When Tensions Between Ideology and Practice Become Personal Unpacking Mentorship in Early Childhood Teacher Education

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION
2018, VOL. 39, NO. 1, 50–72

https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2017.1404506
When tensions between ideology and practice become

personal: Unpacking mentorship in early childhood teacher
education
Haeny S. Yoona and Kelly Ann Larkinb
a
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA; bEarly Childhood Education, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

University-based teacher education programs are criticized for being Received 12 January 2016
too theoretical, disconnected from the everyday realities of schools. Accepted 25 October 2017
To bridge this gap, teacher education programs give students year-
long field experiences under the joint tutelage of mentor teachers
and university faculty. However, this assumes that mentor teachers
will not only be exemplary teachers, but skilled mentors as well. This
article explores the tensions between the theoretical and practical
work of teaching within mentoring relationships, specifically in
spaces where teacher agency is limited by political, social, and cul-
tural factors. The sociocultural, language approaches in many teacher
education programs are seen as idealistic when pushed up against
skills-based language approaches, advocated in classrooms. Using
qualitative methods, this project follows three mentor/mentee pairs
as they negotiate their relationships in an urban area in the
Southwest United States. While all three pre-service teachers strongly
believed that learning was a social practice, constructed through
child inquiry and play, they struggled to maintain their ideologies
and beliefs during their field experience. Pre-service teachers held
firmly to their beliefs about teaching and learning, but holding onto
these beliefs were wrought with personal and philosophical tensions.
Pre-service teachers found limited agency in their practice and little
support in implementing their own practices. Most importantly,
unequal power dynamics and communication issues were obstacles
towards mutually beneficial mentorship. Thus, preservice programs
must address the importance of developing and cultivating the
mentor/mentee relationship—a relationship that is pivotal in the
construction of preservice teachers’ identities and practices.
In Schoolteacher, Lortie (2002) asks, “How does one become a teacher?” Like many
professions, teachers are apprenticed into the field and mentored by experienced others
who socialize them into the practice, the discourse, and the knowledge inherent to their
work. In meaningful apprenticeships, the relationship is collaborative and mutually
beneficial as both the mentee and mentor bring knowledge to the experience. Lortie
noted that in classic, apprenticeship models, newcomers to the field (e.g., preservice
teachers and beginning teachers) bring “theoretical knowledge with [them]. . . There is
an element of exchange in such instances; the tyro [the newcomer] brings ‘book
CONTACT Haeny S. Yoon Yoon3@tc.columbia.edu Department of Curriculum and Teaching, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 525 W. 120th Street, 302D Zankel, New York, NY 10027.
© 2018 National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators
JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 51
knowledge’ to his masters, and they provide the skills of practice and the wisdom of
experience” (Lortie, 2002, p. 72). Nevertheless, theoretical knowledge is still viewed as
tertiary to the actual practice of teaching. Hence, university-based teacher education
programs are criticized for being too theoretical, disconnected from the realities of schools
(Sleeter, 2008; Zeichner, 2010). These critiques stem from the implicit view that practical
knowledge is privileged over theoretical knowledge.
Studies continue to document the tensions between sociocultural, teacher education
programs and contemporary schooling when ideological differences strain the partnership
(Malderez, Hobson, Tracey, & Kerr, 2007; Ryan & Grieshaber, 2005; Selwyn, 2007; Sleeter,
2008; Whitney, Olan, & Fredricksen, 2013). Therefore, theory and practice are viewed as
dichotomous rather than integrated. In order to bridge this divide, teacher education
programs (including the one in this study) give students yearlong field experiences under
the joint tutelage of mentor teachers (a term used by the teacher education program in this
study) and university faculty. Undergirding this idea is that longer field experiences with
collaborative mentorship will mitigate the contrasting ideologies between sociocultural,
teacher education programs and contemporary schooling.
Mentor teacher roles are multiple from parent figures, support systems, troubleshoo-
ters, colleagues, and scaffolders (Abell, Dillon, Hopkins, McInerney, & O'Brien, 1995).
New teachers also seek moral and emotional support, “somebody to count on” as well as
to learn from (Abell et al., 1995). As in any relationship, emotional satisfaction is
demanded in nurturing the relationship while attempting to become a skilled professional.
Killian and Wilkins (2009) assert that effective mentors embody positive communication
and support (e.g., personal connection), specifically balancing positive and negative feed-
back (e.g., professional advice). At the same time, preservice teachers (PSTs) desired
autonomy over their teaching practices, increased teaching time with ongoing feedback,
and collaborative teamwork.
While most agree that mentorship requires specialized skills (as indicated above),
tensions complicate the mentoring relationship. Clarke, Triggs, and Nielsen’s (2014)
review explored mentor teachers (or cooperating teachers) varying levels of participation,
from absentee landlord, to overseer, to coach. In most of these cases, the relationship was
usually unidirectional, imbalanced in terms of power, making it difficult for an invited
relationship where authority, roles, and participation were negotiated. Cherian’s (2007)
interview study supported the constraining nature of these partnerships where cooperat-
ing teachers did not “attempt to create a collaborative, democratic partnership” (Cherian,
2007, p. 41). Instead, they created an “ethos of subservience in their working relations by
not attempting to balance the asymmetrical power relations in their roles” (Cherian, 2007,
p. 42). Therefore, simply offering more training is not enough to mitigate the tensions
within human relationships (Gardiner, 2009).
This paper examines how PSTs work through mentoring experiences during a yearlong
experience, unpacking the pedagogical tensions as constructed by factors other than, but
related to the theory/practice divide (Zeichner, 2005). We examine the tensions as PSTs
move into classroom spaces from university spaces, arguing these tensions are a mix of
personal and professional clashes. Rather than contributing to the list of roles mentor
teachers must embody (Abell et al., 1995; Feiman-Nemser & Carver, 2012), we explain the
complexity of mentoring relationships by highlighting the tensions around language,
support, curriculum, and ideologies.
52 H. S. YOON AND K. A. LARKIN
Drawing from a yearlong study on PSTs and their struggles between the university and
the classroom, we explore questions related to how PSTs are mentored by their mentor
teachers (MTs). How is the mentoring relationship constructed? How do they navigate
sociocultural theories presented in their coursework with the classroom practices of their
MTs? Using qualitative methods, this paper follows three PSTs and their MTs as they
work together in the classroom. We situate this work within the multiple worlds of PSTs
entering the field.
“Figuring” out the world of school: Understanding the context(s) of teaching

While schools are literal spaces, they are also figured. Holland, Lachiotte, Skinner, and
Cain (2003) describe figured worlds as “socially and culturally constructed realm(s) of
interpretation in which particular characters and actors are recognized, significance is
assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others” (p. 52). Teachers
perform the act of teaching while students perform the act of learning, situated around the
political context that scrutinizes instruction by measured success on student growth and
achievement (Timoštšuk & Ugaste, 2010).
The “daily grind” of school is figured by the political, social, and cultural circumstances
(Jackson, 1990). Thus, all the participants in school (children, teachers, administrators,
parents, etc.) are involved in the “figuring” of schools. Consequences and rewards are put
in place to encourage specific behaviors, tests are administered to achieve particular
outcomes, rules are enforced to regulate interactions, grades are given as measures of
progress. Teaching practices, then, are normalized by the discourse permeating the
educational landscape; embedded in the discourse are an “array of contesting and contra-
dictory discourses” (Britzman, 2003, p. 71). For example, each of the PSTs in this study
were placed in schools that valued testing; their experiences, in part, were dictated by
student performance on benchmark assessments. At the same time, they were students in
sociocultural, teacher education programs that questioned the value of testing.
Given the increased pressures placed on performance, PSTs struggle to implement
sociocultural teaching practices because of the mimetic approach to mentoring MTs take
up (Leshem, 2012). PSTs defer to their MTs and the powerful factors guiding the context,
such as curriculum and policies (Smagorinsky, Cook, Moore, Jackson, & Fry, 2004). For
instance, subsequent legislation and recommendations since NCLB contribute to reduced
teacher agency through neoliberal-based reforms. Race to the Top exacerbated competi-
tion, Common Core State Standards increased efforts to standardize curricula, various
teacher evaluation measures punished and rewarded teachers for improved student
achievement via test scores. Therefore, teachers adopt strategies to meet mandates rather
than understand the larger purpose and intention of curriculum. They are apprenticed
into the world of school, influenced by the political forces that constrain teaching and
learning.
Identity construction in figured worlds: Entering the world of school

As teachers are “figuring” out how the space of school is constructed, they are also figuring
out their roles and identities as teachers through participation and practice (Cain, 1991;
Lortie, 2002). PSTs learn the appropriate behaviors (e.g., acts, discourse) necessary to enter
into the cultural world of classrooms; these ideas coincide or conflict with their previous
viewpoints. Consequently, individuals reconceptualize and internalize new identities in
order to fit in to their new situations (Schwartz & Merton, 1968).
Teachers are not always told exactly how to teach a lesson or deliver content, but
eventually, they learn through exposure, encoding of teaching models, interaction with
others in the field, periodic scaffolding, and constant feedback (Cain, 1991). PSTs may
enter a classroom with prior ideas, beliefs, and hopes; however, their practices are
disrupted, ideas contested, and roles questioned by students, teachers, and university
staff. In addition, PSTs move from university coursework to classroom experiences
where they reinterpret their ideas and roles through the act of teaching. PSTs constantly
move from one ideological space to another, taking up identities and subsequent dis-
courses of both university student and classroom teacher.
Reconfiguring space in figured worlds: Negotiating power in teaching and

learning
While external evaluations and others’ perceptions raise self-doubt and constrain prac-
tices, individuals also make decisions on which attributes, positionings, and dispositions
they take up. Thus, they are not controlled by the discourse as passive agents, but are
actively engaged in it as they choose to participate in or deliberately oppose social
activities (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999; Johnson, 2003). Zeichner (2010) advocates for
third spaces where universities, classrooms, and communities come together to share and
construct knowledge. Third spaces are sites of collective, joint meaning-making that
challenge traditional boundaries and potentially lead to innovation (Bhabha, 1994;
Gutiérrez, 2008; Martin, Snow, & Franklin-Torrez, 2011). In third spaces, all participants
teach, learn, and restructure their own thinking. Thus, hierarchies in third spaces are fluid
as participants alternate giving voice, authority, and power. At times, it is necessary for
MTs to take up a true “mentor” role to help PSTs understand the goals and practices of
the teaching craft (Lortie, 2002). Other times, PSTs access research and theories to provide
new ideas that benefit and enhance the classroom space. Both experiential and theoretical
knowledge add to collective understanding.
Crucial to enduring partnerships is the university faculty who facilitate teacher devel-
opment as well as interactions (Martin et al., 2011; Zeichner, 2010). Beyond a traditional
supervisory role of overseeing and evaluating PSTs, they work as “liaisons, bridging
boundaries to foster relationships that support coordinated activity” (Martin et al., 2011,
p. 300). In other words, university supervisors expand their role through involvement in
classroom life, offering their perspective and adding to collective knowledge. Rather than
consensus, PSTs, MTs, and supervisors are all involved in mediating tensions, “honouring
each other’s voice and broadening their cultural, social, and political repertoire” (Nguyen,
2009, p. 662). Thus, a true partnership shows evidence of mutual contributions that
influence the everyday practices of the classroom. Within teacher education, spaces are
transformed when the triadic relationship (the MT, the PST, and the university faculty)
“embraces complexity and uncertainty in social contexts, rather than control and power”
(Martin et al., 2011, p. 308).
Figuring out the world of school through mentorship: Rethinking power,

authority, and expertise
The potential of field-based learning is well documented as an influential experience in
preservice programs (Rozelle & Wilson, 2012; Zeichner, 2010). However, Baum and Korth
(2014) confirm spending more time in the field does not necessarily prepare teachers
better. PSTs must learn to navigate the school world, “taking up the critical tools of that
community and learning to ask and answer the questions that characterize life within that
community” (Whitney et al., 2013, p. 194). Therefore, MTs play a critical role in helping
PSTs get inside the “practical and intellectual demands of teaching” (Norman & Feiman-
Nemser, 2005, p. 695).
Because of the hierarchical nature of mentor/mentee relationships, PSTs default to
traditional power dynamics where experience is viewed as the ultimate authority (Dewey,
1938). When PSTs disagree with their mentor teachers, they act as “subordinates”
(Gallego, 2001, p.314), submitting to practices that clash with their belief systems.
Sundli’s (2007) study on teacher education programs in Norway revealed that PSTs
mimicked behaviors, gestures, and even styles of speaking. They viewed their success in
correlation with their ability to clone the mentor teacher. Rozelle and Wilson’s (2012)
ethnographic study followed 6 PSTs through their field experiences over the course of one
year and reported similar findings, including mimicking and reproducing practices,
embodying MT’s actions and speech patterns, and employing instructional strategies
aligned with their MT’s goals. PSTs view teaching as a regulated set of standard practices
with little creative flexibility—a term Gallego aptly called an “apprenticeship of oppres-
sion” (2001, p. 314).
Feiman-Nemser and Beasley (2007) highlight the lack of clarity and attention given to
the mentoring relationship as another gap in the apprenticeship model. MTs lacked
adequate training in the critical components of mentorship: stepping in, building a culture
of collaboration and inquiry, and engaging in honest conversations (Feiman-Nemser &
Beasley, 2007). Open communication around teaching beliefs, conflicts, and personal lives
were pivotal in PSTs personal and professional growth. Undergirding these suggestions is
the importance of respectful, trusting, and supportive relationships (Bradbury & Koballa,
2008; Koballa, Bradbury, Glynn, & Deaton, 2008; Malderez et al., 2007). Therefore, a
quality MT expertly anticipates situations and foresees the struggles of PSTs while
providing an adequate amount of emotional and professional support. Clarke et al.
(2014) confirm that successful mentorship lies in feedback that is “investigative (reflective)
in nature” (Clarke et al., 2014, p. 175). Again, university faculty play a crucial role in
mediating these important conversations.
Maynard (2000) found PSTs sought inclusion in the classroom community as a
colleague and partner, but also constructive support and feedback; PSTs wanted discrete
help during teaching lessons, but did not want to be undermined in front of students; they
desired personal relationships with mentor teachers but professional support as well; they
wanted freedom to take risks but did not want to be left to fail and make mistakes; PSTs
expected MTs to be a role model of quality teaching, but wanted freedom to explore their
own teaching identities (Hobson, 2002; Maynard, 2000). Consequently, even excellent
classroom teachers struggled with being excellent mentors. In Gardiner’s study (2009), the
mentors described circumstances that “went beyond their expectations of providing
pedagogic instruction, support, and feedback on teaching. . . their role included monitor-
ing and managing adults in terms of timeliness, professionalism, and preparedness, and
dealing with sensitive, sometimes interpersonal, issues” (Gardiner, 2009, p. 62). Inevitably,
MTs consistently reported the difficulty of managing relationships and dealing with
conflicts in a sensitive, supportive manner. While highly “trained” in teaching and
mentoring, MTs still felt ill-equipped for relational situations.
Hennison, Crasborn, Brouwer, Korthagen, and Bergen’s (2008) review of the literature
advocates for co-constructed mentoring dialogues because MTs and PSTs (and university
faculty) each bring unique experiences to the teaching situation. Instead of a hierarchical
space, the mentorship relationship should be a collaborative space where “parties are
willing to respectfully attend to each other’s perspectives. Without this attention, negotia-
tion is at best a guessing game and at worst a time-consuming pretense” (Clarke et al.,
2014, p. 188).
In sum, teachers exist in the social space of school with norms, ideas, and relationships
that are constantly under construction—these actions are mostly improvised. As Holland
et al. (2003) remind us, “Improvisations are the sort of impromptu actions that occur
when our past, brought to the present as habitus, meets with a particular combination of
circumstances and conditions for which we have no set response” (p. 18). As is true of any
interaction in figured worlds, the relationships are guided by unique, personal interactions
that work simultaneously with our past and present ideas.
Method
This qualitative, case study examines three mentor/mentee partnerships in a preservice
education program: Macy & Raven, Claire & Annabel, and Sally & Heather. The three
PSTs (Raven, Annabel, and Heather) were in their final year of the early childhood teacher
preparation program, which included yearlong field placements with one mentor teacher.
Using interviews, observational data and field notes, and artifact collection, we unpack the
tensions experienced as PSTs moved from theory to practice.
Understanding the world of the university

Preservice program
The 2-year early childhood program (birth–8 years old) was located in an urban area in
Arizona at a large, public university. The program accepted students in their 3rd year of
undergraduate studies. The final 2 years of their undergraduate program, then, were spent
in an intensive, teacher preparation program. Throughout the 2 years, the students were
placed in two different placements: one semester in a Pre-K placement and one year in a
K–2 setting. During their student teaching, they were in classrooms 3 days a week and
took coursework 2 days a week. The program followed a sociocultural approach to
learning, emphasizing identities as created through and in social activity. Undergirding
the core principles was the importance of uncovering “funds of knowledge” (Gonzales,
Moll, & Amanti, 2005) as a tool for understanding children’s multiple identities and
cultural practices. First, play was seen as an important space for intellectual, social and
emotional growth. Second, families and communities possessed “funds of knowledge”,
relevant to the interactions, design, and enactment of curricula. Third, stories were
representations of self, identity, and culture. Language was viewed as a social, cultural
activity positioned within dynamics of politics, culture, values, and power. Especially
relevant to this study were language policies in Arizona that erased multilingual practices,
culturally relevant pedagogies, and home/heritage languages (see Combs & Nicholas, 2012;
H. Yoon, 2016).
Adopting a sociocultural approach to literacy learning, the language and literacy
course (which students enrolled in prior to their field placement) centered around
children’s social, cultural, political, and historical contexts. The course focused on the
vital role of play as a cultural site for children to build authentic literacy practices.
Through interaction with peers, materials, and the environment, PSTs were taught to
observe children within play and facilitate the use of literacy within their existing
language. This paper follows the experience of three PSTs as they moved into kinder-
garten placements. Two of the PSTs were placed at Smith Elementary School and one
PST was placed at Williams Elementary.
Understanding the world of schools

Both schools were in a highly regulated district, dictated by both state and local
politics. With a large proportion of non-White students (i.e., Whites were the
minority in both schools), ideas of language instruction were especially at odds
between the university and the school. Most observation periods were conducted
during scheduled, language arts blocks to examine co-teaching dynamics within
language instruction.
Williams elementary school

The K–5 school enrolled 379 students—mostly immigrant children from Mexico and
refugee communities from Northern Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, with
approximately 20 languages spoken in the home. Many of the students in the observed
classroom (Macy/Raven’s class) were emergent bilinguals, classified by the district as
English Language Learners. Thus, Williams was an ideal site for this study as language
curriculum and policies were narrowed to skills because of perceived language defi-
ciencies. Among the students, 94% qualified for free and reduced lunch, the highest
percentage in the district. The student body consisted of 50% Hispanic, 18% White,
16% African American, and 16% other; Williams also had the highest mobility rate in
the district.
Smith elementary school

The K–5 school enrolled 306 students with 57% of students receiving free or reduced
lunch. The student population consisted of 57% Hispanic, 32% White, 7% African
American, and 10% other. There were two focal classrooms at Smith: Claire/Annabel
and Sally/Heather’s classrooms. At Smith, there were fewer children categorized as ELLs,
but the language arts instruction still remained didactic, making the tensions with PSTs
apparent, based on our interviews.
Figure 1. Sample “play” justification in Macy’s room.
Dyad one: Macy and Raven

Macy (the MT) taught kindergarten at Williams for 9 years. She was White, in her early
30s, and graduated from the university where Raven studied. She was a Nationally Board
Certified teacher who researched and advocated for play in kindergarten as part of her
culminating project. Macy even made a binder of articles on the benefits of play for her
principal, especially because recess was shortened and play time was discouraged in favor
of academic tasks. Macy possessed enough cultural capital in this building to push back
and negotiated more play time for her students. In order to justify play, Macy also had
signs printed throughout the room supporting play’s intellectual value (see Figure 1 for an
example).
Raven was Macy’s PST who held a strong belief in play for all ages, believing that
learning can be elevated through play. She was White, in her early 20s, and grew up in an
urban city in the same state. She began as an art major before enrolling in the early
childhood program. Art still played an important role in her future plans, and she hoped
to pursue educational programming at museums in order to integrate both of her
passions. Given their mutual commitment to play and creativity, Raven and Macy seemed
like a philosophical match. Their ideologies and approaches were the most closely aligned
out of all the dyads in this study.
Dyad two: Claire and Annabel

Claire taught for 15 years and mentored 5 PSTs through her tenure. She taught 1st, 2nd,
4th, and 5th grade, and was entering her 8th year as a kindergarten teacher. She began
teaching as a second career and attended the university where Annabel (the PST) was a
student. This was Claire’s 2nd year as the kindergarten teacher at Smith, transferred due to
school closures. At Smith, she felt supported by the principal and the parents at the school.
She displayed her teaching awards proudly on the walls and spoke freely of her
accomplishments.
Annabel was also White, in her early 20s, and was timid in her relationship with Claire.
Annabel frequently referenced the advancements and strides in learning that children in
her preschool placement made when given the space to play. Annabel went on to suggest a
block area (a practice she created in her former placement); Claire acknowledged the idea
but favored a reading area instead of the play area. Annabel struggled with expressing her
discontent with instructional decisions, but chose to let out her frustration to her super-
visor (e.g., sometimes being gone from the classroom for an hour to debrief) or to one of
the researchers in the hallway.
Dyad three: Sally and Heather

Sally (a White, middle-aged woman) taught in the school district for 18 years (16 years in
kindergarten) after a career in the Army. Sally expressed less confidence than her counter-
part, Claire; she remarked being good at “teaching the basics” and felt the more “gifted
children” were better suited in Claire’s room. She was also transferred to Smith due to
school closures within the district. This was her first year at Smith and her first year
mentoring a PST.
Heather (Sally’s PST) was a mom of two young children who entered the early
childhood field after having her first child. “Having my daughter changed my entire
way of thinking as far as what I wanted to do with my life. . . so I enrolled at the local
community college in their early childhood department.” Heather believed she was
play-based and described it as a “culture shock” moving from the preschool setting
into kindergarten, struggling with the lack of flexibility. Heather was White, in her late
20s, and nontraditional compared with the other students, who were undergraduate
students in their early 20s. In class, Heather spoke up often and with authority,
confidently expressing her beliefs and questions. She frequently referenced her daugh-
ters’ experiences in elementary schools, and commanded attention from her peers due
to her life experiences as a young, single mother of two. (Table 1).
Table 1. Demographic Information of Participants.

Name Race/Ethnicity Role Yrs. of Experience School Site
Macy White Mentor Teacher 9 Williams
Raven White PST 0 Williams
Claire White Mentor Teacher 15 Smith
Annabel White PST 0 Smith
Sally White Mentor Teacher 18 Smith
Heather White PST 0 Smith
Sharon White Supervisor 9 (as teacher) 4 (as supervisor) University
Data collection and analysis

The PSTs were chosen for their placement in kindergarten as well as their expressed
commitment (from previous course materials and interviews) to the principles of the early
childhood program. We interviewed 15 students for 60–90 minutes in the fall of 2013, at
the beginning of their field placements. In the winter of 2013, we met with a small group
of three students to further our investigation of their thoughts on student teaching
placements, mentor teachers, and the relationship between theory and practice. Our
goal from the interviews was to understand the experience of PSTs with the belief that
individuals view their realities from particular viewpoints and experiences (Seidman,
2012). While no story can be the single truth, the ways that participants present their
stories are significant.
We used the interviews to identify three students who were in the midst of their
kindergarten placements to serve as case studies (Dyson & Genishi, 2005). We chose
PSTs placed in kindergarten because of the pressure of readiness and its impact on
curriculum. We also knew (from experience) that the difference between preschools and
kindergarten classrooms is increasingly more apparent, given the standards-movement
(Dyson, 2013; Graue, 2006). In addition, we acknowledged that coursework is not enough
to determine beliefs, but we began with analysis of course projects as a starting point for
understanding teacher ideologies. Using a combination of interviews, coursework artifacts,
and position/placement, we chose Raven, Annabel, and Heather as focal participants in
this study. We followed them throughout one semester in their kindergarten placements
in order to accomplish two ends: understand the working relationship with their MTs and
to investigate their teaching and learning in classrooms. For this paper, we focus on the
following questions:
Table 2. Summary of Data Collection.

Data Collected Procedures Time Period
Individual Interviews with PSTs ● Audio-recordings September or October 2013 (60–90 minutes)
● Transcriptions May 2014 (60–90 minutes)
Focus Group with 3 PSTs ● Audio-recordings December 2013 (120 minutes)
● Transcriptions
Classroom Observations ● Field notes Seven classroom observations, 60–150 minutes
● Audio-recordings each (March–May 2014)
● Transcriptions
● Artifact Collection
Student Artifacts ● Written samples Ongoing through classroom observations
● Photographs of student work
Curricular Artifacts ● Language arts worksheets Ongoing through classroom observations
● Teacher-created word charts
● Data assessment notebooks
● Photographs of classroom-cre-
ated charts/activities
● Copies of language arts
curriculum
PST coursework ● Four response papers January–May 2013
● Play observations/field notes
● Final play projects
Individual interviews with ● Audio-recordings May 2013 (60–90 minutes)
mentor teachers ● Transcriptions
(1) How is the mentoring relationship constructed?

(2) How do PSTs navigate course principles with the classroom practices of their MTs?
The semester-long observations in spring 2013 allowed us to construct and analyze

the mentorship experience using multiple points of reference: previous and ongoing
interview data, classroom instruction, teacher/student interaction, teaching activity,
and student artifacts. We studied the classroom as a unit of analysis in order to
interpret the experiences of PSTs. Furthermore, the interplay of the interview data
and classroom observations allowed us to probe the contextual, local factors that
influenced the larger phenomenon of mentorship (see Dyson & Genishi, 2005).
Towards the end of the study, we added an interview (70 minutes) with Sharon, the
university supervisor overseeing the PST’s experience. The importance of understand-
ing the supervisor’s viewpoint became apparent as all PSTs mentioned the supervisor’s
role in mediating the student teaching placement (see Table 2 for summary of data
collection).
We initially read through the field notes and constructed a list of initial themes
emerging from the data. First, we collapsed the themes into categories around the
Table 3. Data Analysis Sample: Level One.

Participants Analysis Category Definition Examples
Macy and Personal Disconnections in Comments that explicitly pointed to a Disinterest in one another: When we
Raven Relationship lack of personal communication with had discussions, a lot of the times, it
each other about nonschool matters would be very surface level. I never
(e.g., weekend plans, life events, really got to know her. We didn’t
interests/hobbies) really have conversations about
extracurricular things that she did. . .
so I’d come in, I’d do my thing, I
asked if there’s anything else, and
then I’d leave. (Raven, interview)
Claire and Mismatched Ideologies and Comments and observations that Regulation of students: “Dude,
Annabel Philosophical: Positioning of were inconsistent to the PST program seriously. You need to participate or
Students in Classroom tenets: funds of knowledge, play- you’re going to get a frown for the
Events based language, storytelling, and afternoon. Leave the garbage alone
community partnerships that you are playing with and focus
up there and do what you need to
do, sir.” (Claire)
Skills-based language curriculum:
Claire’s goal for the students was to
learn 220 sight words by the end of
the year; she (as well as the district)
saw this as a benchmark for
predicting success in the later years.
Sally and Cognitive Dissonance: Comments and observations related It was very strained in the first
Heather Interrogations and to the nature of curriculum: The semester. . . we still do have different
Disagreements with the official curriculum texts and activities teaching philosophies and ways that
Curricular Organization but the classroom structures related we deal with things in the
to the official curriculum classroom, teaching styles, and
things like that. So, we really butted
heads at the beginning. . . well
maybe not butted heads, but I didn’t
speak up. I was trying to do what
she did because it was her
classroom but it wasn’t who I was. . .
so we had like a sit down, heart to
heart talk, and after that, things
really began to smooth out.
(Heather, interview)
Table 4. Data Analysis Sample: Level 2.

Analysis Category Definition Examples
Intentional Comments eluding Quote: She and I did not mesh. We did
nonconfrontations: ● Walking away from a situation not communicate. . . And maybe I can
Active passivity ● Not questioning comments take responsibility for that as well. And
● Pretending to be unaware when I asked how I can support her or
● Giving general comments as answers what can I do, she was like, “Well, I think
● Commenting to end conversations I got it. I understand.” (Macy, formal
interview)
“Under”voiced Comments that were voiced “under the table”, Observation/Reflection: Annabel spent
frustrations: meaning the PSTs and/or MTs discussed problems 1 hour venting to her supervisor about
Venting to others with others rather than each other the classroom when the debrief was
supposed to be 15 minutes.
Confrontations: Acknowledgement of confrontations that led to Quote: It was very strained in the first
Butting heads and conversations between MTs and PSTs, addressing the semester. . . we still do have different
addressing issues issues directly teaching philosophies and ways that we
deal with things in the classroom,
teaching styles, and things like that. So,
we really butted heads at the
beginning. . . well maybe not butted
heads, but I didn’t speak up. I was trying
to do what she did because it was her
classroom but it wasn’t who I was. So it
made me feel gross and yucky, and I
was not happy. . . so we had like a sit
down, heart to heart talk, and after that,
things really began to smooth out and
when I started my takeover, she really
let go of a lot of the control and shifted
her discipline strategies. (Heather,
interview)
first research question concerning the nature of mentorship (see Table 3). As we
started to collapse the themes into broader categories, patterns became apparent in
each of the cases (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saldaña, 2012). On our second level
analysis, we coded the various ways that PSTs and MTs navigated the tensions that
arose from the theory-to-practice divide, addressing the second research question
(see Table 4). While all three cases showed examples of similar themes, each case had
a distinct pattern that was significant in and of itself. For example, Annabel and
Claire’s coded data revealed that children’s positioning in classrooms were a sig-
nificant part of the observation notes and the interview data. Raven and Macy’s data
contained many excerpts on personal, relational difficulties; Heather and Sally’s data
consisted of issues around curriculum organization and enactment. While many of
our codes dealt with tensions related to classroom management, curriculum and
teaching, and relational issues, we also looked for moments related to PSTs and
mentor teacher learning.
Findings
Tensions in mentor/mentee relationships were not singular in cause, but dependent on multiple
factors including personality traits, ideologies, teaching styles, power dynamics, and commu-
nication. While similar tensions existed in each relationship, there were major tensions that
undergirded the struggles within each pairing, discussed in the following sections.
Defining the relationship (DTRs in personal relationships): The case of Macy and
Raven
When we had discussions, a lot of the times, it would be very surface level. I never really got
to know her. We didn’t really have conversations about extracurricular things that she did. . .
so I’d come in, I’d do my thing, I asked if there’s anything else, and then I’d leave. (Raven,
formal interview)
Holland et al. (2003) assert that messages are not simply about delivering semantic content,
but the underlying tone and manner of the interactions connote social positioning and
historical tensions. Raven did not see Macy as a person to confide in about her personal life
or “extracurriculars”—their interactions were limited in scope and influenced how they
viewed one another’s intentions and competencies. Embedded in their relationship were
strained interactions causing Raven to view any feedback from Macy as criticism. Raven
viewed Macy’s intentions as harmful and unsupportive, interpreting Macy’s words as an
attack on her personhood. Even when feedback was valid and useful, Raven took it personally
and grew distant from Macy. Their relationship was mediated by accumulated tensions and
social distance situated across the year.
From our observations, Macy was mild-mannered with children and very organized.
She rarely raised her voice, and the children moved from one activity to the next fluidly.
Macy, like Raven, criticized the value of testing; Macy lamented about the accuracy of the
language test mandated for second language learners, saw the social capital that ELL
children were able to expertly navigate, and proudly discussed the growth that children
made in terms of language and motivation. Macy explicitly valued the role of play in the
classroom, deliberately scheduling a playtime in the morning, a free choice time in the
afternoon, and a longer block of recess after lunch. She exhibited several strengths
potentially useful to Raven. However, they lacked personal connection needed to define
and cultivate the relationship.
Macy and Raven struggled with communication, as both noted on numerous occasions.
They both took responsibility for the lack of dialogue between them:
She and I did not mesh. We did not communicate. . . And maybe I can take responsibility for
that as well. And when I asked how I can support her or what can I do, she was like, “Well, I
think I got it. I understand.” (Macy, formal interview)
I just think that the communication between us was not helpful for either of us and that’s
partially my fault because I didn’t know how to—it was just a weird thing because I felt
uncomfortable saying, “Oh, I think we need to talk more. . .” (Raven, formal interview)
When tensions arose, Raven turned to her university supervisor for advice and comfort,
exacerbating the gaps in communication. Macy was fully aware of the gap, stating, “There
was more communication with her supervisor than there was with me.” Macy went on to
describe a specific instance when Raven taught a lesson without communicating with
Macy. When Macy debriefed with Raven and questioned her about decisions, Raven
replied, “Oh yea, [my supervisor] said I should do this.” While Macy acknowledged that
collaboration with others was useful, she felt the supervisor did not really know the
students. Moreover, she was frustrated that Raven wanted to talk to her supervisor for
“just about anything” rather than her. Raven’s supervisor described the same incident in
the following way:
And so after we met, what we’ve discovered was that what the student teacher was doing was
implementing some of the ideas that I had given her, which were contrasting to the ideas that the
—actually, the mentor teacher wasn’t giving her any ideas. She just wanted her to continue with,
let’s say interactive writing in exactly the same way that she had been doing interactive writing.
And I had given some ideas about how to make interactive writing a more meaningful experience,
so the student teacher was trying some of those things. And the mentor teacher didn’t know
where it came from. It didn’t look like her teaching. She wanted it to look exactly the same.
Miscommunication was evident not only with Raven, but with others who supported her
experience in the classroom. Rooted in these communicative mishaps was an obvious lack
of communication in the triadic relationship (Raven, Macy, and Sharon). Raven felt as if
Macy did not support her work; Macy, on the other hand, felt that Raven did not want any
sort of relationship with her, feeling dismissed as a source of knowledge or expertise.
Finally, Sharon felt Macy was not exhibiting flexibility or giving Raven the allowances she
needed to try new approaches to teaching. While all three had valid arguments, there was
no time devoted to getting on the same page or working out miscommunication. Clearly,
each one of them focused on different aspects of the strained partnership; and these
various viewpoints never surfaced. Instead, Raven dealt with her own relational issues by
choosing to leave tensions unmediated.
Raven also admitted that she was nonconfrontational. When Raven felt “reprimanded”
by Macy, she swallowed it and just said, “Ok.” She felt Macy was condescending towards
her, which admittedly pushed her further away from Macy. Over time, their conversations
continued to remain surface level while the tension in their relationship was palpable to
both of them. They continued in this mentor/mentee relationship the entire year: apparent
but unarticulated tensions.
It was a very difficult relationship to navigate and I felt frustrated because I knew there was
something wrong, but I didn’t know how to fix it. And I didn’t know how to communicate it
without being reprimanded, I guess. I felt like I had some skin in it, and when I tried to fix it,
then it would get worse. (Raven, formal interview)
Instead, Raven found a space to “vent” with her cohort and the supervisor. Sharon
(the supervisor) met with her group of four PSTs four times a year together. She also
visited them six–eight times in their classrooms throughout the year. Sharon
admitted giving Raven suggestions on practice and offering instructional strategies,
inconsistent with classroom practices. Raven was responsible for communicating
these theoretical and practical shifts to her MT, which arguably created an even
bigger chasm between the university personnel and the school. “My supervisor said I
should do this” constructed a figurative divide between the supervisor and the MT.
Whether or not Sharon meant for this to happen, Macy perceived these actions as a
dismissal of her own expertise.
For Raven and Macy, there were numerous markers that impacted the quality of their
relationship. It was clearly more than a matter of fixing the professional relationship, but was
arguably rooted in their lack of personal relationship. Embedded in this tension were layers of
discord, beginning with open and honest communication. Macy’s teaching philosophies were
aligned with university coursework. She exhibited respectful interactions with children and
deliberately created space for play. While Macy held obvious strengths, Raven chose to focus
on Macy’s shortcomings. Although these concerns were justified (e.g., decontextualized
writing activities), the unresolved issues underlying their personal relationship created an
obstacle for Raven to grow in professional ways. Thus, she relied on her university supervisors
and faculty to give her both personal and professional support, fracturing the mentor/mentee
relationship with Macy. However, the majority of practical and daily learning occurred in
classroom spaces that only Macy and Raven shared as a figured world (Holland et al., 2003).
This important space for Raven’s learning, then, was undergirded by personal dramas,
implicitly influencing classroom instruction and dynamics. Next, we move further into the
drama when ideologies clash.
When ideologies clash: The case of Annabel and Claire

There was a sign displayed in the classroom (along with many others) that caught our
attention:
State law makes it illegal to insult, abuse, or assault a teacher or other school employees while
they are engaged in carrying out their official duties.
There are other signs that remind children of how to behave and follow the “laws” of the
classroom—rules for talking (or not talking), guidelines for academic expectations, pledges
of good behavior, and charts for punishing violations. There was a directive to participate
and engage associated with a threatened consequence. Interactive structures like these are
common to most classrooms; it is a management technique used to control the behavior
of children. It is an activity that is part of the figured worlds of teachers. While behavior
charts are not the focus of this paper, the ways that interactions were organized are key to
understanding the discord between Annabel and Claire. Annabel’s teacher preparation
program interrogated the traditional ways that interactions were organized in classroom
spaces, challenging the authority and power of the teacher as the sole arbiter of knowledge.
Aligned with Freire’s (1970) idea of dialogic exchanges and empowerment, PSTs were to
think about interactions as cultural exchanges, co-constructed within productive dialogue.
PSTs were challenged to identify the resources that every child brought to classroom
events, connecting ideas to their background knowledge and valuing them as resourceful
contributors to knowledge construction. Thus, it is not surprising that Annabel struggled
with the positioning of children in the classroom. She felt compelled to give students
positive encouragement, especially those who were constantly reprimanded, sent to the
back apart from other students, or given punishments as consequences. Annabel felt as if
children were inequitably and unfairly called out for their behavior, specifically children
from non-White communities. She hoped that the “negative teacher language” would not
be “engraved in [her] brain” as it weighted heavy on her social conscience.
She was concerned about the deficit view of children. Furthermore, she felt that some
children were labeled as behind, difficult, or immature, positioned as such for the entire
school year. For instance, one child whose retention was confirmed spent 25 minutes on
the first observation at the computer playing games. On the next observation, he was sent
back to his seat for moving around on the carpet; on a subsequent visit, he was singled out
for misbehaving when many of the other children were also violating the same rules. In
fact, there were very few recorded interactions between Claire and the child that moved
beyond managing his behavior.
Claire took an academic approach to learning saying, “I would rather have a reading
nook area than to have a block section over here because to me, I can do more with the
reading area than I could with a block section.” She knew children were being pushed to
do a lot, but she saw value in pushing them, “I’ve never done a nap time. I just feel like it’s
just a waste of time. They could be sitting and reading quietly for 20 minutes instead of
laying down and taking a nap.” Children were reminded to do things “quickly” and there
was a heavy emphasis on classroom competition to learn phonics, letter activities, and
sight words. Claire’s goal for the students was to learn 220 sight words by the end of the
year; she (as well as the district) saw this as a benchmark for predicting success in the later
years. Children’s inability to learn enough sight words was often communicated to parents
as justification for retention. Thus, the curriculum and language ideologies in the class-
room were a direct mismatch to the theories offered in Annabel’s coursework.
Annabel experienced difficulties in her classroom placement because of the ideological
differences towards children’s identities. While Annabel valued children’s play and believed in
authentic language experiences, Claire adopted the “academic” kindergarten in accordance
with both district and state goals (Graue, 2006). Annabel struggled with the types of activities
that children completed; however, she felt as if she had no power to change the larger,
ideological structures of the classroom. She felt limited as a “student teacher”, viewing this
position as structurally significant in the classroom order (Holland et al., 2003). Therefore, she
resorted to small changes. She implemented flexible guided reading groups in order to scaffold
student learning. She engaged children in a read-aloud at the end of the day where they
listened to a book for fun. She implemented journal writing so that children would have a
space to write about their own topics. Several times, Annabel supported children who were
punished so that they understood their “offenses” and moved forward.
Despite these changes, Annabel felt bounded to practices she did not agree with. Throughout
observations, Annabel led lessons where children engaged in decontextualized language exer-
cises, lasting anywhere from 45 minutes to 1 hour. She also commented on children’s language
mechanics in free writing (e.g., periods, capital letters, spaces, spelling) more than the content of
their ideas. She carried out most of the academic activities instituted by Claire and did not find
space to implement play. Although Annabel was able to make small inroads in the classroom
structure, she felt constrained because this was “Claire’s classroom”. Thus, the larger ideological
issues (student/teacher interactions, curriculum, organization of time/space) remained
untouched. Consequently, she was unable to enact her personal identity as a teacher. Like
Raven, Annabel relied on Sharon to alleviate the stress of her daily experiences. Sharon recalled
spending up to 45 minutes, debriefing with Annabel because there were so many issues, “They
[the PSTs] had so many questions. . . they were just reeling from trying to figure out how to put
theory into practice and do it in a classroom where that theory wasn’t necessarily valued.”
In both cases, the PSTs saw their supervisor and mentor teachers as individuals on two ends
of a spectrum. Instead of taking it up with Claire, Annabel chose Sharon as her mentor and
confidant through this period. They were able to discuss frustrations and issues with the
classroom culture, unbeknownst to Claire who assumed the relationship was great, even
saying that Annabel was the “ideal student teacher”. Despite the cognitive and pedagogical
dissonance, Annabel chose not to challenge the ideological differences because of the pre-
sumed, hierarchical nature of their relationship (Leshem, 2012). Neither Annabel nor Raven
saw the two mentors (i.e., supervisors and mentor teachers) as a triadic unit (Martin et al.,
2011), but separate and distinct. In telling the case of Heather in the next section, we still see
the bulk of relational work occurring at the dyad level (PST and MT). However, we discuss the
story of Heather to learn about productive tensions as well.
Pushing and pulling tensions towards productivity: The case of Heather and Sally
In describing Heather’s characteristics as a student teacher, Sally noted a quality that was
also apparent in the field notes:
She [Heather] always gets a lot of language out of them. So, if they’re right, she asks them to
explain how they knew it; if they’re wrong, she asks them to explain. . . and either they or their
classmates would realize, ‘Hmmm. . . no.’ And then we’d go from there. . . I really learned to
listen and get more language out of the students. That was one thing that she was definitely
better at than I was. I was like, ‘Yeah, I need to do that more with the students.’
Notable in the above reflection is that Sally (the mentor) acknowledged that she learned from
Heather (the mentee) when it came to facilitating dialogues in classroom discussions. Contrary
to traditional apprenticeship models where the mentor is seen as imparting knowledge to the
novice, Sally and Heather’s relationship was fluid in dynamic. In other words, the hierarchies
were not fixed nor assumed. Sally admitted starting off the student teaching experience thinking
she had to “teach” Heather something, she quickly realized that Heather’s competence was
beneficial to her own growth as a teacher. Furthermore, the coteaching and collaboration that
occurred in the classroom was also apparent. Sally and Heather talked off each other, followed
up on the others’ ideas, and moved the conversation along as equal partners.
For example, during Heather’s takeover (meaning when she had control of the class-
room), she created a garden unit where the children planted seeds in an underutilized plot
outside. On one of the observed days, she took the children out to pick a carrot that began
to emerge above ground. The plan was to pick the carrot, make predictions on its length
and weight, and carry out an official measuring and weighing. While Heather was outside,
Sally borrowed a scale and set it up, ready to assist Heather in her lesson. The children
excitedly came back to the classroom to tell Sally about the carrot. They asked her to close
her eyes so that they could surprise her; when she opened her eyes, she said she had never
seen a carrot that big and wondered out loud whether their earlier predictions were
correct. Heather, following Sally’s lead, held the carrot against the dry erase easel, and
Sally measured it with the marker so the children could hold up their drawings to verify
their predictions. This fluid back-and-forth was a common occurrence in this classroom.
However, their relationship was not always harmonious, but “rocky” as described by
both Heather and Sally—they also experienced tensions of their own related to teaching
styles and curriculum. Their issues in communication were similar to that of Raven and
Macy. Heather was unable to respectfully disagree with Sally and instead, harbored anxiety
about instruction:
It was very strained in the first semester. . . we still do have different teaching philosophies and
ways that we deal with things in the classroom, teaching styles, and things like that. So, we
really butted heads at the beginning. . . well maybe not butted heads, but I didn’t speak up. I
was trying to do what she did because it was her classroom but it wasn’t who I was. . . so we
had like a sit down, heart to heart talk, and after that, things really began to smooth out and
when I started my takeover, she really let go of a lot of the control and shifted her discipline
strategies. (Heather, formal interview)
The confrontation between Heather and Sally occurred early in the spring semester, prior
to beginning takeover. Unlike Raven, Heather confronted Sally for fear that her anxiety
would continue, making student teaching unproductive. This was a turning point in
Heather’s student teaching experience and shows the importance of productive confronta-
tion and honest communication. The confrontation brought new possibilities for
Heather’s experience as well as the mentoring relationship. Instead of making assumptions
and miscommunicating intentions, realizations surfaced. Heather realized that Sally was
open to changes in the curriculum and organization of the space. Sally, through the
conflict, created space where Heather possessed increased agency to influence and remake
the classroom space (Holland et al., 2003).
The classroom did lack structures that made it difficult to bring in principles from her
teacher preparation program. Heather fully recognized this as she spent more time in her
elementary placement. Interview data also revealed that Sally believed in the centering of
the “basics” (Dyson, 2013)—phonics-based instruction, language activities, sight word
memorization, etc. Although Heather did not eliminate all the decontextualized activities,
she was able to make learning more meaningful by incorporating center activities and
creating more opportunities for inquiry through activities and talk. In this sense, her
willingness to assert agency in her own practices is significant as PSTs have the potential
to either reproduce similar practices or create new ones, opening up spaces for transfor-
mation rather than reproduction. Significant in this portrait is that Sally had no experience
being a mentor teacher. Although she was considered an experienced teacher, she also had
the least amount of professional knowledge about content. She self-identified as less
knowledgeable than her kindergarten counterpart. However, her self-perceptions made
her, arguably, more flexible and open in her teaching. Given Heather’s proficiency, Sally
exhibited characteristics and dispositions of a fellow learner.
In this case, Sally admitted she did not possess all the knowledge, and even found
Heather to be more knowledgeable about children’s development. She identified innova-
tive practices that Heather brought into the classroom, hoping to use the ideas the
following school year. Sally allowed her classroom space to be a transformative one
where she relented control and allowed Heather to freely try out ideas without judgment
or criticism. On several occasions, Sally expressed that she would not have the patience or
energy to give children so much freedom in their learning. However, she allowed Heather
the professional judgment to make her own choices; she even went on to play a supporting
role, helping Heather when needed despite their philosophical differences. Furthermore,
Heather created this space for herself by taking care of the personal relationship and
voicing her ideological concerns. The open communication broke down barriers related to
individual identities, but also broke down structural hierarchies of power. Therefore, the
tensions experienced by Sally and Heather became productive.
Discussion and implications

Tensions were the result of factors that plague personal relationships: communication
problems (i.e., Raven and Macy), differences in beliefs/worldviews (i.e., Annabel and
Claire), and frustrations with the actions of others (i.e., Heather and Sally). In what
follows, we discuss these social tensions in mentoring relationships, providing implica-
tions for teacher preparation.
Challenging the mentor/mentee hierarchies: The power of collaborative learning

All three mentor teachers acknowledged the competencies of the PSTs. Raven connected with
children in meaningful ways and was cognizant of children’s personal lives. Sally realized
Heather knew a great deal to begin with, and Sally could learn from her. Claire expressed deep
respect for Annabel’s knowledge as well. However, the difference was the perception and
release of power. Sally equalized the hierarchy of power in the classroom by relenting control
and genuinely supporting Heather by taking a secondary role. Thus, Heather was able to
create for herself the autonomy and space to enact her personal visions as a teacher. Even
though Heather and Sally approached teaching and learning differently and their theoretical
frameworks misaligned, the agency given to Heather gave her the power to bridge theory to
practice. On the other hand, Claire (while acknowledging Annabel’s potential) found it
difficult to give up power and control. Thus, the theoretical tensions were unresolved as
Annabel felt limited by Claire’s authoritative stance. There is a fine line between pushing one’s
thinking in productive ways and facing an “ideological meltdown when moving to settings
that invalidate their ideals” (Smagorinsky et al., 2004, p. 22). Therefore, it is important for
PSTs to face ideological conflict and challenging circumstances with the support and media-
tion of the university. This step is crucial in order to guide teachers as intellectuals and
advocates of their own practices.
Like Borko and Mayfield (1995) and Smagorinsky et al. (2004), we call for a
reimagined role for the university faculty that involves a closer relationship with
the MTs where feedback is modeled, instructional approaches are planned collabora-
tively, and communication is ongoing and substantive. In our case, all three MTs
struggled to remember the supervisor’s name. While Sharon was willing to commu-
nicate with MTs, she admitted this only occurred when there were issues within
mentoring relationships. Therefore, supervisors were reactive to the relational ten-
sions rather than proactive in building relationships. Instead, supervisors need to be
co-participants by entering, participating, and inhabiting the classroom space
(Holland et al., 2003). To be fair, this takes more time and resources than Sharon
could commit to in her role as a supervisor and instructor in the teacher education
program. Faculty and supervisors need time and commitment to partner with MTs as
a “collaborative collective” (Martin et al., 2011). In other words, the burden of
responsibility is not the supervisor’s to bear alone. A hybrid space, then, works to
break down the (in)visible barriers that separate universities and schools. In order
for theory to live in practice, the PSTs need to see university faculty involved in
teacher education and school faculty working together rather than against each other.
In collaborative collectives, the decision-making process is flexible and negotiable.
Shared decision-making, however, occurs when power and authority are also shared.
Heather felt empowered to implement her ideas while Annabel felt disempowered. We
argue that Heather measured her success through changing the interaction structures
and revising the curriculum (focusing on theory and ideology). Annabel’s success was
measured by how well she was able to carry out Claire’s agenda (focusing on practice).
In fact, Claire mentioned how impressed she was at Annabel’s ability to involve herself
in a science lesson that Claire organized, commenting that Annabel needed very little
direction to facilitate the activity and manage the children. Unfortunately, many times,
learning to teach successfully means learning to control the classroom, organize the
materials, deliver content in a prescribed manner, and manage children. As Sharon

reiterated, “A good mentor teacher would show the student teacher how to navigate
[the curriculum].” Furthermore, she saw the need for university faculty (beyond the
supervisor) to go out into classrooms, understand the cultural landscape of schools,
and navigate the competing philosophies facing PSTs. These third spaces, then,
become a space where all the actors have shared knowledge about the context-specific
demands on teachers and their work.
While Heather and Sally’s relationship was not a perfect example of third space, it
illustrates the power of joint learning. They moved back and forth, took on multiple roles,
including that of teacher and learner. As seen in this paper, it is crucial for PSTs to feel as
if their voice, opinions, and ideas are validated and included within the curricular and
classroom structure. Without a flexible space, PSTs experience frustrations with imple-
menting the theoretical principles within their coursework.
Mediating built-up social tensions: Teaching and learning as personal

As illustrated earlier, the quality of personal relationships influences our capacity to learn
from and with other individuals. Raven and Macy, although their philosophies seemed the
most aligned, failed to truly recognize each other’s strengths. At some point within the
year, the unresolved tension led to an unproductive working relationship: Macy (as a
silent witness) allowed Raven to struggle through her difficulties in teaching. Raven (as an
equally silent participant) enacted her obligations and duties without soliciting Macy’s
input or feedback. Thus, they continued to build social tensions that proved to be a major
obstacle in their growth. While much emphasis is placed on the professional learning
opportunities between mentors/mentees, less emphasis has been put on the influence of
emotions, interactions, and relationship building. Undergirding relationship issues is the
positioning of power and autonomy in carrying out identities in shared spaces. For
instance, Annabel unduly felt bounded by Claire’s practice; in essence, she felt over-
powered by Claire’s dominance, which in turn, impacted her sense of autonomy. In all
three cases, each PST relented to their mentor teacher because the classroom did not
belong to them. Thus, the relationships never reached a balance of power, an essential
component for mutually beneficial partnerships.
Similarly, it is important to acknowledge the multiple roles that MTs embody in the
relationship. They provide professional guidance and assistance, but as other scholars have
pointed out (Feiman-Nemser & Beasley, 2007; Johnson, 2003), they provide emotional
support for PSTs. As Raven said, talking about “extracurriculars” or discussing their
personal lives was an expectation that Raven had for the mentoring relationship.
Therefore, mentoring is about blurring the boundaries between the personal and profes-
sional. Supporting PSTs means that curricular/classroom support and personal/social
support work together in the development of teacher candidates.
The value of cognitive dissonance: Using tensions to build strength

Therefore, fieldwork experiences can be instructive and meaningful in both negative and
positive ways. We argue that while the sociocultural approaches of the teacher education
program clashed with some of the curricular and teaching approaches in schools, it gave
PSTs an epistemological lens in which to organize their experiences. The PSTs easily
identified aspects of their teacher education program that did not fit into the practices in
the field. In fact, their inability to foster the resources/strengths of children (e.g., Annabel),
to incorporate the presence of free play (e.g., Heather), and to view families as knowl-
edgeable instead of deficient (e.g., Raven) were some of the main issues that the three PSTs
wrestled with under their MTs. These three pillars, coincidentally, were the main theore-
tical constructs undergirding their coursework. Experiencing the disconnect between
theories and practice strengthened rather than diminished these values in each PST.
While field experiences are valuable for exposing prospective teachers to the realities of
schools, these experiences can also prove meaningless without guided inquiry and inter-
actions, especially in underserved areas (Selwyn, 2007; Sleeter, 2005, 2008). Negative
experiences (e.g., deficit views of students/families; scripted teaching practices; retention
policies) have the potential to perpetuate stereotypes rather than disrupt them. Thus,
university supervisors (including faculty) are pivotal in mediating these tensions by
occupying the world of schools, refiguring the dichotomy that defines the two spaces.
The determining factor, then, was the practice of shared power, joint meaning-making,
and reciprocal learning—third space. But clearly, these third spaces are impossible without
adequate relational capital, involving all the individuals responsible for preservice educa-
tion (MTs, university faculty, and community partners). The relationships between the
university personnel responsible for building PSTs theoretical stances interacted mini-
mally with the school personnel responsible for the practice of teaching. Inevitably, this
continues to build gaps between theory and practice. While individuals exist in very
different political spaces, it is crucial to work towards building democratic spaces for
PST agency—refiguring the world of teaching and learning.
References
Abell, S. K., Dillon, D. R., Hopkins, C. J., McInerney, W. D., & O’Brien, D. G. (1995). ‘Somebody to
count on’: Mentor/intern relationships in beginning teacher internship program. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 11(2), 173–188. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)00025-2
Baum, A., & Korth, B. (2014). Preparing classroom teachers to be cooperating teachers: A report of
current efforts, beliefs, challenges, and associated recommendations. Journal of Early Childhood
Teacher Education, 34(2), 171–190. doi:10.1080/10901027.2013.787478
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London, England: Routledge.
Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor
in learning to teach. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(5), 501–518. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(95)
00008-8
Bradbury, L. U., & Koballa, T. R. (2008). Borders to cross: Identifying sources of tension in mentor-
intern relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2132–2145. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2008.03.002
Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: State
University Of New York Press.
Cain, C. (1991). Personal stories: Identity acquisition and self-understanding in alcoholics anon-
ymous. Ethos, 19(2), 210–253. doi:10.1525/eth.1991.19.issue-2
Cherian, F. (2007). Learning to teach: Teacher candidates reflect on the relational, conceptual, and
contextual influences of responsive mentorship. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(1), 25–46.
doi:10.2307/20466624
Clarke, A., Triggs, V., & Nielsen, W. (2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher education:
A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 163–202. doi:10.3102/
0034654313499618
Combs, M. C., & Nicholas, S. E. (2012). The effect of Arizona language policies on Arizona
indigenous students. Language Policy, 11, 101–118. doi:10.1007/s10993-011-9230-7
Connelly, M., & Clandinin, J. (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.
Dyson, A. H. (2013). ReWRITING the basics: Literacy learning in children’s cultures. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Beasley, K. (2007). Discovering and sharing knowledge: Inventing a new role
for cooperating teachers. In D. Carroll, H. Featherstone, J. Featherstone, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D.
Roosevelt (Eds.), Transforming teacher education: Reflections from the field (pp. 139–160).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
Fieman-Nemser, S., & Carver, S.L. (2012). Creating conditions for serious mentoring: Implications
for induction policy. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 342–364.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder.
Gallego, M. A. (2001). Is experience the best teacher?: The potential of coupling classroom and
community-based field experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 312–325. doi:10.1177/
0022487101052004005
Gardiner, W. (2009). Rudderless as mentors: The challenge of teachers as mentors. Action in
Teacher Education, 30(4), 56–66. doi:10.1080/01626620.2009.10734452
Gonzales, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households,
communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Graue, E. (2006). The answer is readiness—Now what is the question? Early Education and
Development, 17(1), 43–56. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1701_3
Gutiérrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocultural literacy in the third space. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3
Hennison, P., Crasborn, F., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Mapping mentor
teachers’ roles in mentoring dialogues. Educational Research Review, 3, 168–186. doi:10.1016/j.
edurev.2008.01.001
Hobson, A. J. (2002). Student teachers’ perceptions of school-based mentoring in initial teacher
training (ITT). Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 10(1), 5–20. doi:10.1080/
13611260220133117
Holland, D., Lachiotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (2003). Identity and agency in cultural worlds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jackson, P. (1990). Life in classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Johnson, K. A. (2003). ‘Every experience is a moving force’: Identity and growth through mentor-
ing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 787–800. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.06.003
Killian, J., & Wilkins, E. (2009). Characteristics of highly effective cooperating teachers: A study of
their backgrounds and preparation. Action in Teacher Education, 30(4), 67–83. doi:10.1080/
01626620.2009.10734453
Koballa, T. R., Bradbury, L. U., Glynn, S. M., & Deaton, C. M. (2008). Conceptions of science
teacher mentoring and mentoring practice in an alternative certification program. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 19, 391–411. doi:10.1007/s10972-008-9101-z
Leshem, S. (2012). The many faces of mentor-mentee relationships in a pre-service teacher educa-
tion program. Creative Education, 3(4), 413–421. doi:10.4236/ce.2012.34065
Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Malderez, A., Hobson, A. J., Tracey, L., & Kerr, K. (2007). Becoming a student teacher: Core
features of the experience. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(3), 225–248. doi:10.1080/
02619760701486068
Martin, S. D., Snow, J. L., & Franklin-Torrez, C. A. (2011). Navigating the terrain of third space:
Tensions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 62
(3), 299–311. doi:10.1177/0022487110396096
Maynard, T. (2000). Learning to teach or learning to manage mentors? Experiences of school-
based teacher training. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 8(1), 17–30.
doi:10.1080/713685510
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Nguyen, H.T. (2009). An inquiry-based practicum model: What knowledge, practices, and relation-
ships typify empowering teaching and learning experiences for student teachers, cooperating
teachers and college supervisors? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 655–662.
Norman, P. J., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2005). Mind activity in teaching and mentoring. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21, 679–697. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.006
Rozelle, J. J., & Wilson, S. M. (2012). Opening the black box of field experiences: How cooperating
teachers’ beliefs and practices shape student teachers’ beliefs and practices. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28, 1196–1205. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.07.008
Ryan, S., & Grieshaber, S. (2005). Shifting from developmental to postmodern practices in early
childhood teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 34–45. doi:10.1177/
0022487104272057
Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Schwartz, G., & Merton, D. (1968). Social identity and expressive symbols: The meaning of an
initiation ritual. American Anthropologist, 70, 1117–1131. doi:10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00060
Seidman, I. (2012). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the
social sciences (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
Selwyn, D. (2007). Highly quantified teachers: NCLB and teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 58(2), 124–137. doi:10.1177/0022487106297842
Sleeter, C. (2005). Unstandardizing curriculum. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sleeter, C. (2008). Equity, democracy, and neoliberal assaults on teacher education. Teaching and
Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Moore, C., Jackson, A. Y., & Fry, P. G. (2004). Tensions in learning to
teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education,
55(1), 8–24. doi:10.1177/0022487103260067
Sundli, L. (2007). Mentoring—A new mantra for education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 23,
201–214. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.016
Timoštšuk, I., & Ugaste, A. (2010). Student teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher
Whitney, A. E., Olan, E. L., & Fredricksen, J. E. (2013). Experience over all: Preservice teachers and
the prizing of the “practical”. English Education, 45(2), 184–200.
Yoon, H. (2016). ‘Writing’ children’s literate identities: The meaning of language in multilingual,
multicultural contexts. Multicultural Education Review, 8(2), 1–18. doi:10.1080/
2005615X.2016.1166722
Zeichner, K. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: A personal perspective. Teaching and Teacher
Zeichner, K. (2010). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on
diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and
Copyright of Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education is the property of Routledge and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

When Tensions Between Ideology and Practice Become Personal Unpacking Mentorship in Early Childhood Teacher Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

When Tensions Between Ideology and Practice Become Personal Unpacking Mentorship in Early Childhood Teacher Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION

2018, VOL. 39, NO. 1, 50–72

When tensions between ideology and practice become

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

“Figuring” out the world of school: Understanding the context(s) of teaching

Identity construction in ﬁgured worlds: Entering the world of school

Reconﬁguring space in ﬁgured worlds: Negotiating power in teaching and

Figuring out the world of school through mentorship: Rethinking power,

Understanding the world of the university

Understanding the world of schools

Williams elementary school

Smith elementary school

Figure 1. Sample “play” justiﬁcation in Macy’s room.

Dyad one: Macy and Raven

Dyad two: Claire and Annabel

Dyad three: Sally and Heather

Table 1. Demographic Information of Participants.

Data collection and analysis

Table 2. Summary of Data Collection.

(1) How is the mentoring relationship constructed?

The semester-long observations in spring 2013 allowed us to construct and analyze

Table 3. Data Analysis Sample: Level One.

Table 4. Data Analysis Sample: Level 2.

When ideologies clash: The case of Annabel and Claire

Discussion and implications

Challenging the mentor/mentee hierarchies: The power of collaborative learning

materials, deliver content in a prescribed manner, and manage children. As Sharon

Mediating built-up social tensions: Teaching and learning as personal

The value of cognitive dissonance: Using tensions to build strength

You might also like