Teaching & Teacher Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.

173-188, 1995
Pergamon Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0742-051X(94)00025-5 07424)51 X/95 $9.50+0.00

"SOMEBODY TO COUNT ON": MENTOR/INTERN RELATIONSHIPS

IN A BEGINNING TEACHER INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

SANDRA K. ABELL, D E B O R A H R. D I L L O N , C A R O L J. H O P K I N S ,
W I L L I A M D. M c l N E R N E Y , and D A V I D G. O ' B R I E N
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, U.S.A.

A~a'act--The purpose of this qualitative interview study was to illuminate mentor and intern
participants' relationships in one state-mandated beginning teacher internship program. We
analyzed interview data from 29 mentors and interns using within- and cross-case analysis and
generated categories and properties with supporting interview excerpts to show how mentors and
interns interpreted and adapted their roles. Findings of the study indicate that mentors and interns
jointly construct their relationships; these relationships are undergirded by the respect and trust
the two individuals have for each other. Furthermore, interns appear to need mentors who first,
and foremost, support them as fledgling teachers. Interns also need mentors who assume flexible
roles and who adapt their roles based on interns' needs.

Interest in beginning teacher induction programs
has spread rapidly in the U.S.A. Results of a 1983
survey conducted by Defino and Hoffman (1984)
indicated that four states had teacher induction
programs, three were piloting programs, and
seven others were in the planning stages. By 1988
a report of the American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education (Neuweiler, 1988) re-
vealed that only three states had no state-level
activity on teacher induction.
An examination of programs with published
guidelines shows that beginning teacher induc-
tion programs across the U.S.A. and in other
countries share m a n y features (Defino & Hoff-
man, 1984; H a w k & Robards, 1987; Helmich,
1985; Huling-Austin & Murphy, 1987; Huling-
Austin, Odell, Ishler, Kay, & Edelfelt, 1989;
Queensland Board of Teacher Registration,
1991). For example, programs are typically de-
signed to assist and assess the first-year teacher,
and teacher certification is often contingent upon
successful completion of the induction year. The
use of experienced teachers as mentors is com-
mon. Most programs include mentor training,
although the nature and degree of training varies
(Dinham, 1992; Nevins & Weingart, 1991). Be-
ginning teacher induction programs also vary in
several ways: the level of funding, the involve-
ment of university educators on the support
teams, and the creation of professional develop-
ment plans to assist the beginning teacher. Fur-
thermore, programs developed in some states
have unique features. The North Carolina pro-
gram, for example, requires 2 years for the
induction period, whereas other states require a
1-year induction (Hawk, 1986-1987); and in New
York State assessment is not part of the intern-
ship year (Bower, 1989; Bower & Yarger, 1989;
Mager & Corwin, 1988).
Evaluation of beginning teacher induction
programs is still in the preliminary stages in most
states. Completed program evaluations rely on
limited data, based mainly on intern and mentor
responses to large-scale questionnaires (Duke &

Authors are listed in alphabetical order. Everyone contributed equally to this work.
We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Mark Volkmann who helped us collect interview data and provided
helpful comments during initial analysis sessions.

173
174 SANDRA K. ABELL et al.
Gates, 1990; Tellez, 1992). Evaluations conduct-
ed so far indicate that beginning teachers in
induction programs improve in self-confidence
and classroom management (Connor, 1984), les-
son planning and discipline (Eisner, 1984), and
specific behaviors such as voice inflection, eye
contact, and review techniques (Huling-Austin
& Murphy, 1987). Research results also indicate
that teachers involved in induction programs
have more positive attitudes toward teaching
and plan to continue in the profession longer
than those who have not participated in such
programs (Henry, 1988; Odell & Ferraro, 1992;
Varah, Theune, & Parker, 1986).
These outcome-based studies provide an ar-
gument for the perpetuation of beginning teacher
induction programs, an argument that is valu-
able to ensure continued financial support. How-
ever, outcome-based studies provide little data
to substantiate how programs function for per-
sons most directly involved in them. Although
the logistics of the programs are typically man-
dated by law, we know little about how the
mandates are interpreted and carried out by
beginning teachers, mentors, and administrators
in their individual schools. Researchers have
examined practice in induction programs
through interviews (Ackley & Gall, 1992; Gan-
ser, 1991, 1993; Huling-Austin & Murphy, 1987;
Renwick & Vize, 1993) and analyses of men-
tor/intern logs and conversations (Anctil, 1991;
Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1990; Thompson,
1991; Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992)
and classroom observation (Schaffer, Stringfield,
& Wolfe, 1992; Vonk, 1993). Nevertheless, edu-
cators have m u c h to learn about the men-
tor/intern relationship as participants perceive
it. This perspective is particularly valuable as we
implement these programs and consider other
reforms in teacher education.
Purpose of the Study
In 1987 the General Assembly of the State of
Indiana enacted a package of school reform
legislation (PL 390) consisting of eight compo-
nents, including the Beginning Teacher Intern-
ship Program (BTIP). In the Indiana plan be-
ginning teachers with an initial standard license
serve a 1-year internship. Mentors, who receive
a $600 stipend, are appointed by superintendents
via recommendations of building principals. The
law specifies that these mentors should, whenever
possible, have at least 5 years of teaching experi-
ence, teach at a grade level similar to the intern
and/or similar subjects, teach in the same build-
ing as the intern, and be outstanding teachers
with the ability to guide beginning teachers
through the experience. The Department of
Education offers a half-day mentor training
program that addresses adult learning theory,
conferencing skills, observation techniques, and
methods for giving constructive advice. The
mentors work with interns to implement plans
developed locally by school districts that assist
beginning teachers "in the performance of their
duties" and identify "skills and educational prac-
tices necessary to acquire and maintain excel-
lence in teaching" (Indiana State Board of Edu-
cation Administrative Rule 511 IAC 10-7, 1987).
Hence, mentor/intern relationships are largely
constructed by the individuals involved in the
local, on-site program rather than following
strict top-down state guidelines. Each intern is
evaluated by the building principal using a
state-designed evaluation checklist. If the prin-
cipal deems that the beginning teacher has not
successfully completed the internship program,
that teacher may participate in additional intern-
ship programs with the same or different school
district; but, to embark on a teaching career in
Indiana, the beginning teacher must successfully
complete an internship program.
Three years after the Indiana BTIP was for-
mulated a consortium of state agencies was
formed to assess the impact of the BTIP and the
other seven initiatives under PL 390. Under the
auspices of this consortium, we were asked to
conduct an evaluation of the BTIP, culminating
in a report to the state legislature (Sorge, Abell,
Dillon, Hopkins, McInerney, & O'Brien, 1990).
The legislature wanted to know if the beginning
teachers participating in the BTIP benefit from
the experience. Are they more effective than
beginning teachers not serving in such an intern-
ship? Should the state continue to fund the
program? Was the program returning value for
the money allocated for it? As we designed a
study to answer questions posed by the legisla-
ture, we decided to expand the study to include
a component that would enable us to find out
how the participants in the BTIP interpreted
their roles and responsibilities in the program.
 Mentor Intern Relationship 175

We were interested in the meanings that begin-
ning teachers and mentors constructed about the
mentor/intern process.
The purpose of this study, then, was to illumi-
nate participants' perspectives on their roles in
one state-mandated beginning teacher internship
program, the BTIP. Such information is needed
to help educators understand the vested interests,
values, and goals of the persons most likely to
sustain and shape the success of the p r o g r a m s - -
the mentors and beginning teachers. The follow-
ing research questions guided the study: (a) H o w
do mentors and interns in the BTIP view the
program and their roles within it? (b) How and
about what do the mentors and interns in the
BTIP interact?
Methodology
We used qualitative methodology to under-
stand the program as the participants under-
stood it, using their language and voices. The
five members of our research team are faculty
members involved with teacher and administra-
tor preparation, each of whom has prior experi-
ence teaching in public schools. Each of us
previously had conducted qualitative research
studies about teaching and learning involving
interviewing. Two team members teach courses
in qualitative research methodology and pro-
vided expertise in data analysis techniques. We
assumed a phenomenological theoretical per-
spective (Polkinghorne, 1983; Van Manen, 1990),
while interviewing participants in the BTIP.
Within this theoretical framework we described
the "lived experiences" of the mentors and
interns involved in the BTIP. Such a perspective,
we believed, would distill the essence of the
experience from participants who were not as-
signed clearly specified roles in the program. This
perspective would enable us to see how they
constructed the relationships as they lived
through the experience. Further, we believed that
this phenomenological perspective would yield
valuable insights for a variety of professionals
participating in and evaluating such programs
(mentors and beginning teachers, policy-makers,
and state and local agencies responsible for
planning and implementing beginning teacher
induction programs).
Selection and Description of the Sites and
Participants
To answer our research questions, we pur-
posively selected (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984) four
elementary, three middle, and four high schools
from four Indiana school districts to participate
in the study. The school district sites were

Table 1
Summary of Site and Participant Data
Sites Settings Number of schools Number of participants by teaching
Number of students assignment
Types Elementary Middle H i g h Totals Elementary Middle High Totals
1 1 combined 2
Hartley Rural 684 533 1,217 1 3 3 7

McKenzie Semi-rural 2 1 1 4 2 3 10 15
1,090 310 527 1,927
White Small 4 1 1 6 5 5 6 16
urban 945 418 568 1,931
Firth Urban 34 11 6 51 6 1 1 8
16,042 6,900 8,904 31,846
Total 46*
* Represents the total number of mentors, interns, and teachers not directly involved in the Mentor-Intern Program who
were interviewed.
176 SANDRA K. ABELL et al.

Table 2

Mentors and Interns*

Mentors Interns Subjects/grades/proximity School sites Nature of relationships

Roy John History/Eighth grade/Adjacent White Middle School Ongoing, daily, informal. Roy
rooms assumes a big brother role.
Cheri Karen Kindergarten team teachers/ Firth Elementary School Ongoing, daily, informal.
Karen is at two different Cheri acts as "sounding board."
schools, one in which Cheri
teaches
Kate Holly English/High school/Same McKenzie High School Formal at first with scheduled
wing meetings. Later more informal.
Kate is always available to
help and "model" for Holly.
Bruce Patrick Algebra; geometry and Hartley High School Bruce perceives the relationship
trigonometry, respectively/ as open and considers himself
High school/Adjacent rooms open. Patrick doesn't see any
viable relationship.
Emily Lisa English/High school/Same White High School Ongoing, informal, meet on an
hallway as-needed basis. Emily is
Lisa's
safety net.
Carmen Mike Carmen English/Middle Carmen--White Middle Carmen assumes a more
and school/Different buildings; School; Terry and Mike-- directive role to "bail Mike
Terry Terry and Mike--Science/ White High School out" of discipline problems
High school/Same building to give him some reality
therapy. Terry offers science
teaching advice.
Bridgett Rachel Third grade; second grade, White Elementary School Bridgett is open and available
respectively/Same building to discuss a variety of
problems. They have weekly
meetings with a flexible
agenda or list of items to
discuss.
Sandra Deanna English; language arts, Hartley Junior High/ Open, supportive Sandra
respectively/High school; High School (combined) "checks in" on Deanna
junior high, respectively/ periodically and makes herself
Different wings available to help Deanna
solve problems; tries hard not
to mold her.

* Represents mentor-intern pairs that we interviewed. We also interviewed other mentors and interns but not their respective
partners.

selected to represent a balance of socioeconomic respectively, to Firth, a sizeable urban district

and academic levels as well as both urban and
rural communities. Table 1 shows the sites and
participant distribution in the sites; pseudonyms
are used to represent the names of schools,
interns, and mentors. As Table 1 illustrates, the
range in sites was considerable from Hartley, a
very small, two-school rural school district, to
McKenzie and White, districts situated in a
semi-rural and moderately sized small town,
with the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity
typical of large districts.
The participants selected from each site in-
cluded the following personnel: (a) teachers not
directly involved in the BTIP (17); (b) teachers
serving as mentors (15); and (c) beginning teacher
interns (14). In sum, we interviewed 46 teachers
from 11 school sites. We also interviewed 12
principals and 4 central office administrators.
 Mentor-Intern Relationship
For the purposes of this paper we focus our
analyses on the responses of the teachers, par-
ticularly the 8 mentor/intern pairs displayed in
Table 2. These pairs were matched for a variety
of reasons, determined primarily by individual
principals and central office administrators. Cri-
teria used by administrators to select mentors
varied, but included the following: similar con-
tent area for secondary teachers or similar grade
level for elementary teachers; the ability to work
with people and to coach new teachers; prior
success in teaching and working with student
teachers; proximity of mentor to intern (same
building, next door); desire to help a new col-
league and/or a sense of responsibility to the
profession. Administrators selected teachers who
volunteered (or who were approached by the
principal) and were in the same discipline area
or grade level as the intern with two exceptions:
Two school counselor mentors were matched
with an agricultural education intern and a
special education intern, respectively. These ex-
ceptions were due to the lack of another teacher
in those discipline areas. When an administrator
had only one volunteer mentor to make a
discipline area match, then he or she often chose
this individual, even if the discipline match was
not exact (general mathematics vs. algebra) or
the mentor was not an outstanding teacher.
However, if an administrator had several volun-
teer mentors who matched the discipline or grade
level needs of interns, he or she selected (or asked)
staff members who were identified as excellent
teachers, who worked well with people, and who
had and would invest the time necessary to work
with an intern.
Data Collection
Before we visited the schools included in our
sample, we collected information from several
different sources to provide an overview of the
BTIP. First, we reviewed literature on similar
programs in other states. Second, we reviewed
and re-analyzed statewide survey and interview
data previously collected by the Indiana State
Department of Education. Third, to understand
the design and progress of the BTIP, we inter-
viewed the state department director of the BTIP
program. Findings from our re-analysis of exist-
ing data and the BTIP director's interview
indicated that the program was largely successful
177
as perceived by school-based administrators,
mentor and non-mentor teachers, and interns.
However, the state data were summarized in a
way that collapsed responses (e.g., everyone who
strongly agreed or agreed on an item might be
included in one total) masking individual dif-
ferences. Moreover, the survey failed to elicit
information on why the BTIP was perceived as
successful. We determined that additional data
were needed to obtain a clear picture of the
impressions and perspectives of participants and
decided to use interviews to elicit their perspec-
tives.
We jointly developed a structured interview
guide (Patton, 1990) that addressed gaps in the
previous program evaluation. The guide in-
cluded initial and follow-up questions to insure
that the interviews were carried out in a similar
manner. Using the interview guide, we targeted
how participants viewed the BTIP, if they viewed
the program as useful, and what they believed
could be done to allow the program to reach its
full potential. For example, in one question we
asked participants if they agreed with the state
department survey that showed that beginning
teachers who participated in the BTIP demon-
strated improved teaching performance. When
respondents discussed the state department find-
ings in terms of their own experiences, we probed
to find out what benefits they perceived from
their involvement with the program and what
evidence they had for improved performance
among their colleagues. Further, we asked par-
ticipants to explain the costs versus the benefits
in terms of their direct experience and to elab-
orate on factors they viewed as most important
in determining the success of the BTIP. The
participants' responses focused on issues such as
physical proximity and matches in content, grade
level, and personalities of mentors and interns.
When the interview guide failed to provide useful
information, we probed responses for further
elaboration.
To collect data without intruding excessively
on teachers' time and schedules, we formed a
team of six interviewers (five university re-
searchers and one graduate student) and for 2
days during the fall of the school year we met
with teachers during their planning periods or
released time. Because we had not met the
participants before the interview sessions, rap-
port and trust had to be established quickly. We
178 SANDRA K. ABELL et al.
did this by stating up front that our purpose was
not to evaluate participants' practices. Rather,
our purpose was to understand how the program
was being enacted in various school districts and
by various individuals. We conducted interviews
in a variety of settings including classrooms,
teachers' lounges/work areas, and libraries. The
interview sessions lasted approximately 30-40
minutes. We taped the interviews and transcribed
the comments verbatim.
Data Analysis
We analyzed the interview transcripts using
within- and cross-case analysis (Patton, 1990).
First, we individually analyzed each interview
transcript as a single case, looking for themes or
patterns in the participants' responses to inter-
view questions. Specific analysis strategies in-
cluded the use of line-by-line codes (Strauss,
1987) to highlight segments of transcripts that
related to our research questions. For example,
using this process we marked segments in the
transcripts where participants referred to their
perceptions of the BTIP; we noted how mentors
and interns referred to each other and viewed
their respective roles; we also noted what sorts
of issues they talked about. During the process
we made note of metaphors that individual
mentors and interns used in referring to their
roles. To corroborate our initial analyses and
triangulate our emerging findings, we met weekly
as a team for several months to compare and
discuss the rationale behind our coding of the
transcripts. From this process we generated
emerging categories and properties that we then
used to re-analyze and continue analyzing the
data. These data analysis sessions also provided
us with the opportunity to discuss emerging
findings we could test later as we delved further
into the data.
Second, we extended the within-case analysis
by conducting a cross-case analysis (Patton,
1990) of all mentors and then all interns. We
used constant comparative analysis (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967) to examine all mentors' responses,
looking for relevant themes and patterns and
repeated the analysis process for beginning
teachers. In this cross-case analysis we searched
for patterns or validated patterns that had
emerged in the within-case analysis and looked
across all like cases for similar or discrepant
cases. For instance, we substantiated the men-
tors' view of their roles as supportive and noted
that interns appreciated not only the support but
the confidentiality in their relationships with
mentors.
Third, we conducted a cross-case analysis
defining mentor/intern pairs as cases. We
searched for patterns and discrepancies between
what mentors and their respective interns said
about the BTIP. We noted that, for the most
part, members of each mentor/intern pair tended
to support their partner's perceptions about
respective roles and the value of the BTIP.
Finally, we synthesized the within-case and
cross-case analyses to generate overall findings.
We first worked individually on each phase of
the analysis; we then met as a group to discuss
and pool our findings. This process helped us
triangulate our findings via multiple researcher
perspectives, adding to the reliability and validity
of the study. The end result of our individual
and collective analyses and integration sessions
was the generation of the findings discussed in
the next section.
Findings and Discussion
Three overall findings emerged during our
analysis of the mentor/intern interview tran-
scripts (see Figure 1). These findings focus on
why mentors choose to work with interns, the
various helping roles assumed by mentors in-
stead of evaluator roles, and the need for trust
and respect between mentors and interns for the
relationship to succeed. We discuss these findings
and then present categories and properties that
support the findings and illustrate (a) the nature
of the roles assumed by mentors, and (b) the
nature of the interactions between mentors and
interns.
First, we found that mentors believed that
working with beginning teachers was important;
they believed it was their responsibility to their
individual school system and to the teaching
profession to get new teachers off to a good start.
In general, mentors viewed their job as taking
the "raw goods" that the university sent them
and helping fledgling teachers develop and
evolve into a finished product. This view is
exemplified in a middle school science teacher's
comment: "First of all they [interns] come in
r a w - - n o matter how much student teaching you
 Mentor-Intern Relationship 179

Overall Findings

1. Mentors believe it is important to work with interns; it is their responsibility as

professionals.
2. Mentors assume "helping" roles as opposed to an evaluator role when working
with interns.
3. Respect and trust, developed during interactions between mentors and interns,
were crucial to successful relationships.

Category No. 1 Category No. 2

Mentors assume a variety of "helping" roles. Interactions between mentors and interns develop
respect and trust.

I
Properties Properties.

I I I I I I I
parent support colleague scaffolder location meetings topics
figure system and and discussed
and mentor format during
trouble- and intern meetings
shooter relations

Figure 1. Overall findings.

do. No matter how m a n y education classes you
attend it never prepares you for everything you
need to do" (Susan, mentor).
Second, mentors did not see themselves as
evaluators. Rather, mentors saw themselves as
persons who offered help to the intern:
He [the intern] has to understand that I ' m there for
one reason: not to criticize, but to help . . . . Because
we are mentors, that in itself says we k n o w that [the
intern] is going to have q u e s t i o n s . . , problems. We're
not here to threaten. We're here to help. (Frank,
mentor)
Another mentor added to this perspective of
helping rather than evaluating: "There are so
m a n y things that a new teacher comes into
contact with that they have no idea about and
I think it's great that they have somebody that
they can count on" (John, mentor). Hence,
mentors believed their role was to be helpful
rather than evaluative; to be there for an intern
who, it was assumed, might have difficulties
adjusting to the new role of teacher.
Several intern comments support the idea that
the mentor's primary role is to help and not to
evaluate. As one English intern stated: " I n an
internship I have this teacher who has been
assigned to me I feel like I've been given a net.
... And she's not evaluating me so she can help
me out and say, 'Well, why don't we try this?'
I have someone there for me" (Lisa, intern).
Another intern corroborated this sense of sup-
port over evaluation by stating:
If you have someone that you can go to with your
questions or y o u r concerns and that relationship is a
supportive one, and [I d o n ' t ] fear that if I tell her
[my m e n t o r ] that I ' m having a hard time that it will
be used for evaluative purposes, [then] I think it's
[the internship] a great idea. (Deanna, intern)
Third, interactions between mentors and in-
terns facilitated the development of mutual re-
spect and trust that bind mentor and intern
together. The intern's perceptions of the men-
tor's experience and knowledge about students
and content contributed to the intern's respect
for the mentor. Shauna stressed the importance
of the interns' perceptions of their mentors:
"She's an enthusiastic teacher and she's one who
teaches because she thoroughly enjoys learning.
That can be contagious" (Shauna, intern). The
success of the mentor/intern relationship is also
180 SANDRA K. ABELL et al.
predicated on the assumption that the mentor
and intern like each other and can work together.
Mentors mentioned this personal aspect of the
relationship: "Fortunately our personalities are
very close . . . . I think the personality thing would
be there. If you have somebody that you can't
stand or whom you feel is an inadequate teacher,
it would be very difficult not to be judgmental
in that case" (Susan, mentor). However, if interns
lacked professional respect for their mentors, the
relationship was perceived as less useful. Even
with a viable personal relationship, one in which
the intern and mentor reported talking openly
and frequently, diminished professional respect
detracted from the mentoring relationship. Pat-
rick, a high school mathematics intern who
discussed his mentor, offered comments support-
ing this position: "I haven't talked with him
much. For one thing, I don't think he could teach
my class. I like him a lot--we're friends--but as
far as a mentor I'm not sure he's gonna benefit
me as much as someone else that I wanted to
go and talk to" (Patrick, intern). Implied in
Patrick's comment is the belief that his mentor,
a person he likes and talks with socially, has little
to offer him professionally. Patrick does not
respect his mentor's advice. Ironically, his men-
tor reported that he was proud of all the experi-
ence he brought to the relationship. However,
the mentor placed his professional competence
in his years of experience dealing with high
school students, motivating them and implemen-
ting workable classroom management. Patrick,
however, used subject area expertise as the
yardstick to measure his mentor's competence.
When Patrick expressed doubt about his men-
tor's ability to teach his class, he commented
about his mentor's relative lack of subject area
coursework relative to his own. When Patrick
referred to his lack of professional conversation
with his mentor, he mentioned conversations
about mathematics instruction and teaching ad-
vanced mathematics concepts. Patrick empha-
sized the importance of his mentor's professional
competence. He tried to emphasize the personal
relationship to offset his negativism about the
professional competence. Nevertheless, without
professional trust and respect, a relationship in
which ideas are freely shared could not be
developed. Overall, the mentor/intern partner-
ships we observed were successful relationships
built on mutual trust and respect.
In the remainder of the results section we
define categories and properties derived from
interview comments made by interns and men-
tors. By displaying the categories and properties
we generated, with supporting interview ex-
cerpts, we will show how the pairs of mentors
and interns interpreted and adapated their roles
to define the unique relationships we observed.
Category No. 1 : Role Definitions
Mentors assume a variety o f roles when working
with their respective interns. These roles range
from those the mentors believed they should
assume to roles they assumed based on cues
received from the interns. These roles can be
understood in terms of the actions the mentors
displayed as well as the relationships that were
constructed. Most mentors had predefined no-
tions of what their role should be (e.g., support
system, colleague), whereas a small number
stated that they were not sure what their role
should be until they received some information
from the intern: "I was appreciative [of the intern
coming to me with questions] because I wasn't
real sure at the beginning what my role was to
be" (Ted, mentor). In the next section we will
present properties generated from the interview
data that support this category.
7he mentor as parent figure. Mentors talked
about their perceived need to help the intern
without trying to mold that individual into the
mentor's preconceived model of a good teacher.
The parent figure role was defined by mentors
who believed that they had to let interns develop
into the kind of teachers they desired to be and
yet be there for the intern to talk, offer advice,
answer questions, and help solve problems. One
mentor commented about the mentor-as-parent
role saying: "There's a real fine line between
mentoring and mothering. You want to have a
sharing of ideas but you don't want to dictate"
(Sharon, mentor). Some interns also saw mentors
in a parent role, as exemplified in Jill's comment:
"She was kind of like a mother hen or whatever
leading me around" (Jill, intern).
However, mentors appeared to have difficulty
striking the right balance between protecting the
intern from serious difficulty and, at the same
time, allowing the intern to learn from mistakes.
As one mentor said: "One of the problems I have
 Mentor-Intern Relationship
is ... just when do I stay out of his way?
Sometimes the best way to learn is to fall flat on
our faces. And it's very difficult to step back and
allow that to happen" (Roy, mentor). Like a
parent the mentor wants to protect the intern
and yet promote independence. Thus, mentors
often struggle with just how much to intervene
and when to stay out of the way. Mentors work
toward achieving this balance, along with know-
ing what type of help to provide.
The mentor as support system and trouble-
shooter. This role, closely aligned with the role
of mentor as parent, is defined as one of sup-
porting and helping the intern on a day-to-day
basis and during moments of crisis. Several
metaphors were used by mentors to describe
their supportive role: "I think of it [my support-
ive role as mentor] as the foot of the tree and
hope that the branches a r e going to develop"
(Susan, mentor). "I think that the first-year
teacher is the balloon and the mentor teacher is
the ballast to kind of keep the balloon from going
WAAA !" (Joan, mentor). " I ' m kind of the mor-
tar in the bricks, I might say, or the support
system for her not to become discouraged the
first year" (Frank, mentor). The metaphors men-
tors used to describe their relationships with
interns were telling. Mentors saw themselves
bound to the interns in a special way; moreover,
they saw themselves as the stronger portion of
the partnership. Without their support the intern
could fail as a first-year teacher.
Specific examples of the mentor as support
system included the mentor initially helping the
intern learn the knowledge needed to survive in
a school setting. The intern needed this knowl-
edge before attending to the more complex issues
of teaching. Survival knowledge included meet-
ing other faculty, getting to know the principal,
becoming accustomed to the school climate, and
figuring out routine tasks such as how to take
lunch count and ways to cut through the red
tape of school procedures. As one intern stated:
" [ T h e mentor/intern program is] a tool for social
acceptance as a teacher. It helps with giving you
a connection on the faculty and helping you to
build those feelings and having you understand
that another teacher says, yes you're o k " (John,
intern). Another intern commented: " H e ' s there
and he's been through the things you've been
through. [My mentor] is a ' b a c k u p ' " (Mike,
181
intern). Interns further perceived the mentor as
a support when the mentors served as a source
of information someone who can step in and
help, a person who knows what you're going
through and who can talk to you when you might
not feel safe with someone else: " I know where
I can go to ask a question ... before I fall and
fail I have someone I can go to" (Holly, intern).
Mentors also saw themselves as individuals
who can help interns head off trouble. Mentors
knew that interns were entering strange new
ground and they were bound to feel uneasy. For
example, one mentor commented: "They [in-
terns] feel like they have somebody that they can
go to before they make a major boo boo and
then can't fix it" (Carmen, mentor). Another
commented: "She [the intern] saw me as a
person to get answers from and I feel that's
probably what my role should have been" (Cheri,
mentor).
The mentor as troubleshooter was also implic-
it in interns' responses. For example, one intern
shared: "She [my mentor] can help me out and
say 'Well, why don't we try this?' I have someone
there to mediate for me, to be there for m e "
(Karen, intern). Another intern conveyed a slight
twist on this notion:
She should be someone I can go to and say, 'This
didn't go very well. Do you have a suggestion?'
Someone that is there to tell me that this [making
mistakes] is okay, and this is to be expected, and this
is something that I [as your mentor] can do to make
it easier. (Holly, intern)
In sum, support was a primary need of m a n y
interns. They counted on their mentor to be there
for them to help them feel comfortable and.
accepted in the school. Further, interns knew
that they had someone who would work to
ensure that they did not fail as a teacher, and
when they did make mistakes their mentor would
help them solve the problem and determine what
they should do the next time.
The mentor as colleague. Along with the
parent figure and support system/troubleshooter
roles, mentors also assumed the role of colleague
and fellow learner. In this role mentors and
interns believed that each could bring new ideas
to the other to reflect upon. For example, by
asking questions of the mentor, interns caused
mentors to reflect upon their current beliefs and
practices. Mentors were also the trusted people
182 SANDRA K. ABELL et al.
interns could talk to as comrades; s o m e o n e to
learn from a n d to respect. As one intern related:
I just went to her for advice, and she gave me some,
and I followed it and it worked out beautifully. . . .
I've talked to her about my grading policy--whether
or not I should fix it or change it or how I should
get it organized. I've talked to her about lessons--a
bit of everything. She's kind of like my expert source
on hand. (Deanna, intern)
The same intern said that she felt like a colleague
when the m e n t o r acknowledged that she also
learned from her:
[After observing each other teach] It's important for
teachers to share their ideas ... we seem afraid to [be
observed] for fear that we'll be judged, but I think
that probably for a teacher who is established to have
someone brand new come in with new ideas it's bound
to recharge you a bit and [mentors] start thinking,
'Well gee, that was a good idea, I think I'll try that
too.' (Deanna, intern)
Different from the role of s u p p o r t sys-
tem/troubleshooter, m e n t o r s as colleagues
modeled that they valued the expertise interns
had to offer them. I n t e r n s learned that talk a b o u t
issues between trusted colleagues is a valuable
activity.
The m e n t o r as scaffolder. This role is based o n
the experiences the m e n t o r has had as a teacher,
specifically his or her knowledge of ways to work
with students, design curriculum, a n d solve class-
r o o m problems. Thus, m e n t o r s had paths or
models already outlined in their heads for how
they addressed everyday issues. I n the role of
m e n t o r as scaffolder, m e n t o r s shared these
knowledges with interns, showing them how to
teach a lesson a n d o u t l i n i n g potential problems.
Then, the intern had a conceptual scaffold u p o n
which to build experiences as a teacher. Often
the interns began by requesting basic informa-
tion a n d then m o v e d b e y o n d teaching tips to
more substantive talk on how to think a b o u t
teaching. F o r example, interns first believed that
they had to learn what to do to survive o n a
d a y - t o - d a y basis. T h e n interns addressed issues
that arose a b o u t how to better teach a concept,
motivate particular students, a n d c o m m u n i c a t e
with parents, teaching a n d learning issues that
unfolded in complexity over the school year.
However, the i n t e r n s ' need for scaffolding was
o n g o i n g in that they had p r o b l e m s t h r o u g h o u t
their first year with certain aspects of teaching,
such as discipline.
Interviews with m e n t o r s a n d interns sup-
ported the n o t i o n of m e n t o r as scaffolder:
An intern came to me with a problem and 1 thought,
gee the solution to that seems real simple to me. But
then I thought, well, I'd been teaching for 19 years,
too. I suggested a couple of things to him and he said,
'Oh, those are really good ideas.' I thought, well
shouldn't he have thought of that? But then it brought
back some things to me. Some problems I've had. So
if nothing else, we can help them avoid some of the
mistakes we made, (Joan, mentor)
A n o t h e r response depicts m e n t o r s ' knowledge of
paths already m a p p e d out to follow a n d the
i n t e r n s ' need for this scaffolding:
It's like, OK, when do you send a referral? When do
you write a detention? How do you handle a parent
who calls in and says such and such? [My intern
doesn't know this information.] I even went with my
intern to her first parent teacher conferencesjust as
a support person rather than have her go in by herself
and face people she'd never faced before and had no
idea how to handle... [When things happen you need
somebody who says] Here, let's sit down and set up
a plan of attack for what we are gonna do. (Karen,
mentor)
Interns, too, c o m m e n t e d o n the m e n t o r s ' role as
scaffolder:
I appreciated her saying, 'I know what you're going
through--I've been through it too. It will get better.'
She offered ideas [because she knew the kids from
working with them last year] of getting them to work
more quietly and some other things she had tried
before and I think that was the best advice--her own
experiences [how she did things]. (Janet, intern)
In sum, m e n t o r s served interns by helping
them move b e y o n d basic s u p p o r t by p r o v i d i n g
specific help on how to teach. M e n t o r s provided
this help by sharing their own experiences about,
for example, how to talk to parents. T h r o u g h
sharing past experiences the m e n t o r provided a
path or scaffold for the intern to use to learn
how to plan, p r o b l e m solve, a n d avoid mistakes.
The I n d i a n a law asks the m e n t o r to assume
a coaching (or scaffolder) role rather than an
evaluative role. Performance e v a l u a t i o n a n d the
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of successful c o m p l e t i o n of the
internship p r o g r a m is left up to the principal.
The m e n t o r s we interviewed agreed that scaffold-
er rather t h a n e v a l u a t o r was the role they w a n t e d
to assume: "I d o n ' t t h i n k we're here to weed out
the b a d teachers. W e ' r e trying to help the new
teachers get better" (Bruce, mentor). A n o t h e r
stated, " I t h i n k [the internship] is a p r o g r a m
 Mentor Intern Relationship
that can provide help for a person. Not necess-
arily, 'Oh my gosh ! They did horrible.., so let's
get rid of them.' I think it's more to help. Not
to nail them" (Bridgett, mentor).
Even in the case of Mike, an intern who had
great trouble with his first year of high school
science teaching, the evaluator role was not
assumed by his mentors. Mike's first mentor,
Terry, who also taught high school science, saw
Mike as a teacher with few skills. For such
teachers she felt the mentor's role was one of
helper, not evaluator: "You try and help them
live up to their potential" (Terry, mentor). Car-
men, a second mentor assigned to Mike to help
him deal with discipline problems, felt that the
mentor program saved Mike. " H a d he not had
[the internship] program and someone to come
to, he would have died in the classroom" (Car-
men, mentor). Both mentors left performance
evaluation up to the principal and tried to focus
their efforts on helping a teacher in need.
The roles mentors assumed were important
and powerful in determining the comfort level
of beginning teachers. Further, the roles mentors
and interns assumed defined the interaction
patterns between the two and what each learned
from the other. Thus, the second category and
supporting properties are influenced by and
intertwined with the first category.
Category No. 2." Interactions Between the
Mentors and Interns
As mentors and interns interact with one an-
other they develop a bond of trust between col-
leagues and respect for the knowledge each gains
from the other. Respect and trust were built
between interns and mentors via the proximity
of the pairs to each other, the frequency and
format of meetings between the pairs, and the
topics discussed during meetings. Specifically, we
found that the most meaningful and helpful
mentor/intern relationships were those in which
the mentor and intern were in close proximity
to each other. Close proximity allowed frequent
interactions and confidential talk about teach-
ing, learning, discipline, and the like. In the next
section we will present properties generated from
the data that support the second category.
Proximity of mentor/intern pairs. In the best
possible scenario mentors and interns were
183
located in the same building and in classrooms
near each other. This close proximity allowed
the mentor and intern to see each other frequent-
ly and the intern to view the mentor as accessible.
John, a mentor, supports this notion: "We're
right next door. And there's hardly a day that
goes by that we don't communicate a concern
or interest." Another mentor said: "He's like two
classrooms down the hall. He'll come in Eto my
classroom] between periods [to talk]" (Jim,
mentor). Mentors seemed to like this easy access
so that they could "keep an eye" on their intern
and "just pop in and see ... and ask, 'How's it
going today?'" Interns, too, commented on the
proximity to their mentor being important to
them. As one related: "The most useful part was
knowing that I had her to go to whenever I
needed something, and she was right next door,
and I could just run down" (Rachel, intern).
Another intern who team-taught with her men-
tor stated: "Because we're working together it
really helps because she's there for my questions
instead of being down the hall somewhere"
(Karen, intern). In sum, accessibility and know-
ing that someone was close enough to "run next
door to" were important to the intern who may
have wanted immediate help or advice. Likewise,
close proximity fostered more personal interac-
tions and conversations and helped interns and
mentors develop a collegial relationship.
Frequency and format of meetings. Individual
mentor and intern teams decided how often and
when they would meet to discuss how the intern
was doing. Some mentors met with their interns
daily in informal conversational meetings, and
some met on a weekly basis, the latter being a
more formal, sit-down kind of meeting. Interns
often initiated the interactions by coming to the
mentor with questions; however, the interns had
to feel that, whenever the need arose, they could
approach their mentor with a question or prob-
lem, small or large. On the other hand, some
mentors set up regular meetings so that if prob-
lems arose they could be addressed at a regularly
scheduled meeting and the intern would not have
to call attention to the problem by asking for a
special session.
Mentors talked about the need for flexible
meetings, often initiated by interns, with state-
ments such as: "I've been impressed that the
intern didn't hesitate to come and ask me
184 SANDRA K. ABELL et al.
questions" (Cheri, mentor). Another mentor add-
ed: "He has initiated the questions. I have not
had to say, 'Well, how are things going?' He's
always initiated and that's much better that I'm
not forcing anything on him" (Roy, mentor). A
different type of interaction between mentor and
intern was reflected in Kate's response: "I had
her [my intern] come in and observe my class
twice a week and do the same thing for me [using
an observation interaction analysis checklist]"
(Kate, mentor). These observation sessions and
the data collected during them became the basis
for weekly meetings between this mentor and
intern.
Interns also pointed out the need for flexible
meeting times: "I felt real comfortable going to
my mentor and the other kindergarten teacher"
(Karen, intern). Another intern talked about the
frequency of meetings: "We had originally set
up meetings on a once-a-week basis. We stopped
meeting so formally and did more meetings in
the halls because Wednesday morning meetings
didn't seem to be convenient. So we talked a lot
on an as-needs basis" (Holly, intern). One intern
talked about the flexible nature of the interac-
tions she initiated with her mentor:
[If I have a question/problem] I can run down the
hall and tell my mentor what happened. She's very
careful to say, 'Let me think about what you said and
I will get back to you.' I reach her by my prep--second
period--she has her prep third period and by lunch-
time she'll say, 'I thought about what you asked me.'
Then she'll give me something written--very well-
thought out ... and I look it over and later I say, 'I
see what you're saying, let me try this [new sugges-
tion].' (Deanna, intern)
Thus, the intern-mentor pair constructed the
meetings flexibly, usually based on the intern's
needs. In some cases more formal interaction
was used to ensure that interaction occurred. For
the most part the mentors believed it was im-
portant to "be there" for the intern, yet not be
"looking over the intern's shoulder constantly."
As mentors and interns talked about and ob-
served each other's teaching and their students'
learning, they shared information with each
other.
Topics discussed during meetings. Mentors
and interns developed mutual respect by openly
sharing ideas. Mentors stated that interns have
ideas that they can benefit from and vice versa.
Furthermore, the two must trust one another to
be able to share information or take risks without
fear of rejection or repercussions.
Interns learned a variety of things from men-
tors. They gained confidence; they got ideas,
materials, advice, and insight into students, the
school, parents, and the community; they learned
tried and true techniques, and management and
control skills; and they learned how to solve
problems. Comments from interns supported the
idea of learning from their respective mentors:
"I've talked to her about lessons and a little bit
of everything" (Holly, intern). "I feel that she has
helped me ila developing confidence in my per-
sonal style" (Deanna, intern). "It builds confi-
dence when a seasoned teacher, one I respect,
thinks my personal style is okay" (Sandra, in-
tern). One intern focused on the insight her
mentor provided her: "Because they [mentors]
know you should have the kids lined up or they
[the students] won't be able to do that [the
task]" (Karen, intern). Another intern stated:
" [ M y mentor] helps me know what I can expect
from second graders" (Rachel, intern). Pertaining
to materials an intern stated:" She [my mentor]
knew some of the history of the department and
what had been going on and what was going on
with the curriculum" (Deanna, intern). Interns
gained a great deal of knowledge about teaching
and being a teacher from their mentors. Interns
expected to learn and were open to learning.
Mentors also gained from their interactions
with interns. They gained energy, new ideas and
materials, enthusiasm, idealism, and a mirror of
how it was when they first started teaching.
Mentors also found out what it feels like when
someone validates a teaching idea. In working
with interns mentors found reasons to be needed,
challenges to take risks, and models of risk-
takers:
In having to deal with the problems that the new
person would bring to you, you would have to be
thinking how could you solve these, so in turn you
were coming up with solutions for that person or
ideas to help them out. And you in turn m a y run
across new things that you can incorporate yourself
into your own teaching. (Roy, mentor)
Mentors commented on the spark an intern
added to their lives: "[Being a mentor] has given
me the chance to observe a first-year teacher and
to, in a sense, recapture some of that lost
enthusiasm that has dwindled over the years and
so in a sense it helps me to recoup and regroup
 Mentor-Intern Relationship
and to rethink about how I use an a p p r o a c h "
(Carmen, mentor). Another mentor added:
"She's [-the intern] got all this missionary zeal
and I think, come on, I can p u m p it up too"
(Sandra, mentor).
Interns pointed out that they, too, believe that
they have something to offer their mentors:
"Because I've been more recently educated I
have more education in computer activities or
in problem-solving strategies. I can incorporate
them into my teaching and we share things back
and forth" (John, intern). Another intern com-
mented: "When she comes in to see me hopefully
I ' m giving her some ideas, too. Maybe that's
good for her that I have some fresh and different
ideas" (Holly, intern).
In summary, within the mentor/intern rela-
tionship the topics discussed resulted in recipro-
cal learning. Both the intern and mentor must
sense that the other has something worthwhile
to s h a r e - - a n d this belief is built on mutual
respect and trust. Further, the process of how
the intern and mentor interact must be carefully
set up to meet the needs of both the intern and
mentor. Overall, we found that interns and
mentors valued each other and believed as one
intern stated: " W h e n you share ideas and ask
questions with another teacher your files become
twice as big" (Karen, intern).
Conclusions and Implications
Many states now mandate beginning teacher
induction programs in which beginning teachers
must be provided with mentors who are recog-
nized and paid for their services. However, the
teachers we interviewed said that they would
have mentored beginning teachers informally
regardless of whether there was a law. One
mentor explained: "I would have mentored this
beginning teacher anyway." Other mentors be-
lieved that it was their "responsibility" to their
district and to the teaching profession to work
with fledgling teachers. Furthermore, they be-
lieved that mentoring a new teacher would
benefit their school system and the children that
they all worked with. This finding is similar to
Kay's (1990) conclusion that the most satisfac-
tory form of mentor accountability occurs when
individuals hold themselves accountable and do
not require external monitoring in order to act
185
productively. This is not to say that all of the
structured, directive components of the BTIP are
inappropriate. For example, the recognition
given to teachers selected as mentors is import-
ant, as is the money and release time offered by
the state. But, findings from this study lead us
to believe that these components do not ensure
a successful mentor/intern relationship. As the
saying goes: Actions speak louder than words.
And the actions of the BTIP mentors indicate
that they valued and enacted their role irrespec-
tive of the formal guidelines and reward struc-
ture.
Further, the detailed guides for mentors and
training sessions that many states and school
districts require may not influence participants
as much as the intrinsic value participants place
on the mentoring relationship. Mentors value
new teachers--they want the interns to succeed
as much as the interns want to become successful
teachers. Thus, interns and mentors individually
constructed their relationships to ensure interns'
success and, in so doing, the BTIP was successful.
Further, within these relationships it was how
the participants defined their roles and what they
did on a daily basis that was most important to
the success of the program. Mentors were not
following a guide detailing how often and under
what circumstances they were to meet with
interns. Instead, mentors were flexible, allowing
the needs of the interns and their own intuitions
as teachers to dictate when, where, and how they
interacted with their respective interns.
The roles mentors assumed and the interaction
patterns between interns and mentors were also
important findings in our study. Anctil (1991)
found that discussions between interns and men-
tors focused on teaching but not necessarily on
instructional issues and interns; moreover, she
found that mentors spent "an inordinate amount
of time providing moral support and emotional
support" (p. 13). Anctil supported the almost
unidimensional role of mentor as "instructional
coach--assisting the beginner with instruction
in all three phases ... with no evidence of
discussion of personal issues" (Anctil, 1991,
p. 14). In contrast, we found that both mentors
and interns believed that mentors should assume
multiple, varied roles. Interns wanted their men-
tors to first and foremost be that person with
whom they could talk about anything; the person
who would support them and help them become
186 S A N D R A K. A B E L L et al.
a better teacher. Further, mentors in our study
suggested that the dual role of evaluator and
supporter did not work for them. In fact, mentors
believed that if they had assumed an evaluative
stance, then interns would have felt powerless in
the relationship and failed to develop the mutual
trust and respect that seemed necessary for
risk-free learning to occur. In sum, from our
findings, we conclude that the multidimensional
role of mentors contributed to the success of the
BTIP.
Another important finding in our study was
that trust and respect formed the tie that bound
the intern to the mentor (cf., Dillon, O'Brien, &
Ruhl, 1989) and allowed the most productive
mentor/intern relationships. We found that men-
tors could not serve as parent figures, support
systems, troubleshooters, scaffolders, or col-
leagues if interns did not respect them. Likewise,
interns would not have approached mentors and
asked them to assume particular roles when the
need arose (e.g., mentor as troubleshooter when
an upset parent visited an intern) if they did not
trust their mentor. Coupled with this trust and
respect for one another was an implicit appreci-
ation for the complexity of teaching that mentors
and interns shared. Both realized that good
teaching takes time, accumulated experiences,
and failures. Hence, we can conclude that suc-
cessful mentor/intern relationships also include
mentors who empathize with interns and under-
stand what interns live through by drawing on
their own past experiences as beginning teachers.
Perhaps this is what caused them to say to
interns, " D o n ' t worry, you have someone to
count on."
Significance of the Study
This study represents the perspectives of the
individuals involved directly in the BTIP. The
findings reflect the participants' beliefs about
how the program was enacted and what it meant
to them. Previous studies of beginning teacher
programs have focused on assessing these pro-
grams to see if they work or assessing the role
the mentor plays (e.g., Anctil, 1991; Mac-
Naughton & Clyde, 1990). However, the
methods and reporting modes used in these
studies have not allowed us to fully understand
the participants' lived experiences as told
through their own voices. Understanding what
a program really looks like and how it functions
requires on-site visits and personal contact with
the participants, including interviews aimed at
gaining their perspectives.
Limitations and Future Research Goals
Several components of this study limit its
comparability. First, the study only includes
participants from one state. Second, what we
gained in breadth of data across many partici-
pants, we lost in depth of understanding of
particular mentor/intern cases (Patton, 1990). In
addition, because of our relatively limited con-
tact with participants, and their perceptions of
our evaluative role, their comments must be
framed within that context. It is likely that deeper
understanding and greater candor could be
gained in a more intensive study of fewer cases
in which we would have the opportunity to build
a more trusting relationship with participants.
Future studies need to be conducted on site and
over time, focusing more closely on mentor/
intern relationships from their inception. Such
studies would enable us to better understand the
development and evolution of the relationship,
what is learned by each participant, and what
meaning the learning has for each individual.
Accounts such as these would be useful as cases
for reflection for current and future interns and
mentors. We hope that by reading reports like
this one and other accounts in which the voices
of the participants come through (Ganser, 1991;
Renwick & Vize, 1993), that prospective and
practicing teachers can reflect on their own
actions and thoughts.
References
Ackley, B., & Gall, M. D. (1992, April). Skills, strategies, and
outcomes of successful mentor teachers. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-
ciation, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 346 046)
Anctil, M. (1991, April). Mentor accountability: Acting in
accordance with established standards. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-
ciation, Chicago.
Bower, A. 0989, November). Doorway to success in the
New York State mentor teacher internship proyram: The
relationship. Paper presented at the conference of the
National Council of States on Inservice Education, San
Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 315 385)
 M e n t o r Intern Relationship
Bower, A., & Yarger, G. (1989). Mentor-intern relationships
in New York State's formal program: Beginnings. Action
in Teacher Education, 11(2), 60 65.
Connor, E. L. (1984). Evaluation o f the 1983-1984 beginning
teacherprogram. Miami, FL: Dade County Public Schools
Office of Educational Accountability. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 257 853)
Defino, M. E., & Hoffman, J. V. (1984). A status report and
content analysis of state mandated teacher induction pro-
grams. Report No. 9057. Austin, TX: Texas University
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.
Dillon, D. R., O'Brien, D. G., & Ruhl, J. D. (1989). The
evolution of research: From ethnography to collaboration.
In J. B. Goetz & J. Goetz (Eds.), Teaching and learning
qualitative traditions: The second yearbook of" the Interna-
tional Qualitative Research in Education Conference
(pp. 1--20). Athens, GA: College of Education, The Uni-
versity of Georgia.
Dinham, S. (1992, July). Teacher induction." Implications o f
recent research for educational administrators. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the Australian Council for
Educational Administration, Darwin, Northern Territory,
Australia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
350 712)
Duke, C. R., & Gates, R. (1990). The status of teacher inductio'n
programs in rural Pennsylvania school districts. Pennsyl-
vania Academy for the Profession of Teaching: Harrisburg,
PA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329
414)
Eisner, K. (1984). First year evaluation results .from
Oklahoma ~ entry-year assistance committees. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the Association of Teacher
Educators, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. ED 242 706)
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. B. (1990). Making subject
matter part of the conversation in learning to teach. Journal
o f Teacher Education, 41(3), 32 43.
Ganser, T. (1991, February). Beginning teachers' and mentors"
perceptions oj effective mentoring programs. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the Association of Teacher
Educators, New Orleans, LA (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. ED 337 428)
Ganser, T. (1993, February). How mentors describe and
categorize their ideas about mentor roles, benefits o f men-
toring, and obstacles to mentoring. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Los
Angeles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
354 237)
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of
grounded theoiT. Strategies for qualitative research. New
York: Aldine.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and
qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Hawk, P. (1986 1987). Beginning teacher programs: Benefits
for the experienced educator. Action in Teacher Education,
8(4), 59 63.
Hawk, P., & Robards, S. (1987). Statewide teacher induction
programs. In D. M. Brooks (Ed.), Teacher induction: A
new beginning (pp. 33--44). Reston, VA: Association of
Teacher Educators.
Helmich, E. (1985). An overview o ffifth-year teacher education
programs. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Educa-
187
tion Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 267 054)
Henry, M. A. (1988). Multiple support: A successful model
for inducting first-year teachers. Teacher Educator, 74(2),
7-12.
Huling-Austin, L., & Murphy, S. C. (1987). Assessing the
impact o f leacher induction programs: Implications for
program development. Austin, TX: Texas University Re-
search and Development Center for Teacher Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 779)
Huling-Austin, L., Odell, S. J., Ishler, P., Kay, R. S, &
Edelfelt, R. A. (1989). Assisting the beginning teacher.
Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
lndiana State Board of Education Administrative Rule 511
IAC 10-7. (1987).
Kay, R. (1990). Mentoring: Definition, principles, and appli-
cations. In T. M. Bey & C. T. Holmes (Eds.), Mentoring:
Developing successful new.teacher educators. Reston, VA:
Association of Teacher Educators.
MacNaughton, G., & Clyde, M. (1990, June). Staffing the
practicum: Towards a new set o f basics through clarifying
roles. Paper presented at the meeting of the National
Workshop of Early Childhood Practicum, Frankston,
Victoria, Australia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-
vice No. ED 338 365)
Mager, G. M., & Corwin, C. (1988). The mentor intern
relationship." A report to the State Education Department
on the New York. State Mentor-Teacher Internship Pro-
gram for 198Z 1988. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 312 234)
Neuweiler, H. B. (1988). Teacher education policy in the states:
A 50-state survey o f legislative and administrative actions.
AACTE: Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduc-
tion Service No. ED 296 997)
Nevins, L., & Weingart, H. (1991, April). The preparation o f
mentors." What are the effects of training ? Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.
Odell, S. J., & Ferraro, D. P. (1992). Teacher mentoring and
teacher retention. Journal o f Teacher Education, 43(3),
20(~204.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Polkinghorne, D. (1983). Methodology fi~r the human sciences.
Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Queensland Board of Teacher Registration. (1991). Welcom-
ing new teachers: Report o f the working parO' on the
induction ~?f provisionally registered teachers. Toowong,
Australia: Queensland Board of Teacher Registration.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 872)
Renwick, M., & Vize, J. (1993). Windows on teacher education :
Student progress through colleges o f education. Phase 4:
The first year in the classroom. Wellington: New Zealand
Council for Educational Research. (ERIC Document Re-
production Service No. ED 365 670)
Schaffer, E., Stringfield, S., & Wolfe, D. (1992). An innovative
beginning teacher induction program: A two-year analysis
of classroom interactions. Journal o[" Teacher Education,
43(3), 181-192.
Sorge, D., Abell, S., Dillon, D. R., Hopkins, C. J., Mclnerney,
W., & O'Brien, D. G. (1990). The beginning teacher
internship. In C. Chase (Ed.), Evaluating the progress and
impact of PL 390 educational initiatives (pp. 151 173).
188 S A N D R A K. A B E L L et al.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana Center for Evaluation, Indiana
University.
Strauss, A. S. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tellez, K. (1992). Mentors by choice, not design: Help-seeking
by beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3),
214-221.
Thompson, L. R. (1991, April). Administrative accountability:
Intended versus actual practice in a mentoring program.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, Chicago.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Research in9 lived experience. Albany,
NY: State University of New York.
Varah, L. J., Theune, W. S., & Parker, L. (1986). Beginning
teachers: Sink or swim? Journal of Teacher Education,
37(1), 30-34.
Vonk, J. H. C. (1993, April). Mentoring beginning teachers:
Development of a knowledge base for mentors. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 361 306)
Wildman, T. M., Magliaro, S. G., Niles, R. A., & Niles, J. A.
(1992). Teacher mentoring: An analysis of roles, activities,
and conditions. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3),
205 213.
Submitted 23 March 1994
Accepted 1 August 1994