentially in the past 30 years, re-searchers have few images of what it looks like for universitiesto create induction programs that extend teacher educationinto the induction years (Stanulis et al., 2007), and evenfewer images of the roles faculty mentors may play in thisinduction. In the present study I aimed to explore and ex-tend understanding of the faculty mentor’s role in support-ing beginning teachers through examination of my work asa faculty mentor for seven new English teachers. This exam-ination highlights the importance of identity developmentin assuming a cross-institutional role as a faculty mentor. Iargue that the transition from teacher educator to teachermentor requires more than developing knowledge and skillsfor mentoring adults; it requires the development of a men-tor identity that is recognized and valued in the communityof practice inhabited by classroom teachers.

Faculty Mentors: A Review of the Literature

The literature on university faculty mentors for new teach-ers is sparse. Although a handful of articles address theinvolvement of university faculty in preservice supervision(e.g., Beck & Kosnik, 2002; Maynard, 1996; Slick, 1998), thegrowing literature on mentoring beginning teachers focusesprimarily on district-based mentors. Existing literature onfaculty mentors focuses largely on faculty who mentor juniorcolleagues or undergraduate and graduate students. Thoughnot directly focused on faculty mentors for new teachers,these collective bodies of literature provide a framework foridentifying effective roles and skills for mentoring noviceteachers. That said, this literature says less about the equallyimportant work of developing a cross-institutional identityfor mentoring beginning teachers.

Much has been written about the roles, knowledge, andskills of mentors for new teachers and adult learners. Theroles and functions of mentors have been studied acrossprofessions with respect to career development, psychoso-cial dimensions, and role modeling (Chao, 1997, as citedin Beyene, Anglin, Sanchez, & Ballou, 2002; Kram, 1985;Russell & Adams, 1997). Mentors assume many roles, fromparent figure and troubleshooter to guide, counselor, androle model (Hawkey, 1997; Kochan & Trimble, 2000). Therecent induction literature describes effective mentors as re-flective coaches who take an inquiring stance toward prac-tice, modeling reflection and analysis on their own practiceand assisting novices to do the same (Dever, Hager, & Klein,2003; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Peterson & Williams, 1998).Mentors have knowledge of the proteges’ field (Young &Wright, 2001) and development that enables them to pro-vide assistance tailored to their individual needs (Abell,Dillon, & Hopkins, 1995; Amos, 2005; Hawkey, 1997;M. V. Smith, 2005).

Effective mentors across professions have strong interper-sonal skills that enable them to provide emotional supportand establish trust and respect (Abell et al., 1995; Allen &Poteet, 1999; Amos, 2005; Cohen, 2003; Fitzpatrick, Lee, &Theoharris, 2006; Hansman, 2003; Hawkey, 1997; Loeffler,2004; Whittaker, 2000). Trust between mentors and novicesis enhanced when mentors develop a collegial, nonjudgmen-tal relationship with the novice (Babione & Shea, 2005; De-ver, Johnson, & Hobbs, 2000) and support his or her ideas(Aaronsohn, 1996; Jones & Pauley, 2003).

Though mentoring is traditionally defined as a more ex-perienced or senior person guiding and supporting a novice,more recent conceptions of mentoring define the relation-ship as more reciprocal and collaborative (Beyene et al.,2002; Gibson, 2004; Hughes & Riendeau, 2007). Such con-ceptions encourage mentors to engage in two-way knowledgesharing (Fitzpatrick et al., 2006; Zuckerman, 2001), withmentors engaging as colearners in the process (Kochan &Trimble, 2000; Young & Wright, 2001; Zuckerman, 1999).

Although much has been written about the roles, skills,and knowledge mentors need, researchers know less aboutthe equally important work of developing an identity as amentor. As Bullough (2007) argued, effective mentors needmore than mentoring skills; they need to identify and beidentified as a mentor in the community in which they aimto practice:

Frequently one reads of programs that aim at “training”mentors, which, no doubt, have a valuable place in teacher in-duction and education. But a more important purpose of men-toring programs . . . as Korthagen (2004) suggests, is educa-tional. It is . . . about belonging: not just a matter of developingspecific skills but of helping those who work in schools withbeginning teachers to (re)conceive of themselves as mentors.(p. 154)

Although Bullough addresses the identity development ofclassroom teachers who serve as mentors, this study focusedon the identity development of a university faculty mem-ber engaged in mentoring beginning teachers. Unlike class-room teachers, the identity development of university fac-ulty is complicated by their institutional identity, whichmakes it more difficult for them to have legitimacy as amentor in school contexts. Cook-Sather (2006), in describ-ing the work of university teacher educators who engagein school–university partnerships, argued that crossing in-stitutional boundaries to work in schools requires new orrevised roles for faculty that challenge their identity andrelationships in each setting. In the present study I exam-ined the work of becoming a faculty mentor for beginningteacher through the lens of identity, examining the processof becoming a faculty mentor as the development of a cross-institutional mentoring identity.

Analytical Framework

In this study I drew on sociocultural views of identity toanalyze a teacher educator’s development of an identity as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

318 The Journal of Educational Research

a faculty mentor for beginning English teachers. This viewconceives of identity as situated in a particular social andcultural context and constructed or reconstructed as an in-dividual crosses contexts (Gee, 2001, as cited in Bullough,2007; Wenger, 1998). Identity is constructed through the so-cial communities in which individuals participate (Wenger,1998) or are located, be it a university education depart-ment, a secondary school classroom, or a parent book club.More specifically, individuals’ practice within a social com-munity identifies them a members of that community (ornot). Individuals are identified as teacher educators, class-room teachers, or book club members because of the practicesthey engage in in those communities. “Identity in practiceis defined socially . . . because it is produced as a lived ex-perience of participation in specific communities . . . [and]through the forms of competence that [such participation]entails” (Wenger, 1998, pp. 151–152). Individuals’ identityis defined not just by how they define themselves, but alsoby how they are positioned and defined by the people intheir social communities. Part of identity, thus, comes fromthe kind of person an individual is recognized as being at agiven time and place (Gee, 2001, p. 99, as cited in Bullough,2007).

Central to identity in a community of practice is the dis-course individuals use. Discourse involves socially acceptedways of talking and acting that identify an individual asa member of a particular social community (Gee, 1989,1994). Gee (1990) described discourse as an “identity kit”(p. 142), complete with instructions on how to act and talkin ways that other members of the community will recognize.This discourse community has particular goals and ways ofcommunicating that define individuals as members of thecommunity (Borg, 2003). Thus, faculty mentors’ or noviceteachers’ membership in the school community is tightlycoupled with the discourse they use to talk about teaching,learning, and planning (Wenger, 1998). Faculty mentors,thus, must adopt a discourse that positions them as a men-tor for beginning teachers (Gee, 2001, as cited in Bullough,2007; Hall & Burns, 2009).

Because university faculty practice primarily in the univer-sity setting, classroom teachers view them through their in-stitutional identity (Gee, 2001, as cited in Bullough, 2007).Taking on the role of faculty mentor for beginning teachersrequires development of a revised identity to participate inthe PreK–12 classroom community. Crossing institutionalboundaries to mentor in school settings requires a negoti-ation of an individual’s identity—including an individual’spractice and discourse—to be accepted in the school com-munity (Cook-Sather, 2006). Faculty mentors, thus, mustassume the identity of a “boundary spanner” (Sandholtz &Finan, 1998, p. 24), someone who understands the culture,language, and dynamics of both settings and is comfortableand legitimate in both institutions. The job of boundaryspanning, or brokering, is complex:

It involves processes of translation, coordination and align-ment between perspectives. . . . [It] entails ambivalent rela-

tions of multimembership. . . . [It] requires an ability to man-age carefully the co-existence of membership and nonmem-bership, yielding enough distance to bring a different perspec-tive, but also enough legitimacy to be listened to. (Wenger,1998, pp. 109–110)

The complexity of boundary spanning is compounded bythe perceived loss of expertise involved in such multimem-bership. The development of a faculty mentor identity caninvolve the loss of identity capital, where an individual’suniversity knowledge holds less value in the context of theschool community (Corte & Levine, 2002; Hall & Burns,2009). This identity change can be difficult as faculty “shiftfrom a position where they possessed a great deal of identitycapital to a place where their current capital has little valueand new capital must be acquired” (Hall & Burns, 2009,p. 54). For faculty to be effective boundary spanners, theymust pay attention to these issues of identity that come alongwith this role (Bullough, 2007).

In this article, I draw on these components of a sociallysituated view of identity—practice, discourse, and boundaryspanning—to analyze the process by which I worked to de-velop an identity as a faculty mentor for beginning Englishteachers.

Method

Background to Study and Participants

The present study builds on a case study of a mentoringrelationship that developed informally between a univer-sity teacher educator and a first-year teacher (E. Smith &Evans, 2008). The previous study underscored the potentialof faculty mentors for supporting new teachers and the needfor further exploration of the roles teacher education facultycould and should play in new teacher induction. The presentstudy expands the case to seven first-year English teacherswhom I taught and supervised as student teachers and looksmore closely at issues of identity development for facultymentors. In the spring of 2008, I invited the student teach-ers to participate in a pilot mentor program for their firstyear of teaching the following fall. Three of the teacher can-didates were completing their English certification throughthe undergraduate baccalaureate program, whereas four werecompleting their certification through the master’s programin English education. All seven teachers are presently teach-ing in middle and high schools within 30 min’s travel of theuniversity.

This group of seven teachers was fairly representative ofthe teaching demographic nationwide: five were women andall but one were White, in their 20s, and from middle- toupper-middle-class backgrounds. The four teachers whosecases are analyzed in this article are all White and frommiddle- to upper-middle-class backgrounds. One was a man;the other three were women.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Educational Research 319

Data Collection and Analysis

I drew on data from my interactions with the seven En-glish teachers during their first year of teaching (2008–2009).The mentoring interactions included three main compo-nents: electronic correspondence (individually and as agroup through a listserve), whole-group meetings with thenew teachers, and one-on-one meetings and observationsin the new teachers’ classrooms. In designing the mentor-ing approach, I drew on the success of other university-basedprograms that have used e-mentoring to provide ongoing, ac-cessible, and nonevaluative mentoring for beginning teach-ers (Bullough, 2005; D’Aniello, 2004; DeWert, Jones, &Carboni, 1999; Fulton, Bums, & Goldenburg, 2005; Klecka,Cheng, & Clift, 2004; Knapczyk, Hew, & Frey, 2005; Mer-seth, 1991; Pittinsky, 2005; Thompson & Reimann, 1991).In addition, I drew on studies of new teacher–faculty learningcommunities, electronic and in-person, which have foundthat new teachers who participate in these cross-institutionalnetworks feel less isolated, draw on multiple perspectives andresearch to solve problems, and receive content-specific ex-pertise (DeWert et al., 2003; Heider, 2005; Meyer, 2002;Williams & Warren, 2007). Faculty and new teacher learn-ing communities can provide a safe space for beginningteachers to share ideas and challenges with like-minded col-leagues who share their educational vision and practices(Brownell, Yeager, & Sindelar, 2004; Eisenman & Thorn-ton, 1999; Rogers & Babinski, 1999).

Data collection was initially framed by two main ques-tions: (a) What types of support do the first-year teachersseek from their teacher education faculty mentor? and (b)What types of support does/can the faculty mentor provideto the first-year teachers? As the study progressed, it be-came clear that we were struggling to negotiate new roles asmentor and first-year teachers. In particular, I struggled tonegotiate my identity as a faculty mentor straddling my uni-versity and school identities. Thus, I added a third question,which became the focus of this article: How should a fac-ulty mentor conceptualize her or his identity in mentoringbeginning teachers? In pursuing this question, I sought tobetter understand the importance of identity developmentin becoming an effective mentor for new teachers.

The data sources include a variety of interactions acrossthe year. The bulk of the data come from transcripts of elec-tronic correspondence, including weekly e-mails betweenthe new teachers and myself. The data also include fieldnotes from our initial whole-group meeting and from one-on-one meetings with the new teachers on campus and intheir classrooms. I also kept field notes and wrote analyticmemos based on the classroom observations and postobser-vation discussions with the new teachers. Finally, I drew onresults from a mentoring questionnaire given in the fall of2008.

In the data analysis process I took a qualitative approach,drawing on methods of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss,1967) and the constant comparative method (Bogdan &

Biklen, 1992). In developing grounded theory, the data col-lection and analysis were guided by the initial research ques-tions and those that arose during the study. Although theinitial questions focused on the nature of new teachers’ men-toring needs and the type of mentoring support I provided,the focus narrowed in relation to our ongoing interactionsand my analysis of them. As the year progressed, I began topay attention to the ways in which I was enacting my roleand how the new teachers responded to my assistance. Aspatterns emerged around the ways in which we interactedas mentor and mentee, I added the third question focusedon my developing identity as a faculty mentor for the newteachers.

The data collection and analysis involved a reciprocal pro-cess of collecting and analyzing data as I drew on inferencesand subsequent correspondences to build theory (Strauss &Corbin, 1990). I developed working theories during data col-lection as the new teachers’ experiences, and our discussionsof them, guided and focused our e-mails and meetings aroundrecurring issues and questions. I read through e-mail corre-spondences and field notes, identified patterns, and wroteanalytic memos. Although early read-throughs focused onthe type of help the new teachers needed and the type of helpI provided, subsequent read-throughs focused in on emergingissues related to how we enacted our roles with each other.These later read-throughs revealed themes related to the dif-ficulty of moving out of my identity as their former professorand the need for us to assume a more collegial relationship.As these latter themes emerged, I focused the data analysison my identity development and coded the data using so-ciocultural concepts related to identity—practice, discourse,and boundary spanning. These concepts helped to highlightthe relationship between my effectiveness and legitimacy asa faculty mentor and the identity I assumed in the schoolsetting.

As the faculty mentor and researcher, I was a participant-observer. This provided access to the conversations and in-teraction as they occurred and insider knowledge of theintentions and goals behind them (LeCompte & Preissle,1993). It also posed challenges for building a comprehensiveunderstanding of the mentoring interactions. I address thesechallenges by triangulating multiple sources of data to cross-check interpretations and provide a rich array of informationwith which to substantiate claims.

Results

In what follows, I describe and discuss my interactionswith four of the new teachers in the mentor pilot. I focuson my interactions with Derek, Bess, Selene, and Olivia(pseudonyms) for two reasons. First, I had significantly moreinteractions with these four teachers than with the otherthree. Second, concurrent analyses of my interactions withthese four teachers yielded connected issues around negoti-ating my identity as a faculty mentor for the new teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

320 The Journal of Educational Research

Drawing on sociocultural concepts of identity in social com-munities, the findings highlight the relationship betweenmy developing identity as a faculty mentor and our ability todevelop an effective mentoring relationship. In particular,I examine how my engagement in discourse and practicesassociated with the school and university settings facilitatedmy development of a mentoring identity in my work withthe beginning teachers.

Discourse and Mentor Identity

As a faculty member in the participants’ teacher educa-tion program, I worked closely with the English educationcandidates throughout their certification program. I taughtthem in their foundational and English methods courses, andI supervised them in their student teaching practicum andprofessional seminar. In these capacities, the participants inthe study and I shared a typical faculty–student relation-ship. The candidates looked to me to provide guidance asthey negotiated their student teaching experience and triedto make sense of the connections or disconnects betweentheory, practice, and experience. Though my constructiviststance on teaching and learning invited students to cofacil-itate the teaching and learning process, in the end, I playedan evaluative role as their course instructor and supervisor.In the context of their preservice program, we engaged asteacher and student, in terms of our teaching and learningpractices and the discourse in which we engaged.

When I began my new role as a faculty mentor, I assumed,perhaps naively, that the first-year teachers and I—as fel-low educators—could easily transition into more collegialroles. I was no longer their evaluator, and they were gainingteaching experience that would quickly outdate my own.What I did not realize, though, was that the movement fromteacher–student to mentor–mentee required a shift in mydiscourse, a movement away from the evaluative discourseof university supervisor to the more collegial discourse ofteachers. Examination of our interactions during their firstyear reveals the ways in which my institutional discoursepositioned me as an outsider in the new teachers’ teachingcommunity. When I assumed a more teacherly discourse, thebeginning teachers were more receptive to my mentoring.The following excerpts from my interactions with Derekand Bess trace the parallel development of my mentoringdiscourse and identity as a mentor for the new teachers.

Not a supervisor anymore. I first recognized the need toshift my discourse as a mentor when I observed Derek’steaching in his first month as a Grade 7 English teacherin a suburban middle school. My first experience with Derekhighlighted the need for me to engage in a new discourse,one that differed from that associated with my role as studentteaching supervisor.

At the end of August, I e-mailed all seven new teachersto discuss how the mentor pilot would work, which included

my offer to visit their classroom: “I’ll plan to visit each ofyou in your classroom as much or as little as you’d like. Thepurpose is to see what you are doing and provide any supportyou want or need. There is no evaluation attached—just sup-port” (E. Smith, personal communication [e-mail], August21, 2008). Once school began, I followed up with individualinvitations to visit their classroom. Derek (personal commu-nication [e-mail], September 14, 2008) replied the next daythat he would like me to come in:

Sounds like a great idea. This is a pretty big week for me, asI am currently completing a form which talks about my goalsfor this year and I am getting observed by the principal onThursday. So sometime after this week would be optimum forme, but, yes, I would love to have you come in.

Derek (personal communication [e-mail], September 17,2008) asked if I could observe two of his classes because hewas struggling with the second one:

I’d really love it if you could see my period 6 and period 7classes. The kids in period 6 are pretty good, while period 7tends to be extremely wild. The contrast is stark sometimes.This is has been my main struggle—period 7 is my co-taughtclass, meaning more than half of them are Special Ed. . . . I’dreally love to have you in there one day—maybe you couldgive me some pointers on how to handle this rowdy bunch.

On September 25, 2008, I observed Derek’s Period 6 andPeriod 7 classes. Heeding his concerns, I focused my notes onDerek’s interactions with the students in Period 7. As a uni-versity supervisor, I encourage student teachers to identifyfor themselves what they need to work on and then use myobservations to help them reflect on this issue. Thus, I waspleased to see Derek identifying his own goal here. Whenit came time to discuss the lesson, I asked Derek how hethought things went. Drawing on my supervision discourse,I asked him questions that I thought would get him to thinkabout the lesson himself: “What went well? What do youthink you need to work on?” I quickly realized, however,that Derek (personal communication [e-mail], September17, 2008) was looking for my feedback—as he asked in hise-mail, “Maybe you could give me some pointers on how tohandle this rowdy bunch.” During our conversation, Derekasked me several times how I thought the lesson went, and I,responding in my familiar discourse as university supervisor,kept turning it back on him, asking questions that wouldhelp him to identify the strengths and weaknesses of thelesson. In the moment, I was not able to see the disconnectbetween the help Derek wanted and the help I was tryingto provide. It was not until I reflected in my field notes afterthe observation that I saw the disconnect:

When we talked about Derek’s lesson at the end of the day,he was eager for my feedback. It sounded as if he really wantedmy opinion on how he is doing, and what he could do better.I told him a few things that I thought he was doing well. . . .I then asked questions about particular seating assignments,and students who did and did not participate. I realized afterthe fact that he wanted specific things that went well ornot, rather than my approach that I was taking more as a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Educational Research 321

supervisor, getting him to realize these things on his own. (E.Smith, field notes, September 25, 2008)

After observing the second lesson, I gave more directfeedback, offering suggestions about how to keep the rowdykids engaged during in-class reading. He liked these andother suggestions I had for the second lesson.

The previous conversation provides one example of howmy discourse as a supervisor shaped my interactions withDerek. Although my discourse aimed to foster Derek’s re-flection on practice, Derek was looking for some concretefeedback to improve his teaching. As a supervisor, I amcareful to couch my feedback in ways that help the studentteacher to draw her or his own conclusions. This is not whatDerek was looking for. As a new teacher—who probably hadalready reflected on the issue—he wanted direct feedback,and he did not want me to get at it through questioning.He wanted an outside opinion on his teaching—straightand simple. When I began providing more specific feedback,Derek really appreciated it.

A discourse of teachers. Drawing on my interactions withDerek, I took a different approach in my conversations withBess. With Bess, I focused on directly giving her the adviceor answers she sought, as a teaching colleague would, ratherthan facilitating her reflection so that she would arrive atanswers herself. A look at our interactions illustrates the waysin which my movement away from my supervisor discourse toa teacher discourse supported my development of mentoringidentity and relationship with Bess.

Bess (personal communication [e-mail], September 17,2008) invited me into her Grade 7 (suburban) classroomsoon after I sent out my invitation:

I would love to have you in to visit my classroom. We havea district-wide [writing] prompt both this week and next, so,I’m thinking it might be best to hold off for a couple of weeksuntil we begin our next unit. It would also be fun to just haveyou in for a visit after school to discuss goals/plans/curriculum.

A few weeks later, I met with Bess after school to talkabout how things were going and to see her classroom. Aftergiving me a tour of her classroom and school, Bess broughtup a few things that she was struggling with. In the field notesI took after our meeting, I described one of her concerns:

The major thing that Bess is struggling with right now istrying to teach her curriculum while having to teach to themandated state test. Last year, the 7th graders did not do aswell on the writing portion of the test. So, the school is reallypressuring the teachers to focus on persuasive writing. Everymonth, Bess is required to administer a school-determinedwriting prompt. Bess has to score 125 of these each monthusing school-provided rubrics. She is struggling with how todo this without squelching the students’ enthusiasm for writ-ing, disrupting her unit, or overwhelming herself. I suggestedteaching one aspect of persuasive writing for each prompt, soshe and the students could both focus on it. Then, she canfocus her comments on this aspect each time. . . . Bess reallyliked the idea of focusing on one skill at a time. (E. Smith,field notes, November 7, 2008)

In contrast to the questioning approach I tried with Derek,I provided Bess with specific strategies to address the writingconcerns she shared during this visit. I drew on my ownexperiences as a classroom teacher and some ideas we haddiscussed together in the Student Teaching Seminar. Shereacted positively and expressed great appreciation for myhelp. Before I left, she asked me to come back and observeone of her classes (which I did in December).

These two examples of my interactions with Derek andBess reinforced the need to move away from my inquiringand instructional discourse as a supervisor to assume a morecollegial discourse in my identity as a faculty mentor. When Ibegan to have teacherly conversations with them about theirteaching—instead of professorly reflective discussions—thebeginning teachers responded positively. Beginning teach-ers generally look to other teachers for solutions, not anexploratory conversation, and my discourse with the newteachers needed to reflect this.

My conversations with Bess also highlight the impact ofmultimembership in assuming an identity as a faculty men-tor. Although my discourse needed to reflect the type ofadvice sharing typically practiced in school communities,the advice I provided to Bess drew on teaching practicesmodeled at the university. After hearing my suggestion forher writing instruction, Bess let out a sigh of relief. Sheneeded to hear that because she was looking for permissionto stray from what her colleagues were doing in preparingstudents for the standardized test. When I reminded Bess ofsome of the teaching practices we discussed at the univer-sity, she realized that she could do things differently withher writing instruction while still teaching students the nec-essary writing skills to do well on the standardized tests.A faculty mentor might provide a different type of advicethan school-based colleagues; she or he can bring outsideperspectives to the classroom and give beginning teachersthe confidence they might need to teach against the grain(Aaronsohn, 1996) at their school (Massey, 2006; E. Smith& Evans, 2008). Bess’s need for support to stray from dom-inant practice at her school suggests that faculty mentors,as boundary spanners, can and should bring practices acrossinstitutional borders to support beginning teachers. Awareof the pressures of standardized testing and best practices inwriting pedagogy, I was able to provide Bess with teachingpractices that would meet competing demands in her teach-ing. Thus, my developing discourse as a faculty mentor wasnot simply the assimilation of a teacher’s discourse; it drewon practices from my own teaching experiences and those Iteach at the university.

Practice and Mentor Identity

The excerpts from Derek and Bess illustrate my effortsto embrace a mentoring discourse that reflected features ofthe discourse used by teachers—seeking help about specificpedagogical problems and sharing practical solutions. Thismovement away from my university supervisor discourse was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

322 The Journal of Educational Research

much easier than my movement away from my identity astheir evaluator. As their former supervisor and professor, Iheld an evaluative function in my relationships with thebeginning teachers. Although my new faculty mentor statusheld no evaluative function, it was difficult for several of thenew teachers to separate me from this identity. I assumedthat my new title (faculty mentor) and their new title asbeginning English teacher would automatically remove myidentity as their evaluator. This was not the case. Analy-sis of my interactions with Selene and Bess reinforce theimportant link between identity and practice in social com-munities. In order to transition into a new identity as facultymentor, I needed to move away from my former evaluativepractices and engage in mentoring practices recognized bythe teaching community.

Evaluative practices. At the beginning of the pilot, I madeefforts to distance myself from my former role as the par-ticipants’ teacher and supervisor to make clear that myfunction was supportive, not evaluative. Early in the pi-lot, I made clear in my e-mails that “there is no evaluationattached—just support” when I visited their classrooms (E.Smith, personal communication [e-mail], August 21, 2008).Despite these efforts, several of the first-year teachers werehesitant to have me observe their teaching. Analysis of myinteractions with Selene highlight the ways in which mypractices as a mentor identified me as an evaluator, ratherthan a mentor, which hindered our ability to develop a men-toring relationship.

Selene’s first few months of teaching in an urban middleschool were challenging. As such, she was worried about myseeing her teach an unsuccessful lesson. When I sent outthe first invitation to visit her classroom, Selene (personalcommunication [e-mail], September 15, 2008) said she wasnot ready for me to see her teach yet:

Well, it’s going great! Long, long hours—it feels like I amworking constantly. . . . I love my kids, but I’m completelyflying by the seat of my pants with what I am doing on a dailybasis. . . . I’d like to wait a couple more weeks for you to comein for a visit. I am still working on routines with the kids. . . . Iwould like to get them more acclimated to the routine beforeyou visit—it could really throw them off if they aren’t ready.I am looking forward to you meeting them, though, I knowyou will enjoy them and I could use your support/feedback.

I reassured Selene that there is no pressure for me to comeand that I can wait until she is ready. A few weeks later,Selene (personal communication [e-mail], October 9, 2008)shares the continuing whirlwind of her first months:

I’m hanging in there. After 6 weeks of barely keeping my headabove water, I finally had a good week with the kids (whom Ilove, by the way). Also, I woke up the last 2 mornings feelingrested for the first time since August—good sign.

In November, Selene’s e-mail is filled with more storiesfrom her classroom, including some of her challenges andsuccesses:

Things are most definitely better, but I am still figuring itout as I go. Trying to make readers/writers workshop workas a first-year teacher with a challenging population makesfor some interesting days!. . . . My greatest gift as a teacher isalso my greatest challenge: how much I love and care aboutthe kids. Discipline is not my strong point, but the kids havecome around so much knowing that I really take the time toknow them and help them. . . . Sometimes I wonder if I amteaching them anything. . . . In the first 2 months I swear Iforgot everything I learned about teaching because my headwas spinning every day. (Selene, personal communication[e-mail], November 20, 2008)

Toward the end of November, Selene was getting closer tobeing comfortable with my coming to visit. After reiteratinghow much she loves her kids, she concluded her next e-mailwith:

I would love for you to visit my classroom—I am gettingcloser to feeling comfortable with it. I know you will love mykids, too. Maybe we could schedule something after the hol-idays! (Selene, personal communication [e-mail], November30, 2008)

Selene’s e-mails reveal her hesitance to have me visitwhen things are crazy, when routines are not in place, whenthe kids seem unmotivated to learn. These e-mails also re-veal that Selene identifies me as an evaluator. Her desire toget routines down before I come, her concerns about class-room management, and her statement that she is gettingcloser to being comfortable with my visit reflect her per-ception of me as an evaluator. She is worried that I willwitness an unsuccessful lesson when I visit. These e-mailsdo not ask for help. They provide rationales for why sheis not ready for me to visit yet. By initiating our relation-ship with an offer to visit Selene’s classroom, I inadvertentlyinvoked the practices of a supervisor, whose primary prac-tice involves observing—and thus, evaluating—the noviceteacher. Among practicing teachers, those who observe ourclassrooms (e.g., department chairs, principals) play an eval-uative function. Supporters provide solutions to our prob-lems. Though I saw myself as a supporter, my practice ofoffering to visit her classroom sustained my identity as anevaluator. As her next e-mail indicates, she found mentor-ing support from a colleague, someone who helped her withher concerns:

It’s been a tough few weeks—sorry I took so long getting backto you. When I received your e-mail I was probably in themidst of the most discouraging time of the school year. Thekids came back from vacation with no desire to learn and I wasat a bit of a crossroads with how things were going with myteaching. Fortunately, I got help and support from some of themost terrific (and youngest) teachers both at my school andanother middle school . . . and things have been going muchbetter. . . . I would love to have you come by my classroom.I think you would love my kids. Let’s touch base after [mid-winter] vacation next week. [State testing] starts on 3/3 andI’m wondering if we should wait until they are over. (Selene,personal communication [e-mail], February 11, 2009)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Educational Research 323

To assuage Selene’s fears that I would judge her negatively,I wrote to Selene to reassure her of my ongoing respect forher passion and commitments:

As I look back over our correspondences this past year, I amstruck by your passion for your kids. I am continually remindedof the gift you are bringing to them with your commitmentsas a teacher. At the same time, I also want to make sure thatyou don’t feel that your teaching needs to be “perfect” beforeI come visit your classroom. I hope you know how highlyI think of you and that no observation could change that.. . . I am here to support you, that’s it! (E. Smith, personalcommunication [e-mail], March 4, 2009)

In her response, Selene (personal communication [e-mail], March 4, 2009) reiterates her concerns about herteaching:

It’s more like I worry about it being functional! My classroommanagement is excellent in that I know and care about eachone of my kids, but it can be chaotic because I know and careabout each one of my kids.

Despite my e-mail, Selene continued to see me as anevaluator, which generated continued self-critique about theeffectiveness of her teaching and hesitance about my visitto her classroom. As such, our relationship did not developmuch beyond our e-mail correspondences.

One of the benefits cited for having a faculty mentor is thatthey do not play a formal evaluative role (Massey, 2006). Sur-veys of beginning teachers indicate that they want noneval-uative feedback on their teaching (S. P. Andrews, Gilbert,& Martin, 2006), someone who can provide teaching sup-port with no strings attached. Unlike my role as a universitysupervisor, my role as a faculty mentor had no formal eval-uation attached to it. However, my institutional identity asa professor and student-teaching supervisor, combined withmy mentoring practices linked to evaluation, made it diffi-cult for Selene to disassociate me from my former evaluativeidentity. Though I self-identified as a supportive mentor, in-dividuals’ identity in social communities is defined not bythemselves but by how they are positioned and defined bythe people in these communities and by the practices inwhich they engage (Bullough, 2007; Gee, 2001, as cited inBullough, 2007). My desire to visit her classroom invokedthe practices, and thus identity, of an evaluator. This dis-couraged Selene from inviting me into her classroom untilMarch of her first year.

Collegial practices. In contrast to my interactions with Se-lene, the practices I engaged in with Bess positioned me asa colleague rather than an evaluator, which facilitated mymovement away from my institutional identity as profes-sor and evaluator. Bess and I interacted as colleagues, shar-ing ideas, questions, and resources. The fluid and reciprocalnature of our mentoring relationship mirrored practices ofthe teaching community, where teachers typically engage asequals, jointly sharing resources and solving problems. En-

gaging in the practices of teachers facilitated my membershipas a mentor in the teaching community.

Over the course of her first year of teaching, Bess and I in-teracted as fellow teachers, facing, sharing, and talking aboutsimilar struggles and questions. My mentoring identity wasfacilitated by our engagement in a more mutual or reciprocalmentoring relationship. Bess shared her teaching successes,questions, and struggles with me, and I shared some of minewith her. A look at some key moments from our interactionsillustrates the ways in which my practice positioned me as amember of the teaching community, thereby facilitating mydeveloping identity as a faculty mentor.

My first visit to Bess’s classroom was quite different thanmy offer to visit Selene’s classroom. Bess was excited to showme her classroom and her school, so we set a date for me tocome see her classroom and learn more about her teaching.As it was my first time in this school, I had many questionsabout the school, the parents, and the district, and she waseager to teach me about all of these things. From the outset,it was clear that my visit was purely informational. What’smore, Bess was in the teaching role, educating me abouther school. With Bess as the teacher, there was no threatof evaluation. At the end of the tour, we settled in to chat,Bess at her teacher desk and me at a student desk.

An analysis of our conversations over the course of thenext few visits highlights the reciprocal nature of our re-lationship. We took turns asking questions and sharing re-sources and solutions. During one of our early conversations,Bess shared a few things that she was struggling with. In ad-dition to sharing her concerns about the mandated writingprompt (described previously), Bess shared some challengeswith facilitating writing workshop. Our conversation aboutwriting, captured in my field notes, revealed the beginningsof our reciprocal relationship:

Bess shared the challenge of trying to hold writing conferenceswith all of her 7th graders. It was November, and she was stillconferencing with students about their yearlong writing goals.I wondered out loud whether or not she needed to talk withevery student for every paper, and suggested focusing in-depthon five students for each paper. Bess liked this idea. I suggestedthat they conference with their writing buddies during timeswhen she was conferencing with other students. Drawing onan idea from a course Bess took with me, I suggested having thestudents take their peers’ writing home and write a response toit to share with their buddy the next day [Golub, 2005]. Bessreally liked the idea of making this a homework assignmentinstead of in-class writing.

We also chatted about a university-sponsored poetry con-test that her students were going to participate in. Havingbeen involved with the contest, I was eager for Bess to partic-ipate. Bess shared a piece of writing that one of her studentswrote in response to their reading of Seedfolks. Bess beamedwith pride as I read the piece. I was eager to talk more abouthow she was teaching Seedfolks, as one of my English methodsstudents was developing a unit on Seedfolks, and I was notfamiliar with the text. Bess was happy to share her Seedfolksmaterials with me and my student. We empathized about howmuch work goes into designing a unit from scratch. Bess re-flected back to the first unit she developed at the university,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

324 The Journal of Educational Research

and was happy to help a teacher candidate who was now inthis spot. . . . When I left, Bess thanked me for my help andinvited me to return to see her teach. (E. Smith, field notes,November 7, 2008)

Throughout our conversation, Bess and I moved back andforth between the roles of mentor and mentee. In the begin-ning of our conversation, Bess taught me about her school. Iwas genuinely interested in learning more about her school,and she enjoyed teaching me about it. When Bess raised herconcern about writing conferences, I offered advice frommy own experience as an English teacher. I also remindedher of an idea she encountered in my Student TeachingSeminar—having students respond to their peers’ writing athome. We connected over our mutual interest in the poetrycontest, and then our roles shifted again as she shared her stu-dents’ writing with me. We jointly applauded her student’sSeedfolks writing, celebrating what Bess had accomplishedin this writing assignment. Bess then drew on her teachingexperience to teach me about Seedfolks as she shared her unitmaterials. She became the expert on this unit and helped mewith my own teaching by providing materials for my teachercandidate to use in her unit planning. As we reflected onhow much work goes into planning the first instructionalunit, Bess and I were on the same side of the desk, lookingback to our first planning attempts and laughing at how longit took us to plan our first unit. By the end of the conversa-tion, Bess was eager for me to come see her teach and meether students.

In this first interaction, I engaged in practices of the teach-ing community—sharing solutions, joking, and asking ques-tions. Rather than asking her to reflect on what she would doabout the writing conference dilemma (as a supervisor woulddo), I assumed that she had already reflected on this chal-lenge and provided an idea she could apply immediately.In addition, I positioned myself as a learner, asking Bessabout her school and about Seedfolks. We took turns men-toring each other, engaging in practices familiar to classroomteachers. Though my practice and discourse were located inthe teaching community, I drew on a teaching idea taughtat the university—the suggestion for students to respond totheir peers’ writing at home. I eased this instance of bound-ary spanning by reminding Bess that this practice was some-thing she already knew—she just needed reminding about itto implement it.

A second illustration of our collegial interactions stemmedfrom our discussions of standardized testing. During our ini-tial meeting, Bess raised concerns about her school’s intensefocus on the state-mandated tests. As a result of the students’scores on the writing test last year, Bess was required to giveand grade a persuasive writing prompt every month. Bessasked for help in handling this paper load while sustainingher students’ interest in writing. I gave Bess several specificstrategies to address her problem, which she greatly appreci-ated. Throughout our conversation, I also asked her severalquestions about the particular state-mandated test, as I hadnever taught in this state. As Bess shared information about

the test, I realized that I could learn a lot from Bess aboutthe state’s testing. Our conversation also taught me that Ineed to do a better job preparing my teacher candidates tonavigate standardized testing:

I realize that we don’t do too much to help our candidates tonegotiate [standardized tests] alongside their curriculum. Wedid a workshop once, but we could help them to see how tointegrate their writing and reading instruction in ways thatget at [the test] skills instead of doing it separately as “testprep.” (E. Smith, field notes, November 7, 2008)

Following our conversation, I asked Bess if she would bewilling to come to one of my teacher preparation classes totalk with students about standardized testing. In late Novem-ber, Bess shared her experiences and advice with students inmy class. She spoke confidently about her experiences andfielded students’ questions with poise. The next time I vis-ited Bess in her classroom, she seemed much more relaxedabout the upcoming tests, as I noted in my field notes:

I asked Bess how it was going with the test preparation. Shesaid okay; she’s taking it more in stride—she’ll do the bestshe can, which is a bit different attitude than she had the lasttime I was there. I wonder if she has relaxed a bit about it afterwe talked, and after she came to talk to my class. . . . WhenI told Bess my students were feeling a bit disheartened aboutthe realities of standardized testing, she said that it is good forthem to know the reality that standardized tests will be a partof their lives as teachers. (E. Smith, field notes, December 2,2008)

In this last conversation about the test, Bess was no longerasking me for advice. She was much more relaxed about itand more confident with her approach—doing the best shecould.

Throughout our conversations about standardized tests,Bess and I took turns mentoring each other. Although I pro-vided her with some strategies for managing the paper loadand maintaining students’ interest in writing, she taught meabout the state test and local issues with it. In addition,she assumed the role of teacher educator, helping my stu-dents to better understand the realities of teaching in an ageof standardized testing—something she knew firsthand. Inour final conversation, Bess reassured me that it was not abad thing if my students were a worried about testing—theyneeded to know the reality. Throughout our interactions,Bess and I took turns asking questions and sharing ideas.We moved back and forth between sharing and needingknowledge, taking turns positioning each other as the moreknowledgeable or experienced person in the conversation.In recognizing that we each held knowledge that the othercould benefit from, our relationship became truly interde-pendent. This interdependence enabled us to move out ofour former teacher–student relationship to interact as fel-low teachers with shared interests and commitments andto enjoy a mutually beneficial mentoring relationship. Thefluid nature of our mentoring relationship helped both of usto develop identities as mentors as we engaged in practicesidentified with the teaching community.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Educational Research 325

What is more, the second interaction with Bess providedan opportunity for Bess to serve as a boundary spanner. Asa former student in my teacher preparation program, Besswas well versed in the culture, knowledge, and discourseof the university and could easily engage with the teachercandidates about issues of standardized testing. Her visit tomy university classroom provided an opportunity for edu-cators across institutional borders to engage in discussionof standardized testing, integrating theoretical knowledgewith the practical realities of high-stakes testing for PreK–12students and teachers. Bess’s engagement with the univer-sity students might have reminded her of how much sheknows about standardized testing—in theory and in prac-tice, thereby increasing her confidence about the tests dur-ing subsequent interactions. Thus, Bess and my relationshipwas mutual in our knowledge sharing and our assumptionsof cross-institutional roles. This further cemented our col-legial relationship, and my legitimacy as a mentor in thecommunity.

Although my engagement in the discourse and practicesof classroom teachers facilitated my mentoring with Derek,Selene, and Bess, it was my outsider position and perspec-tive that was most helpful to Olivia. In this final section, Idescribe the ways in which my institutional identity at theuniversity, combined with my cross-institutional knowledge,eventually enabled me to assume a mentoring identity withOlivia.

Mentor Identity and Boundary Spanning

Olivia was very appreciative when I originally offered toserve as her faculty mentor. She welcomed any help shecould get to be successful during her first year of teaching.Ironically, however, Olivia’s biggest challenge in her firstfew months of teaching eighth-grade students was that shehad too much mentoring. Inundated with induction activ-ities, she had little time to participate in the mentor pilot.After missing the first group meeting, Olivia (personal com-munication [e-mail], August 31, 2008) wrote:

I am going to try and participate in this because I thinkit will be so helpful and all of the members are such greatpeople. However, I recognize that my free moments will beextremely limited. . . . Rosemont also has a very detailed andtime consuming (!) new teacher mentoring protocol. I wouldappreciate if I could stay on the list but I may not participateas actively as everyone else.

After my second invitation to meet or talk, Olivia (per-sonal communication [e-mail], September 24, 2008) decidedshe could not participate in the mentoring at all:

I do not think I am going to be an active member of thisgroup. I have a problem unlike any other new teacher in thatI am being over supported. I must meet once a week withall new teachers and a [mentor program] coordinator for 40minutes and then reflect. I also must meet the same amountof time each week with my mentor. Before March I will beobserved 4–5 times by my Principal/Vice Principal, 4 timesby the coordinator, 4 times by my mentor, and I must observe

4–5 other classes and reflect. Every observation necessitates astate standard lesson plan and pre- and postdiscussions. Whilethe goal is good, it takes time away from my students. . . . So,my long response is I cannot participate right now. . . . Pleasesend me updates occasionally.

Respecting Olivia’s decision, I stopped e-mailing her withinvitations to meet, observe, or get together. The difficultyfor me was not so much the loss of my interactions with her,but the feeling that the mentoring she was receiving was nothelpful. I had little contact with Olivia over the next fewmonths and thus was very surprised when she contacted me,suddenly, in January and asked to meet:

Sorry I have not responded to any of your prior e-mails; it hasbeen a whirlwind. While I am hesitant to say it, I feel likeI am finally in control, at least as much as one can be. . . .Fortunately, I truly love the teaching and the students, but Iam shocked and horrified by the other elements of teaching.I would love to talk with you for your advice and perspec-tive. (Olivia, personal communication [e-mail], January 28,2009)

When I met with Olivia in early February, it became clearthat her mentoring needs were not being met, and that therewere many areas in which she could use help. Olivia prefacedour meeting by asking, “I just want to know if I am crazy, andwhether what I am experiencing at my school is normal.” Myfield notes from this meeting provide just a glimpse of thechallenges Olivia faced in her first few months of teachingeighth-grade students at a suburban middle school:

Olivia meets with her assigned mentor once a week duringtheir required half-hour meetings. She described these meet-ings as “somewhat helpful.” Her mentor has been quite ret-icent to share information with Olivia about the 7th gradecurriculum, which is problematic since there is no 8th gradecurriculum. Olivia was told to do whatever she wants. . . .Sometimes, it is difficult for Olivia to ask questions, as she isnot sure how her mentor will react. For example, when Oliviawas having difficulty because her students weren’t doing theirhomework, she asked her mentor about the homework pol-icy in 7th grade. Her mentor became quite upset, indicatingthat it was not any of Olivia’s business what their home-work policy is, and stormed out of the room. Olivia said thisis the first time she has cried in five years. . . . Luckily, an8th grade teacher has generously shared all of her curricu-lum materials with Olivia. (E. Smith, field notes, February 4,2009)

Though Olivia had many curricular needs, it was the chal-lenging school climate that most troubled her. Her mosthelpful colleague was about to resign, her colleagues regularlyreferred to their students as lazy or idiots, and her content-area colleagues were shocked (instead of supportive) whenOlivia did not know how to evaluate a standardized test forthe first time. And to top it off, some of her colleagues wereactually working against her:

One day a fellow teacher popped into Olivia’s class (in themiddle of her lesson) and suggested that she didn’t need tohelp with the midterm report mailing. She had enough onher plate as a new teacher, and they could take care of it.Olivia thanked him. Later that day, Olivia stopped by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

326 The Journal of Educational Research

room where all of the teachers were helping with the mailing.One teacher made a snide remark about Olivia thinking sheis too good for this work. When her informant did not cometo her defense, Olivia said that she was misinformed aboutthis meeting. (E. Smith, field notes, February 4, 2009).

It became clear that Olivia and I could have talked forhours. She told me story after story about the unbelievablethings she had witnessed or experienced in her school—andmost of them occurred outside of her classroom. Throughoutmy conversations with Olivia, I expressed concern about thestruggles she was facing and reassured her that her situationwas not typical. I asked her many questions that allowed herto share story after story, filling in for me the trials of thelast few months of teaching. She talked and I listened; welaughed; we bemoaned the troubled state of her situation.I reassured her that her situation was not normal and thatshe was not crazy. For all of this, Olivia was grateful. Sheneeded an outside perspective to tell her that teaching wasnot supposed to be this way. Olivia could not share herconcerns with her colleagues. She needed to be careful ofwhat she said and did.

My initial interactions with Olivia were similar to thosewith Selene. My offer to visit Olivia’s classroom positionedme in my university role as evaluator, and things were toochaotic in her classroom to risk a negative observation. It wasnot until the end of January when she felt things were “finallyin control” (Olivia, personal communication [e-mail], Jan-uary 28, 2009). What’s more, Olivia was observed regularlyby her principal, coordinator, and school-assigned mentor.She did not need another observation from me. Though Idid not identify myself as an observer or evaluator, my offerto visit Olivia’s classroom positioned me in this evaluativerole and deterred our interaction.

As the year progressed, however, it was my distance fromOlivia’s classroom that made my institutional identity as anoutsider valuable to her. My location in the university mademe safe to confide in (having been told by her colleagues tokeep her mouth shut). In addition, my knowledge of schoolcultures and climates—on broad and lived levels—allowedme to provide a more objective assessment of her situation.Though I did not know the specifics of her school, I knewenough about schools to provide feedback. My knowledgeand experience crossed institutional borders and allowed meto engage with Olivia as both a fellow teacher and teachereducator.

Despite the many different structures in place at Olivia’sschool—new teacher meetings, assigned mentor, formal ob-servations, conferences—Olivia did not get the support sheneeded to negotiate the prickly terrain of her school climate.Her story points to the value of faculty mentors as boundaryspanners whose general and localized knowledge of schools,combined with their outside perspective, can provide a miss-ing source of mentoring for beginning teachers. In the caseof Olivia, it was my role as boundary spanner that enabledme to assume a mentoring relationship with her.

Discussion

The past 30 years has seen a proliferation of research onmentoring beginning teachers. Much of this research has fo-cused on the mentoring provided by PreK–12 teachers whomentor preservice and inservice teachers or by universityfaculty who supervise student teachers. As faculty involve-ment during the induction years is relatively minimal incomparison, the literature on university faculty members asmentors for beginning teachers is thin. Existing research onmentoring beginning teachers focuses largely on the skillsand knowledge classroom teachers need for mentoring; how-ever, researchers know less about what it takes for universityfaculty members to effectively mentor beginning teachers.The results of this study indicate that effective mentoringby faculty mentors requires more than the development ofmentoring knowledge and skills; it requires their identitydevelopment as faculty mentors who can cross institutionalborders.

Largely affiliated with the university setting, faculty mem-bers generally engage in discourse and practices associatedwith the scholastic work of educating undergraduate andgraduate students. Such practices create an institutionalidentity as members of the university community, removedfrom the everyday practices and realities of classroom teach-ers. In order to develop an identity as a faculty mentor, Ineeded to engage in the discourse and practices used in theschool setting of the beginning teachers. My institutionalidentity as a professor and student-teaching supervisor, com-bined with my mentoring practices linked to evaluation,made it difficult for the beginning teachers to disassociateme from my former evaluative identity. Over the course ofthe study, my increased engagement in the type of discourseand collegial practices assumed by classroom teachers po-sitioned me as a member of the teaching community andfacilitated my development of a mentoring identity.

Benefits of Multimembership

The development of my mentoring identity was not sim-ply the assimilation of the teachers’ discourse and practices,however. My mentoring practices incorporated teachingideas from my own experience teaching secondary Englishand from the pedagogical knowledge I teach at the univer-sity. Part of my development as a mentor involved learninghow to share these ideas in ways that evoked a collegial,mutual relationship rather than an evaluative one. A keypart of my identity as a faculty mentor, thus, was my role asa boundary spanner or broker, someone who could engagein the discourse and practices of the teaching communitywhile incorporating knowledge from the university setting.The benefit of such multimembership enabled me to providean outside perspective when needed, and to support the be-ginning teachers to teach against the grain. I was also able tobring ideas from the beginning teachers back to the univer-sity, as with my interactions with Bess around standardized

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Educational Research 327

testing. My interactions with the beginning teachers fos-tered reflection on my own practices and provided usefulresources for my teaching. The reciprocal nature of mentor-ing relationships beckon individuals to look more closely atthe benefits of supporting university faculty to develop iden-tities as faculty mentors who can broker cross-institutionalrelationships and growth in teacher preparation.

Cross-institutional Connections

Although much has been written about theschool–university divide (e.g., Feiman-Nemser & Buch-mann, 1985) and of the difficulty of developing shareddiscourse and practices across school and university settings(E. Smith & Anagnostopoulos, 2008), the results of thisstudy suggest that the faculty mentor–beginning teacherrelationship may be a fruitful nexus of perspectives tofacilitate cross-institutional connections and collaborationin teacher preparation (Wenger, 1998). As institutionalbrokers, faculty mentors can help to “make new connectionsacross communities of practice, enable coordination, and. . . open new possibilities for meaning” (Wenger, 1998, p.109). My interactions with Bess, in particular, showed howour cross-institutional relationship provided opportunitiesfor pedagogical practices and resources to move backand forth across institutional settings. As Wenger (1998)suggested, boundaries between communities of practiceare ripe places for new practices to develop. The facultymentor–beginning teacher relationship is a ready contextfor fostering connections between theory and practice andfor integrating diverse perspectives on and knowledge aboutcurrent educational issues.

Supporting Boundary Work

In order to support faculty to develop as mentors, univer-sities must recognize the value of individuals who are ableto work across school and university settings. Tradition-ally, faculty who work in schools are not allotted sufficienttime to do cross-institutional work or are not rewarded forit in the form of service or scholarship, both important forpromotion. Part of the struggle for recognition stems fromunfamiliarity with the knowledge and expertise of brokeringand multimembership, as such knowledge lies in neither theuniversity nor the school setting. As Wenger (1998) stated,“[b]ecause communities of practice focus on their own en-terprise, boundary [work] can lack the kind of negotiatedunderstanding found at the core of practice about what con-stitutes competence. That makes it difficult to recognize orassess the value of brokering” (p. 110).

The potential of faculty–beginning teachers mentoringrelationships to bridge and support school and universitygoals in teacher education merits further investigation intothe process and logistics of supporting faculty to developidentities as mentors for beginning teachers. The case studiesdescribed here should be supplemented by larger and longer

studies of faculty mentors’ work with beginning teachers inorder to develop a recognized knowledge base for mentoringwork that lies at the border of schools and universities. Sucha knowledge base would help universities (and schools) torecognize the value of multimembership and brokering inteacher preparation.

Given the high attrition rate of new teachers, and thechallenges of providing beginning teachers with mentorswho are available and capable of supporting new teachers’diverse needs, the time is right to capitalize on the role thatteacher education faculty can play in the induction process.This article does not call for the replacement of existing mod-els of school-based mentoring. Rather, this article points tothe potential of faculty mentors for providing a unique typeof mentoring that bridges school and university expertiseand resources, and to the need to support faculty to developidentities as institutional brokers in teacher preparation.

REFERENCES

Aaronsohn, E. (1996). Going against the grain: Supporting the student-centeredteacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Abell, S. K., Dillon, D. R., & Hopkins, C. J. (1995). Somebody to count on:Mentor/intern relationships in a beginning teacher internship program.Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 173–188.

Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (1999). Developing effective mentoringrelationships: Strategies from the mentor’s viewpoint. The Career Devel-opment Quarterly, 48(1), 59–73.

Amos, B. A. (2005). Defining the mentoring relationship of beginningspecial education teachers. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 71(4),14–19.

Andrews, B. A., & Quinn, R. J. (2005). The effects of mentoring on first-year teachers’ perceptions of support received. The Clearing House, 78,110–116.

Andrews, S. P., Gilbert, L. S., & Martin, S. P. (2006). The first years ofteaching: Disparities in perceptions of support. Action in Teacher Educa-tion, 28(4), 4–13.

Angelle, P. S. (2002). Mentoring the beginning teacher: Providing assis-tance in differentially effective middle schools. The High School Journal,86(1), 15–27.

Anhorn, R. (2008). The profession that eats its young. The Delta KappaGamma Bulletin, 74(3), 15–21.

Babione, C., & Shea, C. (2005). Special education mentoring within thecontext of rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(2), 3–10.

Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2002). Professors and the practicum: Involve-ment of university faculty in preservice practicum supervision. Journal ofTeacher Education, 53, 6–19.

Berry, B. (2006). Why we do not support new teachers. Democracy &Education, 16(3), 33–38.

Beyene, T., Anglin, M., Sanchez, W., & Ballou, M. (2002). Mentoringand relational mutuality: Proteges’ perspectives. Journal of HumanisticCounseling, Education and Development, 41(1), 87–102.

Bianchini, J. A., & Cavazos, L. M. (2007). Progress toward equitable scienceteaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 586–612.

Bogdan, R. B., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: Anintroduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boreen, J., Johnson, M. K., Niday, D., & Potts, J. (2000). Mentoring beginningteachers: Guiding, reflecting, coaching. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Borg, E. (2003). Discourse community. ELT Journal, 57, 398–400.Boyer, L. (2005). Supporting the induction of special educators: Program

descriptions of university-school district partnerships. Teaching Excep-tional Children, 37(3), 44–51.

Brownell, M. T., Yeager, E. A., & Sindelar, P. T. (2004). Teacher learningcohorts: A vehicle for supporting beginning teachers. Teacher Educationand Special Education, 27, 174–189.

Bullough, R. V. Jr. (2005). Teacher vulnerability and teachability: A casestudy of a mentor and two interns. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2),23–39.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

328 The Journal of Educational Research

Bullough, R. V. Jr. (2007). Being and becoming a mentor: School-basedteacher educators and teacher educator identity. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 21, 143–155.

Carr, S. C., & Evans, E. (2006). Helping beginning teachers remain in theprofession: A successful induction program. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 29, 113–115.

Cohen, N. H. (2003). The journey of the “Principles of Adult MentoringInventory.” Adult Learning, 14(1), 4–7, 9–12.

Conway, C. M. (2003). An examination of district-sponsored beginningmusic teacher mentor practices. Journal of Research in Music Education,51, 6–23.

Conway, C. M., Krueger, P., Robinson, M., Haack, P., & Smith, M. V.(2002). Beginning music teacher induction and mentor policies: A cross-state perspective. Arts Education Policy Review, 104(2), 9–17.

Cook-Sather, A. (2006). The “constant changing of myself”: Revisingroles in undergraduate teacher preparation. The Teacher Educator, 41, 187–206.

Corte, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency and culture.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

D’Aniello, S. (2004). Using technology to provide new teacher support:A university/district collaborative project. Journal of Special EducationTechnology, 19(3), 50–54.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, whatleaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6–13.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (1999). Recruiting teachers for the 21stcentury: The foundation for educational equity. The Journal of NegroEducation, 68, 254–279.

Davis, B. H., Resta, V. K., Higdon, K. A., & Latiolais, L. L. (2001). Teacherfellows: A graduate program for beginning teachers. Action in TeacherEducation, 23(2), 43–49.

Dever, M., Hager, K. D., & Klein, K. (2003). Building the university/publicschool partnership: A workshop for mentor teachers. The Teacher Edu-cator, 38, 245–255.

Dever, M., Johnson, F. F., & Hobbs, D. E. (2000). A qualitative analysis ofan intensive mentor-apprentice collaboration: MAC. Journal of Researchand Development in Education, 33, 241–56.

DeWert, M. H., Babinski, L. M., & Jones, B. D. (2003). Safe passages: Pro-viding online support to beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education,54, 311–320.

DeWert, M. H., Jones, B. D., & Carboni, L. (1999, April). Crossing the greatdivide: How university educators and beginning teachers can help and learnfrom one another in a web-based problem-solving and support community.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Montreal, Canada.

Eisenman, G., & Thornton, H. (1999). Telementoring: Helping new teach-ers through the first year. T.H.E. Journal, 26(9), 79–82.

Evertson, C. M., & Smithey, M. W. (2000). Mentoring effects on proteges’classroom practice: An experimental field study. The Journal of Educa-tional Research, 93, 294–304.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review. Washing-ton, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.(ED397060)

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

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchman, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience inteacher preparation. Teachers College Record, 87, 53–65.

Fitzpatrick, M., Lee, S., & Theoharris, R. (2006). 20 ways to . . . create effec-tive mentoring relationships: Strategies for mentor and mentee success.Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 233–240.

Flores, M. T. (2007). Navigating contradictory communities of practice inlearning to teach for social justice. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,38, 380–404.

Fluckinger, J., McGlamery, S., & Edick, N. (2006). Mentoring teachers’stories: Caring mentors help novice teachers stick with teaching anddevelop expertise. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 72(3), 8–13

Friedrichsen, P., Chval, K. B., & Teuscher, D. (2007). Strategies and sourcesof support for beginning teachers of science and mathematics. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 107, 169–181.

Fulton, K., Bums, M., & Goldenburg, L. (2005). Teacher learning in net-worked communities. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 298–305.

Gee, J. P. (1989). What is literacy? (Technical Report No. 2). Newton, MA:Harvard University, The Literacies Institute Education DevelopmentCenter.

Gee, J. P. (1990) Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. NewYork, NY: Falmer.

Gee, J. P. (1994). Discourses: Reflections on M. A. K. Halliday’s “Towarda theory of language-based learning.” Linguistics and Education, 6, 33–40.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. InW. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 25, pp. 99–125).Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.

Gibson, S. K. (2004). Being mentored: The experience of women faculty.Journal of Career Development, 30, 173–188.

Gilles, C., Cramer, M. M., & Hwang, S. K. (2001). Beginning teacherperceptions of concerns: A longitudinal look at teacher development.Action in Teacher Education 23(3), 89–98.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago,IL: Aldine.

Glassford, L. A., & Salinitri, G. (2007). Designing a successful newteacher induction program: An assessment of the Ontario Experience,2003–2006. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 60,1–34.

Golub, J. (2005). More ways to handle the paper load: On paper and online.Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Greiman, B. C., Torres, R. M., Burris, S., & Kitchel, T. (2007). Beginningteachers’ perceptions of in-school and in-profession mentoring relation-ships. Career and Technical Education Research, 32(1), 23–44.

Hall, L., & Burns, L. (2009). Identity development and mentoring in doc-toral education. Harvard Educational Review, 79(1), 49–70.

Hansman, C. A. (2003). Reluctant mentors and resistant proteges: Wel-come to the “real” world of mentoring. Adult Learning, 14(1), 14–16.

Hawkey, K. (1997). Roles, responsibilities, and relationships in mentoring:A literature review and agenda for research. Journal of Teacher Education,48, 325–335.

Heider, K. L. (2005). Teacher isolation: How mentoring programs can help.Current Issues in Education, 8(14). Retrieved from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume8/number14.

Hines, S. M., Murphy, M., & Pezone, M. (2003). New teachers’ network:A university-based support system for educators in urban and suburban“ethnic minority” school districts. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36,300–307.

Hughes, S., & Riendeau, D. (2007). Mentor-mentee relationships: A two-way street. The Physics Teacher, 45, 186–187.

Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships.In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education(pp. 535–548). New York, NY: MacMillan.

Inman, D., & Marlow, L. (2004). Teacher retention: Why do beginning teachersremain in the profession? Education, 124, 605–614.

Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: Newteachers explain their career decisions. American Educational ResearchJournal, 40, 581–617.

Jones, M. S., & Pauley, F. (2003). Mentoring beginning public schoolteachers. Adult Learning, 14(1), 23–25.

Kardos, S. M., & Johnson, S. M. (2007). Their own and presumed expert:New teachers’ experience with their colleagues. Teachers College Record,109, 2083–2106.

Kennedy, V., & Burstein, N. (2004). An induction program for specialeducation teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 444–447.

Kilburg, G. M., & Hancock, T. (2006). Addressing sources of collat-eral damage in four mentoring programs. Teachers College Record, 108,1321–1338.

Klecka, C. L., Cheng, Y., & Clift, R. T. (2004). Exploring the potential ofelectronic mentoring. Action in Teacher Education, 26(3), 2–9.

Knapczyk, D. R., Hew, K. F., & Frey, T. J. (2005). Evaluation of onlinementoring practicum for limited licensed teachers. Teacher Educationand Special Education, 28, 207–220.

Kochan, F. K., & Trimble, S. B. (2000). From mentoring to co-mentoring:Establishing collaborative relationships. Theory into Practice, 39,20–28.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organi-zational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Krueger, P. J. (2001). Reflections of beginning music teachers. Music Edu-cators Journal, 88(3), 51–54.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative designin educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Loeffler, M. H. (2004). The fine art of mentoring. Montessori Life, 16(2),23.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Educational Research 329

Luft, J. A. (2007). Minding the gap: Needed research on beginning/newlyqualified science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44,532–537.

Luft, J. A., Roehrig, G. H. H., & Patterson, N. C. (2003). Practices, be-liefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 77–97.

Massey, D. D. (2006). “You teach for me; I’ve had it!” A first-year teacher’scry for help. Action in Teacher Education 28(3), 73–85.

Maynard, T. (1996). The limits of mentoring: The contribution of thehigher education tutor to primary student teachers’ school-based learn-ing. In J. Furlong & R. Smith (Eds.), The role of higher education in initialteacher training (pp. 101–118). London, UK: Kogan Page.

Merseth, K. K. (1991). Supporting beginning teachers with computer net-works. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 140–147.

Meyer, T. (2002). Novice teacher learning communities: An alternativeto one-on-one mentoring. American Secondary Education, 31(1), 27–42.

Nagel, N. G., & Guest, S. (2006). For the love of students: A conversationwith Sonia Nieto. Democracy & Education, 16(3), 3.

Norman, D. M., & Ganser, T. (2004). A humanistic approach to newteacher mentoring: A counseling perspective. Journal of Humanistic Coun-seling, Education and Development, 43, 129–40.

Olebe, M. (2005). Helping new teachers enter and stay in the profession.The Clearing House, 78, 158–163.

Pedro, J. (2006). Taking reflection into the real world of teaching. KappaDelta Pi Record, 42, 129–132.

Peter, M. G., & Du Mez, J,(1997). Creating caring systems of support:Collaborative networking and teacher induction programs. The DeltaKappa Gamma Bulletin, 63(2), 18–21.

Peterson, B. E., & William, S. R. (1998). Mentoring beginning teachers.Mathematics Teacher, 91, 730–734.

Pittinsky, M. (2005). No teacher left behind. T.H.E. Journal, 32(11),32–34.

Rogers, D. L., & Babinski, L. (1999). Breaking through isolation with newteacher groups. Educational Leadership, 5(8), 38–40.

Russell, J. E. A., & Adams, D. M. (1997). The changing nature of mentoringin organizations: An introduction to the special issue on mentoring inorganizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 1–14.

Sandholtz, J. H., & Finan, E. C. (1998). Blurring the boundaries to pro-mote school-university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 49,13–25.

Slick, S. K. (1998). The university supervisor: A disenfranchised outsider.Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 821–834.

Smith, E., & Anagnostopoulos, D. (2008). Developing pedagogical con-tent knowledge for literature-based discussions in a cross-institutionalnetwork. English Education, 41(1), 39–65.

Smith, E., & Evans, C. (2008). Providing effective mentoring for al-ternate route beginning teachers. The Teacher Educator, 43, 249–278.

Smith, M. V. (2005). Modern mentoring: Ancient lessons for today. MusicEducators Journal, 92(2), 62–67.

Smith, T. M., & Ingersol, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of inductionand mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American EducationalResearch Journal, 41, 681–714.

Stanulis, R. N., Burrill, G., & Ames, K. T. (2007). Fitting in and learningto teach: Tensions in developing a vision for a university-based induc-tion program for beginning teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34,135–147.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Groundedtheory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Thompson, A. D., & Reimann, P. (1991). Patterns of use of an electroniccommunication network for student teacher and first-year teachers. Com-puters & Education, 54, 392–403.

Turley, S., Powers, K., & Nakai, K. (2006). Beginning teachers’ confidencebefore and after induction. Action in Teacher Education, 28(1), 27–39.

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

Watkins, P. (2005). The principal’s role in attracting, retaining, and devel-oping new teachers: Three strategies for collaboration and support. TheClearing House, 79, 83–87.

Whitaker, S. D. (2000). Mentoring beginning special education teachersand the relationship to attrition. Exceptional Children, 66, 546–566.

Whitaker, S. D. (2003). Needs of beginning special education teachers: Im-plications for teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education,26, 106–117.

Wilkins, E. A., & Clift, R. T. (2006). Building a network of support for newteachers. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 25–35.

Williams, J., & Warren, S. H. (2007). E-mentoring: Supporting first-yeareducators and rejuvenating veteran teachers. The Delta Kappa GammaBulletin, 73(4), 9–11.

Young, C. Y., & Wright, J. V. (2001). Mentoring: The components forsuccess. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28, 202–206.

Zuckerman, J. T. (1999). From dependence to self-reliance and competence:One first-year science teacher in a mentoring relationship. AmericanSecondary Education, 28(2), 17–22.

Zuckerman, J. T. (2001). Veteran teacher transformations in a collaborativementoring relationship. American Secondary Education, 29(4), 18–29.

AUTHOR NOTE

Emily R. Smith is an Associate Professor of English Ed-ucation in the Department of Curriculum & Instruction atFairfield University. Her scholarship focuses on several com-ponents of school-based mentoring for preservice teachers,including issues of power and pedagogy in student teach-ing, developing cross-institutional practices and discoursefor preparing teachers, and the role of teacher educationfaculty in mentoring beginning teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:57

26

Oct

ober

201

4