Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740

Student teachers eliciting mentors’ practical knowledge and

comparing it to their own beliefs
Anneke Zantinga,*, Nico Verloopa, Jan D. Vermuntb
a
ICLON, Graduate School of Education, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands
b
Department of Educational Development and Research, Maastricht University, The Netherlands

Received 13 July 2000; received in revised form 9 February 2001; accepted 6 March 2001

Abstract

Student teachers have at their disposal various information sources concerning teaching: their own beliefs, their
mentors’ practical knowledge, and ‘theory’. Because practical knowledge often remains implicit, the aim of the present
study was to explore the appropriateness of two techniques for its articulation: concept mapping and completing
sentences. The criterion used was that these should not only elicit descriptions of how to teach, but also the cognitions
underlying teaching, i.e., practical knowledge. Thirty-five student teachers and their mentors at a postgraduate teacher-
training institute in the Netherlands used both techniques, concerning the subject of ‘order’. Subsequently, the students
summarized their own beliefs, their mentors’ practical knowledge, and theory and compared these to each other. The
student teachers’ reports showed that they, in general, had been able to elicit partially their mentors’ practical
knowledge. It was concluded that the use of the techniques involved seemed valuable for student teachers’ learning
processes. r 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Student teachers; Beliefs; Practical knowledge; Concept mapping; Sentence completion

1. Introduction often called ‘practical knowledge’ (Eraut, 1994).

Student teachers attending a teacher-training
course come into contact with various information
sources. At the teacher-training institute, they are
informed about educational theories and teaching
methods. At the practice schools, mentors super-
vise them. These mentors have developed their
own teaching knowledge and beliefs, derived from
or accommodated by teaching practice. This is
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-71-527-71-74/70; fax:
+31-71-527-71-81.
E-mail address: zanting@iclon.leidenuniv.nl (A. Zanting).
Student teachers also possess themselves various
beliefs about teaching based on their own experi-
ences as pupils (Richardson, 1996).
The knowledge and beliefs of the three informa-
tion sources, ‘teacher training’, ‘mentors’, and
‘student teachers’ do not always correspond to
each other. Well-known is the gap between theory
and practice reported by student teachers. They
frequently experience difficulties in relating the-
ories acquired at the teacher training institute to
their teaching experiences and their mentors’
feedback (Elliott & Calderhead, 1994). Further-
more, student teachers’ own beliefs about teaching

0742-051X/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 6 - 9
726 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
may differ from the assumptions of teacher
trainers or mentors. Student teachers’ beliefs
influence the way they approach university and
mentor teachers, interpret the information given,
and what they learn from this (Oosterheert &
Vermunt, 2001; Richardson, 1996; Tillema, 1994).
Beliefs are, actually, the ‘filters’ through which new
knowledge, ideas, and experiences are perceived.
Meeting a teaching situation in which student
teachers cannot hold on to these beliefs is a
starting-point for possible change and professional
development. An essential aspect of teacher train-
ing, therefore, is thinking critically or reflecting
about current beliefs of one’s own (Kagan, 1992).
Before being able to reflect on their beliefs about
teaching, student teachers must become aware of
these. These beliefs are often implicit and not
articulated, just like the practical knowledge of
their mentors (Carter, 1990; Francis, 1995). There-
fore, the main question of the study was how
student and mentor teachers’ beliefs could be made
explicit.
1.1. Student teachers’ beliefs and mentors’
practical knowledge
Student teachers’ beliefs may include several
teaching aspects, e.g., what learning is, what a
teacher’s tasks are, how a teacher can manage a
class, etc. These beliefs are personal and based on
one’s own experiences, for example, as a pupil, as a
beginning teacher, or as a listener to friends or
relatives who teach (Richardson, 1996).
Experienced teachers, like mentors, possess
‘practical knowledge’ (Carter, 1990; Fensterma-
cher, 1994; Meijer, 1999). This knowledge is
personal and has been developed during or
accommodated by lengthy teaching experience.
We defined practical knowledge as an amalgam of
all teachers’ cognitions, such as declarative and
procedural knowledge, beliefs, and values, which
influences their preactive, interactive, and post-
active teaching activities. This means that it also
includes reasons underlying teaching, considera-
tions, arguments, personal motives, and zeal.
Because knowledge and beliefs are often hard to
separate (Pajares, 1992) both are indicated as parts
of practical knowledge and are not distinguished.
It is assumed that mentors should articulate
their practical knowledge in the presence of their
student teachers (Brown & McIntyre, 1995). The
reasons for this are described in the next section.
1.2. The value of explicated mentor’s practical
knowledge
Why should mentors explicate their practical
knowledge and student teachers access it? It is
commonly accepted that beginners can learn from
members of their own profession, like, in this case,
from experienced mentor teachers (see Wilson &
Pirrie, 1999). Having access to the practical
knowledge of mentors can fulfill various functions
in learning to teach.
Firstly, practical knowledge contains experien-
tial knowledge that is mostly undocumented, but
of immediate importance for student teachers’
teaching practice. Originating from or adjusted by
experience, it reflects the complexity of teaching,
its contextual character, and meets the need for
immediate action (Carter, 1990; Olson & Carter,
1989). When this knowledge is not articulated, ‘the
wheels of teaching have to be reinvented by each
new generation’ (Brown & McIntyre, 1995, p. 14).
Secondly, articulated practical knowledge
makes the mentors’ lessons more understandable.
If only observing them, student teachers do not
find out about the mentors’ knowledge, beliefs,
and reasons that may clarify their actions and
decisions. Gonzalez and Carter (1996), for exam-
ple, found that student teachers, in some cases,
interpret classroom situations totally differently
from their mentors. The explication of the cogni-
tions underlying a mentor’s lesson can, then, be
clarifying. Furthermore, student teachers can
better understand their mentors’ feedback on their
lessons when they are aware of the mentors’
knowledge, beliefs, and values (Edwards &
Collison, 1995; Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann,
1987). These influence a mentor’s interpretation
of ‘good’ teaching and, consequently, a mentor’s
evaluation of a student teacher’s lessons.
Thirdly, access to practical knowledge can help
to bridge ‘theory’, acquired at the teacher-training
institute, and ‘practice’, experienced at the schools
(Bengtsson, 1993). When making explicit mentors’
 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
practical knowledge and student teachers’ beliefs,
students can start thinking critically about these
and compare them to educational theories.
Leinhardt, McCarthy Young, and Merriman
(1995) claimed that in order to integrate theory
and practice, there is a need for ‘theorizing
practice’ and ‘particularizing theory’. The articu-
lation of a mentor’s practical knowledge, then, is a
precondition for this integration.
Eventually, student teachers should develop
their own beliefs about teaching and a personal
teaching style, based on critical reflection on
several information sources: their own experiences,
their mentor’s practical knowledge, and theory
(Black & Halliwell, 2000). Critical reflection is
required when comparing these three sources
because there are likely to be both similarities
and differences. It is even possible that student
teachers become aware of differences between
mentors’ explicated practical knowledge and
mentors’ lessons. The literature shows that
teachers’ knowledge and beliefs and their practice
do not always correspond (Calderhead, 1996).
Even then, the articulation of practical knowledge
remains important. Student teachers have to
reflect on the views of others, including possibly
inconsistent and conflicting information.
1.3. Access to a mentor’s practical knowledge
Mentors are not inclined to articulate practical
knowledge, and student teachers are not trying
consciously to access it, e.g., by asking questions
after a mentor’s lessons (Brown & McIntyre, 1995;
Penny, Harley, & Jessop, 1996; Zanting, Verloop,
& Vermunt, 2001b). Therefore, it seems that
student teachers should be stimulated to access
practical knowledge, but how? Several instruments
and techniques have been used in the research on
teacher knowledge and beliefs: journal keeping,
concept maps, stimulated recall, interviews, prac-
tical arguments, short-answer tests, repertory
grids, metaphors, the drawing of pictures or
story-lines, or conversations (Beijaard, Van Driel,
& Verloop, 1999; Black & Halliwell, 2000; Kagan,
1990; Martin & Kompf, 1996; Meijer, Verloop, &
Beijaard, 1999; Solas, 1992). In the present study,
two instruments were examined as tools for
727
accessing practical knowledge by student teachers:
‘concept mapping’ and ‘completing sentences’.
Both instruments were chosen because they can
provide a lot of information in a relatively short
time, without requiring intensive training or
expensive material equipment.
1.4. Research questions
The main research question to be addressed was
whether concept mapping and completing sen-
tences were manageable and effective instruments
to stimulate student teachers to explicate their own
beliefs about teaching and to access their mentors’
practical knowledge.
This question was divided into three sub-
questions: (a) what is the nature of the explicated
beliefs of the student teachers and of the elicited
practical knowledge of mentors (e.g., just descrip-
tions of a mentor’s statements, or descriptions of a
mentor’s statements including underlying cogni-
tions and reasoning), (b) what do the student
teachers conclude after having compared their
own beliefs about teaching to the mentor’s elicited
practical knowledge and the ‘theory’? And (c) how
do the student teachers evaluate concept mapping
and completing sentences for accessing their
mentors’ practical knowledge and explicating their
own beliefs about teaching?
The first research question examined concept
mapping and completing sentences as elicitation
techniques of reasons underlying teaching. The
second one focused on learning experiences that,
according to the student teachers, resulted from
comparing their own explicated beliefs to the
elicited practical knowledge and to the ‘theory’.
This comparison was meant to stimulate mean-
ingful learning. Student teachers have to elaborate
this knowledge and these beliefs by relating the
three information sources and thinking critically
about them. These learning activities are intended
to promote ‘deep’ or ‘meaningful’ learning
(Vermunt, 1998; Vermunt & Verloop, 1999).
It was assumed that student teachers would
become motivated if they could connect explicated
practical knowledge to their own beliefs about
teaching. Involving one’s own beliefs is a sensible
starting point for exploring theories and others’
728 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
beliefs (Kagan, 1992). To investigate the student
teachers’ evaluation of both instruments, the third
research question was formulated.
2. Method
2.1. Context
The study was conducted at the postgraduate
teacher training institute of Leiden University in
the Netherlands. The 1-year course comprised,
alternately, 50% classes in teaching methods,
educational theory, and professional development,
and 50% practical training at schools. The student
teachers were being trained to teach at the high
school level (pupils age 15–18) in one specific
language (Dutch, English, German, French, or
Classics), science (mathematics, biology, physics,
and chemistry), or social science (history, art
history, and social studies).
2.2. Participants
The whole 1998–1999 cohort, 35 student tea-
chers, participated in this study: 16 (46%) were
men and 19 (54%) were women. Sixteen of them
were social science teachers, 13 were language
teachers, and six were science teachers. One subject
teacher, their mentor, supervised every student
teacher. The teaching experience of the mentors,
25 men and 10 women, ranged from five to 31
years. Their experience with mentoring was also
very diverse, ranging from zero to 25 years.
2.3. The student teacher assignment
The assignment included obtaining information
from three ‘information sources’: the student
teacher him/herself, the mentor, and ‘theory’. This
was done by the student teachers by: (1) explicat-
ing their own beliefs about ‘order’ by concept
mapping and completing sentences, (2) eliciting the
mentor’s practical knowledge about ‘order’ in the
same way, (3) studying literature about ‘order’,
and (4) comparing their own beliefs, the mentor’s
practical knowledge, and ‘theory’.
The assignment was incorporated in the teacher-
training program to test whether it really could be
applied in an educational setting. Therefore, the
criterion for selecting instruments were that (1) an
instrument could be used easily by large numbers
of student teachers, for example, tens or hundreds,
and (2) an instrument could be used by student
teachers without the need for extensive training.
The criteria implied that some instruments that
seem suitable for the elicitation of practical
knowledge were not used, for example, stimulated
recall which is rather complex, time-consuming
and requires technical supplies (see Calderhead,
1981; Meijer, 1999).
A pilot study with 20 student teachers of the
1997–1998 cohort had proved that, without train-
ing, the interview skills of the student teachers
were not always sufficient. For example, student
teachers rarely prompted or they formulated only
a few, superficial questions. Despite this, the
interview proved to be suitable for eliciting a part
of a teacher’s practical knowledge (e.g., Meijer,
1999). Because in a regular natural teacher training
program there is no sufficient time to practice
interview skills, the interview was transformed into
a ‘sentence completion task’. This task has
similarities with an interview but is more struc-
tured and is written.
The sentence completion task comprised eight
written sentences on the subject of ‘order in the
classroom’ to be completed by both mentor and
student teacher. They had, for example, to
complete the sentences: ‘Order in the classroom
means to me y’ or ‘A precondition for establish-
ing order in the classroom is y’ Furthermore,
four problems concerning ‘order in the classroom’
were briefly described, for example, ‘All the pupils
are working except one. This pupil does not
disturb others but is not active at all’. The mentor
or student teacher had to describe a solution for
this situation.
The task aimed at explicating beliefs regarding
the interpretation of order, the process of estab-
lishing and maintaining order, disciplinary mea-
sures, and the function of order. The sentences
were formulated in consultation with student
teachers of the 1997–1998 cohort. They judged
the sentences on being clear, unambiguous, and
 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
valuable for practice and, if necessary, restated
them. Completing sentences was assumed to be
complementary to the more abstract information
elicited by concept mapping.
Concept mapping has been used in the research
on teacher knowledge and beliefs for capturing
and graphically representing concepts of teaching
and their internal relationships (e.g., Kagan, 1990;
Meijer et al., 1999; Winitzky, Kauchak, & Kelly,
1994). It has been proved to be a suitable
instrument for accessing mentors’ practical knowl-
edge by student teachers and can be applied by
them without intensive training (see Zanting,
Verloop, & Vermunt, 2001a).
Concept mapping can be carried out either in a
structured or in a non-structured way. In struc-
tured concept mapping, teachers are given a fixed
list of concepts to use. In this way, comparisons
between the concept maps can be made (Meijer,
1999). In the non-structured way, only the main
concept is prescribed (Martin & Kompf, 1996). In
the present study, the mentor teachers made a non-
structured concept map because this left room for
the expression of individual concepts. They only
got the central concept ‘order’, associated concepts
that related to the main concept, wrote these on
paper and related the concepts to each other by
drawing lines. Examples of a student teacher’s
concept map and her mentor’s concept map can be
found in Appendices A and B, respectively.
Choosing the same subject under examination
intertwined interviewing and concept mapping. In
doing so, different information about order could
be obtained qualitatively. The subject of ‘order’
was chosen because maintaining order is one of the
main concerns of beginning student teachers
(Fuller in Eraut, 1994; Kagan, 1992; Oosterheert
& Vermunt, 2001). Eventually, to relate the
exploration of mentors’ practical knowledge more
strongly to actual teaching, it was preceded by
lesson observations.
These observations provided the student tea-
chers with a framework to understand their
mentors’ articulated practical knowledge. It can-
not be assumed that the elicited practical knowl-
edge related to these lessons. Concept mapping
and completing sentences can elicit teaching
knowledge, beliefs, and values that can be referred
729
to as ‘knowledge-on-action’ (Scho. n, 1987). Other
techniques, such as stimulated recall, are required
for the elicitation of ‘knowledge-in-action’ or
interactive cognitions.
2.4. Procedure
The elicitation of practical knowledge was
integrated into the teacher-training program as a
part of the course in ‘personal development for
teachers’. The central question in this course was
what knowledge and abilities a teacher should
possess in order to function competently and
comfortably. The main learning goals were: the
student teacher is able (1) to reflect on the teaching
of others (experienced teachers and fellow student
teachers), and (2) to infer conclusions regarding
his or her own teaching. Accessing practical
knowledge fits these goals because it reveals
mentors’ knowledge, beliefs, and values, and the
student teachers can then reflect on these.
Furthermore, the student teachers in this study
reflected on their own beliefs about teaching by
comparing them to the elicited practical know-
ledge and the theory presented as part of their
education.
The student teachers, firstly, made their own
concept maps about ‘order’ and completed sen-
tences concerning this theme. Before they actually
carried out the assignment, two university teachers
introduced it, each in one group, exactly following
the procedure described in a scenario. This
introduction covered the goals of the assignment,
the procedure, and an explanation and illustration
of concept mapping and completing sentences.
During the class, student teachers made their
concept maps. There was a written instruction
for concept mapping and completing sentences
both for mentor and student teacher. The mentors
made and clarified their concept maps and
completed sentences at the practice schools. At
home, the student teachers studied two chapters of
literature about ‘order’ and skills for maintaining
order (ICLON, 1997). Then, they composed a
report comprising the following elements
* the student teacher’s and mentor’s concept map
and completed sentences;
730 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
* the student teacher’s main beliefs about ‘order’
based on his or her own concept map and
completed sentences;
* a summary of the mentor’s explicated practical
knowledge of ‘order’ based on his or her
concept map and completed sentences;
* a summary of the main topics in the literature
about the subject ‘order’;
* similarities and differences between the student
teacher’s beliefs and the mentor’s practical
knowledge, these beliefs and the ‘theory’, and
the practical knowledge and the ‘theory’;
* the student teacher’s conclusions based on the
comparisons mentioned above.
The student teachers’ reports were the basis for
data analyses. In addition to this, ten student
teachers were interviewed to gather more in-depth
information.
2.5. The interview
Ten student teachers, four men and six women,
were interviewed. An individual interview schedule
was previously created for each of these on the
basis of the individual reports. The aim of
interviewing was gathering additional information
and, if necessary, illuminating parts of the report.
The interviews focused on the student teachers’
opinions about the function of the assignment and
the preference for concept mapping, completing
sentences, or both. The interviews lasted 45 min on
average, were all conducted by the same inter-
viewer, and were audiotaped.
2.6. Data-analysis
The student teachers’ reports were analyzed to
answer research questions a and b. The interviews
were used for additional information and, espe-
cially, for answering research question c.
2.6.1. Qualitative analysis of the reported practical
knowledge, one’s own beliefs, and ‘theory’
The descriptions of practical knowledge were
analyzed using pre-formulated categories. These
categories were based on distinctions of views on
knowledge developed by Baxter Magolda, Kuhn,
and Perry, described in Hofer and Pintrich (1997).
These authors reviewed Baxter Magolda’s state-
ment that knowledge can be viewed as absolute
(authorities have the right answers) or as indivi-
dual (opinions of individuals are equally valid).
Kuhn (in Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) added that, in
the individual view, different opinions could be
compared and evaluated. Perry (in Hofer &
Pintrich, 1997) called the absolutist right-and-
wrong view ‘dualism’ and the individual percep-
tion of knowledge ‘relativism’. Based on the works
of these authors, the first distinction in the data
analysis was called: ‘absolute’ versus ‘situational’.
This distinction is relevant, because there is not
just ‘one way to teach’. Experienced teachers
possess a variety of teaching skills that they can
tailor to the specific subject matter, pupils,
learning goal, or point in time. Practical knowl-
edge reflects this complexity and specificity of
teaching, and is, therefore, situational (Carter,
1990).
The second distinction was derived from Tom-
linson (1995), who stressed the importance of a
student teacher’s understanding of not only the
‘how’ of teaching but also the ‘why’ of teaching.
These reasons underlying teaching are often not
articulated by experienced (mentor) teachers
(Brown & McIntyre, 1995). Therefore, the second
distinction was practical knowledge as just ‘facts’
versus analyzing practical knowledge by involving
underlying reasoning and motives. This distinction
is directly related to the main research question:
are interviewing and completing sentences valu-
able ways for student teachers to access their
mentors’ practical knowledge? The practical
knowledge aimed at comprises the reasons for or
the ‘why’ of teaching.
The two distinctions generated four categories,
which are described in Table 1: ‘descriptive–
absolute (DA)’, ‘descriptive–situational (DS)’,
‘analytical–absolute (AA)’, and ‘analytical–situa-
tional (AS)’. The descriptions of the ‘theory’, the
student teacher’s beliefs, and the mentor’s prac-
tical knowledge were labeled with these categories,
including the descriptions of the comparisons
between the three ‘information sources’.
The reports were divided into coding units on
the basis of their content. When a student teacher
 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
Table 1
Matrix for analyzing restated practical knowledge based on two distinctions: (1) ‘absolute’ versus ‘situational,’ and (2) ‘descriptive’
versus ‘analytical’
Absolute
Descriptive defining ‘teaching’ or
‘order’ as a state instead of
a process;
describing a teaching activ-
ity or disciplinary measure
without reasons behind it;
describing several teaching
or disciplinary measures
without indicating situa-
tion-specificity;
describing practical tips and
concrete advice without rea-
sons behind it;
Analytical describing abstract state-
ments without explicating
underlying process or me-
chanism.
defining ‘teaching’ or
‘order’ as a process includ-
ing the explication of the
underlying mechanism;
describing teaching activ-
ities/disciplinary measures
including the explication of
the reasons behind it;
explicating relations within
and influences on ‘teaching’
or ‘order’ with explanation
of the underlying process.
started to write about a new item, a new unit
began. Two independent raters on the basis of
130 coding units determined the interrater relia-
bility as 0.79.
731
Example Situational Example
There is order when the defining ‘teaching’ or Order means something differ-
pupils do what I tell ‘order’ as a relative ent for every person.
them. and/or situational state;
Exceptionally, I send pu- describing teaching or When the pupils have just had
pils out of the classroom. disciplinary measures in a hard test, I tolerate more
a specific situation; noise.
ycall a pupil to order, describing several teach- On Tuesday morning my les-
giving guidelines, sepa- ing or disciplinary mea- sons are more intensive for the
rate pupils, having a con- sures tailored to specific pupils than during the last
versation with a pupil. situations without rea- class on Friday afternoon.
sons behind these;
Sending pupils out of the describing practical tips When pupils are noisy, you can
classroom does not work. and concrete advice for raise the lesson tempo. At
different situations with- least, in pre-university classes.
out reasons behind Don’t do this in junior general
them; secondary classes.
Order originates in the describing abstract si- You adapt your communica-
interplay between teacher tuation-specific state- tion style to the individual
and pupils. ments without under- pupil.
lying mechanism.
To me, order means a defining ‘teaching’ or When I am explaining new
precondition for pupils to ‘order’ as a situation- subject matter, it must be
come to learn. They need specific process includ- totally silent. Otherwise, they
a certain amount of rest ing the explication of will not understand it. When
and concentration to the underlying mechan- they are practicing together,
achieve learning goals. ism; the pupils deliberate. Then, it
is not silent: there is a working
order.
Only sent pupil out of the describing teaching ac- I don’t punish the pupils in the
classroom very excep- tivities/disciplinary mea- final year. I think it is their
tionally. Otherwise, they sures in a specific own responsibility to learn and
think you are powerless situation including the to pass their exam.
because the deputy head explication of the rea-
has to handle your order sons behind it;
problems.
When you are not in a explicating situational One of the pupils has ADHD.
good mood, pupils sense relations within and in- It makes no sense to discipline
it and, you get the same fluences on ‘teaching’ or him. This boy has a problem
unpleasant behavior back. ‘order’ including the ex- himself. So, I just let him go
planation of the func- ahead. Fortunately, the other
tioning. pupils accept this.
2.6.2. Quantitative analysis of the reported
practical knowledge, one’s own beliefs, and ‘theory’
In order to examine what parts of the assign-
ment elicited the most analytical statements, a
732 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
quantitative analysis was conducted. It was
assumed that ‘analytical’ codes were nearer to
the explications of practical knowledge than
‘descriptive’ ones. Therefore, the relative fre-
quency of analytical categories was determined
for every part of the report by dividing the
frequencies by the total number of coding units
of a report. There were six parts: three summaries,
viz., of the beliefs, practical knowledge, and
‘theory’, and three descriptions of similarities and
differences between these. In order to determine
which part of the assignment had elicited most
analytical statements, the relative frequencies of
analytical codes were compared between the parts
mentioned above. Because the data were not
normally distributed, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank
Test was applied.
2.6.3. The student teachers’ conclusions
After comparing their own beliefs, their men-
tor’s practical knowledge, and the ‘theory’, the
student teachers wrote down their conclusions.
Various categories of these conclusions were
derived in interaction with the data. Therefore,
contrary to the categories in Table 1, there were no
pre-formulated categories.
2.6.4. Analysis of the student teachers’ evaluations
of the instruments
The interviews were analyzed by reviewing the
tape and making notes. The focus of the analysis
was on (1) the cognitive activities initiated by the
assignment, and (2) the preference for concept
mapping, completing sentences, or combining
both. Various categories were derived in interac-
tion with the data.
3. Results
3.1. Reported own beliefs, practical knowledge and
‘theory’
The student teachers’ reports were analyzed
with the categories described in Table 1. Excerpts
of the reports will illustrate the four categories.
3.1.1. Descriptive–absolute (DA)
This category includes concrete statements
about ‘order’, like measures that ‘work’ or ‘do
not work’, without explication of underlying
mechanism. For example, one student teacher
restated the theory studied as: ‘Gordon stated
that, as a teacher, you had better not say ‘‘you
should know better’’ to a pupil’ (Student Teacher
22: ST22). In so doing, she indicated a principle,
but she did not describe the reason for it. There-
fore, the unit was coded as ‘descriptive’. Further-
more, she did not relate the principle to a specific
situation. It was stated as a ‘general truth’ and,
thus, coded as ‘absolute’.
3.1.2. Descriptive-situational (DS)
Other statements of the students’ own beliefs,
the elicited practical knowledge, or ‘theory’
comprised statements about the situation–specifi-
city of teaching. These statements were also
descriptive because there were no explications of
underlying reasoning. For example: ‘Every teacher
has his or her own way of teaching and therefore
also his or her own way of maintaining order.
According to my mentor, it is important to remain
who you are (ST23)’. This student teacher
indicated the personal way of teaching, but did
not elaborate on what exactly makes the difference
between teachers and what will happen if a student
teacher imitates a way of teaching that does not fit
his or her personality. This relativity of teaching
was also described without further explanation for
the students’ own teaching: ‘What really is order?
In my lessons, pupils are allowed to consult each
other, and order will differ from lesson to lesson
(ST25)’.
3.1.3. Analytical–absolute (AA)
This category comprised reasons underlying
teaching without indicating situation specificity,
such as: ‘In the chapters of the syllabus, conversa-
tions with pupils were emphasized, because these
can elicit the reasons for conflicts (ST17)’. Another
student teacher related the content of the chapters
to her personal teaching experiences.
During one of my lessons, I noticed that a
group of four pupils remained chatting. This
 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
was very disturbing to me, because I was not
able to concentrate on the questions of other
pupils in the classroom. I tried to ignore them,
at first, but this did not solve anything. So, I
accepted the responsibility for my own feelings
and told the students honestly and clearly that
this could not continue during these lessons and
that their behavior irritated me. This appeared
to be very effective. In the syllabus, this is
referred to as explicating what effect the
situation has on yourself (ST18).
3.1.4. Analytical–situational (AS)
The student teachers could also write in a way
that comprised reasons underlying teaching or a
description of underlying mechanism in different
situations. ‘The timing of the lesson influences the
atmosphere in the classroom. When the pupils just
have had their physical education class, some of
them will arrive too late and, then, the order is
already disturbed. The pupils also have to relax for
a moment, with their flushed faces, before being
able to concentrate (ST22)’.
3.2. Frequencies of the categories in the student
teachers’ reports
In the student teachers’ reports, there were more
‘absolute’ (AD & AA, P ¼ 91%) statements than
‘situational’ (SD & SA, P ¼ 9%) ones (z ¼ 4:85;
po0:001). This pattern of more ‘absolute’ cate-
gories than ‘situational’ was not due to one specific
part of the reports. It appeared in the reports of
the student’s own beliefs, elicited practical knowl-
edge, and ‘theory’, and in the mutual comparisons.
This meant that most statements were rather
general and not focusing on specific pupils or
situations. In the further analysis, the distinction
between ‘absolute versus situational’ was not used.
The second distinction, ‘descriptive versus ana-
lytical’, was examined.
Overall, there was no significant difference
between the number of descriptive (P ¼ 46%)
and analytical statements (P ¼ 54%). However,
in the summary of students’ own beliefs, the
elicited practical knowledge, and the theory, there
were more analytical statements than descriptive
733
ones (z ¼ 2:54; po0:05). This was not the case for
the written comparisons between the three sources.
In a separate examination of the summaries of the
three sources, only those of the student teachers’
own beliefs included more analytical than descrip-
tive categories (z ¼ 2:43; po0:05).
3.3. Differences between the student teachers
In order to examine possible patterns in the
student teachers’ reports, the group was divided
into a low analyzing group (LA) and a high
analyzing group (HA). The percentages of the
analytical codes were computed. The mean of this
score was 0.56 and the median 0.54. The line of
demarcation for the HA group was put at 0.55, the
average of mean and median. Student teachers
with a relative proportion of analyzing statements
lower than 0.55 belonged to the LA group, the
others to the HA group.
Subsequently, differences in scoring patterns
between the LA and HA groups were examined.
It appeared that the relatively higher proportions
of analyzing categories could be traced back to
more analytical statements of the students’ own
beliefs by the HA group (z ¼ 2:24; po0:05). There
were no differences in the statements of the elicited
practical knowledge and the ‘theory’.
3.4. The student teachers’ conclusions
After comparing the mentor’s explicated prac-
tical knowledge with their own beliefs about
teaching and the ‘theory’, the student teachers
drew conclusions regarding their own beliefs.
Three types of conclusions were derived from the
reports. These conclusions reflect new ‘ideas’ or
intentions as perceived by the student teachers in
response to the assignment. This does not mean
that these conclusions can be translated directly
into the student teachers’ actual teaching.
The first type of conclusion, mentioned by 14
out of 35 student teachers, concerned the content
of ‘order’: its definition and the process of
establishing and maintaining it. For example:
Order is a precondition for creating a good
atmosphere in which pupils and teacher can
734 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
function well. Order facilitates, besides other
things, the instructional process . . . Preparing
your lessons thoroughly is also of great
importance for maintaining order. If you
master the subject matter, you have to concen-
trate less on it (ST23).
This conclusion was also stated as an intention for
their own teaching: ‘prepare the lessons well, treat
the subject matter soundly, and structure the
lesson clearly (ST6)’.
The second type of conclusion comprised
linking the mentor’s practical knowledge and ideas
described in the ‘literature’ to the students’ own
beliefs about teaching, leading to the extension of
these beliefs, critical thought about them or,
possibly, changing them. This conclusion was
reached by 11 student teachers, for example: ‘The
mentor and both chapters provided me with a
reference frame to test my own beliefs, which, to a
not inconsiderable extent, have been molded by
my own educational experience as a pupil (ST6)’.
The student teacher explained that he was
‘confronted with several aspects of order I had
not the slightest notion of’ and that he could use
the ideas for developing a more extensive reper-
toire for maintaining order. This was described
more specifically by another student teacher:
My conclusion is that my own beliefs about
order in the classroom were incomplete. Ac-
cording to me, what matters most importantly
was motivating the pupils and being self-
confident as a teacher. I did not realize the
importance of being explicit to the pupils,
structuring lessons, and showing your feelings
to the pupils. I was not familiar with the
numerous solutions to discipline problems that
can be applied before punishing (ST17).
A conclusion concerning the student’s own teach-
ing was described about taking into account the
background of the pupils: ‘Possibly, my mentor
can help me, because he knows more about the
pupilsy. I will also try to find some articles in
order to get a better picture about ways of dealing
with pupils’ backgrounds’ (ST20). Exploring one’s
own teaching style was intended by a student
teacher who stated:
My mentor acts in a way that suits him, but that
does not suit, or only partly suits the theory
(that he knows). I have to discover what suits
me and feel comfortable with. I think it is useful
to look at the theory regularly and then, if
necessary, to change my practice (ST11).
The third type of conclusion, mentioned nine
times, stressed the student teacher’s individual
interpretation of ‘order’ and the wish to develop a
personal teaching style.
In general, my mentor and I agree about
‘order’. In practice, I tolerate more than my
mentory. I think this has to do with my own
former secondary school. Basically, it was
hardly ever quiet there. My mentor prefers the
pupils to be quiet, while I don’t mind when the
kids talk quietly to each other. My mentor
already corrects when the kids talk quietly for a
moment, while I only do so when the chatting
of the other ones disturbs other pupils. This
example clearly illustrates the differences be-
tween my mentor and me (ST30).
3.5. The student teachers’ learning experiences with
the instruments
The student teachers were asked what activities
had been initiated by the student teacher assign-
ment. These activities can be interpreted as
learning activities and can be described by the
following categories
* becoming aware of one’s own beliefs about
teaching ( f ¼ 5);
* becoming aware that one’s own beliefs are
situational and relative ( f ¼ 1);
* structuring and relating one’s own beliefs
( f ¼ 10);
* eliciting beliefs of the mentor that were first
unknown to the student teacher ( f ¼ 7);
* structuring the beliefs of the mentor, listing all
the points, and getting an overview in one
moment ( f ¼ 2);
* testing one’s own beliefs about teaching against
those of the mentor ( f ¼ 1).
 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
(The sum of the frequencies can exceed ten,
because an individual student teacher could have
mentioned more than one learning activity.)
Seven student teachers preferred the combina-
tion of concept mapping and completing sentences
because, according to them, both instruments
complemented each other. Completing sentences
yielded concrete, practical, and situation-specific
information, while concept mapping yielded more
abstract and general information. In this way,
the sentences concretized the concept map of the
mentor. One student teacher added that the
concept map was additional to the sentences,
because it forced both student and mentor teacher
to explicate their beliefs in a visual way.
One student teacher preferred the concept map
because she thought the sentences were too
restrictive. This has to do with the specificity of
the sentences, which was also indicated by the
other student teachers. Two student teachers
preferred completing sentences because they
thought this elicited more practical information.
4. Conclusions and discussion
Concept mapping and completing sentences
were evaluated as instruments that could be used
by student teachers as a means to explicate their
own beliefs about teaching and to access their
mentors’ practical knowledge. To this end, instru-
ments resembling those used by researchers on
teachers’ knowledge and beliefs were tested in an
educational context. This was done by answering
the first research question: (a) what is the nature of
the explicated beliefs of the student teachers and of
the elicited practical knowledge of mentors (e.g.,
just descriptions of a mentor’s statements, includ-
ing underlying cognitions and reasoning)? In the
present study, beliefs and practical knowledge
focused on the subject ‘order’. The second research
question was aimed at comparing three
‘information sources’: (b) what do the student
teachers conclude after having compared their
own beliefs about teaching to the mentor’s elicited
practical knowledge and to ‘theory’? Finally, the
student teachers’ perception of the assignment was
investigated in the third research question: (c) how
735
do the student teachers evaluate concept mapping
and completing sentences as a means to access a
part of their mentors’ practical knowledge and
explicating their own beliefs about teaching?
4.1. The nature of the reported practical knowledge,
own beliefs, and ‘theory’
Can student teachers explicate their own beliefs
about teaching and access their mentors’ practical
knowledge through concept mapping and com-
pleting sentences? The assumption was that, if they
could, they should not only reveal statements
about teaching performance, the ‘how’ of teach-
ing, but also reasons underlying teaching, the
‘why’ of teaching. In other words, the reports
should include ‘analytical’ statements reflecting
underlying thinking and reasoning about teaching
instead of only ‘descriptive’ ones (see Table 1).
Another distinction was that between ‘absolute’
and ‘situational’ statements. Situational state-
ments recognize the situational, personal, and
relative character of teaching strategies.
It was shown that the student teachers’ reports
included more absolute than situational state-
ments. This can be explained by the nature of
the professional knowledge of beginners or
‘novices’ and of more experienced mentors. We
know that experienced teachers’ knowledge is
more elaborate, event-based, and consists of
knowledge about typical behaviors, interactions,
and situations (Carter, 1990). It is remarkable that
the student teachers’ descriptions of the mentors’
practical knowledge did not include more situa-
tional statements than did the descriptions of their
own beliefs. The latter would be expected when
reporting on mentors’ practical knowledge. Possi-
bly, the subject ‘order’ is rather general and
principally elicited more absolute statements.
In the report, there was no difference between the
number of descriptive and analytical statements.
When examining parts of the reports, it appeared
that the summaries of the student teachers’ beliefs,
the mentors’ practical knowledge, and the ‘theory’
included a greater number of analytical units,
which was not the case for the written comparisons
between these three sources. This can be explained
by the fact that the student teachers often referred
736 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
to the summaries when describing the compar-
isons. When comparing their own ideas, their
mentors, or the ‘theory’, they did not rehearse the
‘analytical’ descriptions mentioned earlier.
The reports with relatively high scores (HA)
were compared to those with low scores to check
which parts of the assignment had elicited the most
analytical statements. It appeared that the rela-
tively high analytical scores originated from the
descriptions of the student teachers’ own beliefs. It
is not clear whether the HA group could handle the
concept mapping and completing sentences better
or were better at reporting on their own reasoning.
Furthermore, the HA group did not differ in the
number of analytical statements when they re-
ported on mentors’ practical knowledge. Some
questions still remain: was the HA group better at
eliciting their own beliefs in an analytical way,
rather than their mentors’ practical knowledge? Or
were they better able at reporting on their own
beliefs rather than others’ practical knowledge?
These questions have to do with the complexity
of the student teacher assignment that appeals to
several skills, especially when exploring a mentor’s
practical knowledge: conversation, cognitive pro-
cessing, and writing skills. Conversation skills,
such as listening, continuing to ask questions, and
summarizing, are required when the concept map
is discussed with the mentor. Cognitive processing
skills, such as selecting, relating, structuring, and
critical thinking, are required for elaborating
meaningfully the mentor’s concept map and
completed sentences (see Vermunt, 1998). Writing
skills are required for reporting on the elicited
practical knowledge. What is more, the mentors
should also possess skills to verbalize their
practical knowledge. Thus, when student teachers
did not report on their mentors’ practical knowl-
edge, including the reasons underlying teaching, it
is not possible to indicate the immediate cause.
Conversely, when they did, it can be assumed that
they possessed the skills required for this task.
Further research should examine the partial
skills required for eliciting and comparing own
beliefs and mentors’ practical knowledge. This
means that the capacities and motivation of
mentor teachers for explicating their own practical
knowledge should also be investigated more
thoroughly. Other studies could focus on those
student teachers who were not able or not willing
to elicit their own beliefs and their mentor’s
practical knowledge. Thus, it can, for example,
be distinguished whether not supplying analytical
descriptions is due to a lack of elicitation skills, or
a lack of writing skills.
4.2. The student teachers’ conclusions
Having compared their own beliefs about
‘order’, the elicited mentors’ practical knowledge,
and the ‘theory’, the student teachers wrote down
their conclusions. The three conclusions referred
to (a) the definition and process of establishing and
maintaining order, (b) linking the three informa-
tion sources to each other, and (c) developing their
own teaching style.
These conclusions fit the main purposes of the
present study, namely the elicitation of student
teachers’ beliefs and mentors’ practical knowledge,
including the reasons underlying their teaching,
and linking their own beliefs, mentors’ practical
knowledge, and the ‘theory’.
The first conclusion comprises the process of
establishing order, which means that influencing
factors and their reciprocity, clarifications, and
reasoning are involved. When they defined ‘order’,
the student teachers related it to process instead of
to a specific and indisputable state. The second
conclusion, based on linking and comparing their
own beliefs, practical knowledge, and the ‘theory’,
was the second purpose of the study. The third
conclusion, emphasizing the development of a
personal teaching style, follows the second. After
exploring the similarities and differences, student
teachers can deliberately decide to teach in their
own way. Some indicated that they had broadened
their own beliefs on the basis of other sources such
as the mentor or the ‘theory’. Thus, the elicitation
assignment could also serve to test and broaden
own beliefs about teaching.
4.3. The student teachers’ evaluations of the
instruments
Preference for a particular instrument, concept
mapping or completing sentences was investigated
 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
on a small scale to gain more insight into the
motivations for the student teachers’ preferences.
The interviews with ten of the 35 student teachers
showed that a combination of both instruments
was preferred because the two were regarded as
complementary. The interview elicits more con-
crete and practical information, while the concept
map elicits more abstract and general information.
These results contradict those of a previous study
by Zanting et al. (2001a) in which the interview
was greatly preferred. The small group that was
interviewed in the present study and which possibly
was not comparable to the group involved in the
former study may have caused this difference.
Another explanation could be that concept map-
ping was evaluated positively in the present study
because the student teachers had also made their
own concept map. This made possible a compar-
ison between own beliefs, on the one hand, and
practical knowledge and ‘theory’, on the other.
4.4. Implications for teacher training and further
research
On the whole, the student teachers’ assignment
to elicit own beliefs and their mentor’s practical
Appendix A. A student teacher’s concept map
737
knowledge, to study related theory, and to
compare these three ‘sources’ met the purposes
of the present study. Firstly, the student teachers
were able to summarize and report on the views on
‘order’ of the three sources in a way that
comprised reasons underlying teaching. This
means that these statements did not only comprise
the way you can teach, but also the explanation of
and motivations for choices made.
Furthermore, the comparison between own
beliefs, a mentor’s practical knowledge, and the
‘theory’ induces learning activities like becoming
aware of, accommodating, or extending one’s own
beliefs. It is recognized that because of its
restrictive scale this in-depth study cannot im-
mediately be generalized to the whole setting of
teacher training. Nevertheless, the study has
demonstrated that the assignment is worth in-
vestigating and using in an educational context.
The study also showed that student teachers’
beliefs, mentors’ practical knowledge, and scien-
tific knowledge can be connected and elaborated
critically when the three sources are compared
intentionally and systematically. We recommend
that such systematic linking should become a
regular recurring activity in teacher education.
738 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740

This could be achieved in various ways: assign-
ments like in the present study, teacher stories to
be studied by students under the supervision of an
institute teacher, institutionalized discussions be-
tween institute teachers, mentors, and student
teachers, etc.
With regard to the elicitation of practical
knowledge, further research is needed to investi-
gate student teachers who could not deal with the
assignment. It should be determined which of the
required skills, described earlier in this section,
were not sufficient. Subsequently, practice and
coaching could be matched to an individual
student teacher. Furthermore, the reasons why
mentors are not willing or able to collaborate
should be investigated, in order to anticipate these.
Eventually, other ways of eliciting beliefs and
practical knowledge that are mentioned in the
introduction are worth investigating, including for
example, stimulated recall. Stimulated recall is
more directly linked to real teaching and class-
room activities and could possibly, therefore, be
useful to elicit more situation-specific practical
knowledge.

Appendix B. A mentor teacher’s concept map

 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740
References
Beijaard, D., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (1999). Evaluation of
story-line methodology in research on teachers’ practical
knowledge. Studies in Educational Evaluations, 25, 47–62.
Bengtsson, J. (1993). Theory and practice: Two fundamental
categories in the philosophy of teacher education. Educa-
tional Review, 45(3), 205–211.
Black, A. L., & Halliwell, G. (2000). Accessing practical
knowledge: How? Why? Teaching and Teacher Education,
16(1), 103–115.
Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1995). Making sense of teaching.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research
on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51,
211–217.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D.
C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach.
In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher
education (pp. 291–310). New York: Macmillan.
Edwards, A., & Collison, J. (1995). What do teacher mentors
tell student teachers about pupil learning in infant
schools? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(2),
265–279.
Elliott, B., & Calderhead, J. (1994). Mentoring for teacher
development: Possibilities and caveats. In D. McIntyre, H.
Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentoring: Perspectives on
school-based teacher education (pp. 166–189). London:
Kogan Page.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and
competence. London: The Falmer Press.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student
teaching teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 3(4), 255–273.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The
nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of
Research on Teaching, 20, 3–56.
Francis, D. (1995). The reflective journal: A window to
preservice teachers’ practical knowledge. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 11(3), 229–241.
Gonzalez, L. E., & Carter, K. (1996). Correspondence in
cooperating teachers and student teachers interpretations of
classroom events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1),
39–47.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of
epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and
knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 67(1), 88–140.
ICLON. (1997). Persoonlijk Functioneren (Personal develop-
ment as a teacher). Unpublished workbook. Leiden, the
Netherlands: Leiden University.
Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition:
Inferences concerning the Goldilocks principle. Review of
Educational Research, 60(3), 419–469.
739
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice
and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research,
62(2), 129–169.
Leinhardt, G., McCarthy Young, K., & Merriman, J. (1995).
Integrating professional knowledge: The theory of practice
and the practice of theory. Learning and Instruction, 5(4),
401–408.
Martin, J. M., & Kompf, M. (1996). Teaching in inclusive
classroom settings: The use of journals and concept
mapping techniques. In M. Kompf, W. R. Bond, D.
Dworet, & R. T. Boak (Eds.), Changing research and
practice: Teachers professionalism, identities and knowledge
(pp. 90–103). London: The Falmer Press.
Meijer, P. C. (1999). Teachers practical knowledge: Teaching
reading comprehension in secondary education. Doctoral
dissertation. Leiden, the Netherlands: Leiden University.
Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (1999). Exploring
language teachers’ practical knowledge about teaching
reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education,
15(1), 59–84.
Olson, P. M., & Carter, K. (1989). The capabilities of
cooperating teachers in USA schools for communicating
knowledge about teaching. Journal of Education for Teach-
ing, 15(2), 113–131.
Oosterheert, I. E., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). Individual
differences in learning to teach: Relating cognition, regula-
tion and affect. Learning and Instruction, 11(2), 133–156.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational
research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Penny, A. J., Harley, K. L., & Jessop, T. S. (1996). Towards a
language of possibility: Critical reflection and mentorship in
initial teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 2(1), 57–69.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in
learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan.
Scho. n, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Solas, J. (1992). Investigating teacher and student thinking
about the process of teaching and learning using autobio-
graphy and repertory grid. Review of Educational Research,
62(2), 205–225.
Tillema, H. H. (1994). Training and professional expertise:
Bridging the gap between new information and pre-existing
belief of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(6),
601–615.
Tomlinson, P. (1995). Understanding mentoring: Reflective
strategies for school-based teacher preparation. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning
processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68,
149–171.
Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction
between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9,
257–280.
740 A. Zanting et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 725–740

Wilson, V., & Pirrie, A. (1999). Developing professional
competence: Lessons from the emergency room. Studies in
Higher Education, 24(2), 211–224.
Winitzky, N., Kauchak, D., & Kelly, M. (1994). Measuring
teachers structural knowledge. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 10(2), 125–139.
Zanting, A., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J.D. (2001a).
Using interviews and concept maps to access mentor
teachers’ practical knowledge. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Zanting, A., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J.D. (2001b). Student
teachers’ beliefs about mentoring and learning to teach
during teaching practice. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 57–80.