<%BANNER%>

The Discursive Nature of Mentoring

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021986/00001

Material Information

Title: The Discursive Nature of Mentoring How Participation in a Mentoring Relationship Transforms the Identities and Practices of Prospective and Practicing Teachers
Physical Description: 1 online resource (227 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: discourse, mentoring, qualitative, teaching
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (ISC) thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In the field of education, mentoring has become increasingly important for improving teacher retention, job satisfaction, and teacher quality. However, researchers have documented that mentoring within an educational context was often focused on situational adjustment, technical advice, and emotional support, which enculturated new teachers into the current systems rather than helping them to critique or challenge the existing practices of schooling. Consequently, a new understanding of mentoring has emerged called educative mentoring, which encourages novices to challenge their thinking and practices and to engage in critical reflection that can be used to foster reform in schools, as well as in classrooms. My personal interests, as well as my beliefs that mentoring and the identities of mentor and mentee are socially constructed through discourse, led me to design a study that investigated how mentors and mentees utilized discourse in negotiating their relationship and what role the mentoring relationship played in their co-construction of knowledge about teaching and learning, as well as the transformation of their individual identities and practices. The following questions guided my research: (1) How does the relationship among mentors and mentees, engaged in studying their practices, develop and evolve? and (2) How do the relationship among mentors and mentees and the discourse(s) in which they are situated transform their identities and practices? This research was framed by social constructionism and employed audio-taped dialogue sessions, field notes from participant observations, and a researcher?s journal to explore how the mentors and mentees negotiated their relationships, co-constructed understandings of teaching and learning, and transformed their identities and practices. Aspects of Gee's (2005) discourse analysis and Fairclough's (2003) critical discourse analysis served as a vehicle for illuminating the discursive aspects of the participants? dialogue, as well as how they established and maintained rapport, planned and co-planned lessons, and participated in reflective discussions about instruction and classroom management. Although the mentors and mentees engaged in many of the same mentoring activities, their identities as mentors, as mentees, and as teachers were influenced by the ways in which they negotiated power, as well as the ways in which they positioned each other. Mentors and mentees who shared power and positioned each other as collaborative partners developed relationships that shaped and transformed their practices and identities. Moreover, the nature of each mentoring relationship was influenced by the discourses that constructed the sociopolitical context in which the mentors and mentees were situated, and the interdependence between mentors' and mentees' identities shaped not only the nature of their situated mentoring discourse, but also the ways in which the activities of mentoring were enacted. This research provided evidence of the complexity of mentoring and the ways in which discourses are constructed and changed as they are employed to engage in the activities of mentoring and to transform the identities of the relational partners. These findings have important implications for teacher education, as well as for the mentoring practices of individuals. Teacher education programs might consider providing prospective mentors and mentees with a better understanding of the philosophies and practices of educative mentoring and how the discourses in which they are situated, as well as the dialogues they co-construct, can be used to create a relationship and a context for learning and transformation.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Dana, Nancy L.
Local: Co-adviser: Koro-Ljungberg, Mirka E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021986:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021986/00001

Material Information

Title: The Discursive Nature of Mentoring How Participation in a Mentoring Relationship Transforms the Identities and Practices of Prospective and Practicing Teachers
Physical Description: 1 online resource (227 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: discourse, mentoring, qualitative, teaching
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (ISC) thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In the field of education, mentoring has become increasingly important for improving teacher retention, job satisfaction, and teacher quality. However, researchers have documented that mentoring within an educational context was often focused on situational adjustment, technical advice, and emotional support, which enculturated new teachers into the current systems rather than helping them to critique or challenge the existing practices of schooling. Consequently, a new understanding of mentoring has emerged called educative mentoring, which encourages novices to challenge their thinking and practices and to engage in critical reflection that can be used to foster reform in schools, as well as in classrooms. My personal interests, as well as my beliefs that mentoring and the identities of mentor and mentee are socially constructed through discourse, led me to design a study that investigated how mentors and mentees utilized discourse in negotiating their relationship and what role the mentoring relationship played in their co-construction of knowledge about teaching and learning, as well as the transformation of their individual identities and practices. The following questions guided my research: (1) How does the relationship among mentors and mentees, engaged in studying their practices, develop and evolve? and (2) How do the relationship among mentors and mentees and the discourse(s) in which they are situated transform their identities and practices? This research was framed by social constructionism and employed audio-taped dialogue sessions, field notes from participant observations, and a researcher?s journal to explore how the mentors and mentees negotiated their relationships, co-constructed understandings of teaching and learning, and transformed their identities and practices. Aspects of Gee's (2005) discourse analysis and Fairclough's (2003) critical discourse analysis served as a vehicle for illuminating the discursive aspects of the participants? dialogue, as well as how they established and maintained rapport, planned and co-planned lessons, and participated in reflective discussions about instruction and classroom management. Although the mentors and mentees engaged in many of the same mentoring activities, their identities as mentors, as mentees, and as teachers were influenced by the ways in which they negotiated power, as well as the ways in which they positioned each other. Mentors and mentees who shared power and positioned each other as collaborative partners developed relationships that shaped and transformed their practices and identities. Moreover, the nature of each mentoring relationship was influenced by the discourses that constructed the sociopolitical context in which the mentors and mentees were situated, and the interdependence between mentors' and mentees' identities shaped not only the nature of their situated mentoring discourse, but also the ways in which the activities of mentoring were enacted. This research provided evidence of the complexity of mentoring and the ways in which discourses are constructed and changed as they are employed to engage in the activities of mentoring and to transform the identities of the relational partners. These findings have important implications for teacher education, as well as for the mentoring practices of individuals. Teacher education programs might consider providing prospective mentors and mentees with a better understanding of the philosophies and practices of educative mentoring and how the discourses in which they are situated, as well as the dialogues they co-construct, can be used to create a relationship and a context for learning and transformation.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Dana, Nancy L.
Local: Co-adviser: Koro-Ljungberg, Mirka E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021986:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101109_AAAAAH INGEST_TIME 2010-11-09T09:19:50Z PACKAGE UFE0021986_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2110 DFID F20101109_AAAHYH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH hayes_s_Page_149.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
6053c47dd3130c106f5ecdc6e06355da
SHA-1
b84a2d35969ed4762c9c12dc875b6e676f14ac08
60983 F20101109_AAAICX hayes_s_Page_095.pro
db602be7282c6383c4aaf9a963699800
c83fa230c514c9ea123a5cfa0c71fd3548b42513
25271604 F20101109_AAAIVA hayes_s_Page_103.tif
1b3c6b26d1243db5c2f51aa962fcae29
a9c53cb595a2555701c7236e5fae36c6d20aafb2
17568 F20101109_AAAHYI hayes_s_Page_217.QC.jpg
7e04ae4ff058a1c5b63d6ceb206044b2
b0f7a434d18f62f99709eb459d58dcc070fc59ee
7522 F20101109_AAAICY hayes_s_Page_144thm.jpg
1ee51166d60800df454eec135783cb10
2e09bfa84b157e68e91b46afb3ec5b7b93405be2
F20101109_AAAIVB hayes_s_Page_105.tif
cf3483be54272c31dc7661fbd9071366
2296ff1c46439016f7de278791ba8b01adb85bf2
84467 F20101109_AAAHYJ hayes_s_Page_139.jpg
7e6e26d077cecd6f02aad2b9cf296b5b
dcdbfadcc4c4d3018c4d9556326f7bb69f0603c4
56629 F20101109_AAAICZ hayes_s_Page_075.pro
d6afe5499232f778c2cd5b26790cb80e
ed54adb54db208be9d25f7cec310dc46384300dc
F20101109_AAAIVC hayes_s_Page_106.tif
6ff48c90cbf38efbaa1da6d71e249ec9
c36418e4ef1f6451fd792c415bd4175bdf36bda4
1051952 F20101109_AAAHYK hayes_s_Page_040.jp2
dea82497d10d53f892684baa0ed96c99
b79ac9e3daed69a5f20d6227b44dbbca63d3b213
F20101109_AAAIVD hayes_s_Page_107.tif
a22efc21e94d2b9b0c58a4ebe91c83e6
81fc39862d544e64a8a3f677d42e245e3721af79
F20101109_AAAHYL hayes_s_Page_152.tif
b245aec96c9168acada4c8664d762f6d
c1334ce2bee0220422fbad320ef01a62def749e8
F20101109_AAAIVE hayes_s_Page_108.tif
1d3696442d1e497b22f438f6e39d103c
2b157c04b2650ccebbf0946e3e9844147e4cb304
F20101109_AAAHLA hayes_s_Page_030.tif
56b7b4ec232d3effd39b496bbcad68eb
3227bcba7dccca05397cf67dac704b87f06136c9
2103 F20101109_AAAHYM hayes_s_Page_099.txt
5697b87ecad626cd5e2a22c9d5a4b6be
b5cad6436bf2a85099b4e1c01f4b689a16b945e4
F20101109_AAAIVF hayes_s_Page_110.tif
a423dfd8f2e360cb79c384c595f3f7bf
48df0180ce0399ac0ccb4e9b71e9cfe4b30316d6
1051979 F20101109_AAAHLB hayes_s_Page_216.jp2
8c1472c32e49d43affbf061efd13e205
4c0414f4e5d4d4cbc7315d7945716bf18af86be1
29531 F20101109_AAAHYN hayes_s_Page_135.QC.jpg
a8efa2008fdf4c8c53a93b509bfa952f
e8a97fda3f02e721fc92a04eacfa1b99befd124c
F20101109_AAAIVG hayes_s_Page_113.tif
177370052745b07bf297d0e877f28573
1df3e38627d034184c1bf72be898710177afe759
1051918 F20101109_AAAHLC hayes_s_Page_195.jp2
37a03a8297c7cc0684375e3e4ff352cb
2de9fd3b9e5e6cc443fc1e86158a0ed8f6e3e28b
56044 F20101109_AAAHYO hayes_s_Page_197.pro
e756dc0d181453f7db8342a8b9398cb8
7c7229a2149ce6434c5ab33fe2f9f0fb6544c6f1
F20101109_AAAIVH hayes_s_Page_116.tif
642f022b5cd43dd2f703fee61a65607e
3d1c60f5f0941a08ab827d599a081cfc66924d78
81931 F20101109_AAAHLD hayes_s_Page_060.jpg
ddc710568a60a8c5eeb010a6ebb155da
92ebb82759c12fce97d38a4477e294b51e78eff7
84183 F20101109_AAAHYP hayes_s_Page_066.jpg
1efea09135289f29606ebad25a117dfa
47850a1445f6a5ea1071e5c71ce7b3dbd55a8503
F20101109_AAAIVI hayes_s_Page_119.tif
a8aa272a71ff0ee1765442f4aab5b414
7b6f21f17fc6e41d94843b280b7bb4124c39e0e0
58286 F20101109_AAAHLE hayes_s_Page_181.pro
3a0e851bdec4d7965d468796aee8546e
2930faaac5c1ba2d29a2a842b73ebab07ac19214
80503 F20101109_AAAHYQ hayes_s_Page_048.jpg
0bee5ebdb57c408e5deffea0f28cba3d
f989cf6fbefcecfa476053971b643cdba099e4e7
F20101109_AAAIVJ hayes_s_Page_126.tif
96ba908d5185a53cc6e4dead7e452be7
62c60c9432ed0a58ea0cbaf1834894fd194bf192
F20101109_AAAHLF hayes_s_Page_061.tif
c3b417c4eca94e37cc98c0f9ac6b1e90
d04a36e1a49876c8c0d71a21a05b8cab6a48d6f8
F20101109_AAAHYR hayes_s_Page_038.tif
f30fb22705c27c576aa3721c55f512d2
7d0cb67ce527d6e2c914b9648cb68eb45c231d67
F20101109_AAAIVK hayes_s_Page_127.tif
31af6d2b7a05c93b79fa6d68e414d0ee
ec1c61c5079914fa3af49b8f2ae06e12b783c64b
2098 F20101109_AAAHLG hayes_s_Page_098.txt
53c2b4602209533356a8ea51d151ea81
fcab6f2d005954669eec2625bcc22c7fbcfa6ff3
2094 F20101109_AAAHYS hayes_s_Page_139.txt
3411f8ab9dc0b2e29b5775b9a0b0dc87
bfa65c50405c03e58062b3c61651fe279b4b7b1d
F20101109_AAAIVL hayes_s_Page_128.tif
73d2ddff156370e1b7fe376617622c78
9f706dc9f7b2ae39941079a4b8bffa5513101c30
1860 F20101109_AAAHLH hayes_s_Page_186.txt
a417ae913c35fa915625082abc30399a
fd4e8c4421add96c7a67c429865bd11dd0d687af
6771 F20101109_AAAIIA hayes_s_Page_118thm.jpg
e3ae8241c6eb2ce5e4a0cb8b4c9f4ec1
204204faff5407539cd3fd5f89de3eeeaa2a068e
25568 F20101109_AAAHYT hayes_s_Page_036.QC.jpg
8a64d40e3c0eabf856d7022fa6fbf073
06f7c3a3a9964d962660a7c66974c60746fcf29d
F20101109_AAAIVM hayes_s_Page_133.tif
f49d95b955aba3adaa1379831b4fab2c
c37397f2dc6fd0aacc347b84ea352e1ddc09351b
75778 F20101109_AAAHLI hayes_s_Page_078.jpg
9ff3be6a3c7127bd6d7316ca318677de
bb231a4c9b3777ffdfa83e2761a3ddad53e83011
1051968 F20101109_AAAIIB hayes_s_Page_156.jp2
2b88bcc16a98cebb8f905df6bfd484b2
8b6fb8377572ae4e54a1c5cbd44531d63fe7f180
26479 F20101109_AAAHYU hayes_s_Page_040.QC.jpg
5a815cfb5f7efe093357c7add0fe299d
095a260c22bdff27577efa368f6fa88bc759a93c
F20101109_AAAIVN hayes_s_Page_138.tif
569b43153918034ea3a213ca3866876a
92b4ba21584a9fc2785a3d4e02bc48190afde854
26541 F20101109_AAAHLJ hayes_s_Page_054.QC.jpg
9cd27e183aa1919f478a115073e8b230
1d61735f6b15608205db5a5374c5783c994badd1
2475 F20101109_AAAIIC hayes_s_Page_135.txt
56fb7f0ac06401f070b64db83b341563
462995166053c44c9c2868a69089c57b6e144b6d
6945 F20101109_AAAHYV hayes_s_Page_091thm.jpg
ca214014a39481b48b1f5f6aaa2f3838
f25afa71ca6b6ecdb36de499b95e16f624380d4f
F20101109_AAAIVO hayes_s_Page_139.tif
7a1b63c162199622db1814bafe2063c4
81093234515436abab2c45670c2ee260c71c20ba
90406 F20101109_AAAHLK hayes_s_Page_115.jpg
a97630fae036f8e9d05974e9bacb5262
784e7b4581f66094bf5f9ae6d2547a07fab9199a
1051963 F20101109_AAAIID hayes_s_Page_136.jp2
d9f9f36fabeab5cf1167842ae35fca54
72e80e238459cf8384c5402ba0710fe99bb580a3
7434 F20101109_AAAHYW hayes_s_Page_075thm.jpg
6f7af10aa76fff8117497148ce23c917
b48f8a604c1d24417a633de49ac01a0f36695416
F20101109_AAAIVP hayes_s_Page_140.tif
b8d60703b47870321bcafe774ed41cba
3bf18be6de63161a95a10a36d6d09c1f5b120c0f
7132 F20101109_AAAHLL hayes_s_Page_004thm.jpg
21e46e7110e9acf4a6c585c4ceaf4849
0f4a316e76f88d66ebf5f6821884a64ba7c6d25d
7248 F20101109_AAAIIE hayes_s_Page_162thm.jpg
daf90368f74f84fe1fa4b9ed14171c70
d4685467a04a887982099a966891c03c3b16cc42
F20101109_AAAHYX hayes_s_Page_046.tif
ec91be9c9f15ceef14ec39a4a36647aa
68eeb851e9d56c038b15184d123d2a25e11ea1f8
F20101109_AAAIVQ hayes_s_Page_142.tif
5f08724cb941d5f0efd46caaa804bab4
5694ce7fe672926e89625b11538fdb8d649504da
10633 F20101109_AAAHLM hayes_s_Page_010.QC.jpg
5e0f40e70eef39c114be9f5367f7fb38
dd84e4a2a002b9507b0fc00a8985dfffd990f273
1051983 F20101109_AAAIIF hayes_s_Page_079.jp2
7c7d37ea3d16de44eb20b95b188b8e52
ea9313baaf35e4683fb74640cd60b7b384a5c9ad
2109 F20101109_AAAHYY hayes_s_Page_141.txt
9a973c8fe9e463d7b783a8f47ff44e11
a827e1922ac64ccade2c087b27d21daee1406746
F20101109_AAAIVR hayes_s_Page_144.tif
b022f7e1502339f3720e016c30c249c8
ab8a3e0e55bca7e55363e56681a3004c1b984d7d
1047988 F20101109_AAAHLN hayes_s_Page_160.jp2
614913dcea7ce3df3bfd50de7ff0e522
517ee74439c236a68e940c2e302c0dd7f5943850
28094 F20101109_AAAIIG hayes_s_Page_178.QC.jpg
49cae0fed2c65505325904ec4a4129f8
4ca842115cd429672b36f0ae115bc2807ba3aa0b
2131 F20101109_AAAHYZ hayes_s_Page_191.txt
ba455cecefb9fcb1417cbd2bb912bc9f
1f3e38fbf20257adef7b06f3f22c28c927fa70b5
7047 F20101109_AAAJFA hayes_s_Page_043thm.jpg
9646f5e539f2541f566d9a53cbd60244
2a05118f7eb1564d5fe409a8cbc9b1dfee2ec318
F20101109_AAAIVS hayes_s_Page_151.tif
0daf6975685f373ff3b549ed18de1ae6
d0be92eaf5699e776f4348704547fdea61d3e1bb
53753 F20101109_AAAHLO hayes_s_Page_038.pro
4a0aedcbecc3cc91124cf70c4ad4cd8c
4b45120c6c1a02c1e2c56eb3e78fa6b6a57a3816
55850 F20101109_AAAIIH hayes_s_Page_061.pro
9e8356348e19ce2bb186af61bcf27678
0ae6af16ff32cceb35d2e0ef2c504d714ebcf2e7
7470 F20101109_AAAJFB hayes_s_Page_069thm.jpg
b9f457d384a6fd1e6b533eefa18e1c99
0a050f4c8fe34a1b9ee08daea969ae9d8571ce16
F20101109_AAAIVT hayes_s_Page_156.tif
908f38aceaac59955ea8aba028429c3a
a3426dd7412dac66eb0b6a9f60c57d40f80d5b94
75604 F20101109_AAAHLP hayes_s_Page_114.jpg
d5b5b4ddf07aa90f58f256a0062f6c49
b4b473ed6ea00ada91501ecba448d82ee70b0f15
25841 F20101109_AAAIII hayes_s_Page_193.QC.jpg
e849859951d4bd61141e2506075430f0
ad23cd98d1b96bbcf8e41dddb3cdf9b67606117e
5471 F20101109_AAAJFC hayes_s_Page_006thm.jpg
6e8bb042afb3bd264b427a95379f9fde
1527a663c9500173a4d34374cbb235c386a61dfe
F20101109_AAAIVU hayes_s_Page_160.tif
e3cc598ca3254a4df7b99dc8abcff524
7da6ffd9766a7a57c9196c901a0c395bbe89f5d1
6995 F20101109_AAAHLQ hayes_s_Page_025.pro
2ca04ca941e78870ab8e8befe623875f
b265b32b934c46ee1723fef2b4197fa083b82052
1051986 F20101109_AAAIIJ hayes_s_Page_082.jp2
0395f267d58a516fcca152893ee79e0e
c8fd033a7808e2c8c5368b614297c82895c5bcff
6985 F20101109_AAAJFD hayes_s_Page_104thm.jpg
0c285bbd0a4a96007f80e0900ceca149
64a691f60d270b1b13228a92877f2a1f2bee5586
F20101109_AAAIVV hayes_s_Page_163.tif
d40750b43c091c37408a4b886d79e86a
07de7e40f7bb6b4aa886c8f5485d2b31d3ea8c80
1480 F20101109_AAAIIK hayes_s_Page_214.txt
d13059bd49c9dc992606a6faab99523a
152d83b9d700b492f8e24030a84c619f15fba0bc
25781 F20101109_AAAJFE hayes_s_Page_096.QC.jpg
59abba90e51794577ea4c715f4c93ba9
bbf7c993906151cba7c2f97687fe5cb459a4b24f
F20101109_AAAIVW hayes_s_Page_166.tif
a8490536c680dff197c6e3d08ba95cfd
939b7103ace22fdb6d8b67a30870225fcd000df7
25261 F20101109_AAAHLR hayes_s_Page_095.QC.jpg
e21eee5a6daf2fd021c44413d3b3f2b8
a003230d03811b0527980aacafee5a5c5ea2c6ed
53267 F20101109_AAAIIL hayes_s_Page_162.pro
ef3e50ebca8653e25cb9a708a8614913
252811b321330ff6b126f64305d4cb33b5a13e76
22301 F20101109_AAAJFF hayes_s_Page_006.QC.jpg
5645d107c4540c2c1c717a4e129f7e9e
b3bc2d5d15ee573f899171933e3786e87b5fd3cd
F20101109_AAAIVX hayes_s_Page_169.tif
1d284f9a4c4b66487906cad8dba7adb5
de630ba30132ca47bbc8abf01a5e5af19c8201ea
4865 F20101109_AAAHLS hayes_s_Page_207thm.jpg
2b612a12a4aaf1fac1def1f82dea7e5b
3b76cb46e2a9bcaba41c67e1dacec4a8ef4ae389
86318 F20101109_AAAIIM hayes_s_Page_125.jpg
726d7914d2bc6529cad22ca65c277fef
8118cd21e50d1e8f08c79373f6191cce2a083149
7343 F20101109_AAAJFG hayes_s_Page_132thm.jpg
ddff938131b3f76a24f07f66b588575f
3064487347c6d04fa964a1aaa19cdb56329446ec
F20101109_AAAIVY hayes_s_Page_170.tif
dc33e64a2ebc62929574abf929674ba4
0059620e8bc0c68713d7e63f3cf61926c893b144
94748 F20101109_AAAHLT hayes_s_Page_218.jpg
587ff2d6b41537e1c247c1cb6c6247ee
796ca3aa6e7a11ba3f34df3f37c6c61b21c84670
3106 F20101109_AAAJFH hayes_s_Page_002.QC.jpg
8889875fe04d37c9a59616bb8a83f37e
2ace8bcce2c242838e19a5722c2fe4443548122a
F20101109_AAAIVZ hayes_s_Page_171.tif
76ee033e65f4ba6511bbb8386111658d
0cbfaa6da38cfd9f0518c2aba3bf28f6a277dc11
27693 F20101109_AAAHLU hayes_s_Page_069.QC.jpg
10b3c3d40374d8aa55a3e30c47bab824
048db060010f3fac0e1f35210761ffcce3bbd103
F20101109_AAAIIN hayes_s_Page_167.tif
5e13e031de8afc38f36466d95ac7efbc
b7c21a741ba4709476e7231cd1f57e2d320d762f
7080 F20101109_AAAJFI hayes_s_Page_054thm.jpg
357aafe1da0f9799227967fcbb5588b7
377879655be2a2738718a0b1763e5a8fd9b734b4
2147 F20101109_AAAHLV hayes_s_Page_078.txt
7517e755b815d9471a938873c7c3eea1
ab2b47ca393c85ae8aaaae8c577ffdc6f7e5c03e
18976 F20101109_AAAIIO hayes_s_Page_126.QC.jpg
0855a04c2f92569f7704431e7bd7c078
6b00361992dd3e85fb90fec426e8d0fb71c741ff
7530 F20101109_AAAHLW hayes_s_Page_019thm.jpg
d47ea402f8e2904cf89b86577ef4c972
a1e6fb430a4dc198fd6c1e3b5768bb8690da9c69
7094 F20101109_AAAIIP hayes_s_Page_108thm.jpg
9c90a199edf9bfb570f82f9e1d0dfd11
30b7692f6e3299bac5efa15f0b87683dbecc3c22
26353 F20101109_AAAJFJ hayes_s_Page_043.QC.jpg
8dc6f53c7d1d46315c09c8e760c3c1cb
c577299b24002d01d92c9b3189a1ebfa8c2cce42
83027 F20101109_AAAHLX hayes_s_Page_118.jpg
41d7a7f284ed46ad5f963d6461f8b926
c91e7fba061fc06f9260b8cf6e723dceaddb0edb
1051976 F20101109_AAAIIQ hayes_s_Page_175.jp2
2c671148507012f3fa90e6802f236fcb
9e4e1290236ad7faae673e8e3835fb7bc15a5d61
27548 F20101109_AAAJFK hayes_s_Page_190.QC.jpg
9b49b1725dfad048802c7902540280c2
61362ee3b4395a8eb5937ca3b9b2631b29ef9193
79257 F20101109_AAAHLY hayes_s_Page_006.pro
2dbb98459bf763c1024ebdfddde55d65
d431784fccd5df3a100bae1ab140ac9b6b258657
91971 F20101109_AAAIIR hayes_s_Page_170.jpg
ad1462cd09d07a41854a7433dca3244a
5fab1fe347aac2645138941788a72cff4e8c175e
7488 F20101109_AAAJFL hayes_s_Page_222thm.jpg
ea8ae498cc8134a3690e8dba25fa6180
834311468f3dae98ba9c984bb630e3361933c766
8655 F20101109_AAAHLZ hayes_s_Page_001.QC.jpg
5c16db2fbc0527f66219accdbc502bd0
390084121c9588b6b19f1b3f6bacbbbd963c2c2f
94593 F20101109_AAAIIS hayes_s_Page_177.jpg
4207351d5e308439bb5a069794fa4fd1
43d87b244074ee7c8d955c243f47eb230bc4bc9b
28010 F20101109_AAAJFM hayes_s_Page_182.QC.jpg
d73698bddc13e0a9dff6ac3e02b43498
dee582f3ab3da89275c967ca25e3a0238524f91a
26244 F20101109_AAAIIT hayes_s_Page_175.QC.jpg
6dc8e0fa42a2bf8255d6b6a53b55c4b5
58187cfd18fc48abc38839503b43b563b44eab1b
7140 F20101109_AAAJFN hayes_s_Page_096thm.jpg
c1094b56ed5f8599179a00984b60c7e1
e480e160cc3ded26a6c8f155788d8eed25cd3ee1
1051942 F20101109_AAAIIU hayes_s_Page_167.jp2
b2847e0096c42a63ec0559dfd43b2960
87fa19123c5ead1e5859aa9638a28c7894280135
25215 F20101109_AAAJFO hayes_s_Page_133.QC.jpg
32b6fc35694bd4739158167f126a4c57
18af8f14ee2523e27600e2d7b057a501fdab0f6c
27317 F20101109_AAAIIV hayes_s_Page_181.QC.jpg
7335a0c792b3481b365ddc078b1ef814
ff659ada961c0a2b6f9838e9a111a461c9f7395c
29171 F20101109_AAAJFP hayes_s_Page_137.QC.jpg
d3f74a82416cc50248b2f132de37cd84
18734291d69b51c65ab7ec010b11ca1eb63bd3fc
82754 F20101109_AAAIIW hayes_s_Page_107.jpg
3ce5ca3a70e132e725975d17e5c53b0b
0d7baf1a4948bea509676ba2ecbfe5877cdfe723
28037 F20101109_AAAJFQ hayes_s_Page_024.QC.jpg
7f9c698a7f314f3c85b45e4037484b6b
2107bd7037bef6b0e6be44260ec026429dce9d63
2255 F20101109_AAAIIX hayes_s_Page_072.txt
d5e91912eb80d586a48bf61e77e3ead0
e888ea9e38e46a0a608a9a380cb96aede807a28a
24833 F20101109_AAAJFR hayes_s_Page_080.QC.jpg
779be295a36479d16e83f253dc811ae8
893f3185bb1e499eb8499f1041272372c2656736
F20101109_AAAIIY hayes_s_Page_001.tif
162eb6cc9dececadebedd7a269d8e6ca
3154ca1aa00c81c2592fc6b93b077331c5a98865
27748 F20101109_AAAJFS hayes_s_Page_032.QC.jpg
3fd0699eeeb0ef386948ac5ab639d732
c1011c4efa6727f39c64e585fce4fd23cc2f698e
26505 F20101109_AAAIIZ hayes_s_Page_035.QC.jpg
62d848f22c3e838190128410cb6ccdc6
50f6ecb7fbcb97586d99cabe53b208e6c1799eac
7395 F20101109_AAAJFT hayes_s_Page_049thm.jpg
35d3c8f9fc66034025a2d06ff781a292
ef84d8cb0c500c2ebf2b47e223f6b37510c16809
7471 F20101109_AAAJFU hayes_s_Page_032thm.jpg
41c66d21e2bc0dfe5a80e4891057f209
61e950b2cfdb5d62ecca3bab7fe1ffa35628d64d
21869 F20101109_AAAHRA hayes_s_Page_009.pro
b974e09ada89d4e0f6f9ade8e3c0a8e5
52500cefc4fc1c64ebdf1502f801c40f451108b3
24770 F20101109_AAAJFV hayes_s_Page_224.QC.jpg
96ede25ed6ec882c0804db55d9854401
3af00bbd37d76d315defaed800c1fe1d92549413
7101 F20101109_AAAHRB hayes_s_Page_040thm.jpg
0ca308cec320f7c5c7fe9753a1b34a0e
0c40bafac7a0ee8f9132cc063ab783853a60eb07
7412 F20101109_AAAJFW hayes_s_Page_090thm.jpg
676439852c060dc0ab30f86690472da2
3374f3498871176d390003602a4435d86f069e81
90525 F20101109_AAAHRC hayes_s_Page_050.jpg
2684d5032ac964b6af76f54ba39841d7
8c7a1a5770b3b0681f0444aeb184ac461353ab8c
7389 F20101109_AAAJFX hayes_s_Page_134thm.jpg
fd307a9c91e544ac5a8086f664821154
f8466e86fb7e2707e6ae221913a88d6d352dafa1
F20101109_AAAHRD hayes_s_Page_059.tif
b3f0036e40384c8bf619fef0a9a1b708
2af3b79156a52770f4f324a015eeb53447e51247
6628 F20101109_AAAJFY hayes_s_Page_148thm.jpg
67a2bd7d2c56f2c963a76dee6df22f33
0f60f65d51fca1aa066af7d750144d8fb74149ab
55656 F20101109_AAAHRE hayes_s_Page_196.pro
a6020f0a7ca145f91000a60110f57b68
bf2e1dee3c79160b9636545c2f51484330b06d95
7568 F20101109_AAAJFZ hayes_s_Page_068thm.jpg
699a93abbabc612d09df0a3de1f39818
3688e28cd44fb84a9e662b412e77e5780bb8b7f1
2207 F20101109_AAAHRF hayes_s_Page_079.txt
51550eaddf16309b8658222d7e038852
54a7f627f013c74a8ac842de1a59a57ba2fada30
7518 F20101109_AAAHRG hayes_s_Page_097thm.jpg
f5820c52af34242adf74857cb909df99
b100b14a60ea9a366e5909d29e3bc0cea1ffd514
7673 F20101109_AAAHRH hayes_s_Page_081thm.jpg
c50f093ed5aa07d122ae8bd7b6b19058
135cc79e83b76f682db16650147f171c2aac3008
83279 F20101109_AAAIOA hayes_s_Page_011.jpg
22546ac748a98e00d32e3d8dc4b5a67a
b6ba2b171668e082bc627d25b5bca7d5a40af61a
F20101109_AAAHRI hayes_s_Page_111.tif
930aff4fef814825950944a35f6e0283
536210567c1c9992d281ecc3de027edbd1ffc5f8
88148 F20101109_AAAIOB hayes_s_Page_017.jpg
3d734135c066b5b5efdff38cae47de16
adee42902409b5fbe2324fe107c58b8496fe83e6
7487 F20101109_AAAHRJ hayes_s_Page_027thm.jpg
5f802710ddcea3ee42d6bd09ad1e3d01
da2af3a20853d0eb9504949c5ff2125d2163fdfd
17931 F20101109_AAAIOC hayes_s_Page_025.jpg
362ea9369665b4a15666b0ebd99df1b6
7558b66f59dac43f87c3b9dcf54a6c23028aca42
1051970 F20101109_AAAHRK hayes_s_Page_134.jp2
3a5cb652d59b209c12fcfd125d0dec9b
4a21074488e960b70fe727e545f1bb011e0fb40f
84623 F20101109_AAAIOD hayes_s_Page_031.jpg
3309c2817ba89533f0765dbefa4f2656
b8ca02684c9e400e85169a727851cbdbce99f0d5
7005 F20101109_AAAHEA hayes_s_Page_193thm.jpg
72450dbf0243babb2a0ff3f94331312c
01b6d2807b7577d34232b0463f2126702d77c4a7
74730 F20101109_AAAHRL hayes_s_Page_117.jpg
2c5597ac6816f69895a520265333dcd8
038d4ad31e144c1537a590672c74bd63902c32b3
98353 F20101109_AAAIOE hayes_s_Page_034.jpg
b60c88486874ecbe758c0a49a309eea7
6b6e832cb6aa1a3f123f765833831b1c24c24d80
1051972 F20101109_AAAHEB hayes_s_Page_171.jp2
ad46f20b659800b97da35c0fad3f6d42
0f8c9f099d54fa19ff4aa7813feae6d48da50471
7358 F20101109_AAAHRM hayes_s_Page_191thm.jpg
7c100db4b298cdbab3ea3b25d37305ea
60d663514370fc09ce56708976bf1de0957d2e58
84040 F20101109_AAAIOF hayes_s_Page_042.jpg
17aabb4c9b70c9922b87f95bbab2284e
ec787ccc8a8ec1c21e9293baeb8a7bf930af898b
7790 F20101109_AAAHEC hayes_s_Page_106thm.jpg
adc05c037d8512fdf03fb482d3598261
d2126780748f0526dd2c54fde57f827a331b54ca
51550 F20101109_AAAHRN hayes_s_Page_089.pro
5305f23b49b644482b131b9d6a22b6b4
570e8ccb3118005f2a883cac1b7cf1d9cf989055
82730 F20101109_AAAIOG hayes_s_Page_043.jpg
98935ab65b23849a2bf304ccea375eae
9f94852db3095d530b6ae43d28f3445bb387a56a
F20101109_AAAHED hayes_s_Page_147.tif
a63951674ca3c5d652bb59e3127e94ad
7844a6bfae0264e66ff2115da3127545c2e66211
83448 F20101109_AAAHRO hayes_s_Page_039.jpg
f6dc128b182639e93824dde4c121c327
e9216a51e231d0bd0d57a1e4a7a497d52986a91a
86845 F20101109_AAAIOH hayes_s_Page_046.jpg
324e52ade9fe05cbc92a6802f7fc4e1b
5328f05bc008673a2cc7d7604cb63cf5eca42c87
6705 F20101109_AAAHEE hayes_s_Page_122thm.jpg
b9f6c526d8d90312b71544f555e01129
a8e8092d56625d9aa084c9ccbe2837d1487cbf2a
7249 F20101109_AAAHRP hayes_s_Page_052thm.jpg
40bab7b0b6996635216d8b3ca4eace0b
4cc0dad41e1500910aacf659c73da2dbc94cacc5
87098 F20101109_AAAIOI hayes_s_Page_049.jpg
c196e89a7d53dfc14cec6f83b33fe2a9
ce2ff9445b20aa979a44188986d4212aa8548ddb
6514 F20101109_AAAHEF hayes_s_Page_216thm.jpg
f1fd8ac6b2f9019f146162fa3d8af1fb
5f0ba236368305abf20103134096bff59f3fa04a
24543 F20101109_AAAHRQ hayes_s_Page_064.QC.jpg
e9d9f328a8c75b772aca47de99426f43
2cda104595fced4dc96ff779c90f636576241e7d
84031 F20101109_AAAIOJ hayes_s_Page_054.jpg
ceaab12125b68047c182c3948ab8268a
2bc1038e20300e1baef69cb8a90b31442ddd1850
97973 F20101109_AAAHEG hayes_s_Page_216.jpg
e8ccba2bc372d4ebe6c0a95a1162c7c4
5053deccaa991226f8824ac0c8297ce39b16393d
25624 F20101109_AAAHRR hayes_s_Page_156.QC.jpg
a3f8d5f3c18e9685b31114638c38486e
07c0838e6d72d3a16dda82c5e9361a47755d8784
91893 F20101109_AAAIOK hayes_s_Page_062.jpg
9d6b6efeebc01fa31fd482ff483cb1bc
da71de258efc5bf8945f6983c0c5295caac96978
7371 F20101109_AAAIBA hayes_s_Page_168thm.jpg
2a03a1061512e99d91c8685858df81fb
72ec5085dba9748e978b59535a80c9a31e656340
40392 F20101109_AAAHRS hayes_s_Page_212.jpg
246fde0a095601efd5ad7d61cc7fdea4
28b3c712be929129c7289f37ab8476540ff8fb1a
80729 F20101109_AAAIOL hayes_s_Page_064.jpg
ff0cd5211c2619e0d4365a7a629df7c3
0966d7e17e8e80cc4a39214fd07b01e10a2843d1
27623 F20101109_AAAHEH hayes_s_Page_020.QC.jpg
b963769b9b66dff40f099ccd263fa3c9
378d750ed6dddf69ea6f7e8e9d940efa7cd507c1
85587 F20101109_AAAIBB hayes_s_Page_208.pro
3187d45cb84b32c841b09225b0543313
eed51536e1340f3d2833fff4c1ff7cd552d59899
90521 F20101109_AAAHRT hayes_s_Page_182.jpg
6ded32e653bbfe6767edc5dba3c415f3
ee901c3b85446275aedc86bfd6cef18ed9ebd7ba
83102 F20101109_AAAIOM hayes_s_Page_065.jpg
4a475f61b9c54c4793d3d3b24d2987f2
f34466efee4c4e7d098ea0b97450038ff6811dc6
F20101109_AAAHEI hayes_s_Page_065.tif
4347f174c6c38bd3a742ca134f7e3783
11b7db419a7d0bb651ba4521072b9306ccb87d46
90880 F20101109_AAAIBC hayes_s_Page_215.pro
9fb8214c8c33e8ee4b3794c6d84236cb
53c617e72970bdd90b8f858af4f639a6eb9e8e19
F20101109_AAAHRU hayes_s_Page_169.jp2
9b5b095756d62187e5f2bd77664d28dd
324bd55eebda7ea78c38f378b36758a4b7d8ce8c
85114 F20101109_AAAION hayes_s_Page_070.jpg
7a60882ea30ec1327feeb99698cb22df
c30e5be819977c8d9285ffe1608177ff1e7fab6d
75200 F20101109_AAAHEJ hayes_s_Page_150.jpg
d9540a050dfda8aa1ba3ed93dfa43316
a1326dfbf564fa642b521a64da7a2d362eec9306
27368 F20101109_AAAIBD hayes_s_Page_058.QC.jpg
91beaa15097b0f995997b7637c9a1ce1
e3818e350aff77531375b6bad0ea2fb7201f1251
2059 F20101109_AAAHRV hayes_s_Page_035.txt
1b17d51d4915e1940e0d47a9405799b9
f9203760fca4ddef3c5c46cb10a8bdb59fd012ca
86219 F20101109_AAAIOO hayes_s_Page_072.jpg
fb13f2a15e64b60c942a149ca1d7f30b
3432967d1fefef35dd76816058e9939deea55bfe
52609 F20101109_AAAIBE hayes_s_Page_065.pro
13c8857218a97245d9c5dd4e633e160d
3449ed965120298992a67d5a22ec4382be9c3ecb
27464 F20101109_AAAHRW hayes_s_Page_222.QC.jpg
68750cf116d60b8dd19b92fb2c6f1457
1d1d40931473f6df5c83cc0003eba7e28b0bc64f
90995 F20101109_AAAIOP hayes_s_Page_074.jpg
62ab8ccdd30153d58feed8521e3c9305
07fc076aad8639ba16446e5f88041eb8ff27189f
54549 F20101109_AAAHEK hayes_s_Page_132.pro
169793a374499e2393dbf4e17e127206
c116691543659667e3498fec999369fa481fa33c
57106 F20101109_AAAIBF hayes_s_Page_026.pro
0e70e9b3bbab48aafe4cec4f08989c4c
ab95d27cfff093fa95bce18c87e9656e38f8a6ea
86898 F20101109_AAAIOQ hayes_s_Page_079.jpg
507471967a18df0fb4815abb1f4227aa
c4ea7054cf4a290161198b540b53413ea8d57a8a
1051926 F20101109_AAAHEL hayes_s_Page_036.jp2
ccdf270dd22beb17151617b1667a5a85
5b91e1d01452c349cdc030dffe1bbad10b60c10f
1051973 F20101109_AAAHRX hayes_s_Page_109.jp2
815e40bcf638aca9a9d870129b0cce61
1366997df51e3fe8c0693e2c0da9c80f3dbac9a6
79110 F20101109_AAAIOR hayes_s_Page_080.jpg
04ff4e3fde78502a11f1e11e61b557ac
9f2a353ac503b95b9639a9d9fb281203e722e3f6
57370 F20101109_AAAHEM hayes_s_Page_106.pro
97415fab6b129d1aedd35c7fbb323901
55bfd81fc9de0a3db4913c5381869cdaa8eba061
7535 F20101109_AAAIBG hayes_s_Page_170thm.jpg
9dab56f77904bccfcc3a9c544e8135f0
473fc383a8eb12bf7d4402cfebbf245255fde64d
25434 F20101109_AAAHRY hayes_s_Page_048.QC.jpg
f12f65f266cdd8b9afc46b4b62c509c1
6177b0c62b96c8839221b9957155c972bcf0e7c0
82341 F20101109_AAAIOS hayes_s_Page_084.jpg
ebf2051aeb8e4c65c1381bf7ea5ca4f2
428fd119b7e9ec13ee18f7fa32ed7e37774d917b
27629 F20101109_AAAHEN hayes_s_Page_176.QC.jpg
79b8d9c985ddc6adc2ef579caf2282dd
69818da8feec21637193ee24fc6eb510574cb7cc
62223 F20101109_AAAIBH hayes_s_Page_135.pro
a1f4508b4f74d1ee57a1db77a8f79b0f
29ccca2b5501e5eec7030627f9caf1a3ffab80dc
25952 F20101109_AAAHRZ hayes_s_Page_098.QC.jpg
a6b09ab87aab45cd57503c225c8b96b7
e7f81b09e34ec27839928e849c55f83f7cbadaab
7603 F20101109_AAAHEO hayes_s_Page_155thm.jpg
8749f77c9833a74ab5101275d4971910
70595bf945987362a5cfa57b3d865892c8657625
61818 F20101109_AAAIBI hayes_s_Page_154.pro
1711ae85fe5eeb236c67bf38a9a3d03f
6cb04574c9393fbba1856fd03615f538d682a8ed
80658 F20101109_AAAIOT hayes_s_Page_089.jpg
eb9808e52425f735d74ae54076a62851
1eb20c24daf8a298dfb693643acd9c7d1f730dbc
52738 F20101109_AAAHEP hayes_s_Page_131.pro
a1a6690dcaeb552d6464f9ce90cc3ee3
38ea9b80c4820234fc94e4f554c66abaf67a40eb
84742 F20101109_AAAIBJ hayes_s_Page_219.jpg
3ed957586829f283a206c1a0716aeb8a
165a7697805db55921461b2f3e2e0006c7389be0
82602 F20101109_AAAIOU hayes_s_Page_091.jpg
6c704d547ed480fd68497ac0dbd4bd2a
cd4685dfb7523835aca50c33040a6c700fc1d007
40767 F20101109_AAAHEQ hayes_s_Page_205.pro
c0f157265d51d31432e5e5cc4db15c44
d0442990fd66a6b271ba6a760c71895523e873d0
53116 F20101109_AAAIBK hayes_s_Page_044.pro
545858de5d4b2e95e1ba4acd0cd757a5
65aafbaead4b44c01bb14f8505fb080d0d84e9cf
84685 F20101109_AAAIOV hayes_s_Page_099.jpg
4c8e03256aac97d2f1d235cdf43df9f2
34427464d1575def58f668a3177b080e3d00f99e
F20101109_AAAHER hayes_s_Page_023.tif
87c35828d03c678590307ca52900c612
b974d277e9b81f06ff5d7e31d96d7ed26572312b
3180 F20101109_AAAIBL hayes_s_Page_010thm.jpg
8c8745906d3e80b1dba98cb38a2aa7a9
f0ec1328467d5c8998a7be83b313737913e3dd5e
91934 F20101109_AAAIOW hayes_s_Page_100.jpg
6eeca4d0148d9dbda64fd6fb4436e1cb
57268c6116874e287ba4d1a6a30c4058f672c840
F20101109_AAAHES hayes_s_Page_220.jp2
7d8a8adea096df99aa88e13784fe9726
de9968d92f146680b78a930df4e46c8f320fa7d1
56854 F20101109_AAAIBM hayes_s_Page_198.pro
83936d9f30a2ee1cdb9bf77df4d50940
0d40cf7d86eefa458117264653929f45c0a605f3
88855 F20101109_AAAIOX hayes_s_Page_104.jpg
ad6ef67ee4d92d4dead6b2bc6ce5116f
116990a7885f935773872c43c296cfcdb584e198
53664 F20101109_AAAHET hayes_s_Page_194.pro
11103b8a2a44ed739b5cb50949db5c49
4125f280e7f10ca2178dbe49409291c70487c526
2159 F20101109_AAAIBN hayes_s_Page_073.txt
9865f43874324d9c298869c7b67744ef
9dd99cd6918103b21d6f8f46f762fafaa9914290
70334 F20101109_AAAIOY hayes_s_Page_111.jpg
70cef82e46443df8d452439613148e7e
ce68ebf3f0bdac034b4a98ec3385ef5d80446274
2100 F20101109_AAAHEU hayes_s_Page_066.txt
54a915ca718b1fb5e06b2a8a19dbcb53
ab2899a6baea989d911a9b37f4f70d14f1d5e6e0
1051946 F20101109_AAAIBO hayes_s_Page_030.jp2
367f364dcf9cd7a47f6ba30fbed55e26
06cec4a3cba59bfd15b0ff98b4b77115acaae8b3
79055 F20101109_AAAIOZ hayes_s_Page_112.jpg
eedee2d699fe2a17ac754cb59c19bd0b
92c9926a5b4892a4f6958573b0145c6573368c6f
14824 F20101109_AAAHEV hayes_s_Page_093.QC.jpg
48cf53d7bf0231f46d201bd258109c91
ea211db95bd005b869b3f98d3739e8d31ae20b49
59985 F20101109_AAAIBP hayes_s_Page_218.pro
6c70afe835fb2fd37e48f9aca254a1be
41af47b12deef78312f98a4d64fe6724242e400c
16499 F20101109_AAAHEW hayes_s_Page_047.QC.jpg
32479b80f14c592d1a0cee63c40c5bf9
71393676c4bd6c798f6d5d998bd8561a353128de
24158 F20101109_AAAHXA hayes_s_Page_146.QC.jpg
f8bb4a965f62537a7daa0233ab2741aa
0abedbea79968ad4f31347e046e12b7c95a5d070
F20101109_AAAIBQ hayes_s_Page_007.tif
714e08f7100112e460e75486c9c9e056
170bf1fa7feb20bb1af1397959dba7c79cb93e21
F20101109_AAAHEX hayes_s_Page_069.tif
f1e2a104cdf81494b3b350553785e65b
8fff09205e48852a97d03f9ecf9d2060ebfa8bea
55094 F20101109_AAAHXB hayes_s_Page_086.pro
882991c152c2f2271becf0e79e793d53
c14c4f0d6d87773b3288216417d103826645707d
5828 F20101109_AAAIBR hayes_s_Page_200thm.jpg
b96b4e7a6342cfe5ea7aaa071e956c6f
e108cc26cc003c704aa0365ec535a065baa970cc
62107 F20101109_AAAHEY hayes_s_Page_152.pro
3b9e6bf04ee3fa33730dc51ad06c411b
bf046ae3bc872db2b946746f0c526bb4938e5bd2
84445 F20101109_AAAHXC hayes_s_Page_085.jpg
7b9efa7128d00d61f4b8f07e67f34cbe
9273a68b9b6f2af9ae6fefe021e095204cb7bfed
32286 F20101109_AAAIBS hayes_s_Page_203.pro
f353a97710167e9cb21f52f5df7108b5
191d3dc904c6cf1dc1b5dbc4d755bb92676a8669
1051980 F20101109_AAAHEZ hayes_s_Page_132.jp2
eb70bf5d0dab7ae5491e1e57caa714d1
effefc3247f4d83fa0f44f08cc801631a987149e
56758 F20101109_AAAHXD hayes_s_Page_083.pro
a0665c79d89ff4a2669ee044fd62d4f9
7fc4a7bf86bb94cf739e6aa88e9c29ce28f2e207
979977 F20101109_AAAIBT hayes_s_Page_145.jp2
67ee4a1d3f13219779ec6938d149600a
284cdc9005db84355f2bf30779796f30cd1d75e7
2178 F20101109_AAAHXE hayes_s_Page_219.txt
cc4be4f723f8f01ba1a94831963fc072
b6b952192ab7576b9a87a4a62bfa5672619dfc38
F20101109_AAAIBU hayes_s_Page_086.tif
01e95d6fb22018af03c53b4a39091d39
dae852f6c3623fb6138407745bd3ee22545ff82a
24041 F20101109_AAAHXF hayes_s_Page_120.QC.jpg
aeaf09aa82eaa5d649b23f25c65a2fd1
f4199d94d46ed891a9a9f7f6c73d3d28254749bb
64851 F20101109_AAAIBV hayes_s_Page_119.pro
03ff1546b5c987f07cca66887524c765
ddaa1860a88b71257c718258b52300efb9e23f47
7410 F20101109_AAAHXG hayes_s_Page_119thm.jpg
57f118e588482dd86b921f888ac4e2b5
f6989494f5af49d24e7141bc4527560546c3e5fe
121945 F20101109_AAAIBW hayes_s_Page_215.jpg
a478c1142b171a9424a0cb24083f06fd
d3b44f42320cb6b0022a7b2af89448d5f5ec97bc
27736 F20101109_AAAHXH hayes_s_Page_119.QC.jpg
6ac119eda0fa65c3d04aca6d81644cdb
463401e0d6ef324a1ff787934db5cfb28cb65669
1051909 F20101109_AAAIBX hayes_s_Page_086.jp2
88a354371b2720795df4d962f0e2c17f
cdf89745fc33415d6c44f625bdc1bae12d6b7903
F20101109_AAAIUA hayes_s_Page_027.tif
958a5c59f77f2e47729a716c64e00e52
0ba933c1d9c905b0a27ad2761315ca0c657ef810
2233 F20101109_AAAHXI hayes_s_Page_176.txt
bd9d6a780b356560d3257a7139750a87
6a473705e345afe68b8303d24a108114c0427e1f
57710 F20101109_AAAIBY hayes_s_Page_063.pro
c704f2946eec11be815c390f3fb749aa
9bd31eb9f53f13b8ce6a5adf8c3983545d115efb
F20101109_AAAIUB hayes_s_Page_028.tif
185998eae9d04dad672524bd3fb429f3
e5cf3eed068daed8b3876705be5e722daeea5e6c
1051959 F20101109_AAAHXJ hayes_s_Page_048.jp2
c399543a54e57d0020dae71d186c60d4
6ff8341adedc89d89297a7365dca4c0d35a82db0
F20101109_AAAIBZ hayes_s_Page_072.tif
1f5286cf03b296a6807114ec0ad88461
5c8393458231918b1d0effe96ca686ab13cf612c
F20101109_AAAIUC hayes_s_Page_029.tif
e9b1c22647262556a6e9daa3daf10feb
55ccd28dc79f788ad3d0681d160dbbc13fe5bc4e
87694 F20101109_AAAHXK hayes_s_Page_192.jpg
e2c95a16e192d1bacfde4d6e840b14ab
4173f012cd8d9aa47826bf008969bddde8bb57f4
F20101109_AAAIUD hayes_s_Page_031.tif
e788e9ab8031f94238078a6336925132
c2dfb5a88ff07090a2c1ad40ff6ca9fe969e64f0
F20101109_AAAHXL hayes_s_Page_140thm.jpg
fec6616d4fb88509cc346063f64df4fd
2b3d3ccd624d46c20e332cd489398d5e41789766
F20101109_AAAIUE hayes_s_Page_033.tif
5c401673d6b2b59850577eb5a0076c52
d172b9a5e997f5e9888faa9016491b7d9a7e8202
F20101109_AAAHKA hayes_s_Page_158.tif
4866a6194a7bfed62c2b31316555cf9c
83fd330bbd2f23034180c2dd355701785f27ba4c
7058 F20101109_AAAHXM hayes_s_Page_181thm.jpg
7658e7fd8064fb7d9defb404e169d9b3
c08626222ca4eb2d206689ccb5ea0c0e45d388fc
F20101109_AAAIUF hayes_s_Page_037.tif
ca804e71755ee9838d4078c3ebdcb65d
457ccaed3ce86a3897af2a21390793ab8870669a
2080 F20101109_AAAHKB hayes_s_Page_096.txt
eafd638b6921ba49a4e5048a14dc6edf
b320d3dcbd6cafdf03dadc52700b13f94ec5d549
7029 F20101109_AAAHXN hayes_s_Page_107thm.jpg
37d2f2f362d35a7329f8fd359df458f0
d5561c390234aa037e2a890b01b06f2fecf603b9
F20101109_AAAIUG hayes_s_Page_040.tif
6d3846e289619c5910f575be5df12146
49f3d94f637b31025c91645b0564c769518b52a2
58815 F20101109_AAAHKC hayes_s_Page_143.pro
42265582b18a39a12c11d2735ab6bf2c
698c415447e0eab70e8c0d7f1bd4bcfbe6b847bd
F20101109_AAAHXO hayes_s_Page_039.tif
c02b2b7f8053bc8d9ee8abc8949b455f
4599466cef4db31624c5e1587b6d119924205b91
F20101109_AAAIUH hayes_s_Page_041.tif
4cc89bc54bcafe93442310cb1adc4cc6
81d27065870be0a967627647d3a1bcdf3061d930
6642 F20101109_AAAHKD hayes_s_Page_011thm.jpg
090e2a76f6440c2cb8693ecebfd74ddb
7df9adeb6e01de4d83fa4bfec1ecc86cf6dc2eca
27021 F20101109_AAAHXP hayes_s_Page_029.QC.jpg
3a33c433ec951b3ae69f177642cdac3f
dc793d9500274493f1d84211930b255492a1be85
F20101109_AAAIUI hayes_s_Page_044.tif
fb44a1917d9da0437a425a55262be01c
5df27063506058cf1e0dd507169eab1682503d3d
974354 F20101109_AAAHKE hayes_s_Page_217.jp2
e3f628112182a8aa154ff83109c7bee1
8e3e796cdde36ceb7d0bb9822da56769b3c07720
958905 F20101109_AAAHXQ hayes_s_Page_111.jp2
e3928d26b6a570cf1a0036389a56198d
717e8939ed1734205af5f71f817c41ca98f89051
F20101109_AAAIUJ hayes_s_Page_055.tif
e6cb6a823f961886e70a5c0e008803b6
16e4a3ed3cfff35aca2c9c9fe854216ccc9542f4
7010 F20101109_AAAHKF hayes_s_Page_187thm.jpg
a782018416f4b7795fd862c056140455
112e1acee49ff00c191691c15e6a99a0fbdf137b
82851 F20101109_AAAHXR hayes_s_Page_148.jpg
7d1103727cb9349c21cf5f58e612daea
a5e0e47292207e9dc92a303f598fed8f0d3629fc
F20101109_AAAIUK hayes_s_Page_060.tif
66b17b7040bf5eded90d23b1debc61dc
85e1473080620417ae90ddd2c5a377a45c9c05d9
7473 F20101109_AAAHKG hayes_s_Page_008thm.jpg
f693670f0c444ff64d196ea54d1586ae
ec9cc43be728ba9d60d46d9fa1c2bac435753589
1051901 F20101109_AAAIHA hayes_s_Page_041.jp2
7c20bda07bac41a47bd74c5e1d306b56
09ae033ed88e19780f19407e603f334001d12b8a
1051982 F20101109_AAAHXS hayes_s_Page_150.jp2
67ff74c84c50041ba356c680e4ec070e
541922b769cfbd8ede244acd2dbcb1f23b2d29fa
F20101109_AAAIUL hayes_s_Page_062.tif
cf8138707fb56af062156871a14f2516
21ae53cefec4d05a336b048927061780c38be51a
648310 F20101109_AAAHKH hayes_s.pdf
4ffd02daf93b14317ce0a0fe0a843046
0f3af6d0eeb62abfaf0f34eb3b673a2cb7361a8b
917 F20101109_AAAIHB hayes_s_Page_227.txt
b00e612f1b49da0763e246354f83aeea
ea186b57c6a1d967e53d8b28d8bc14815f7ce4ba
2458 F20101109_AAAHXT hayes_s_Page_164.txt
c7c39da853ee161e94b05f05f7e445db
efe2657d0e248f7a9a1a1ab321df003e9a96c547
F20101109_AAAIUM hayes_s_Page_064.tif
b5446e71eb78b4b369b29a4f24972f72
c7ff31a540a124c6b150fb463d7a80da752ed1b5
14131 F20101109_AAAHKI hayes_s_Page_226.pro
f52c22a3be993bf4fb3dd300e3b2ffb4
10d616cad654dca73a64798ca35c651797ae1536
F20101109_AAAIHC hayes_s_Page_205.tif
f827d7a662c0b00296da200ab8ec6e4f
95e7db61343bf27a154a826c544032d67fa091ad
2230 F20101109_AAAHXU hayes_s_Page_088.txt
02c60bace012dbf02888bc7bf31f6e97
bc4d9e24bc7818e9391aba044a7ea87f37b00ccb
F20101109_AAAIUN hayes_s_Page_067.tif
85f5b401ad4fe3641526d097426d90b0
9bbf61cbe7b9eb7e0e04fb5a36ab6af7f1c392a5
7044 F20101109_AAAHKJ hayes_s_Page_219thm.jpg
f5460c13b8cd207a596153ed68dab8dc
261869db60663f57d1e490eca297fdc3b11758a7
7633 F20101109_AAAIHD hayes_s_Page_024thm.jpg
3820de252a3fdca3014b7bd93435513a
39e4d20a26f4f810c51b1121e2f6b69908ca2498
2152 F20101109_AAAHXV hayes_s_Page_190.txt
c6b602bbeebec6ef9125a612bdfaccb5
975b4f727b29cad0ca297f2f00f72454eacf9018
F20101109_AAAIUO hayes_s_Page_068.tif
131402fe7e3581150922cab5a626de48
8676b2a799c4ca0e13d0128914bc33b1f29e84cd
2072 F20101109_AAAHKK hayes_s_Page_060.txt
d203c70d0b9409e62800e47e79fda9fc
896f84ceabd52c55d8d30be69211527d80101f16
F20101109_AAAIHE hayes_s_Page_117.tif
5a60bb0d5f0a9239ab25f9529260bf9b
00b5758e0c6a37f760710df3b23542cc5a6ea238
57183 F20101109_AAAHXW hayes_s_Page_163.pro
c9a70be17bb7216c5ffa4b01438f5d61
79a9010901f464d1188ac7cc396bd6640b3d974d
F20101109_AAAIUP hayes_s_Page_070.tif
06db5d527a9094fec8a067106e79a3ca
e1dda577f90f2cdf8a51b3c3e31de3059972a283
918450 F20101109_AAAHKL hayes_s_Page_205.jp2
1bf409f7d5cf6397e85b358b2b576c90
00673eda1611ec021a5ad7cf643223d2affe17b7
F20101109_AAAIHF hayes_s_Page_050.tif
9397cf94ef1eae960b292d79cc36215d
836c8d8363b49cc0b0820a0c21e825978a723b00
28106 F20101109_AAAHXX hayes_s_Page_016.QC.jpg
f3aa218f0e86fa8aa4cdf40d317b1dc7
cf2c4c736c6fc0520e357d89055770647c3bf381
F20101109_AAAIUQ hayes_s_Page_074.tif
21e2abd72b74c7fe56a538b507b4f888
a3ac51e82b878bebebf1a82ea3efc745b0ed2118
25739 F20101109_AAAHKM hayes_s_Page_089.QC.jpg
72aec5939257b0a231369b3884ee9629
479ba756e4d5cf640211a5249b0edfbc7ab5c3b9
25914 F20101109_AAAIHG hayes_s_Page_142.QC.jpg
a26416df09fc316569317c34ddeb24b2
9b29630657c1511448ff23a103f3f1a5169f7d06
28660 F20101109_AAAHXY hayes_s_Page_068.QC.jpg
43b4383147c0df0fc9b21788b7d46f79
27d694a22d999fb267ef736fe45a4f8e44823e8e
F20101109_AAAIUR hayes_s_Page_075.tif
93b8178f9f9a5fcd2449f5e15c7ca493
cce885fe0aef01a437dbc2c6f257c0fa6f329525
7429 F20101109_AAAHKN hayes_s_Page_050thm.jpg
5d57149b1a4edaad8099c78071a5d390
75335f223423d7b6d9be72fae80432d5b891d554
72625 F20101109_AAAIHH hayes_s_Page_145.jpg
db0e064ffb4b9ecd6ba9729fc6ebd096
24c33a3451455fa47a53741e9309c0771c374498
2064 F20101109_AAAHXZ hayes_s_Page_055.txt
09fdab0fd93b48c13da42518d7f40dd7
1db5c3c0429b70ad78944110494532cb50ec878d
26579 F20101109_AAAJEA hayes_s_Page_066.QC.jpg
304a82e2d73505b9973610dbd3b07ee9
19ecaa8bd1657243c23687c440faa69bb6c8325c
F20101109_AAAIUS hayes_s_Page_076.tif
47d3a0e3ae5adc7c509424a66024c716
04f7b82019b0944bc5b90138337469ce74a92e7c
7597 F20101109_AAAHKO hayes_s_Page_215thm.jpg
3f4a3ecb785480fee2139b011ce12159
40ea4baf6b98a1ac06d0aa87c4517aa5798a688b
77045 F20101109_AAAIHI hayes_s_Page_146.jpg
ae314a82313f5c71e25ea4689fedd497
f9a5c2d56ed16943652e45132e3911372136cda3
25550 F20101109_AAAJEB hayes_s_Page_110.QC.jpg
9fa556c65575907d7df368160fbbbcb0
e8285463f80814b3b066180c28aa902dd6d1165d
F20101109_AAAIUT hayes_s_Page_087.tif
7ae7c22172ae2298d47da1b2cfcb2f64
55b3c5454585d373ae71e135646a3351637fbac8
1051949 F20101109_AAAHKP hayes_s_Page_106.jp2
db94a84c6fca02d6b668e518480918ab
069fdfc744298205282fef3b72088e915014944b
16885 F20101109_AAAJEC hayes_s_Page_185.QC.jpg
0550e5cb4e6f31a729770aae2449e079
6e0c39940019e0a57811b3631c07a38dba2f6c82
F20101109_AAAIUU hayes_s_Page_089.tif
9f3db17f037ce00e84ca668d48e726b4
d91bf74b960fd7e9c835b0ecb2ff60a2768b2dad
F20101109_AAAIHJ hayes_s_Page_215.tif
3083960b819dbbf457ffc340006db004
0cb87e105add76f1d7ff0336369d28922960e2d7
27961 F20101109_AAAJED hayes_s_Page_074.QC.jpg
ab74e1f19b3cb3c2ef025ad274fbeb3f
9cbcaccfb6f28798b899a23c4579aea79069dda3
F20101109_AAAIUV hayes_s_Page_091.tif
017bb9d5f545bbb7a63abbf14c986d44
cb2177ec152b2111bf09502313bc25e729920f73
6376 F20101109_AAAHKQ hayes_s_Page_173thm.jpg
7f14d20b30060deca5a0058ba86f22d8
1c0ff2882c6e20d47d9ad54bc40e7fc01021601c
54553 F20101109_AAAIHK hayes_s_Page_094.jpg
69de82ce5acdd3ea2702aa9974ecd114
25c411c70d8e9eaa37b2bcca342750c4dfcec5a7
26167 F20101109_AAAJEE hayes_s_Page_104.QC.jpg
9f7da595f1578de1578185e872cc003b
728931520863bf2fefdd4f6db2f333ab1386d8d5
F20101109_AAAIUW hayes_s_Page_092.tif
cfac13df53a5d50b6916749c8d2c6d7f
3f441efa4ff2106446437c596f18150613f50a4e
2076 F20101109_AAAHKR hayes_s_Page_041.txt
f21d3b8616a5709eee9616fedf7784b2
9024dc3abe20c1d4d4626d1c7af5a7667213a650
F20101109_AAAIHL hayes_s_Page_063.tif
1a0a31eb19aa2e3cf134b1b6c8d4f766
900445708f1d86285b5fcaec531fc26ba4f4d263
7656 F20101109_AAAJEF hayes_s_Page_147thm.jpg
76d09a8a6ebb3493b0413e6b31f85ef4
170c2695917bee75e894a8087c0e23544ccec7d9
F20101109_AAAIUX hayes_s_Page_097.tif
f4f3f5fba17299a71fb3f364ced99a3b
e1b502118c4a5ad3a127ac2ee5605ad6e17dd0a7
27373 F20101109_AAAHKS hayes_s_Page_027.QC.jpg
218efa8ec7fc405a9cb632fad1f07f9c
17c50c0c7e33b922a8d4971445b00208411cf512
2139 F20101109_AAAJEG hayes_s_Page_025thm.jpg
bce7eb4fb197100bc18a0240d909ef64
2e5e663593006b12caca7914100c6c360e19081d
F20101109_AAAIUY hayes_s_Page_100.tif
00895cb994cacf35bfbebcef72da4665
01ea7d7efe0d88a854defd575da25d5ae32d70cb
52901 F20101109_AAAHKT hayes_s_Page_053.pro
b7e3f324bdf32cc29363f2b69ee0bda9
8a65c25af828de9d2b8bc29a93c837c1e60c5f68
94032 F20101109_AAAIHM hayes_s_Page_124.jpg
819be28e7d5f8662ae63d71a009b38ec
875ed4352831dc04ea76e97af7ae2c1bf2194962
7503 F20101109_AAAJEH hayes_s_Page_101thm.jpg
c0f7edc2998c29f15b88fae2464ce56e
d6b7e8ae1f92c5bf908bd01881f05c0bd20404bf
1051948 F20101109_AAAHKU hayes_s_Page_045.jp2
8f148dec8945845af515f552d95f7d28
19b3e366d88f32e7dd4613c17822d5a45cee3345
F20101109_AAAIHN hayes_s_Page_199.jp2
0339215e405520667cec5ad95c983c0f
00427c64622ef83d1c3d72265f9cb60773d07ad8
F20101109_AAAIUZ hayes_s_Page_102.tif
d63add1eb65a311478e87d4eb973abe1
f985cf1d7bd8d227fdc07e7de0a3eda98268cc26
51023 F20101109_AAAHKV hayes_s_Page_036.pro
e404a8844f79bdf9260aa0575777394b
e5865c2e058ac021b1a918565fa286d10100a6b5
4631 F20101109_AAAIHO hayes_s_Page_047thm.jpg
e9cc29ae8b8579552b9e7ce0bc30b565
b3fe9442c3ca700d88c0cf57aad7eda7867ece98
7527 F20101109_AAAJEI hayes_s_Page_121thm.jpg
4b0a29bb7d15fd8414ec6dd08b5b3995
554898359de3b39546001be917f0d8943d9a5a34
96003 F20101109_AAAHKW hayes_s_Page_135.jpg
1ca396c0c3b55c0e7f305efbe2ed6560
7c728eabf7e9cdc47f7c01b31ac0bb86e220217f
F20101109_AAAIHP hayes_s_Page_155.tif
7b0ae259b964903930d5a663d35d9cdc
7657ad8fbd29db4e4058b1ded12ae394003450b2
34960 F20101109_AAAJEJ hayes_s_Page_211.QC.jpg
668cda318c67e9c61ab815c0e5dd6ece
47fed39252da6031554967e1eeb98ecb8da79b3c
F20101109_AAAHKX hayes_s_Page_098.tif
68ff7e1215a7ddefabdd5044c11a45c7
f331845a186e86c6f4a522e5c0b79e00416cfa38
35886 F20101109_AAAIHQ hayes_s_Page_009.jpg
54da9783deb501812bed159af07b1253
7e1fdc93769154985cb87f27d505b8deee7f029a
26107 F20101109_AAAJEK hayes_s_Page_122.QC.jpg
50e9835719b5c16196f4a1b4ffce36d1
c478577be323e1eb74eb46e08aeab7b0f078460e
1051967 F20101109_AAAHKY hayes_s_Page_054.jp2
e046dc901c502854e2b7aec2d2f3d85e
d8e7a65c5bbf1a508a1d15490bf5cdf28b9a886c
F20101109_AAAIHR hayes_s_Page_153.tif
1e5a38626d1d031dd837cf0f86a3a475
50ff3c88372e90bcd6f5e2e1a7f50b1cf2933129
31066 F20101109_AAAJEL hayes_s_Page_215.QC.jpg
eaee76aee16076de5e221189291813f8
6d81a83b4fad20c294e8e2077657282db574c7ad
27298 F20101109_AAAHKZ hayes_s_Page_191.QC.jpg
28002ebd68e400fe05d99c5d5cfdae97
e1023d1a380a91f4d061e0b63c3b91e4b0eb21ff
26577 F20101109_AAAIHS hayes_s_Page_067.QC.jpg
0051f46092a3d3215a36c7e8dbceded8
6224d5475b0e6bdb8a3c5639ddee194975d34c64
6046 F20101109_AAAJEM hayes_s_Page_025.QC.jpg
439513f7858508ff64c190eeafe6187f
de6b7217c69e76e12ab0f6b7bddba962057774d1
91 F20101109_AAAIHT hayes_s_Page_002.txt
c532f1796628e90999151308e9ac338a
dbf2da97f0d3ef1673332e339d3f461171962a72
28441 F20101109_AAAJEN hayes_s_Page_105.QC.jpg
44402eaa25fd135aec59c898a3981bb7
ec677e128de9d422750f86b672a5fd9e7e042ca2
52309 F20101109_AAAIHU hayes_s_Page_055.pro
097ea24f073a2b3affd09a85fa9dc710
3f6656cba7f6af9f4df021584fdc1b26bd60ab61
6593 F20101109_AAAJEO hayes_s_Page_078thm.jpg
7ee2dfbe17695d4e36d55f0f3f580803
79c872bbacabadbac6f822cf958e152f0c5b3adb
F20101109_AAAIHV hayes_s_Page_164.tif
756008f342e19fc416e1c39f367185ad
4ce0b70fe1e156600197c0fc2ec6094ed9dd0d19
15741 F20101109_AAAJEP hayes_s_Page_203.QC.jpg
e3391f8ac9c4fa53d5877aa3fb9c3ac4
0e87680a98829bc4228d469bfe16ac682a53fe02
F20101109_AAAIHW hayes_s_Page_004.txt
db3164d139cb07e2a23bb8ba22dae2e9
8ab768be1f48daad0bfce8c69db3f89cfa8c343f
7546 F20101109_AAAJEQ hayes_s_Page_180thm.jpg
ea3a811708939887caa52b52aa76a6eb
16116b963c321fca08950d966d643f1298893da4
2332 F20101109_AAAIHX hayes_s_Page_167.txt
31dba8b480079d6b289a04eabefb82d1
5c3d2d1bac5d4dc64f9ad632fb913a9ef7dc306a
15744 F20101109_AAAJER hayes_s_Page_202.QC.jpg
7b360247b544aa5e362ae37d970845ab
75ef56eba14a895abead0f0f547b255bf486f4f2
F20101109_AAAIHY hayes_s_Page_116thm.jpg
8493656a8d111663414f106afd200559
0e236af54c0e36427e731ca75cd0b59717b41e63
27811 F20101109_AAAJES hayes_s_Page_083.QC.jpg
4950266d5672d1c0555145d6f76c7452
52a453662cfcca223a29b08e4ab5c52cfd63c3b5
79727 F20101109_AAAIHZ hayes_s_Page_220.jpg
6da4067f01b050bdf63abda152f6477f
6eb2f6408817972ecd2d35dfb49bde5a2fa4b990
19129 F20101109_AAAJET hayes_s_Page_214.QC.jpg
a8ff71e276b9d14da3b7d3e149a4709d
db3af86a522fb24af8fe00223f25963ce7fe1320
25769 F20101109_AAAJEU hayes_s_Page_053.QC.jpg
c43a2da621bc5e3d28c48b920f39b9d3
6a429c5bf51abddfbecd2c182f69dedfdab82bb4
81220 F20101109_AAAHQA hayes_s_Page_193.jpg
b76b8fee01e831f07d5df30884f2c271
def7e4f151c98d3c65b7953afd4dc37c779756be
20497 F20101109_AAAJEV hayes_s_Page_205.QC.jpg
6240d1018ca5e578ffb5df767b649fd8
016c7ce3572676e7e122d6960b21a2c957f70349
1051966 F20101109_AAAHQB hayes_s_Page_173.jp2
b542e0f537a0c9968581a191a242b0fa
db3e38a363a14f1317b67bf86e3237f1eeb26c17
7364 F20101109_AAAJEW hayes_s_Page_128thm.jpg
d0cb8e21d5afd821558132a35af210b2
32591529f5c74d9de9c9baa4260e7a1259d30c3f
84120 F20101109_AAAHQC hayes_s_Page_175.jpg
2e9b8bf1b977077979ea682a48f624fb
b829e78c56a6297a8903377e2cec904113707d91
28357 F20101109_AAAJEX hayes_s_Page_180.QC.jpg
e14ab6b7bbe031f180f63447fa797552
e30915bb84745dfbc232b384396b049a4821c6f1
28442 F20101109_AAAHQD hayes_s_Page_056.QC.jpg
4e0fd175e1ef8b3696846c32232e442d
adcbf8024a010a500211cb96eed6a68aaf64762c
7548 F20101109_AAAJEY hayes_s_Page_167thm.jpg
2f4f907c27739cbacf04411ca5189138
ab79c58319e806393affcde1c4038f556f5dfb57
F20101109_AAAHQE hayes_s_Page_148.tif
f79763691136d6ada38576973d303fea
6d0eac4f967e55a574bfb86ac5238556f12268a2
29795 F20101109_AAAJEZ hayes_s_Page_034.QC.jpg
5f2d07dd8f569c2fc879c2f1778fc1c5
123aa831482d0912fb025461feb890079f0b0e51
1051962 F20101109_AAAHQF hayes_s_Page_218.jp2
73293f9adfcb0c0827e41e3369eca7e2
932461b57c5f9c680cce5794431bb39b85e8f0d4
2495 F20101109_AAAHQG hayes_s_Page_184.txt
96bf4606cb205de71a67b9199095da0b
ba0ec8f0b9aabb52e00634957d60aeedb81e5e9e
10639 F20101109_AAAHQH hayes_s_Page_209.pro
fe78a4625f326e5aba66ebbd71a65282
56ad9348770ba559776828dd991bbd63d646d97d
88842 F20101109_AAAINA hayes_s_Page_018.jpg
78ec3184637d8751a76880dc6c203971
f6b204a9d34f07e8a4f0400d5d538ed462a8c0bb
F20101109_AAAHQI hayes_s_Page_122.tif
014461b52bd3d7b63bdab7b2bfce1260
5c0e516080fb891f38b56c545bb1aaeacd54b02e
57726 F20101109_AAAINB hayes_s_Page_179.pro
bccd18bd155430166312308085703d21
2d82ae384ae458d3d3d857c5d80f92fda19f889b
2137 F20101109_AAAHQJ hayes_s_Page_097.txt
7ed8a5c1f5272c6d23dbf80b7e5ba671
12e932c53b5859caff0bd6f7157b9cebf5f236cb
66497 F20101109_AAAINC hayes_s_Page_205.jpg
fd5b8580e83f28ab47fd47cd7edccf33
3be882c063e57190f3224e17cb0f4e39b39ab1d9
53689 F20101109_AAAHQK hayes_s_Page_004.pro
0382be156e4415111275ca2c0b179d17
7f9b41f36792f1f9cde1f4de8468efff792e6506
29512 F20101109_AAAIND hayes_s_Page_168.QC.jpg
c2a35d77a613ca978765ae867e861c89
9de049f20adaba39459f69825294ba8acf98f2c9
83826 F20101109_AAAHDA hayes_s_Page_044.jpg
ae13c193e84cca84019f9b773f949e38
0e3087bd2642c21064477989fc6a12111065f84c
5850 F20101109_AAAHQL hayes_s_Page_205thm.jpg
4ea3fbc93819ba34a2321e29de0f67ab
b7e14a882b0f07c11b9c3d48a74db28b19445d74
F20101109_AAAINE hayes_s_Page_157.tif
564f62c98f9005ecd16098efc277d26a
adc43460d8b627f563f0021023e079bc0958ecf4
3357 F20101109_AAAHDB hayes_s_Page_009thm.jpg
7eb296f8a20864882b55f158ce37eabd
5d4d0674b1dd6af2a62c38c35acb408c0da414fc
876598 F20101109_AAAHQM hayes_s_Page_010.jp2
81cb93871758d4637374f8319d9a73d0
cb0d947c56b5b20ba881acf80bae7094fd78dd4d
7729 F20101109_AAAINF hayes_s_Page_105thm.jpg
7b6cb9e454d4991278af5fe296a505a1
417c4ca3cad87f47612c4fd440ceddb81909b6c7
86817 F20101109_AAAHDC hayes_s_Page_103.jpg
c0dd07160c771fac9557ef70af2332a2
3f2fbec70f3fe41fdb87e17ffe59f4df31cbf9dc
23039 F20101109_AAAHQN hayes_s_Page_209.jpg
a66b109e0ef70566d29c7052270ee38a
96fb5b1878586330d71c0d7a9c775233aafb04a6
85692 F20101109_AAAING hayes_s_Page_030.jpg
88c3409c458baef8f81a699a2b27dbd2
0db71c2fa64ba279e03d772a574f38cd753a48b9
F20101109_AAAHDD hayes_s_Page_110.jp2
28cd5790468ed66a2df68c96582b8637
b6a4ae2b87c092ee1de1c1ef631cad865cc7b39b
1051977 F20101109_AAAHQO hayes_s_Page_072.jp2
203aa80c5514cf21b33ba5d7831a5df9
f80eb3d3ba07d1b3ab0460042cd22e93052362a4
F20101109_AAAINH hayes_s_Page_114.tif
14ee69bfe3da51e79cda1375bdf7b31f
6de2788f1a349a2295088d1a99a8634102fd8b18
1170 F20101109_AAAHDE hayes_s_Page_047.txt
077560414d60c3d972d226371ad3e4a6
3c6705ba482a2223937cf09a373f65680374bdff
2984 F20101109_AAAHQP hayes_s_Page_226thm.jpg
def48f960f3a1d1b47a00d424137008b
53461529ab0ad1be8efa669010ac928e3cf3211a
48894 F20101109_AAAINI hayes_s_Page_220.pro
26a3191b0c2fd872e76b558d35b2be5c
c71abdaa18782e2fda9cca9f54bf74e2c77dd3a6
61770 F20101109_AAAHDF hayes_s_Page_183.pro
fe83504effcfe10c2f1fd033abc6a7c1
76d90147f1dd006da2c9b2bfbf931deafac06f03
64484 F20101109_AAAHQQ hayes_s_Page_138.pro
30fcc91959cf5aea069cb5c49e08dde3
3e11cd7a63afc399fc51dfcabad04a4dbb7ac029
52064 F20101109_AAAINJ hayes_s_Page_042.pro
5949e2e748ed06b1c5e16855300ec562
6f5999d21db4911bda58d46be1077724b8785cea
26326 F20101109_AAAHDG hayes_s_Page_084.QC.jpg
14f507c599f3e3ba4ea718dd8fa2fbba
9a1950b32af0f1c68af6edd81e6ce0c3e22f0de1
4279 F20101109_AAAHQR hayes_s_Page_202thm.jpg
d0ac2299251e5a7456f6182f2243b449
00a4aa3a53d144cfe57249babf1c49339af65c42
F20101109_AAAINK hayes_s_Page_136.tif
1c0f38e158d5e3753fd424233b175c46
55d590de911d6db820c22f860cf42848eab3a608
F20101109_AAAHDH hayes_s_Page_174.tif
42854140ccd51a99bef70b638dbfda3f
5daba3cb4bf33ba4d1b75a8dc30a7e22a127559b
55446 F20101109_AAAIAA hayes_s_Page_109.pro
afa2d35e8677d0a20b01c8f4e4c2ec08
ee7b8877c7bf85cfe3328f249a43b569f331e03f
1932 F20101109_AAAHQS hayes_s_Page_150.txt
0797df3f81fc8648c594e4243e823767
ef4a04c894357a459549aab134708f8a8bdbbef7
931 F20101109_AAAINL hayes_s_Page_010.txt
98062a0c82f25d9e23b6d041677726c6
d3e7354e4ac544d79a55b9b3857ab9ab1b4078dd
32843 F20101109_AAAHDI hayes_s_Page_207.pro
006073fed4fccd64a2f730f701ac8463
4313ac03b68d5104c4e3f45f7099490a17233a87
F20101109_AAAIAB hayes_s_Page_208.tif
ac00a108896dea176928d514f09eed22
8d16d798b8ccf7b8170167f5aa65740dce2974ee
7512 F20101109_AAAHQT hayes_s_Page_033thm.jpg
2432bc145602549c4010c7bfb5d9a68c
8858a92893062b54e74cd0dde628cef1b2c26845
2308 F20101109_AAAINM hayes_s_Page_179.txt
69b59b6acd69bc76267884a0c936758a
6d83fb18b58eff3c70b6a6cda5552221a1bd76b7
53588 F20101109_AAAIAC hayes_s_Page_148.pro
25570a008c1ef8afb564c4b321fe3b96
2e976627819e2ded6ac48f433413fbc9d4c4edc2
F20101109_AAAHQU hayes_s_Page_222.tif
a96d39f18f2fd33dcd3cebf0c4cde95a
364cc526d1f5d10783d96485814e2a62cbc52d4c
737996 F20101109_AAAINN hayes_s_Page_207.jp2
d0aada88c1eb67d3c479eab02406951b
2c1ef77f9054cd1ff671cd11fbc13b6bb50a2a42
7344 F20101109_AAAHDJ hayes_s_Page_061thm.jpg
008e053db8be69ef8067d0db27dcaf11
fa4f8ea45cae1cc378f67739f9331d04d3fad685
27733 F20101109_AAAIAD hayes_s_Page_197.QC.jpg
97942c796b134f237155890a834a6580
aa24df80a55c2d835e9f57fafc99319f24ea2df3
2170 F20101109_AAAHQV hayes_s_Page_052.txt
d98fd4da8c5bb53812780e90ab8a71b9
19382571ee9d71e259718d2089ea30657b02508c
1051961 F20101109_AAAINO hayes_s_Page_039.jp2
1dd2eeba9e66ca1f61bca49d6c3a4ae9
79d9508df73ffe54267a68a9cdbcb19fb7739057
F20101109_AAAHDK hayes_s_Page_034.jp2
7fb215a61e230b252ab882a0493a12fa
fb26c4064bcfc81c6e347b2dbe0b360b8a495577
F20101109_AAAIAE hayes_s_Page_179.tif
a560114a42a5ecfcf85dd6c05073ed5f
ee24a26addc8ae8eda378659ce1cff09655e2597
7229 F20101109_AAAINP hayes_s_Page_044thm.jpg
2936b8e6b05158ef8707e218c917b309
fe5da2d00758b8c5cf8147312896ad9e7acb2f89
311235 F20101109_AAAHDL hayes_s_Page_001.jp2
8e0759d84d69f3c95165834721d5718f
47d9e4a9bd8b6ffdd6b677fd142d78e9c6c01c26
1051985 F20101109_AAAHQW hayes_s_Page_154.jp2
650760545ad7427bca85a74ac683853a
2505463718441fa9499fea8ee0a8b6302fe24f4c
F20101109_AAAINQ hayes_s_Page_044.jp2
7e9d789156ed9ed2b080de3eabf61ae8
362561b42a66112c5a5fd020838bc047b097f834
997440 F20101109_AAAHDM hayes_s_Page_127.jp2
e5405962f1605bd02766d0437a394d33
50c4d364b7c59696a9f3c38b83786b14a87eb07f
7336 F20101109_AAAIAF hayes_s_Page_031thm.jpg
f751cd3d533f5602dd41bdb403fbf283
fceb8f1e4036ff1e46fdcdbc00d4ee132b366a09
53348 F20101109_AAAHQX hayes_s_Page_084.pro
6fddc08e4e4e194be2809e7422c12ce9
cbac7de697e43e4feb961dcada8c7c596ec7e07e
10839 F20101109_AAAINR hayes_s_Page_201.QC.jpg
2b7dce8319c09983a2888b3c752823de
520ed31ad27467a0bc94c784b264bb3d258b1990
54943 F20101109_AAAHDN hayes_s_Page_073.pro
bea9d5d31c944d79f41653cb8c4f2721
d74df7fc989b5c98e76f2987632d99f3475a781f
2169 F20101109_AAAIAG hayes_s_Page_032.txt
9f8c629da7fbb6ac5259415c9cf1b37e
02f455a16d93fc3f205237220fc6091ce711890b
2029 F20101109_AAAHQY hayes_s_Page_193.txt
fcd1123349978901db5501c966a1474c
a055a25d397877f3b88764872d0079e8d114124a
F20101109_AAAHDO hayes_s_Page_079.QC.jpg
5bbaf019ba51da34412fb4a8aaea31c9
6959f3b4f80b068c926546e0205312ba96855e60
82515 F20101109_AAAIAH hayes_s_Page_098.jpg
e4f6296cbdd95c9a8192a5c2079ea5a3
192e176f33605be071640d35bc7740dbf872a5b4
28302 F20101109_AAAHQZ hayes_s_Page_100.QC.jpg
ecd8aecc6ebf17d4170b7eb8bc3551e1
f2d6c2852ef8bba0931912dfbc487f1e18c83cd6
981606 F20101109_AAAINS hayes_s_Page_113.jp2
e9f4c9c81d6e80370592c8e2ade8b9fa
926871d454172277d4291869befafc4b430d68b2
F20101109_AAAHDP hayes_s_Page_219.tif
7b04cb35b38969ed99196a25a9785538
81e89abeac7fc0ce8636ea60abb6c2bf37954443
3471 F20101109_AAAIAI hayes_s_Page_201thm.jpg
ebe2bb3bfc664f253a0ddc186598fbed
fb305dcdd4abfa17615dc02fe589f980c2a6d83f
259873 F20101109_AAAINT UFE0021986_00001.mets FULL
f41c1b7c736d5b56b419e93e117dfc6c
70bdcbe4eab63e81413f43524b5983e0e2ce4344
92479 F20101109_AAAHDQ hayes_s_Page_154.jpg
5e95971ae2d325295bb99dc61aa585ce
9b5fba0c6bd18b8b3e03a1c684b010b576e8f0c6
2106 F20101109_AAAIAJ hayes_s_Page_120.txt
e230088d1bbd4ae39ccb2ea5a08777f5
db9e9039319556c2bc2fe7f6e3fad56897d07b12
7608 F20101109_AAAHDR hayes_s_Page_182thm.jpg
8d5412bcdf429c84fef5cda0e1336c7b
1f1568e83ee6cf9cb11fb3f0dc758b7fec791210
2436 F20101109_AAAIAK hayes_s_Page_013thm.jpg
2ce57c4870149a0bc991949dfecb3a39
2a372d5bdb56ba788f1a18a23cef8de61cfddd0d
91432 F20101109_AAAIAL hayes_s_Page_222.jpg
b309c4957d9b1566cbb5bf1a6836e608
bb80b33c0eae099b65ce291e997b8a16356afc8c
84520 F20101109_AAAINW hayes_s_Page_004.jpg
c8991d49ac5991dddf4d79e0e41d898e
10b9e65addbe09c94d96eee029fea79e007912b9
77284 F20101109_AAAHDS hayes_s_Page_173.jpg
442adf2c51f3955b0720ce621d099274
9d08d49430d8e9051aca50268cf5cb031630ad66
85684 F20101109_AAAIAM hayes_s_Page_073.jpg
dbb370c658d5e821b852ef4d0ebf46ac
f4b2a969c82a6f944a65c4431b0c1fb36be7f192
42867 F20101109_AAAINX hayes_s_Page_005.jpg
c43d58a291bc43c88b8cef0655990486
dbb27176cea5b5e8135b61e955e14327dce83bb1
20473 F20101109_AAAHDT hayes_s_Page_127.QC.jpg
217710841a684c5b751b831f78abbba6
8fa5e9c1a3ab986b6ff74facbbfaf138fb9c1d06
53196 F20101109_AAAIAN hayes_s_Page_066.pro
aed6cd7da76df12864ffdba54d84eb77
730eb803445da700aa550a765dc4edffe2196163
83881 F20101109_AAAINY hayes_s_Page_006.jpg
62aa127b50a35769b5826da87bd36da6
f4b4dc202798ad3ba251e76aaf880e1e09e1a75a
80974 F20101109_AAAHDU hayes_s_Page_036.jpg
269bf8520fc983622ae69b3f3f38499f
c91cd9e9730f27c702200b3881fc6f29d6941890
1051984 F20101109_AAAIAO hayes_s_Page_067.jp2
7558b40809da81fc2233192e95410bf6
2f0f581d076cd30082e8c51a553e31413a779b46
37403 F20101109_AAAINZ hayes_s_Page_010.jpg
8a078daf822dc4b86433d5db7f82afa8
ced8c6daa3729dee513ac44eab453f3d1d789def
1051943 F20101109_AAAHDV hayes_s_Page_187.jp2
2c873ac66075aa858d491b496e332cb4
2bc0a8f9365bfe14e78c6b2a91174a8510052691
1975 F20101109_AAAIAP hayes_s_Page_022.txt
8a9e596e2f140002e86b511d6c84cb34
16e234f90a28fa23aea763b959956d4419c53333
2102 F20101109_AAAHDW hayes_s_Page_091.txt
eab122ab5be7c544754bee60bdf1692a
c1e931dee93d3a673786369e2c378b305fb2879f
4830 F20101109_AAAHWA hayes_s_Page_185thm.jpg
cd810e026f48530833da692b8d408b47
41bb0284fdeddb7e68caba5d445eb88717b6541b
70150 F20101109_AAAIAQ hayes_s_Page_168.pro
49c67128bef53d23434e65bd2068be99
e6d2eca2cb7c049d6f19dac654d92d2f284797f6
6222 F20101109_AAAHDX hayes_s_Page_111thm.jpg
8c584653aa9aaafc81b1e48350120e17
a15f5e36a3ace2fc5b5d278f3629702c7549e0e0
7505 F20101109_AAAHWB hayes_s_Page_085thm.jpg
8335ae9671abe8ba6d8cb41915b2d2f4
78b18826807eb2ff0ea5fcf35fd101b08fb95b6e
2138 F20101109_AAAIAR hayes_s_Page_027.txt
7fe869dee352ad0323b07e5117f9a1f8
f5b6d81e3fd0b4f079be19eec874f8d19538d841
91023 F20101109_AAAHDY hayes_s_Page_051.jpg
bb76eb2f5b1f98581c12493785e55f92
f7974451ae24b4ef730b399ee6fbc904a9c2cb06
F20101109_AAAHWC hayes_s_Page_084.tif
f3f5431b1e02a594fefbbb82a9162072
af4cb87ae1d9766dae93d355d113c942c2a9a751
25785 F20101109_AAAIAS hayes_s_Page_107.QC.jpg
446a634913b5be617c65256cfbbc862f
2bc6a3038c12256d1e6b434d7078d1a7bda42b28
6594 F20101109_AAAHDZ hayes_s_Page_022thm.jpg
073512b633234f7b2f5fee8fd17c8626
58a38a9580a1f520882bb200458bc52f1daa3261
F20101109_AAAHWD hayes_s_Page_210.tif
e124d7d79fa537a5a1da1ca6d4cb7ef0
bfef00af3a9bb06df90701c239d7f11b9a3311bb
2327 F20101109_AAAIAT hayes_s_Page_100.txt
f71cc4f749b909da5846dae86e17036d
d074c52ee2d6d7f92865e3e6fa27c659d2b00906
F20101109_AAAHWE hayes_s_Page_051.jp2
15ef0b18c8238567a4567b18cf6f6a2f
1e0559587424f4e817942e00c9e66ab0aed0a01f
27879 F20101109_AAAIAU hayes_s_Page_106.QC.jpg
edc3cca3e8b4e252328dfcba56b4eb09
15576edde597cf276b476a7df5f8f3cb6cb9d687
27725 F20101109_AAAHWF hayes_s_Page_049.QC.jpg
c5a112e9b4adf7fbcc9e63aeaf721256
7d4fcd2b51c727b2d3ddca4bfbc69803ecbb938a
61028 F20101109_AAAIAV hayes_s_Page_164.pro
7e32dac8dd2ee3255a7cf30fbc3c8d57
736d7bd25cefd8b546f3918a233dcf242e275512
87610 F20101109_AAAHWG hayes_s_Page_024.jpg
728c75ba0004f69c31d65658703b808f
f126987a7c5b9b09bb25a39e6dd59e8030360d92
25794 F20101109_AAAIAW hayes_s_Page_125.QC.jpg
4d31cec9d3ddb362d11dc978019b806d
59ec143e11392ef792fadad181c200cbd97ef2c2
2066 F20101109_AAAHWH hayes_s_Page_040.txt
10e43b55e7bb0854195ecb0636f6a47c
8b8efa445f8b43de96b61d9f78976726cbe1aca6
F20101109_AAAIAX hayes_s_Page_109.tif
bd357ef246f56361ff349291df5243d9
25dc662810f5ef51a41f7f77e47e702460262d04
1051958 F20101109_AAAITA hayes_s_Page_183.jp2
b9f482a5c78007740726e0b020fd01be
8724d67fe63c1b38cf40e10f8d624110170b7e78
88422 F20101109_AAAHWI hayes_s_Page_056.jpg
1eb3cc8e79e038297a783f7950a824b6
2dab4f8331badc3f3e0e932281bbb53e3065b858
F20101109_AAAIAY hayes_s_Page_165.tif
3d588b6674f7becc7e7fd9f885c53a3a
1cc05e7c80d882c58e98b899422b2247ae782ac2
F20101109_AAAITB hayes_s_Page_188.jp2
86f4f6ec60341b2893ac6886fa3b8bb4
64a79b0142a4fdb2d266c57fa1b8867908dad06d
F20101109_AAAHWJ hayes_s_Page_187.tif
3c8dea0457f76b7bfab128e1637a2cbf
4891ce4acec960a51edfa57b3cf92509b12f3700
85736 F20101109_AAAIAZ hayes_s_Page_088.jpg
757631bd24c5b166fcc5e7fbe21903d6
d23ee298d6766119c017c25570e530bbf4299f54
1051925 F20101109_AAAITC hayes_s_Page_189.jp2
33d610602adeec6b9a3ac86081fb1ad7
4ca67dcfa7f3df389492a09300ee10257f4d12af
7092 F20101109_AAAHWK hayes_s_Page_223thm.jpg
a195f05396179d5af332059a5e35cc70
cd44ccd1342c04752e976291514df135e037e5ed
F20101109_AAAITD hayes_s_Page_192.jp2
d3daa2d87835ff64795980e9bfbcd81c
6da5969825743fe857d4485bf5baf43b7daa21d9
717717 F20101109_AAAHWL hayes_s_Page_185.jp2
670a8db5ab95c212022f973c47732544
11dae701b8b9f091f5b68b417943f346c981f2b6
1051917 F20101109_AAAITE hayes_s_Page_194.jp2
5a5507e0300ad27e3cf7680024a5fa51
18301a13d37ad0396b24e62029e989fc140c1dcc
F20101109_AAAHJA hayes_s_Page_200.tif
dc46dac856ea06f8e8f2dc456fdfa307
7635b0f51843d9d11ed35fb4f7d16bc58d3ae81a
2523 F20101109_AAAHWM hayes_s_Page_121.txt
6344feff5d7fc6679a3cdd0951dc52c6
27078ab703f4ea669807af0bfaa550847646d250
1051969 F20101109_AAAITF hayes_s_Page_196.jp2
00c96b2d13521fae6343d423d08a9980
418c7cdda762f302083e7e8303d56586bbc18ae9
92047 F20101109_AAAHJB hayes_s_Page_068.jpg
5a2c77de873a8ab35816bf40fc658524
95552aa6515eaf88b22d0595066afc5d7d2c55de
6901 F20101109_AAAHWN hayes_s_Page_098thm.jpg
4caccd80eacd5bb3d81668d4bc4d0a65
757e432dacebbe1a0b67aa5d2af83dce12991f53
1051934 F20101109_AAAITG hayes_s_Page_197.jp2
4c786fc965de55f2ec55e15f86c5d9e9
8a6b7ef81635a4bb6215ce85b1a190c6af7d8561
2161 F20101109_AAAHJC hayes_s_Page_223.txt
4d448725959a4d0b757c258d1ff4ac59
e2ca7516d733c299d57fa790525e01fc729d91bc
2636 F20101109_AAAHWO hayes_s_Page_138.txt
6b7d8be2f1e595450bfcc9881c99fb90
f824801d9ba98114878abf9cb4e4313d0aa61cb5
896136 F20101109_AAAITH hayes_s_Page_200.jp2
8fb6fcf0429cc7606120300f9a229ede
8756ed0b73db86d7d03cff6c0d9342522c3bf460
53957 F20101109_AAAHJD hayes_s_Page_175.pro
e2232383f9439d5880bf2125707abcb1
358cb56e56c20bbef774587105debbf9239422b9
F20101109_AAAHWP hayes_s_Page_132.tif
8071f6b9c308c640c7365ba26913e476
82cf9c615847b4888acec80c0028ec582bc3b30c
400809 F20101109_AAAITI hayes_s_Page_201.jp2
31f959731adc2f7fbd41cdbec205910d
34329db111414df4e7ea0a265d0767d4c9a47a5c
15894 F20101109_AAAHJE hayes_s_Page_201.pro
0a441bfe6f64440ae546b5ed6216d99d
59038c92246ff0b0eea06ec0f4cfb9f8995e407b
F20101109_AAAHWQ hayes_s_Page_216.tif
94daafe766ba5762b2f1d731fa6b2ae4
efa46069f01256885d35b5b7d8faa6d6c25c802a
744183 F20101109_AAAITJ hayes_s_Page_203.jp2
fbeb1feb4e0fc56acdc4488be7370bda
6442f77fa04bbb8396daaf459fd373b16964d642
1783 F20101109_AAAHJF hayes_s_Page_206.txt
b916d446b00975aa2bc291ae407a51f5
67908c8a1623b1b5d2a3bb0424aa2c6f4f2c97c6
26573 F20101109_AAAHWR hayes_s_Page_188.QC.jpg
309b191ddfcb53f050e28a66ae0a79b3
04d8566fec26654ac85052835bff43d5d7531115
734984 F20101109_AAAITK hayes_s_Page_204.jp2
e87f72b49191816012e89b773b204a55
4eafa7ea5ad3ed64d556207b23100c42af30a735
2360 F20101109_AAAHJG hayes_s_Page_026.txt
bb1431dda7eb6c606342df9e5f55b943
c433696631529de41dfb49cfd8ed8faa3061009c
18817 F20101109_AAAIGA hayes_s_Page_186.QC.jpg
ad317df15a7d632b91d22bb1e5078bda
8f55beab094aa98134d11823332557caeee0b6a2
F20101109_AAAHWS hayes_s_Page_177thm.jpg
feb67bb102a29c59e291cb7645f237a9
397ac0010724287a30148de7f70c45cdfecf9078
1051922 F20101109_AAAITL hayes_s_Page_208.jp2
b95c17503056f4cd6defa7ed0efcbb76
f8cd96d8b65afed5051f3e30b58a253ea1df761c
F20101109_AAAHJH hayes_s_Page_226.tif
81f1c534d3663d2c92dd900b85113af3
e2df2658d627f77a84126b504d3db4ccc24bbf00
F20101109_AAAIGB hayes_s_Page_031.txt
415aee5a449234c11fbebe59ea16d42c
d07124fc7dc593878e92a1191f0d17e727a09d3a
7622 F20101109_AAAHWT hayes_s_Page_130thm.jpg
17e85be80e29ba680f13c91f86621029
547608985dbe09afe7639a17453e4899af5a1d15
1051936 F20101109_AAAITM hayes_s_Page_211.jp2
85983497d940991463f3321c6e64337d
f5e1b8c84f7c90fa926506dca66506fb1b010ed9
F20101109_AAAHJI hayes_s_Page_178.jp2
3c4ea3752d91f99b07782e97b4f26f1a
fbb4070f154fa13779dec145b6d07b0fe959fc2c
86692 F20101109_AAAIGC hayes_s_Page_069.jpg
ff2c4a3c29ec3e4963ea19dfcfac3ae3
403bde9b477b484464d9a2d8cc83ca912deddd1a
85335 F20101109_AAAHWU hayes_s_Page_076.jpg
1b5a0c5f8bb8a7ee9004f6f6529de731
2bc72cd357b6b760b89a2974ea2a33923c1e64d3
501986 F20101109_AAAITN hayes_s_Page_212.jp2
2413515984bb5b89c01805f39e83dd1e
65afa4827a996aa8f6beb29d13ea55873c456ee4
61860 F20101109_AAAHJJ hayes_s_Page_166.pro
8335713127170235141280c03aa2cac2
29a9bc9a23ca9e722b5a560e7c865a6b53dd6088
52054 F20101109_AAAIGD hayes_s_Page_047.jpg
cc5a303c88b998417916be972abb1733
01cd07ff1cade636d09f573dcff3adc2976a0503
57934 F20101109_AAAHWV hayes_s_Page_123.pro
0b74d9bda2435e644464deac1caec97b
94a90aa7588afa5b11062d58e8a84129db39fa56
1051971 F20101109_AAAITO hayes_s_Page_221.jp2
06c0d52804c375d796c7fbabab1a8a4f
420a221d8262e7355f69e9108ea6812b1253e226
3649 F20101109_AAAHJK hayes_s_Page_211.txt
ba21defbc718de9119860c1ceb859815
b86fa6e3b2e1d1d419488a000e1a4be1112044e1
1051956 F20101109_AAAIGE hayes_s_Page_069.jp2
2d82c7d39eaa62359ec489926d1887db
7df49bacd5fd8923941577712262a102014c676f
86371 F20101109_AAAHWW hayes_s_Page_061.jpg
28f5cb2af08164a6ec52ae940fa76009
2eaa76761ff8701eaa6d9cf75c61d9e5bede7457
517279 F20101109_AAAITP hayes_s_Page_227.jp2
7f4444593883a92619aa1980f8db0ac1
4505fdf565bcc0ea99d408c3ffc82667aa7d39cd
7648 F20101109_AAAHJL hayes_s_Page_076thm.jpg
bf91fa54db7ebb5050c9f60ed1b6c1f3
90d323a94c8bec84ae652e992c8f94fa523a4005
F20101109_AAAIGF hayes_s_Page_018.tif
56e8e2dc8dd34deb61486966135cc781
cdfedb4c9335ac574689d98481db57e10fd47077
9687 F20101109_AAAHWX hayes_s_Page_013.pro
c316f27041484e79213e05078be7ad7d
5952ea3c9a6c88774a3ff8d1831d6461f6bfc547
F20101109_AAAITQ hayes_s_Page_004.tif
6ae7d771caa4389bed7332ecfab441a6
e69138b7777666fb22d1e842f3dd60cfff19978d
25041 F20101109_AAAHJM hayes_s_Page_219.QC.jpg
0a6e1fe1315da70fcbd198b90133b2cc
80d367e7de01ed4028451796b2321b8237f0770f
82322 F20101109_AAAIGG hayes_s_Page_055.jpg
f8000a92cbde34d6762ed3e49489c84c
88010f97a0b120e23d843b4576e3b7d711fb92c7
2191 F20101109_AAAHWY hayes_s_Page_192.txt
188cd34dc0c74624e9b7f1eedb4a6f93
d6c7784d8926a428d8a20331bd1a2abec614c0b9
F20101109_AAAITR hayes_s_Page_006.tif
ad3e87b4629ed5b03e6bb68b8e61bb83
deb46720af8657596f0075f18e5c5a820c448b88
F20101109_AAAHJN hayes_s_Page_048.tif
7e5e8f92d2bf09274e77cc7e9626ebe9
33a2a98421bc8cee2f1ac62c595333ddbbd426ee
53492 F20101109_AAAIGH hayes_s_Page_129.pro
2077fc9cde19bf1e30b38e8b1173a26d
fefbcfc25399df4dbc587ef5aa6039b8f81215f6
2254 F20101109_AAAHWZ hayes_s_Page_115.txt
deafe04761866adf733d11e2174298fb
1145bff70549af0cc2acda6fb27a2dfe9ba3985f
1343 F20101109_AAAJDA hayes_s_Page_207.txt
f66dbcacff2d496a9a7a8c71791a84ba
0c00cff96c3f4ce2a689bb54048e85642cf52b1c
F20101109_AAAITS hayes_s_Page_010.tif
d9603c8d01a6ca346fcef069a9bcb4e2
bfa1966236bf3892f75ac2a8f4d3d4bf6fb6cb83
8478 F20101109_AAAHJO hayes_s_Page_211thm.jpg
94535c2c7d7bd2be05564a6660f590cf
43e8c8251290508dc6da255352aaf0e989eace9e
7172 F20101109_AAAIGI hayes_s_Page_171thm.jpg
f756eb3e4ee8ec2ae2e016d5d9cdb72f
159f8d2bad42eefc2dbdbda0313c3136acaaada3
872 F20101109_AAAJDB hayes_s_Page_212.txt
fd459cdc69cee851754c014b95d6a5ce
637b9634607dfe2a87534f40cabf049503a79e3d
F20101109_AAAITT hayes_s_Page_013.tif
5c6024ffeb5a5f4af01f462cbaf50828
696bab3f3518bd7a8ddae464b7f87cee70f456d6
F20101109_AAAIGJ hayes_s_Page_189.tif
2113b377d674e24305e3257fd69c20a0
72479617eca01d8e236052bb504d798459618ea0
2025 F20101109_AAAJDC hayes_s_Page_220.txt
76646da6d8b31f169bd70cd91987a5e2
8ce8057e57684ff0695734926b21639075325975
F20101109_AAAITU hayes_s_Page_014.tif
a3b5bd8df9d8b1f22f0b65dc2de8f1e8
215fd2b3a534818874e0204ed5905207ce05673b
30068 F20101109_AAAHJP hayes_s_Page_157.QC.jpg
75f40a5eb3f27f5d0876fd13a1f23f1a
6764ba6676f1b110ebc23b50fe371db9c55a4d8c
F20101109_AAAIGK hayes_s_Page_125.tif
dc9e4e9ae92e0b1b8b61fd7b79542949
cd186297f12f0b430490397f8991acdb290b60e1
2222 F20101109_AAAJDD hayes_s_Page_221.txt
70cee88dc23f475be8b42fe69bf558e9
d005d0ec888967530b6b521a09b6fad316e5ca62
F20101109_AAAITV hayes_s_Page_015.tif
ed249d1e0765689df57873462144f9df
968fbd0f31e1651409f95e51a53727f16b3d12a2
680816 F20101109_AAAHJQ hayes_s_Page_094.jp2
770a5938c65611ec4dfae91e7fcf8819
72438b834bdebd1e9d99fd657e89274b7ac128b3
2428 F20101109_AAAJDE hayes_s_Page_222.txt
8be85f9ba060becae9e89cda160d6144
7e02fb5b413117cb223caf18f5547ea6b0f8f06a
F20101109_AAAITW hayes_s_Page_016.tif
095d5a8c8266df021ef751b4de34b1a9
c29ffb4db3fdff94b5c4bb4282bfa96510854934
F20101109_AAAHJR hayes_s_Page_095.jp2
aebe4085a46fcd3cc33c761c2295729e
29308943a3249b4f789d9d446192a67613873421
58086 F20101109_AAAIGL hayes_s_Page_104.pro
17da9e7e948fa59f9a4554013b9da673
6c6a06fa343f904caacf3b5405e072e88fd3a421
2361 F20101109_AAAJDF hayes_s_Page_225.txt
c76c5ced7cccba19f65185bd3278f291
7765da3f0eaab5201701b74dd3faf0be3af32c8d
F20101109_AAAITX hayes_s_Page_017.tif
a2795b4952a8102a5d3f023601096c9e
f019a93548b4a0ab7681f2881a94c73320b07954
6692 F20101109_AAAHJS hayes_s_Page_169thm.jpg
4626c468870c0c33478984bd9209e964
c4c15ebbfc5ed544c09784a3ad57def2ccfb3ae5
F20101109_AAAIGM hayes_s_Page_088.tif
e9fd841584443985bdad5b8ced77f654
7f23202f4bba31d12fc4cf89b39e4d1d85ae2f5d
2619 F20101109_AAAJDG hayes_s_Page_001thm.jpg
d6670d8772baf54747abd5ca7f8e1f18
a41d39448b061d5c1eca722a22ea712a2353cca9
F20101109_AAAHJT hayes_s_Page_083.tif
ae74b3d831c0e6985ceb9c4bc80ab7e5
4f591a41ae3f3555836cdad5e4ed0157052cdd05
F20101109_AAAIGN hayes_s_Page_085.jp2
1e3896e2c1ee9139e253b04b7f33902d
000052d9e1a785a3907f84cdbedc64957e61286a
F20101109_AAAITY hayes_s_Page_019.tif
6a34f77ba4848d0214d25b63df061b65
f514bb3099494cb31a7581f2545162a9b7be3957
58398 F20101109_AAAHJU hayes_s_Page_136.pro
63dcdbb06dbce0d7ba8be3af8ea948d8
4400f6f857bad8b68b637cee644ac4a0aa8961c3
F20101109_AAAIGO hayes_s_Page_081.tif
5bf62b49bcd3440e6b96deece79182d3
1c834eac3e5869ffc7b91641eef8044e19399b2c
F20101109_AAAJDH hayes_s_Page_209thm.jpg
4c4c229e8c18017d30554aac6e2c4b70
af2b1b73edd9e7c87eef55f3f2b3c4f3de2d21fa
F20101109_AAAITZ hayes_s_Page_020.tif
2074d49c388c6880e4161b3417635cd6
48131d95df3c24cf49f9a4a2593617176f1bc864
88424 F20101109_AAAHJV hayes_s_Page_163.jpg
f457d2d5608d0e229681f09a6427f58b
40571615fbfa48821bf23935a9cfa014dffb920d
3897 F20101109_AAAIGP hayes_s_Page_227thm.jpg
b36e23a6536992f4d1b78034f995426c
a4e58f703dd56ffec221388c64a4f4d8ce66e23c
6944 F20101109_AAAJDI hayes_s_Page_133thm.jpg
76c4ecc3f82a70033a6c260d60065fe6
b6cde79b49d3ae7d214c0627bd5dcaac889763af
7255 F20101109_AAAHJW hayes_s_Page_110thm.jpg
b7f1468990666891c39db295b584a6fd
3484f46677a7547d2bd6fac9d5b54ebbadc84a77
45409 F20101109_AAAIGQ hayes_s_Page_145.pro
6d3b2957533f0bfb2ad21a95332877d2
0df9e198b3fb001379ca4503a311bb99cd6786ca
26894 F20101109_AAAJDJ hayes_s_Page_031.QC.jpg
78d23967f89452b823f9f2d3cab31bb5
6b01359eb12a098adba3a095da2a1afc478e3d12
7555 F20101109_AAAHJX hayes_s_Page_088thm.jpg
e7e1fce18c3e226b41ffb758987f955f
b25f0cb0eacf4e6cfddf724b6b20d58c2dc5f843
47362 F20101109_AAAIGR hayes_s_Page_127.pro
c3d738788e928e40177cf88da3c52c3b
37899fbbf74efa8ab28656c18f911165abac4fb0
7472 F20101109_AAAJDK hayes_s_Page_136thm.jpg
a32fd6fe74cf124fe6a85f2a38ffa451
2225fbbbfef3e62904149d86afb54a6485aedae6
1051957 F20101109_AAAHJY hayes_s_Page_102.jp2
e60e28fcd16712e7d0e210f5a8a42126
311cfcafb4d8fc7dc2f3f37fe4792213e3bab190
28465 F20101109_AAAIGS hayes_s_Page_184.QC.jpg
b3b9f6ce14df199d18079883133146a7
fe36bd7da659a1f90a576cbc0ceddd22b64fc816
24559 F20101109_AAAJDL hayes_s_Page_078.QC.jpg
ede47d9a49cb278b73750c322a155928
d745a1038034510a05b6d95c1e93da11a2a09aba
2097 F20101109_AAAHJZ hayes_s_Page_084.txt
cf6ff2951eadcfb06c0ca3e8a67e8475
a41e942ddc29a626e4693bc8361ba0c29479f9f8
7402 F20101109_AAAIGT hayes_s_Page_164thm.jpg
65a9546a650d02265fa77cdeb8ba2807
6a53372e7cd3b3e77382ea5a87a50670169a8ee0
9200 F20101109_AAAJDM hayes_s_Page_226.QC.jpg
f4800b6bff7eae212231764a07b7c7ea
1362be60d8e9332b1476a7664c157e5f663a4eaf
26765 F20101109_AAAJDN hayes_s_Page_129.QC.jpg
a598d1e0293eaee7dc9ec13c41b2e03c
24d249e4217a6d62040e759b5b80bfb303e374d1
F20101109_AAAIGU hayes_s_Page_119.jp2
75e9106e009058227d5b8429afd882a3
49540336884a7134958bdec66dc03bf51a68b4f8
10676 F20101109_AAAJDO hayes_s_Page_212.QC.jpg
2880ec37fb0ea66bfd3b451660e33b2f
b5f2e0a8fe0478256dfd5a9be7201531c7de5337
4061 F20101109_AAAIGV hayes_s_Page_005thm.jpg
30ddc8baa69583ae8cf7206085c60831
b1f73a5435c5364aaca276d20faaf2ff4988b76c
7455 F20101109_AAAJDP hayes_s_Page_082thm.jpg
822fb6c5098768ea087ba0ada91f67e0
b613512603a6eaa56f9a60a9747bef0bee0a6782
7393 F20101109_AAAIGW hayes_s_Page_058thm.jpg
ece10de90f3df2722ac75e7d0dac194c
46a162d42388d5897407603024ba11795b823859
53586 F20101109_AAAIZA hayes_s_Page_149.pro
7edc37c6c077ba8f24147f6933df3801
721c0320c4ec27dc0f872761aa7d48b3a98f06fd
35051 F20101109_AAAJDQ hayes_s_Page_210.QC.jpg
c7f730bb61e1c64528d0daa74b643d2d
d57be97257a4d75dfb00ade83df76b1fec78b88b
86982 F20101109_AAAIGX hayes_s_Page_020.jpg
b45016be1d563397322316dd5134f5e1
c8a43520d1e8fa2379e4d0427faf2ec5ec382ad0
60687 F20101109_AAAIZB hayes_s_Page_153.pro
ab4e7c9eb4f6626c53403adfc0d5bde4
78d0055f757b00ab61000d62f0fbe9866ab1a815
23562 F20101109_AAAJDR hayes_s_Page_220.QC.jpg
33615947ef6aa546e093dfceffb2fcbc
3c40588b0caa9f34cd609c5da45003af5c4ee5ea
2195 F20101109_AAAIGY hayes_s_Page_197.txt
278db806a796420f9ae44137368d733d
793ea3d325b5b2ec926b9ebe0ddb21f5d1ce4f0a
59164 F20101109_AAAIZC hayes_s_Page_156.pro
c440b0a72098b812b564c47a1955e09c
b220c1b2fcef349e98926db8c51cf562737d9ffe
7422 F20101109_AAAJDS hayes_s_Page_141thm.jpg
f80860a6f4aea1e60a0b35bbb657b73c
4b96cbd0b619c22ff7130f04071251d91caa92e2
F20101109_AAAIGZ hayes_s_Page_223.jp2
add428b97fec5f58b9f158d2395dbf92
87ddba7186eb866178d1e801fd4263a83abf8839
67169 F20101109_AAAIZD hayes_s_Page_157.pro
ce4caf4dd45f20fb0d5a1af30b89a87d
30faa865f8a6c7a1e3a650dec3c55e44f2807dee
26799 F20101109_AAAJDT hayes_s_Page_161.QC.jpg
da942d98203a7b100af1fd65750226bd
74b8eebddd50c628a2ba23740799fca3a5a057e1
53218 F20101109_AAAIZE hayes_s_Page_161.pro
b882dc08174bc2e490786c223bfea80c
97b5bd4e8e7856b4490a6e0ac38e622de6cb7c61
10553 F20101109_AAAJDU hayes_s_Page_009.QC.jpg
ae3ccbb5d359c5a20f2d1b883ae23ec7
43e005fa4535ceb0decfadf65b7d65e749d1c903
3330 F20101109_AAAHPA hayes_s_Page_208.txt
648f0c790e50ae695d584d1a36fb6640
4fdeff0d9b96771371b2fe8022e1d1be9772c1f2
56470 F20101109_AAAIZF hayes_s_Page_165.pro
096326ab82dbebf1583df2e922c0bf5c
aa374c0bc0a32db4485c1af279d559818051463c
6493 F20101109_AAAJDV hayes_s_Page_117thm.jpg
0bc9535bd6955a346ac8008e50df47d0
8a3008653d05f8414b5b930808b1a9cbbe844e3b
86768 F20101109_AAAHPB hayes_s_Page_142.jpg
e9ee4daa2484dbb22d3e07ff75567b07
b1f771b713b6aa8ed7806e87e11f277cb628c307
58688 F20101109_AAAIZG hayes_s_Page_167.pro
b9002ca94f5b0a1a6aed08cb9957aa9c
06596ddd3d88fae78651fcf0e21ce8d92765f534
28328 F20101109_AAAJDW hayes_s_Page_166.QC.jpg
b37ced88f9ecaf18cd6ae4d3f4b6dc93
5532118926ef184844604dbc3aaf122f2407f2c3
160935 F20101109_AAAHPC hayes_s_Page_025.jp2
8854dfc7c80a23e98b3d3bfea9f45bc8
bdab9005098c83f4f7bd0f58f2b0948bd824e20d
59592 F20101109_AAAIZH hayes_s_Page_170.pro
d4cd456229368d6e084c2cc83b81bd87
a6fbdc113eb6c1a97bed820efa50eedb88673cda
7069 F20101109_AAAJDX hayes_s_Page_089thm.jpg
f0ccc2efbfa91e3453ff77e95d74970e
ace6595ce13a0f4d56730291d3d133b471a387b4
F20101109_AAAHPD hayes_s_Page_154.tif
0847e35a5dfdd2d7593a47971a5bb71f
7b724c3a923cc4397306327fdf4f748e3f9373c7
61551 F20101109_AAAIZI hayes_s_Page_171.pro
af8b0035f5cfb95acb3d61309300bc46
a33bfa8bdab65e6c4fa60432529ae5e5c37716a3
27046 F20101109_AAAJDY hayes_s_Page_143.QC.jpg
e5452233440007bce179b3dcc61cbb49
1a5f41cab0efd5ce9995dadad4668337ca10cb2b
22213 F20101109_AAAHPE hayes_s_Page_111.QC.jpg
41a6d3948da4b86ba30433cd97d16b8d
53588b01169bd00a6ec564ec5f85ee1f1a1d74ff
56526 F20101109_AAAIZJ hayes_s_Page_172.pro
2d12e3081ee545df691b777f0a59d273
b229f294c53110137a413c8d8b393125195f61e6
7363 F20101109_AAAJDZ hayes_s_Page_129thm.jpg
ba9c7fe2b49312227623901362e35613
0da8f66834b62238b6eab06cc75d41c2a8ab6d19
30369 F20101109_AAAHPF hayes_s_Page_008.QC.jpg
a2295a22ee5d12b9ffab3e48dc2b25e9
d639605579f002490831f9d06aa63396f6fb4788
51633 F20101109_AAAIZK hayes_s_Page_173.pro
f88dd0d86967094d80e4471521748aa0
6a7e900ace6b21c046d3324795cae6ff65e369e7
7628 F20101109_AAAHPG hayes_s_Page_017thm.jpg
805676c50178181228103bc054bb7c44
689c1fddc61ab553dfdfdbfc09988a6eb5ce1800
37510 F20101109_AAAIZL hayes_s_Page_174.pro
bf8e6e1a230ce8e8ea11eff742f24c56
f20443846334c6a991d5fd2473fda798774967fa
27105 F20101109_AAAHPH hayes_s_Page_063.QC.jpg
737ab82c038dd13b04d21503b0554469
54fe1751cd9128a70b53513e7df75cfcfa995ee7
55657 F20101109_AAAIMA hayes_s_Page_116.pro
fd8738966d937ecbf426c388359cbb4e
96b003fd9accd9558e6939fc7586e04168fe4e3b
56345 F20101109_AAAIZM hayes_s_Page_176.pro
94396df852fe114f5f1f66051ab2724e
edec2e48b762e095c813847feb3cad69470a344d
3808 F20101109_AAAHPI hayes_s_Page_210.txt
b6726ebedb4dea834286a47a1965a10e
bf0cf2d92c8937abc15320e88b2f54b8dc61adee
1051879 F20101109_AAAIMB hayes_s_Page_222.jp2
11fd37607e6267b8b66e231ce02e3148
fe63d5c43b4d6387d3bab6915f76304f215a1a80
44559 F20101109_AAAIZN hayes_s_Page_186.pro
36b02749c53a85d14a2c1e73958293ae
f1c3eab321606ab4ad63e9de323383ed6275289b
29591 F20101109_AAAHPJ hayes_s_Page_158.jpg
e1e27ab80ca62b46d222bd973f35e9e2
773b8fa807a03bca7e9566f55a964863a83b5574
26915 F20101109_AAAIMC hayes_s_Page_038.QC.jpg
7528c270eef1631e8f6d00f1ab5d80ff
88af17cd8fd0132c2cbdbcff62eb92db6fe703b8
56606 F20101109_AAAIZO hayes_s_Page_187.pro
67991df7b44c2afed0537463740e9918
a773ef02b50e0733ca1c5bbe33d22c5e1bec900c
52914 F20101109_AAAHPK hayes_s_Page_099.pro
20df632b37d7c347281fc6125f40db23
341824fec90e7238f607da63c8b638fe2e5e8a0c
27490 F20101109_AAAIMD hayes_s_Page_073.QC.jpg
c016dbece30f3663b23e724c634d3b79
5e6b0e3d6255c324365efcade576a4b92f25fa6b
1051930 F20101109_AAAHCA hayes_s_Page_078.jp2
e57f176eee6a2165e45a56f9037d03e7
e4e1f0009630e125cb3cf4d5be19b0ccfc39c8fd
53281 F20101109_AAAIZP hayes_s_Page_188.pro
4b535acf490b8f3de9eaa95c8b54188a
0bda38db0b4392a0e6693f589acde373ef279247
F20101109_AAAHPL hayes_s_Page_135.tif
f24596ae9eea3346cc73f66e2a8c4615
5c154f66f415b851697adf7fd51a4a6fb0be3249
F20101109_AAAIME hayes_s_Page_022.tif
45b500524b7f287ced2010fc8d889ec5
e010f49d4270ed274a7b661dda75f252342be37d
53728 F20101109_AAAHCB hayes_s_Page_082.pro
726c82a5b094759f1290856a8dbccbf8
7c708eb4b20c0abf2a4d5221c2612eeabb937368
54360 F20101109_AAAIZQ hayes_s_Page_191.pro
6dcbdbdd3a189f1055694aa42cf9650a
ed5720850b549c9c75c6cef8f865c31748726826
4893 F20101109_AAAHPM hayes_s_Page_217thm.jpg
a96fb9f735280bb2b47489ff42983609
82abb8dcc70281803499fc69783c63e6bb4126bf
7015 F20101109_AAAIMF hayes_s_Page_046thm.jpg
0205dcf53e9f9cb217eda2f937fa4f67
6e225e468a18ad3009519886292ef57e3732550f
F20101109_AAAHCC hayes_s_Page_096.jp2
1838b4963b2e8f9a117fffb3ff121237
c2866bb7ea9e309481ce314a079fa29b46406cd3
54770 F20101109_AAAIZR hayes_s_Page_195.pro
b08249373ef5b5eab5091c394b242315
f162b88e91ef5adb41be1a19b05a15966861c344
7318 F20101109_AAAHPN hayes_s_Page_218thm.jpg
9175951e038af0ebd1402e25cc6df746
59f8ef66f6d3051ac17707c460de5bd840933e6a
7439 F20101109_AAAIMG hayes_s_Page_192thm.jpg
061cebf7bd32e0a2ff7ddafe032f13a9
90a3a823eb3a6975adeec7bfe3fab325b9a626d2
25034 F20101109_AAAJJA hayes_s_Page_118.QC.jpg
c8cd9886584c9f1ff1622b9d226dfb03
e49dddf9853147c310090e1d20f533e699fd1761
89240 F20101109_AAAHCD hayes_s_Page_122.jpg
b9416a5e54700a498ce5d15c63913c04
71a4d0bfac31726fb00307c556646308efdcb106
43290 F20101109_AAAIZS hayes_s_Page_213.pro
cd55b2d3a4d87ab54a3ce9a72a8775ee
d2223d2397fe44026f9baca795d3024f58a10eda
7626 F20101109_AAAHPO hayes_s_Page_157thm.jpg
fae51e75b710becc426d1bed606000c9
5193c124aaae17cb10351bdd98dc37f68cf984e0
58638 F20101109_AAAIMH hayes_s_Page_051.pro
2f74ed2d437ec20f57cf64f5be67db29
3231fae9dc264d9dbd4004731f6b1274873335ca
7201 F20101109_AAAJJB hayes_s_Page_124thm.jpg
1615fa47a234899a0d362b25f67c7139
99465b2d236226187fba67dee7dd7caf6f481187
5664 F20101109_AAAHCE hayes_s_Page_127thm.jpg
5064e241defe55f55f68b48200fccb6a
f087a5d8c9d36a4e95ad747875867419edc822bf
45487 F20101109_AAAIZT hayes_s_Page_217.pro
55961ffe8c59a4015f11161d2e51b38c
2410ea974a1558c278c28ca7413704b84dc0e77e
805386 F20101109_AAAHPP hayes_s_Page_214.jp2
e9cc8d61316a994c855be820a4e766f9
99bc9ea2ca641534e0a3a08b0bb8837708b0aadb
81326 F20101109_AAAIMI hayes_s_Page_014.jpg
0cbfec70c41b3457675e9e566ad969a2
21632bfcda4abf42b78ac1f65c1634c48dc193a0
21505 F20101109_AAAJJC hayes_s_Page_145.QC.jpg
710a17924af190e5154e6261f2ab255f
934a2df4a981f313e6a5667bb3e51961dbf6c55b
25431 F20101109_AAAHCF hayes_s_Page_216.QC.jpg
53da601f4ca194cc58cc1cd84541f2ff
7283837763d6ff66681d3fd2af910079bc89aa8a
54698 F20101109_AAAIZU hayes_s_Page_221.pro
6dcb08c4bb0220e29352a79ff705147a
eefdc6557e093ad373998e15c1bdfbcc1ade5241
4875 F20101109_AAAHPQ hayes_s_Page_094thm.jpg
4949075f988a917552d35487dfeca096
14d3b04266630b3925f5f037d701a65566635d9b
85342 F20101109_AAAIMJ hayes_s_Page_086.jpg
1b0c9419ffa4237bfa3adda5b97a5086
49b1f04e960f38172f905fe9ca6a8bc252a19c17
6638 F20101109_AAAJJD hayes_s_Page_146thm.jpg
8a6217d6c7d5332e307388db59327d65
747c155bdb20b489a92ee81201c0b6d1b4c7d7a1
26128 F20101109_AAAHCG hayes_s_Page_091.QC.jpg
0bed71920ccf0d518cb6d22a3fb92a04
f737f48a6b9bd71c14356d615d4519b395bb0e72
54796 F20101109_AAAIZV hayes_s_Page_224.pro
f77751509afc9caa5533d6e704ebbf34
12f932e949a8eeb66962db8131c2393fbb6ae2f2
F20101109_AAAHPR hayes_s_Page_131.jp2
d5a76fbadb90aa2340251e19873856ae
0e421880f26ea5f90a30a8ae3a1e1cd027bb5b0e
5495 F20101109_AAAIMK hayes_s_Page_174thm.jpg
216260aef659236c2b394d4b10b1d8db
fdd98a936a32284de362b74bc2fe29288646f6dc
24063 F20101109_AAAJJE hayes_s_Page_150.QC.jpg
7d98719f0c86427354d9b7c16d30e6ec
323f1d3a9703f79854bd5863bc0ed0f4fb8864be
1051941 F20101109_AAAHCH hayes_s_Page_125.jp2
f80e02fd22106cbfb367f49b9cca8099
96b413ebe46d84450ec352847a49464e596bff71
22154 F20101109_AAAIZW hayes_s_Page_227.pro
e09be37050f06b712cc43841e4189bd3
2e25eb8e72ef238820fbf0a171fc92a21c83ca68
1051912 F20101109_AAAHPS hayes_s_Page_055.jp2
ea89060b64e144e951a618405bf7f39c
c604d73d612812b67bba61f1e063eddd4828260b
28381 F20101109_AAAIML hayes_s_Page_134.QC.jpg
e765560c30aed8f723c6102218ab26fb
0d665111e6f08104d108e5ce2a2b7625eaf90c85
9646 F20101109_AAAJJF hayes_s_Page_158.QC.jpg
0c8e307375f2793492508e3a9255917e
569e6ff862cd16dce9302cace4fb9379d3b463da
157 F20101109_AAAIZX hayes_s_Page_003.txt
b9dc84cb6f441f99d415000c3925b956
8b188b3bd47cfe7b05468a86a751e0e7052150a3
7146 F20101109_AAAHPT hayes_s_Page_149thm.jpg
9a72ca14fcd12ed879fd568e92ff6216
07f0e27a31e4001c7e1d26691bf7c38978f3a1a2
6981 F20101109_AAAIMM hayes_s_Page_036thm.jpg
60c3e2640eebff15382307f902f7c6ab
10861d274e299d83de7b474da5f3bb1287ec409f
24310 F20101109_AAAJJG hayes_s_Page_160.QC.jpg
95ed0fb0990a4f0d829211ca954ac78f
5ebf083e5bfa2ba7bc20f1687142731e560ea917
7057 F20101109_AAAHCI hayes_s_Page_065thm.jpg
ebdac219d00fbb70c374e08ba335b784
ce929521d3114c3d782da62920ca2ad94992881c
978 F20101109_AAAIZY hayes_s_Page_005.txt
004e0aadd585a275bff1bdb446cc15d7
c8075025ccbad321d2a48505790469657d868683
92194 F20101109_AAAHPU hayes_s_Page_028.jpg
664116222cbc99b6fc3d7f47e373eaf5
f902079452b58727da2b808b81c974a7823cc7bb
F20101109_AAAIMN hayes_s_Page_182.jp2
669c6c33df65904095010d2bf9ed8702
be7eb5a4f06b936858cbfd8657fc527b4a4bbd75
7352 F20101109_AAAJJH hayes_s_Page_161thm.jpg
080caeeb198ecdf00258c41414aa29c1
e0a665415db80cad5961497c28773c80448a3f28
26125 F20101109_AAAHCJ hayes_s_Page_225.QC.jpg
1596ce71f41b785f41168fe7461e19da
90243dfb2e76508bffc1be0dfbdee1ef8e635e68
3475 F20101109_AAAIZZ hayes_s_Page_006.txt
57d80a96d468b162713848733bab4a1c
ecff046e3352167a18b8e42fded268d65067dbf9
88924 F20101109_AAAIMO hayes_s_Page_130.jpg
27351eead009e260ecc1c0db96372233
af4af10fbf9eae1e48e2e7ddcf75afcdaa29bcef
27990 F20101109_AAAJJI hayes_s_Page_164.QC.jpg
6a2542f58f92172b89fe36668d4276a9
aab1fc57fbb5dca4f6f44f17e52a9af28c046a2b
28711 F20101109_AAAHCK hayes_s_Page_177.QC.jpg
f4fd0cd897134a9e966df7bfa221fb3e
f2dec49cb0e302cf7e43b07796c9238bcb4a8f2a
2180 F20101109_AAAHPV hayes_s_Page_189.txt
bc7dee8ab7e706143c9f7045a6c6caf8
4741568ce828b3159fd90c178dc285c27dfd6177
98156 F20101109_AAAIMP hayes_s_Page_119.jpg
dd27954e8629b1bf22d842ec6ff5648f
c7561d0600178ec56e52455509b52804f6ab3005
7564 F20101109_AAAJJJ hayes_s_Page_165thm.jpg
0ea0bea88d82f66ed51ef7f17f1f23b3
645d11044f683363898c2eb05918228486d75a14
26030 F20101109_AAAHCL hayes_s_Page_108.QC.jpg
0be6f1cbe707492333f76330a4716926
e00cd17e42d2be190ed1c614393c72ff1cf35166
1051975 F20101109_AAAHPW hayes_s_Page_139.jp2
6b35244d4d4dbd78a16ab5f648859072
49a4834ab059a43de44b2504f113d3f81b2f1737
F20101109_AAAIMQ hayes_s_Page_143.jp2
08dbab1032df367714e4d57a2abb0062
0de52dbf3b2fbcebc1e7afa168f74934f5ae3aef
7081 F20101109_AAAJJK hayes_s_Page_172thm.jpg
89d1ba80a96161a2c314ee5dc054a5cc
3f4f79858d4e363c93bb5e2aeb123bcfc92a1132
21785 F20101109_AAAHCM hayes_s_Page_213.QC.jpg
4c39fd62d794ce159fa0680c5d1b9484
2c4a84b433e165f724714dd291d1b7aaa5c6223e
F20101109_AAAHPX hayes_s_Page_074.jp2
984027fa5933c13ede646f0ca40f1c21
66744b7a8339f524f073be54a6a70a2dd828172b
7808 F20101109_AAAJJL hayes_s_Page_183thm.jpg
5c880257af79392ae78c0f8f3147241b
aae849ba4757934c080c8571d020659e8787e75c
87910 F20101109_AAAHCN hayes_s_Page_063.jpg
58e3b8d24bdd09a83e264a6ea518da9c
151e16094c7b24a457e78574b81916637106fa3a
2182 F20101109_AAAHPY hayes_s_Page_085.txt
343189fc65917cc27ad26f3751f2f647
2aa05492ba603eaa0169b4139852e40327742e36
86220 F20101109_AAAIMR hayes_s_Page_087.jpg
c5823e054804a05fa852cca8c9d3d85f
3f0a6a81ab437793ed658bfc6bb46a6fd9842daf
7236 F20101109_AAAJJM hayes_s_Page_188thm.jpg
883bce9a82ca9100d632bb45cfb35c49
d5c1c89142218e2364285c8a7b7e715d39cb8237
2194 F20101109_AAAHCO hayes_s_Page_148.txt
c26053888a10ac46eab23db871f8ba53
ef324a573e4f4094009f6d2c248948c097e4fc55
54933 F20101109_AAAHPZ hayes_s_Page_076.pro
81a26bc919f3a2c1d0814d5ec363fa09
c280e3fcd80d9d828baaba010f41e0c55fb20bb4
27639 F20101109_AAAIMS hayes_s_Page_023.QC.jpg
340bd344e514f512a72521fbac5ea002
6aa9ca00cf71eff398f31f3ba282326e4ba6ed8d
56000 F20101109_AAAHCP hayes_s_Page_079.pro
00b7f170c1d488f89bcd738d2f9c5a0f
8a6efd84ff04e33f6b12f6ec3a8a5e0525f3ffb2
43798 F20101109_AAAIMT hayes_s_Page_206.pro
d4863fd3a49b519602f46372d7fa8485
99852690f018c6aaa58592e1e978f7cb3ff81222
7396 F20101109_AAAJJN hayes_s_Page_197thm.jpg
13eca5cb6292cd78783d1b75fb620b97
780d93d30e5d16cf716b8e60ffcfa929f894f4dd
7683 F20101109_AAAHCQ hayes_s_Page_083thm.jpg
d05ad07135efff66532501ecc097c64c
7fb7bd593378c39afda9b00199cdd34099306790
52797 F20101109_AAAIMU hayes_s_Page_223.pro
7eb24c9ee24e894e26b3cfac551d6f81
5357abdef2f6465e1e287f1cd23ba5314eab742b
7290 F20101109_AAAJJO hayes_s_Page_224thm.jpg
ed0bf3e8cf724bcf2ff979421d94bbbd
2033f9c067b47a2a8860830b64bf94a9407bb0c5
F20101109_AAAHCR hayes_s_Page_178.tif
3e80efadf2f7bef5656694bf542f2a15
2e4873f76420de435427a0e44d05dadd1b4a8ea3
27221 F20101109_AAAIMV hayes_s_Page_076.QC.jpg
556364e1fcacefebf866669180549484
12f8d1d33ad582d5db2aa30a170dacdb16eec0b7
12990 F20101109_AAAJJP hayes_s_Page_227.QC.jpg
2bec8689825843b746ce2df34aa72c93
c732bb5b7e7c261abd9a75e76eac6d549b43907b
84251 F20101109_AAAHCS hayes_s_Page_188.jpg
46d3275f1b98c080b4389d9ab45cf1c5
50d707ca138b492e2c19dbcd5290f5acec56aa5d
82259 F20101109_AAAIMW hayes_s_Page_096.jpg
816a2ac852e8d63ae9174515ef58a6bd
d1f3e1ededab40fe2c1900592f4dd54dd541bf1d
F20101109_AAAHCT hayes_s_Page_201.tif
84a690e90c6841819104cfdeae772c9a
1e3e758a1bb6e3abcc3b2c08822546b14fd58bff
F20101109_AAAIMX hayes_s_Page_008.tif
69e1234dd4f63da096fb8a00f43d4a0a
5a8da351cd77b85b45a5fc6175cd37b40ffb516d
26058 F20101109_AAAHCU hayes_s_Page_057.QC.jpg
608d01019164a2d921cbe57142504440
f6ecca76d18a91b0ec5b02bfe112ec58120c6784
88537 F20101109_AAAIMY hayes_s_Page_179.jpg
88b402303e331f515d93f4922f6f40e9
3b0f915cb288e1bed45a6fb6e052a3fcf53fe5b0
88313 F20101109_AAAHCV hayes_s_Page_196.jpg
5c9c949c489b2279f6c3cdfe5a7ec686
3c460df4c683fd4d64cab4c25206fa2c288c68dd
1066 F20101109_AAAIMZ hayes_s_Page_093.txt
30c43a5bf0f8f98c5c25f36a660c2e30
bdd2bc3a49213c9ce98d4650ce44a558397341c9
87534 F20101109_AAAHCW hayes_s_Page_101.jpg
a4024ee1b6d171be5487415db3f6402d
a006674bb48c14eec30a9a28b5bd937bdca6b2d3
877 F20101109_AAAHCX hayes_s_Page_201.txt
b075315e91b1f4b3ff010209cb42ef11
1c74e81d97c6df15dfcbbd34dd15157b022448c0
1051950 F20101109_AAAHVA hayes_s_Page_080.jp2
93bb4cb7ddad3cbd8583feb949eee856
b188ca8f7028b4f06075343f3e69202fd29e66cf
6916 F20101109_AAAHCY hayes_s_Page_012thm.jpg
2890b24a23a2e380422735fdf5b7a30c
12b4d6c6ef5cfb3b4f045287c5cbbd7fbd4c1cdd
7051 F20101109_AAAHVB hayes_s_Page_125thm.jpg
4c768a50fcfcdf136a3c05516ac81fd2
e4b95156277929af11a9f5892d6258b05f52f0bf
63694 F20101109_AAAHCZ hayes_s_Page_003.jp2
f35d2c3ecee1ab9a16c6806afbf56e33
08caeeee5f988af534ec09cce06a827204dd5316
F20101109_AAAHVC hayes_s_Page_178thm.jpg
960599f42d29a8a6665f633371abb7d2
a88a0e9dc45cef27b21b001bf8c905e754c5a45c
7599 F20101109_AAAHVD hayes_s_Page_166thm.jpg
ca26b222e012e330db631381cf998e4f
a4c59a4eb1b1d6121cc2809a15e09e194d4a0424
F20101109_AAAHVE hayes_s_Page_134.tif
1804db72f71ec770407d4cda18639336
22c65998fad108c55c4010367f393366072caafe
66821 F20101109_AAAHVF hayes_s_Page_217.jpg
96774b78ec9c4131293be1889054cd2d
69a59b81316d5df4f76642457fe35a94f804e00f
F20101109_AAAHVG hayes_s_Page_179.jp2
5cd999304bdd4c87644a41a00f2a9ecb
c6cc16449e06a8d592f3673e51cd2b99ec06ce9d
1025412 F20101109_AAAHVH hayes_s_Page_159.jp2
48f98b03ac228c602c8e8316dee356bd
63aad95e8093f77c5de71c9fa688ff266e05fe0d
F20101109_AAAISA hayes_s_Page_108.jp2
3538ebabe025236e174584c1f2eef6a3
275bb263bf316c938703c4e68ab38aeaaba4eb01
4158 F20101109_AAAHVI hayes_s_Page_093thm.jpg
ceb39997434efe1498cea68bb3346990
d14af2440aa9aeee0eddc1cea9c8f2e0d04fccb8
F20101109_AAAISB hayes_s_Page_112.jp2
6bf054e50a95f492241dc37f6e1c19f4
742d836ac97279fadb7d56bf7c48649301e17b5e
86442 F20101109_AAAHVJ hayes_s_Page_015.jpg
4acd1aab3b4b0bcde6bf8e66d634ce27
54d4b0933e5f156391d969ac62b97eddfa2d81f2
F20101109_AAAISC hayes_s_Page_115.jp2
25bd5370175ba3b6e05cf1a65c92d40d
eab20411533260d6fff3317379b698806b4df8d0
F20101109_AAAHVK hayes_s_Page_078.tif
d0e99eb5b5a250d3dfb6884abc3b0242
5224239d14dadf2ad761e33a7b213ac78fc565b8
F20101109_AAAISD hayes_s_Page_118.jp2
8bbc6c887fb77face68381120282bbcc
2358757d9f73d8b73db22c7f374a804275a14c79
55171 F20101109_AAAHVL hayes_s_Page_052.pro
460e38e8fb1b095054e2bb01cb1c0925
91d5dfff97fd8969305696141617529c8e58fc56
F20101109_AAAISE hayes_s_Page_121.jp2
79fcb13af639bcb537d1f9e28fe57ce4
94f7d942d298b742f08141a3ba4e727d95abe9b4
84524 F20101109_AAAHIA hayes_s_Page_149.jpg
1eab7bb90606390291bdd606da10aea3
83fe6b5c4ccdf4bddbd75a9823874caf5f59c629
F20101109_AAAHVM hayes_s_Page_054.tif
f7e7ffb95ade5652c793829bf21788bf
fa36d527fbf988543cec89ba9d89eae7cac196e0
F20101109_AAAISF hayes_s_Page_124.jp2
155815e8f2499405dacce972bb60e3aa
f4c508a790bbf729c1cd706dea1e399a7d67a7ba
F20101109_AAAHIB hayes_s_Page_107.txt
92ea81b1d91656a719572930e2b1bb81
66ce64c58233e6c3d96d4e01828b0217874a6af7
F20101109_AAAHVN hayes_s_Page_122.jp2
2469781e2b880d753a42ee8c733d61a8
172fe3a480c2fe8550b7d9b924e0ceb20284db3f
842134 F20101109_AAAISG hayes_s_Page_126.jp2
153a59b29a2d61c456455f9c88cf8238
d010574d668a766c47b2e12f149085e243865a9c
27204 F20101109_AAAHIC hayes_s_Page_123.QC.jpg
b172f24ccd93b11042d63078a5182aac
d12c37144b2f0a4975ed694af57e3de0382d8b5d
2268 F20101109_AAAHVO hayes_s_Page_142.txt
d462c63a05c9cea450a943846480dddb
ca46f17448c27055163a9c3b009a3583aafdb456
F20101109_AAAISH hayes_s_Page_129.jp2
90b82b969ff861cba12aa8357c477337
e90bc2e4939ace93041237595c22da3d3de2e8a5
6325 F20101109_AAAHID hayes_s_Page_209.QC.jpg
b73c5667636c3b7e2523cb8eac539217
d896c09befd11ca459671d60c52fab2c997b6544
12788 F20101109_AAAHVP hayes_s_Page_003.jpg
9667aedef543646765bfeebcaacba4c2
7d4249d1c65a12955552e952197830348fd4ddc6
F20101109_AAAISI hayes_s_Page_130.jp2
b194322dd8174b86c481544c0cdeed83
34dc8d00d4ef3156ac475f3e0d27dc0b465cf2ce
F20101109_AAAHIE hayes_s_Page_198.txt
60de77503a8c18e25b818ec03f2c7418
86c15d7b7d4f7c95e18cd673be811cda3aabaa5b
92136 F20101109_AAAHVQ hayes_s_Page_102.jpg
a7e8f4502ce9fee1e22ced9bd9f9f0b9
f83f3205bcc12837af3e380de00c79848d7f6226
1051960 F20101109_AAAISJ hayes_s_Page_137.jp2
a8480e60d9de75ee410cdc20e0d48780
fef70bf0ab7258d00eb23a7063bddd904e48172c
85092 F20101109_AAAHIF hayes_s_Page_029.jpg
5d429c29cc3222cc9d7d22b981b5fbf1
f30ff8208791ffcac30bc8e6ca9a36b550ccd26b
54378 F20101109_AAAHVR hayes_s_Page_027.pro
91770c6a1ac502157295db59ac865884
f6e6179c7bd9e7fe521212a9d242e85d7c59176f
1051951 F20101109_AAAISK hayes_s_Page_140.jp2
052bf51ffa7de803bf09eefa69d671e5
41d32219ca90c7f0e757bb29ef81d5355d9430ad
3611 F20101109_AAAHIG hayes_s_Page_215.txt
71858f5a4e118b869771b14eb25e854c
9c0b044c686bb542a3b24881823128e9e1696775
1262 F20101109_AAAIFA hayes_s_Page_185.txt
7a7d28033ed5da7a0c336b53546b6108
a0ca60202c32a5e30f1acaee5c4d1d6d6da8a206
87598 F20101109_AAAHVS hayes_s_Page_156.jpg
35f378352230b322d10efc014f220020
8a870a8002632673f302572a30f122535c889605
1051978 F20101109_AAAISL hayes_s_Page_141.jp2
d94687c2d125b93d191c61a04d51b7a4
4512aad7267336b999a29a6ed96c392e9b5167da
F20101109_AAAHIH hayes_s_Page_152.QC.jpg
988a9963f38e0531b80fabbf58227e1e
3b4af75d40aebad16b5ea902aad9539ab7c8edfe
F20101109_AAAIFB hayes_s_Page_015.pro
b9108f853531485c51ee32cf0d72b8b3
56f4bedb859712f337055db06e0dd29bacbb42b0
69364 F20101109_AAAHVT hayes_s_Page_213.jpg
838c9805d1b6c0f048551ddb22ced3a9
78ef04323695651dcc58451f5b5a1bb5bd3710df
1051981 F20101109_AAAISM hayes_s_Page_147.jp2
14aeb2d722a1a3573157d28a2860f32f
5ce5e117663d3e730ed8023fa2c6698b6364a6be
81573 F20101109_AAAHII hayes_s_Page_077.jpg
771e67dd890036beb7618e7a3f20b75d
ceec41e7b1173ef8998f9b1fc16cce7ffdc8e38d
F20101109_AAAIFC hayes_s_Page_137.tif
9ee4491ccc21af750a15767f72dfb7fc
5c92b3fc58efed625b674ca9419b6b3ffa46bb61
F20101109_AAAHVU hayes_s_Page_095.tif
9c2730787be5a2b624abb926219fc4b1
2b92e6d4ad16b0afdc905f23d7d5e6f1d85b93c7
1051955 F20101109_AAAISN hayes_s_Page_148.jp2
a197279989a44009d7bf4724e30fb6e6
22a65f9e89894fdaf1109b63210711d3c57464eb
F20101109_AAAHIJ hayes_s_Page_188.tif
b2f73b09d4b618622b182600e33b6538
dd91b373cb214fd70c9f5d88915896791452ce93
2382 F20101109_AAAIFD hayes_s_Page_170.txt
43e4f988e7dbd10ec97ff1b1228ae459
529a95c06dcb16724f120214d376a74fffacf4e4
7305 F20101109_AAAHVV hayes_s_Page_154thm.jpg
74098ee37392ead1f284556fe5c90d70
52a2f3b89379b4321b3ab0c0d0868ee95c6861a2
F20101109_AAAISO hayes_s_Page_149.jp2
c37cad558fa4b8e344bcc62cf7b46cfc
be790fcbbcb7863c30aaf849f747c59619313e44
27562 F20101109_AAAHIK hayes_s_Page_059.QC.jpg
2354469becf846d96444a5b213925c3a
cfb19fc036e727033e1fd870829b64ff87c4cb4b
F20101109_AAAIFE hayes_s_Page_181.tif
669e0b475a2e8d84c0473c4c8b8cbc98
531a4920e2852bb9d7f8ca0ce5b699b73d424ac3
F20101109_AAAHVW hayes_s_Page_115.tif
34de98f91c39110e9d3c39a20dc44a54
bae3f699888cbb3642907b9b7f1a5570f1eeedd5
862101 F20101109_AAAISP hayes_s_Page_151.jp2
daf647372b0dc5c14719ae682acf92ea
e93771caee2faffff000ebce08d2a715ecfd1cdf
28156 F20101109_AAAHIL hayes_s_Page_155.QC.jpg
c1f77869eb23e079d46dbc49b51897f6
4240fd3764c3875227c0eb4505acbd261b6f0b7f
35350 F20101109_AAAIFF hayes_s_Page_204.pro
8dcf11117a81ca7fe020468d2ed9db8c
a8a9d7cd4a066eef50301e3c63b9f8aaa0b82a45
230430 F20101109_AAAHVX hayes_s_Page_209.jp2
5dea32967bd654659a68c94b1e0ef7a2
4845fd61ea877f9cc4474c6dc187e52af80c8701
F20101109_AAAISQ hayes_s_Page_161.jp2
d9ee9c0d00631af57113ad6d2bab08ca
d18acba5b3b16d00b436caf27ba34cdcc73c2f4e
2192 F20101109_AAAHIM hayes_s_Page_069.txt
111cde6785c8c55444b0e7e319a02343
ca90166b0a9829bb963aefa58d6b10fb38e9869c
24259 F20101109_AAAIFG hayes_s_Page_022.QC.jpg
55277987c8d706efd4321bd67931801b
63b9c630475bcd9501418b9e368ba77a2618f05f
2038 F20101109_AAAHVY hayes_s_Page_089.txt
6cca85bcb131bf816d4e6ec5f90466cf
b04983639e453fd6c5371aa5f2ae298c6857e4f0
F20101109_AAAISR hayes_s_Page_162.jp2
9186ed228881c3d1053811e479c78448
f4bbb87b62c23d42db75e7b01ae49455c6c6e0ba
2129 F20101109_AAAHIN hayes_s_Page_082.txt
53b42f9a05512cf713735313cae26d21
faa0f9612fcbcc6fb298558524de2cc3a556e30c
F20101109_AAAIFH hayes_s_Page_052.tif
59b3034d0c46fc7708fe40cffba3d33b
d2165f0d32fb389043844df5761b025d122462a4
25147 F20101109_AAAHVZ hayes_s_Page_037.QC.jpg
0ce5fc0c24d7b03758ad288ff6b6cda8
733e601f49cc4e0cd2137012bcbd6c74fde3b0e8
2387 F20101109_AAAJCA hayes_s_Page_143.txt
3acdad8e24ba6df05eda6bd4f8127922
1931b92c550b553316a3689960e1ff8b2f94238f
F20101109_AAAISS hayes_s_Page_163.jp2
b541a355fafa88ce77b2e9fce6058377
4966cafe41d5ff27b9435cc02e3ec3af70b3ee20
102725 F20101109_AAAIFI hayes_s_Page_168.jpg
181c5f3da2572a0fadbb50fac2851e65
1d1384bba7946245d3673493fb72b0d42d568e43
F20101109_AAAJCB hayes_s_Page_147.txt
46d8e1f34bafbf63e6008ccd86dd8ca6
82ce19b86a8516ed70d7ec7fabd42a3b37f311a6
F20101109_AAAIST hayes_s_Page_164.jp2
199489cdc9a1f49a6faf364d434d399a
9e5dfdcd5cf8acffcc453aa27af8d9d9d6c73a61
98727 F20101109_AAAHIO hayes_s_Page_137.jpg
173df2cb3bf54cedaff8b0930a13276a
fc3afc0f34cd609cbbc583bc1ae12df404cd1f9e
F20101109_AAAIFJ hayes_s_Page_159.tif
34dc80b402ebb293d7d84bf4beb5f92b
2d6340fd2e1d16efb745f94ead39e986c66daae5
1649 F20101109_AAAJCC hayes_s_Page_151.txt
5cd67059fd938b6b362466cbddb3512e
e2bf949282e28ab65b7da0d1275bd021e28cba33
F20101109_AAAISU hayes_s_Page_165.jp2
e50bb390135c05d6bbde32b30aed22e0
83ad643fa027e3dde9218801de78ac8979c32702
7184 F20101109_AAAHIP hayes_s_Page_039thm.jpg
e00cad6d1b67877844bee9e30cc5d847
16a3d24da01bedd654f1d3a4abb816764b25c49b
2491 F20101109_AAAJCD hayes_s_Page_154.txt
748a9fd2028e89cbd931fbd57479d956
5c2a1d2aecf4fa0a48c7b8c906f26e6f00dd8f4c
F20101109_AAAISV hayes_s_Page_168.jp2
7911a201148ee914073ad46d6469d335
260d101caea22bf906873f0945e42509c8d0c204
86285 F20101109_AAAHIQ hayes_s_Page_097.jpg
23e4252f17223b4908a73f51c5ce8e04
713398cb07e521ea1f788b7e57b3d5b197126f69
F20101109_AAAIFK hayes_s_Page_051.tif
070f8f4f496ec5c7c89a65bee06179b1
09111162fd597be6857a945878380ecbc87a5cb1
2452 F20101109_AAAJCE hayes_s_Page_155.txt
5b4c0600435a911cabb8ae92a43ee2b6
41f57d65b0173d40a4433490e4d4f7e71a613fa0
F20101109_AAAISW hayes_s_Page_170.jp2
eebe065b56699c3a589508dd6df84a8a
4a9e3960d2f302ab04c6e87852e1f9cdfc15aa5a
3742 F20101109_AAAHIR hayes_s_Page_003.QC.jpg
22c097a3152df9895e4bd9904edbf392
59e52169200fdc8cc7152f42340f5f0ee61584a5
24966 F20101109_AAAIFL hayes_s_Page_223.QC.jpg
c3725975de725d826a7ffa30401553e9
68d250c0724539e9091d7f4b9c7e2af399607742
2417 F20101109_AAAJCF hayes_s_Page_156.txt
010e64bb851f722e721b828d16951067
951b647d22818798bb0ad07cf6e558410b639b86
1051954 F20101109_AAAHIS hayes_s_Page_063.jp2
494eb50fe01edac6186cf5b04434f44e
42678e05319e02daffa81421c922c6a1533aa8d6
58762 F20101109_AAAIFM hayes_s_Page_144.pro
b2456569b3327afa171b3b4eff2cea61
802338f471af23eec9da2df253f5686cc9de114d
819839 F20101109_AAAISX hayes_s_Page_174.jp2
c266f0f38e1c821b3b4dd0eab1bc6058
19f0e237c66c1a2cbc048c22d2fb44609d3fe503
F20101109_AAAHIT hayes_s_Page_025.tif
e7da8916646f980e0dc8eb60bb035578
238580515a77a125956c3773da18f90abe52f27b
77552 F20101109_AAAIFN hayes_s_Page_120.jpg
4d61a8fa1498952cd3764ba3eb209a2b
d82dc0cb42067ad3f4451b4cc365f87685a0689a
2659 F20101109_AAAJCG hayes_s_Page_157.txt
3d3337f61363e7d4f3e63789a39a0b5f
bf93636f6d5db921f0b5e5a62279978566cac09c
F20101109_AAAISY hayes_s_Page_177.jp2
d23d1dfd3d67ab4571000ebd39ac67be
928dfe8c1e0704440d1b32b4481c9a95c97c5a44
28610 F20101109_AAAHIU hayes_s_Page_081.QC.jpg
e7cde4c6724a494b9e9445f16e86d12a
0ba92fd93a203b44f0f5a3119655ce64112e19c1
84154 F20101109_AAAIFO hayes_s_Page_162.jpg
d8c6661626aea94d74c32a9ab7175418
3c16e66efc5f06cd604ef90e1c805268fac1c4b1
2078 F20101109_AAAJCH hayes_s_Page_159.txt
50dd69258846ab6e957b7154453d942e
fb25496032b6d3db5f055c01a077918103e1ab7d
F20101109_AAAISZ hayes_s_Page_180.jp2
a696482ce92b0967dfc4561e04cba71a
31ef8952c0eb978fc2df561135ac85da2ad23204
F20101109_AAAHIV hayes_s_Page_225thm.jpg
ab01a1aa14d6517b27bd6bed094bc463
7f3ba8733155027de2119aa1fb5a6c6d3af27647
7322 F20101109_AAAIFP hayes_s_Page_143thm.jpg
d3fddf86c0f2e5ce8f2bcac61e6ebe27
feaf6cb1c92b46d31cd31b67d97154cdd5e63255
2115 F20101109_AAAJCI hayes_s_Page_161.txt
ffcc584047d5f0cde1cf637d7ce824d7
1cd9f46a9256b82cac2ca9804ce3ad3296a26857
90027 F20101109_AAAHIW hayes_s_Page_180.jpg
419f04d6af911a5a2036685a1a2abf9d
28f2cfb7c4554ad0d77843c50ba63e29771d5ce6
26899 F20101109_AAAIFQ hayes_s_Page_033.QC.jpg
8d39b6f454bd19b3dcdd42d0bb512a79
af8a67031ecf5c752325b3d8cbc048ab8107bf4e
2267 F20101109_AAAJCJ hayes_s_Page_163.txt
ee8ba81715da38ea975f216f10463f55
7f11bdd9c5751dd7a59957abbbe623dc08ea9eee
F20101109_AAAHIX hayes_s_Page_021.tif
a247350b9a18c1133b219fbd4053f8ee
cd60d837dfbfdb3abab25a405144dfdc08f8061f
1797 F20101109_AAAIFR hayes_s_Page_111.txt
838d7a6e2a962956d9065e2f54d86598
52e114140f3daaac2aac8062ae29ca29be5ecfdb
2212 F20101109_AAAJCK hayes_s_Page_165.txt
8f59024d51ee000dee2458afbd4495ef
19cd50dbf607cbcf08ac1ae6fc49faa81cb13e6a
945195 F20101109_AAAHIY hayes_s_Page_213.jp2
9764b40be46dd103bb92baae4cc4f5d8
813c5f707de31e10c59a40958210a05b1c078b7f
7819 F20101109_AAAIFS hayes_s_Page_102thm.jpg
a7b07211d9f1314db1982301975ec0e3
cbaafd94291bdb8b2ff8ce27cfe310794004f13c
2470 F20101109_AAAJCL hayes_s_Page_166.txt
735b99d33edb54439eacd883d123247b
4e14d427e19ddb54526442fd909bb9f12e31aed9
84637 F20101109_AAAHIZ hayes_s_Page_045.jpg
cbb44adeda91056d0c88fdf33aeeca48
367b0af183bebf99f086284df882691c3d840775
F20101109_AAAIFT hayes_s_Page_002.tif
24558c99e9a9a690a557d9b66f5287e2
671447cc394e9e0d1fe2e552edcf7010bc5a1d66
2540 F20101109_AAAJCM hayes_s_Page_169.txt
511d80e81665426d0632806814f882a5
8b4f8c29660847dc1f6651ff79853642669af341
F20101109_AAAIFU hayes_s_Page_177.tif
9cef815ceac84bd3bf0c2eac5cd29409
50e8961e0c4eb985ca5c4ea8c6b887b03a28ca98
2516 F20101109_AAAJCN hayes_s_Page_171.txt
d663132c38eedbaf394f108841c8a66d
929de090f05cf78929720f5f03e5fe5ea7e72446
94508 F20101109_AAAIFV hayes_s_Page_166.jpg
413a6fc8ecbdb3ac2dcff4551f0e6748
7ba62c91b0fdaed5f7cbddbfe697150adea5711f
F20101109_AAAJCO hayes_s_Page_173.txt
80623df906e309490368a09a9acff3a1
83fb021d3ade3f3c0ca85c7a76d1f306d58fb47d
F20101109_AAAIFW hayes_s_Page_206.tif
9e93ce9a89fe0605713e24c74dce78f6
8fef32214cfcd4b09a305b0841acc806c3dec0bc
1572 F20101109_AAAJCP hayes_s_Page_174.txt
c2cc72517c3cc091e59b0d3c94757bef
54f951c6105fc3e52d86de433d4b33834c9567cd
25441 F20101109_AAAIFX hayes_s_Page_012.QC.jpg
a762dec225d487b73f553e651bba40f2
3d1d1771ae2a09de3e3b1ebdaa58ba642dfb2086
58992 F20101109_AAAIYA hayes_s_Page_068.pro
4d04cb4ca0a20778ef49280017621d8e
a8cc7525aacb92b3163e0b5d673d9f48d52667c0
2459 F20101109_AAAJCQ hayes_s_Page_177.txt
ef55188c0b32ab9ea98e18b92fffe056
9aa9b5db9604c47294edbaa8af2c865be52996ee
1051953 F20101109_AAAIFY hayes_s_Page_012.jp2
0e08977e52a51920bbe64ccb1825661a
daf8a40fa1894545a146f4a5fec40660eb0f05c6
55849 F20101109_AAAIYB hayes_s_Page_069.pro
2bbd3f92e699e19ca314dead627872c7
94f247b3eb08c4c35622c9d22e3f236c1fb6b246
2395 F20101109_AAAJCR hayes_s_Page_178.txt
155d3e8d64c037f7954df14b371db651
27738b7890a7a73511a69a10a090629d2503e8dc
2803 F20101109_AAAIFZ hayes_s_Page_216.txt
b039eca6f28f561d433f1de02db32394
20b7adcfe3f8c91e57b88db3c6047ab00c55eea4
51191 F20101109_AAAIYC hayes_s_Page_077.pro
707dcdcef4a1ccedc35695259fb04137
d1e48498d47b1e79b2c30143a6953861202aec71
F20101109_AAAJCS hayes_s_Page_183.txt
cc4cc0c6bd45b0f9c83494f0cbabb879
c5562e53affb5b91be34afab2dc95c747419faa0
50274 F20101109_AAAIYD hayes_s_Page_080.pro
be0578cfc0fbcb5c3762cfcf26f8649a
7d26064e9d341e0e618b4fb55f149fdeae64755d
2149 F20101109_AAAJCT hayes_s_Page_195.txt
b64ef52861a525ae73dfa8fa9baaccbf
106bed144b5ff2a3d654b530f6bcd4e65524bbff
55683 F20101109_AAAIYE hayes_s_Page_088.pro
e13cbd16d1b7e7fb0d9120da6e3bf871
c12b83b7e8c6f1d8b99c34246db5259d8bcd7095
2218 F20101109_AAAJCU hayes_s_Page_196.txt
303ba58983f593f5f2d2842d0320091e
c2e53c0da63b617ce5a622e0890a2981fe84c9c7
84047 F20101109_AAAHOA hayes_s_Page_108.jpg
09a96861e85fd66ad80a2c8c9a3d5d4a
443b79b49d49b4890050c97f8e1b6281f64a7071
55686 F20101109_AAAIYF hayes_s_Page_090.pro
ec40c6e7a478aabc0e31042519059708
513e027ff2fc0dee0ea26294faaadd983b167c72
2093 F20101109_AAAJCV hayes_s_Page_199.txt
050f1f5c213bb92272e36a94ca3d3f25
518bfe2b20664549d09f16132b1e8dfda239e386
2828 F20101109_AAAHOB hayes_s_Page_168.txt
6354f89f29f5782851ca16728f6b0bd8
061e2e1b9885c55b3971729f7ad94a2c1c816cba
26923 F20101109_AAAIYG hayes_s_Page_093.pro
c61d13beb318d37f2709a8b6cdacbdf4
8621713d2e304e0f4a68f9cf5fc06bbbd13bce50
1653 F20101109_AAAJCW hayes_s_Page_200.txt
015e6603e9904927ded1dc214630964f
fafe1ffcf5fdbdef3a4c77fceb8954d691c39fe7
79275 F20101109_AAAHOC hayes_s_Page_037.jpg
bc036f3933c61adc02ca808e8124ea91
9c3a10eabdaad006e2858fd92c5cf9fe08285b8a
31643 F20101109_AAAIYH hayes_s_Page_094.pro
89605852042105ba9ea8ac923a1517a2
cfca80a36cf86e5c95978d145a2bf4168cec0d02
1537 F20101109_AAAJCX hayes_s_Page_202.txt
61720469a84651f7897de8cc60daee37
856df0f7b7e670427ae2c359226d47ab3c4be99a
26334 F20101109_AAAHOD hayes_s_Page_046.QC.jpg
66588bacbcdf8526fb103270cd10d70a
977f8f4938261c2cc9fbd7cf92b7c4969d490c7a
50330 F20101109_AAAIYI hayes_s_Page_096.pro
67bd3bdff023ea3890a74b389b614fdf
5edc47005f6e342969b8b85202fd6e1663e52205
1322 F20101109_AAAJCY hayes_s_Page_203.txt
17c11cce20b382856036941c78c9b6c1
cef2dce5d1ae517ce3fc7ec772a9caf7429b1430
54783 F20101109_AAAHOE hayes_s_Page_085.pro
be4ad23889296ea44030d707f9b0451f
8460eabb8023b78a69a0054918679c27c6fcb6ff
54306 F20101109_AAAIYJ hayes_s_Page_097.pro
39b7e001b5b0cff0e14953a28189d35d
77dc2d2e7c47196f8a5b7a2ca4ceb8c546c53338
1398 F20101109_AAAJCZ hayes_s_Page_204.txt
0cfdecfbe1063b75a201ed4444af4017
078ff3f5a00892ef5b5720d14a446e8c5ed92722
28089 F20101109_AAAHOF hayes_s_Page_075.QC.jpg
54c07c48fa62737bb00bd27d5be0adc6
326f0341cda0650d52e32176ecdb8af3bc97096c
52648 F20101109_AAAIYK hayes_s_Page_098.pro
5ed0d11086bf3c3ae8f8af2b84311289
ec9c181117e073c42f6a2ab05a04c059ad510cd3
7315 F20101109_AAAHOG hayes_s_Page_103thm.jpg
40a8526e28ec3a43cbf3db9171d14c9d
e25f16fcfbb456000b26dbac50b679e36c4a21b9
56035 F20101109_AAAIYL hayes_s_Page_103.pro
670e124d74039052de6e6edca7da2921
f9ac1d6645d4fa23e50f934f59d7aad292d77eec
25093 F20101109_AAAHOH hayes_s_Page_011.QC.jpg
7da330325cb336ca14c489a695940e58
230c2df47df51d29bc20c7dd626f7ddb1b8e3a6a
81750 F20101109_AAAILA hayes_s_Page_071.jpg
b54f953ec863d379d541dc2b00bf1205
851e52a472db4cd2b9fed1cd71a0a08e2911e54a
60777 F20101109_AAAIYM hayes_s_Page_105.pro
59153fa2373b1273239e4ed7ab45aa57
1bcb84513bba70fd4ef42216ca0485c34f64fe00
92967 F20101109_AAAHOI hayes_s_Page_095.jpg
4cfd4bfce414a99e036f8f0af70d9acf
0923b716cefa115e61098d547dc9865c432a5eb3
F20101109_AAAILB hayes_s_Page_042.tif
b214a7f679d75dea82ac9793954c5111
57b41f5e2f9d35e671f3254331d68c74c1e0f4c7
51542 F20101109_AAAIYN hayes_s_Page_108.pro
e269adc0bc79dd39ea2f323411dab89a
d17e74b65e307701a72b065bd23eb30cc2fe2e1e
83064 F20101109_AAAHOJ hayes_s_Page_035.jpg
b6a85d86cf4ea74d581d6742d5f39487
d2881bb4b530c4a20076cbdf92853a03acce27f9
29592 F20101109_AAAILC hayes_s_Page_001.jpg
2a9fa117eb654ebf1f842be5db249bd5
21f546574bbf001f59058dad2b4b1e19e5d04a30
43529 F20101109_AAAIYO hayes_s_Page_111.pro
dff2f532b21be5dbd0b5876762fe27f9
267075a7f1f54443d111dd38d37699ee8a479d8a
87942 F20101109_AAAHOK hayes_s_Page_075.jpg
b0704879761223bb14d083e2b3a3395d
faef1b6e39485db9dd71092bd28452635573ad9d
31625 F20101109_AAAILD hayes_s_Page_185.pro
83987af5090f9c3e7b851c171082e612
2981bb17eddec6a33c2386268cbefef19cd303a6
28236 F20101109_AAAHBA hayes_s_Page_196.QC.jpg
f977a95d61a337327e6597a88e5fcc5f
1d1378154f87faa56fa568ba06c7128db02ca606
44829 F20101109_AAAIYP hayes_s_Page_113.pro
ffd5b0dc4a44121b77d6bb17a7e365e7
63b6ecb43f3f58febd8d3cbf668840f437dbd202
92994 F20101109_AAAHOL hayes_s_Page_007.pro
4d8c02816615478679dbb3db7eaa6af8
ba3e3101e0f80d49a46e53f2309c0915201723cd
95995 F20101109_AAAILE hayes_s_Page_121.jpg
5cd8b0114043066a2c7d0728608e389c
eee2a763da69f025c8372f7e98f823e7d859c271
F20101109_AAAHBB hayes_s_Page_114.jp2
fbc7a69028f3509fa54a13f2943f9870
136a65dfe58f71e07c9dc146b17c6050ab63974d
57365 F20101109_AAAIYQ hayes_s_Page_115.pro
d1079a2d423ec3f6b266bdf68e986f61
427854aca90ba5ba6f3fa4196ed32d5497dc7f73
100799 F20101109_AAAHOM hayes_s_Page_157.jpg
08cee4f8ba1701b6fa36afc6ed25c7ee
e845d403ffe44526bb7ffa7ac64da4c679967330
F20101109_AAAILF hayes_s_Page_070.txt
e74fe86c89a57c982706f934ca46056d
1961eccd0435abf33e7c5e4d2f998c46da305861
87847 F20101109_AAAHBC hayes_s_Page_016.jpg
6bb06cb01aa57aa2a874cac18c715cc5
8b55ae829e537b7617c48feafda0f6742f84af74
51504 F20101109_AAAIYR hayes_s_Page_118.pro
8a3119f77bf47c42fdb3c1536da70d37
2c7a0ed883d25a118ebfc5f60dc7994973b3b588
7303 F20101109_AAAHON hayes_s_Page_057thm.jpg
da43ad444a7c2289765a40893955b44e
f52f67140b1bcd5d8bc647622c4fa48521d802e7
89808 F20101109_AAAILG hayes_s_Page_171.jpg
b476c7e4fb9f0262d2ec5e6675a4cb81
c3bdbb04c8768c96d37ea503deefdb9b53af9703
1369 F20101109_AAAJIA hayes_s_Page_002thm.jpg
9b39ea55019dfc4cf00975d66e87ee0f
03dfaa8c87e0774a4048f964a09654580aafe4e4
53107 F20101109_AAAHBD hayes_s_Page_141.pro
8cb872fcd366ea0534ffefbcd73ce967
2eb73669b32958d960f94d037588e0293a5e17a1
51067 F20101109_AAAIYS hayes_s_Page_120.pro
2ac9c971ad46b67703d25cdd24b98398
b87ca95a35b40125193f109064cf3a007bf1594b
80769 F20101109_AAAHOO hayes_s_Page_041.jpg
c9d4d02dd35c61f732986d1e07f0bc8a
ac553f1a8d84aedccb084019190984fa04297b7c
7763 F20101109_AAAILH hayes_s_Page_034thm.jpg
7a3931e78fbd0c485fc2e9e7247f50b8
1167c74976bbee78f4cb7e53259306f5afa6dfff
27416 F20101109_AAAJIB hayes_s_Page_061.QC.jpg
ac9cad5984ad0dac0e7a052e55374e51
fc2f99a2ad94806840f7b7ecd13b933062650627
38861 F20101109_AAAHBE hayes_s_Page_126.pro
df6cc507006c9431794e8347e5a425ba
9db848f2bbc52b5d05c0a6b10a9d2b725b869f72
51849 F20101109_AAAIYT hayes_s_Page_128.pro
f9b3d4b89f5f8159660b3eefca1e742e
6e46e4a04716f357335de6dcb978a92465ed40f6
57600 F20101109_AAAHOP hayes_s_Page_202.jpg
267fb0c98cb872f5bcee8c514ded78f4
3dcd457c50953c4b4d514f1dc2a34090286e0425
2186 F20101109_AAAILI hayes_s_Page_140.txt
b7b9790394b6fe1b9d3a3c1b0422deae
e1a18c4a661af2149adead9435f2ee529173112f
7204 F20101109_AAAJIC hayes_s_Page_053thm.jpg
5a18fe88941f516c54dab3a47e6aba06
3159ffe3714ab5a9212afb164c4b89d7244f8995
F20101109_AAAHBF hayes_s_Page_175.tif
3f5ce8421deafbb90bdfa4d31608a639
129654fa2a1b6ee94ba0e2620baba87c0ade75a7
57043 F20101109_AAAIYU hayes_s_Page_130.pro
b0c09224322a36c1e5b0ddd070a5c23a
472280ad2a7e402775bbc163ffd8c06e666076e9
52651 F20101109_AAAHOQ hayes_s_Page_039.pro
02ed452806885df50e51a05efbdfadb4
03fd02d04d65ec89a9bb6c89a1ed51fcb7adbdfd
88522 F20101109_AAAILJ hayes_s_Page_198.jpg
c8fcd18897f2e5af8c6a89a0620a2682
d7633ae70b3a33a4d79095a7033cfc849d920075
336444 F20101109_AAAJID UFE0021986_00001.xml
eaaa2e7ccd7a66a2b00ed8fc20f74734
f57c9358497633072ba1596fe432ce77cf3ce7e2
82537 F20101109_AAAHBG hayes_s_Page_040.jpg
37c3917200b7e5979ae782dab28db19f
298efa2a366cf97d7a17a06f142a88bb373d28ef
51881 F20101109_AAAIYV hayes_s_Page_133.pro
dfdb6d85d235b3f76fdaba952418bf09
99e751a470b05335706bc521ea947abe5b027022
27814 F20101109_AAAHOR hayes_s_Page_028.QC.jpg
1f05b27832c0c742a4f374a92c7a3b1a
27f2c9f3201e5f9435c0d8a6ab428960d0facdcd
F20101109_AAAILK hayes_s_Page_123.jp2
73721946961af4ab3863bfa6e9d02417
c009163bcb9e1b44ebce02fe9c89cbffae0d8495
28407 F20101109_AAAJIE hayes_s_Page_007.QC.jpg
4ed0c73d4e842c40e7d6a87d7f58cfce
c207f2886dea4a5156ae82d233221336714ad7f5
53312 F20101109_AAAIYW hayes_s_Page_139.pro
8d5cd8fcf23506be497a903819d2df6f
eef89b87c0c56f6f66614da9db7f2ea3368ca55d
1051935 F20101109_AAAHOS hayes_s_Page_224.jp2
43e75b196b7c014d57167bb9fc009213
2c88bc8996dd7e3737bf6f79530937a49abb0dbb
26861 F20101109_AAAILL hayes_s_Page_086.QC.jpg
33372d6c39a7fc947f199b93d3ab249e
48d69d35651741584738725c2bffb1b00f3a73ef
25665 F20101109_AAAJIF hayes_s_Page_014.QC.jpg
4e071966f6ac8055a40f4076bb0ff126
a7503cd2024aa821406be3fd1e6147d6e1915aa8
7507 F20101109_AAAHBH hayes_s_Page_051thm.jpg
f90b373a5965d1a27c9a883282f9c7f5
7ca26dd1d939e70f9e831d89c3d592782d1a3ab1
54767 F20101109_AAAIYX hayes_s_Page_140.pro
9da9daabc05f91f4c3f5d25df6556357
85e07236ac701e7eeeab0339d58c8ecd461c4c87
82947 F20101109_AAAHOT hayes_s_Page_141.jpg
4b89a3a6ff5363b6198933898234408a
a8ec1ee88cc7f63540c97932e145fd6687d331c9
7138 F20101109_AAAILM hayes_s_Page_042thm.jpg
27951d7cf71fabb868e467babc3f4859
db22efb37444017b3b46530b34ec6d08caecff48
7223 F20101109_AAAJIG hayes_s_Page_014thm.jpg
8e6d11147f66035c868d35782d99694c
b70db346b3d242f870cc5446c67c75c29b37d0c5
27481 F20101109_AAAHBI hayes_s_Page_124.QC.jpg
b6d2fad098f5e40c00f5ed2bd2fcbcb7
04faf56fab8aa7687bf1f5c01a8e9b27e02988ef
55992 F20101109_AAAIYY hayes_s_Page_142.pro
4640c2ceba51223fc4a1d9bd17579e24
57b607ee4419ed01091ff72fbc5a327f818fe31b
26318 F20101109_AAAILN hayes_s_Page_139.QC.jpg
163b08cd52e2a7e61a0b68579631a84b
7d2ee9d3d8098dc8201ba2b7609d7dd14653e47c
27397 F20101109_AAAJIH hayes_s_Page_019.QC.jpg
9d491632c080b63cb7ec6cf20c690b0f
255fe02c2d3f064a1759c90c8b1974410ddc2762
94951 F20101109_AAAHBJ hayes_s_Page_211.pro
b09828490f9af57c743a32d5a8cf13c1
d40a5f0921b2d38bd4cc0a6d7fb81479636dcdbd
49148 F20101109_AAAIYZ hayes_s_Page_146.pro
2c2aa7f84c6ad42779f25120494ab7da
33bebe63fa277bc543133a8255c1f351c87eeacf
6912 F20101109_AAAHOU hayes_s_Page_037thm.jpg
5797cde80c9070aaad599a347e95a012
9d7c7bfd436ace2d450e9c0907cf4302b39afa02
F20101109_AAAILO hayes_s_Page_006.jp2
6db0ad358c3a3951a6748a710acad6c6
c11ea23e9b68a10dfda9b3584daa37f5186feade
7601 F20101109_AAAJII hayes_s_Page_023thm.jpg
c05c52eab01932c378215dadd1535090
471fad8eb14551d48c2759e9f2d4a2987540a6de
14450 F20101109_AAAHBK hayes_s_Page_158.pro
8622cae45f067d7a85be9fc75bc65a64
d1dfa503573872b6d8c5be95086b374659f4f06f
F20101109_AAAHOV hayes_s_Page_123.tif
8037685df206f75a87493421e577ea3d
000d155f9610ed64411f6e54560d5b7f71ef30a3
F20101109_AAAILP hayes_s_Page_076.jp2
11d5604d7e31a3ecd6bae629c86356d4
0d76f965343c083e64b0f722eb129d00f269bb41
27457 F20101109_AAAJIJ hayes_s_Page_030.QC.jpg
9a3716334fa0231f8d62e436b0d7a4ba
8a9d59a747de4c9a23f8a645852daf00198e6460
26785 F20101109_AAAHBL hayes_s_Page_071.QC.jpg
26b2bc53243956057e6016367c50a7c3
37d3bd73b46563731eb8facfabc0fd6a12e02e86
F20101109_AAAHOW hayes_s_Page_175thm.jpg
afa51bb6f1d727ed4da3ab02c63e272a
211245d1adb3c3c3e6d3f35f0720947cd2d9f76a
7414 F20101109_AAAJIK hayes_s_Page_030thm.jpg
d93c616e0318e5626a907ab7f40ac6ad
d3d67b7d37edb98afcface1f807ea837f9f5af76
2270 F20101109_AAAHBM hayes_s_Page_172.txt
7b6ba37724c25b67471500e69dd85e55
b70fdbb6a43b068fffb4eb1bed8a6865fac8c8fa
22170 F20101109_AAAHOX hayes_s_Page_013.jpg
cfb29eea6a992c2ec5db5c84b6c0e4f1
36ea7b5fa2ac9f7ac21d6f8f9bba3efaf6d3b78d
1051929 F20101109_AAAILQ hayes_s_Page_116.jp2
ee6089dd0ea94a49ad47994e22e06847
4a0488e9e1893fffdbfbfaf72394e32c1ca32909
25726 F20101109_AAAJIL hayes_s_Page_041.QC.jpg
d42c2cb3e5fa3cfec276c888c04c4d2d
a298a9eacd9641a7e7ea9b5ee173e127808a0380
F20101109_AAAHBN hayes_s_Page_021.jp2
5fe6ec266179dd985d9d697e803faedc
5f499a8b6e4b1399e2b867de0f22bb3506567b0f
2380 F20101109_AAAHOY hayes_s_Page_134.txt
0dbc36dbfe0e0d91bef17acf5e772ae0
97297974ec415079ab1d952a62faafb55dd09310
53096 F20101109_AAAILR hayes_s_Page_092.pro
3f537346b4e828c02d0f0a836ab3d64f
0fe8267d210beac336f95d271ec2b40fac8c4bb9
85933 F20101109_AAAHBO hayes_s_Page_059.jpg
8761b85938d5cbd6b879b6f6dde77ba0
8a1f38af7d876682ae9dd1e1781f6b92a2405a66
26620 F20101109_AAAHOZ hayes_s_Page_099.QC.jpg
f0697d38f42fe2bd41933fcde8ac12a8
1536991e08d25d3592cea11be825a5eb9a9e9d9e
1501 F20101109_AAAILS hayes_s_Page_003thm.jpg
910ecdd36501a5548c5fbfbc5dd25e38
3e85c88a135d5ca4083cddae411def48e3f296c2
7065 F20101109_AAAJIM hayes_s_Page_041thm.jpg
1c020795af27e7e2382a2919e3d6b052
efefbf9884c5fa76a293eeeca83e918f1449a650
F20101109_AAAHBP hayes_s_Page_011.jp2
3264daaf88b3ed7b33a4466cd781cbcf
03faabe0fe91dec2942628bc93527b1e6d031b0c
F20101109_AAAILT hayes_s_Page_120.tif
6db826ea29d0f66c536cd4f8849825d6
33d1429565f1cb0cf4e4adee31efb424d7d9ca49
27079 F20101109_AAAJIN hayes_s_Page_045.QC.jpg
75c11b71f0d908152f5e86f713f1bec3
3a87aafd06fced3049f9a91b4cff1a6754b8b0d8
52876 F20101109_AAAHBQ hayes_s_Page_071.pro
fac2e57c9a435b84212f39e747935ab6
f4d5ee6eab5bf1aa7977efcf4357f6d2b55093d9
F20101109_AAAILU hayes_s_Page_071.tif
df980744f6e0bbbc747564e078f713eb
3c64623b4c7c9b4c3421f9cb825063f790c2fea5
7232 F20101109_AAAJIO hayes_s_Page_048thm.jpg
57c4b8fb11dca51dc5a9ec8af4e21d84
fb1da9ba208dc24d313d405ed7ac8df8377912ee
F20101109_AAAHBR hayes_s_Page_017.QC.jpg
35e9b70b07e5535c2c77bf7ffe91eb84
9901f7462890926d16b0c7bf57ae4833a086ada0
55505 F20101109_AAAILV hayes_s_Page_147.pro
acda228bd467079bebe0379aeef7fb9e
e7043d987b9253d9bd04b8477bf65e612650adcd
26462 F20101109_AAAJIP hayes_s_Page_055.QC.jpg
ea66c5e5328d0f86755b1cda0816a2fb
b9277512e8cc03b7fada8c771b95e5ab1c8ef78f
85800 F20101109_AAAHBS hayes_s_Page_058.jpg
9ab5e065041ffd91dd214f4d5a4e038c
5eeac00851787ca30cab7cac4405f3c9e761c081
27792 F20101109_AAAILW hayes_s_Page_015.QC.jpg
6dbc234283cc5ab3f0af086f509f7c71
c03eacfbdfb920f298642fa75e9accde5e9861b2
7566 F20101109_AAAJIQ hayes_s_Page_056thm.jpg
49e6a38a5b0098cea37b79814b1de222
cc3432bed5fb4c20ffbd3e0e888014e19eb57fb1
2525 F20101109_AAAHBT hayes_s_Page_152.txt
8832be108fdf44cea5f857932f8d6d98
52d307b5e5fba4c118747492165f067d256cde2a
1051974 F20101109_AAAILX hayes_s_Page_193.jp2
fd01ac3e97fd54cedd4c8a0400e7b8d6
2521389693296332e7f95a9f1ac736e7afb66693
25688 F20101109_AAAJIR hayes_s_Page_060.QC.jpg
4a1bed24f601e147de6a5ca20996347a
0d351a200a7a1273758eb114b73918f1afc78b9d
33245 F20101109_AAAHBU hayes_s_Page_208.QC.jpg
9d8feec019f35acf8de593d065cc5d74
3cded7e7b5e24d52575c54e72bf4711230600362
129518 F20101109_AAAILY hayes_s_Page_208.jpg
7c4fd68ddf8f10f631f98f5dfbc384e8
262bdd44648feb8ca6b1638ca2ec96d151972518
7417 F20101109_AAAJIS hayes_s_Page_063thm.jpg
1bb497d6950f98ee08a998fcbe38a006
ca79aee1750a252645777434d2c7519d0c6dc9d1
2437 F20101109_AAAHBV hayes_s_Page_218.txt
32fac5511a58223c6aca87b3c1209976
9af48be284377f158227940712b451b580808be3
F20101109_AAAILZ hayes_s_Page_166.jp2
1c21bb20843a919f9dcf461af5d00da4
c05723c734ec242d638c1ce87fa53cdf702e3af4
25993 F20101109_AAAJIT hayes_s_Page_082.QC.jpg
0a7fc295cbd641aafa015866af532406
f675217aec1fd0a52b962faaa8d689c49cc24e1b
28224 F20101109_AAAHBW hayes_s_Page_130.QC.jpg
2dfa9b1e1685ed809fafda4562aac610
f41f9e2cb5d0589dd2f6e298bf035aa7be8f159a
27892 F20101109_AAAJIU hayes_s_Page_087.QC.jpg
120d109c389820bbc56c83883c1b97b8
09a947704001f8cdfd6fe601b6af0042eee7c9f0
1051939 F20101109_AAAHBX hayes_s_Page_090.jp2
a0e5cc8ee1933e0992a56fa5eaec8f60
02976e0ef129f6d951468539e432f9a9c3a22c6e
2335 F20101109_AAAHUA hayes_s_Page_104.txt
0d44a9cfab2e934ba4566e21ffa507d3
c7194975fc236b60f353309d5c76a7bf3176df87
7460 F20101109_AAAJIV hayes_s_Page_087thm.jpg
23ea319da01962f065be8e2bca4e23a4
763b5e85919dc5e225ebadb53209f96fc8550a10
F20101109_AAAHBY hayes_s_Page_056.jp2
b3d121a3bed4c9c5db2956962544a0d9
17e6d554f58cca57873878009f062417c7572262
F20101109_AAAHUB hayes_s_Page_037.jp2
8e24ba59a18ca7752e0acb336d99c1e1
4d4495e3f4ff7d9eb0b8d1ed118209fc96edaa9d
27929 F20101109_AAAJIW hayes_s_Page_103.QC.jpg
2aedc61cd74beb85f93e50aed1bbc08e
0fb98ee5e8ab54d720507b98228aefd4471d3e41
28268 F20101109_AAAHBZ hayes_s_Page_050.QC.jpg
60a9185d195195e36addc74026a3850f
d768fa81f8ed44db57ecfaa35876864c8782ad65
84608 F20101109_AAAHUC hayes_s_Page_038.jpg
b77fe12c3afc241bfbffcc9acd356896
ddde9306a818ef436101541ac628ffa533df76b2
26708 F20101109_AAAJIX hayes_s_Page_109.QC.jpg
9bc505dcdbafb0c5512638479a312e9b
7ac1d425390886ebf5ae86e5f1660d9a9dee8455
90696 F20101109_AAAHUD hayes_s_Page_081.jpg
f2e01b34b5b864a87e6cc3226ff6e262
5ca05bab3e69ccdeb5d55f24deac1cd26bf67c08
21437 F20101109_AAAJIY hayes_s_Page_113.QC.jpg
a8b8f2f4df11d5b40c197166de37187a
c987b8044bfbd5748a417ee60f48da67753d7e16
51686 F20101109_AAAHUE hayes_s_Page_107.pro
7ac5d4b20ec2e195470d6eab6fbc73ac
0139d5b4e0a3b6789f19bf301c16bbfd8f71b6fd
28674 F20101109_AAAJIZ hayes_s_Page_115.QC.jpg
13f7a9151e9564b8097431c77f745cac
e9d9b8b2c2a113eb913b843ad01ab3d5c941b204
27280 F20101109_AAAHUF hayes_s_Page_097.QC.jpg
e46410aadd61ff80f58478a83af8fbcf
73120809653cc2a4128c6a3c7c0289ea32cc9ceb
23618 F20101109_AAAHUG hayes_s_Page_173.QC.jpg
6666e00bf0e7f03e5772c1d705178074
4587b9c5c2a83d3a3f2634f1fc8e1a56bc9a2481
87215 F20101109_AAAHUH hayes_s_Page_165.jpg
a955fe58d8aa1e5f11d02c70b0175707
38a28819c6187ae920291362f9d3b9c6f96e5e5c
F20101109_AAAIRA hayes_s_Page_033.jp2
16f72798dae19334a46e9f60919e5f53
4c677eadac9ec86d2d755184adf9ac722aa520d1
26695 F20101109_AAAHUI hayes_s_Page_116.QC.jpg
6d0b3420660db310359daad568427e2a
f77425510023372594d8d3a2fdcf9ee5b8532ad5
1051933 F20101109_AAAIRB hayes_s_Page_038.jp2
5831651569c21b5559d9d5502480a1f4
e3bfbb101d0d0e84630be8be3f0eda16d8ffbb6d
37348 F20101109_AAAHUJ hayes_s_Page_214.pro
08290b0a1b7ab1cdf784f883d4dc32bd
ed970eaa52945ae7559b76c6dde3d50d379154fd
684562 F20101109_AAAIRC hayes_s_Page_047.jp2
9c0dbd797ba0574401084b9b7e96590d
cbd74f2c459b0f3017060d44a2b2ac3840bba86e
86550 F20101109_AAAHUK hayes_s_Page_172.jpg
7979a8f94fc5905a64f9fe0e972b9447
052465260d985b198a636e5a08356b82593e75ae
1051944 F20101109_AAAIRD hayes_s_Page_059.jp2
a72a792df8cc86d464c4e2e41e8dd3a5
f6c5166d80f689871f883beca9cea462646f586b
F20101109_AAAHUL hayes_s_Page_220.tif
3ba018a8940fe354ea52808fc75fc098
bc01986d13d7149207157b8bb29c8a76eaf87d10
1051905 F20101109_AAAIRE hayes_s_Page_060.jp2
8d125726921f47ff5d6108a680e12793
7e07087feeb4aecef19ae79abef594092abaad3f
86957 F20101109_AAAHHA hayes_s_Page_109.jpg
78d432419e928d2a8970ee08207b3938
01cab485c295eaa4bd6e27ab2924d4666defd997
F20101109_AAAHUM hayes_s_Page_213.tif
b09dba984d89d9742316efe0c1fe4c8a
176f234be1f835bf76cf830ffc4079cf8b929532
1051945 F20101109_AAAIRF hayes_s_Page_064.jp2
07feb804187c45e003d5a554cce56287
e348b585b38355222bceb381a78405a6c9b94e2b
87672 F20101109_AAAHHB hayes_s_Page_023.jpg
5b17f7e7fafd2bb593d4bf3188c81215
a081d149f2908e355f21c47ceddffb8582bed971
F20101109_AAAHUN hayes_s_Page_162.tif
551835416dc1ff5da1d81349eb10c776
13129190dff316d5d8cbceb9bdefe9bfcaac83a6
F20101109_AAAIRG hayes_s_Page_065.jp2
7f5b85c6cf48a3257b84c50f26f2f185
a4578fca6572786c8c0ad357e93f001c96f8e06c
F20101109_AAAHHC hayes_s_Page_035.tif
fa91b5bce1e5886e1227c0264fd1aea1
c16c441b00742601e9bb932cf2f3f2aba2b37f6a
7066 F20101109_AAAHUO hayes_s_Page_035thm.jpg
a28e653757cffdbbcb5022bc9d364311
39a0aab69492b1d66829d1837b1092e0cd31ec82
F20101109_AAAIRH hayes_s_Page_068.jp2
268386381e628ac34bba65e30ecbcc2a
3e3487b136380cf18966717b43c8144595736e25
F20101109_AAAHHD hayes_s_Page_058.txt
885ad4b7d91708773bee66cbac66a346
991a87c65796bd030222dddb7ce56f8629e60d3b
26962 F20101109_AAAHUP hayes_s_Page_132.QC.jpg
275d23b7f1f9bb0d5851cbdae9f46d81
5d7bc1115d93c3709b2f452323b946660b90e44d
F20101109_AAAIRI hayes_s_Page_070.jp2
1b5d2f2000d437746163b2d74458fbdf
2533d8f8bf76def77b355b472096ddd30d807a6b
2135 F20101109_AAAHHE hayes_s_Page_128.txt
c185b9e6aa4e403089fc71fcdf7096b7
9c6c6a10a8855c58431e51b130c5544f9c130cbb
22361 F20101109_AAAHUQ hayes_s_Page_212.pro
fa734bec0cdd35e582c8da5c7a648109
943c519a49afbcf0e918f577505d045ae4f30a99
F20101109_AAAIRJ hayes_s_Page_071.jp2
23475e2146cacac02693dff6f398199a
5a2bd9b1f4a04362f2abf920b2a0a82058cb4245
F20101109_AAAHHF hayes_s_Page_131.tif
38cec055c060ac3345ec6434e0bfea6b
6b93d1fc5a96e14ae4de5b03992bbc90892a1929
27000 F20101109_AAAHUR hayes_s_Page_070.QC.jpg
d178198b43129093389614ac1a1e8794
3887ade919dcde4e2b89bb8c40367cb126aa241c
F20101109_AAAIRK hayes_s_Page_073.jp2
39cc72e3b7803e8b9e31f0b97ff452c1
48fd69d627b0304f1dd70587003887d534989cbe
F20101109_AAAHHG hayes_s_Page_168.tif
8d53bd79c86f7820a56e2baa0391609b
0ecb8f8509dcb24d12bc2e6479a8ec45e5acb5a2
49714 F20101109_AAAIEA hayes_s_Page_078.pro
7ecd712970a768ea8586c8051240748f
b0c81d8de3fccf5369865c1330a89437a1bd4435
82482 F20101109_AAAHUS hayes_s_Page_092.jpg
d042f31f0d5dfaf6c06c10e6eb9a6759
9efe443c348d2daafec7ca6d8f42144873f97338
F20101109_AAAIRL hayes_s_Page_077.jp2
dce945f05227d7f0c6bfefd5ebc4856d
f084e7257679b8fba24eb026bb9975968290432a
F20101109_AAAHHH hayes_s_Page_057.tif
5520515ef21f16d2b6e362bc89a98f71
0d9f9da46c91a170a3aa9782b810cf735dce955b
39414 F20101109_AAAIEB hayes_s_Page_151.pro
79f2d951f1fe39658f9ff8ad516aeb59
c5462e4da43f0b6c605d941d990af36fec148915
26480 F20101109_AAAHUT hayes_s_Page_128.QC.jpg
ec0ee9090694a771d4685b82cd82cd8b
5865a7ec2da478038824b25a93e1c64ef6645703
F20101109_AAAIRM hayes_s_Page_083.jp2
810c2726b0c1fb9838513cd5c208761a
7610f5ca87dc4c2181a3ee409a21037b59cb6075
95311 F20101109_AAAHHI hayes_s_Page_183.jpg
c1b762265893b462ef40eb5987769206
7cdec2cde65ddf6d200f4a4c95fe8acf5fb616d1
F20101109_AAAIEC hayes_s_Page_133.jp2
e6cdc52eeffacb9776d4689f7e918185
79b06e39542ec4bfb9622ebbe85352937fd54e83
F20101109_AAAHUU hayes_s_Page_053.tif
65974d0e843f9fe3b25f6f9ce35f1129
b71c87a328a7ee03c65548da32299b290a90fa4d
F20101109_AAAIRN hayes_s_Page_084.jp2
3bfb797a971b30bd3425f3ce213af6f0
369fde641700c9c0eba77073ccb8172de3306b16
F20101109_AAAHHJ hayes_s_Page_182.tif
4ea74a2df6e4fb2960e63b432004dcdf
444a1273f1e499cbce97d05b4fc98ba607339fdb
7108 F20101109_AAAIED hayes_s_Page_026thm.jpg
543dc87cf99576c005b28cf23a0913db
b755e8757d1367f13faae765e2a47cb1624b9e49
7443 F20101109_AAAHUV hayes_s_Page_100thm.jpg
1bacab52b7cfdd67064f433527524ddd
e1135550c52fd103fcd19d581167dc1934b3afcb
F20101109_AAAIRO hayes_s_Page_087.jp2
ce77b09f9bd08b41b39cbcb91db28549
76ab7b3c989f9c816afb848fdee350def0d2b4a8
2165 F20101109_AAAHHK hayes_s_Page_175.txt
6af989787848c469ac980f652fb25a1f
2ac351a3c32797a25f06b32a602e0a3abbf874ef
2017 F20101109_AAAIEE hayes_s_Page_146.txt
9a041fe386c8d039aaf3ca7364626f76
b5f95de0d086736237d4df4eed728dc68b074728
F20101109_AAAHUW hayes_s_Page_198.tif
9424d80596f42e695e170be287cb9bd6
fbc72ba1437335cfb6e67bc415af4cbcf6ef2efe
F20101109_AAAIRP hayes_s_Page_089.jp2
c1f031ec8fc6e4a14be9c00344fe0be3
9d50b46c5cdffd4951d3b7a89071883026d738af
2283 F20101109_AAAHHL hayes_s_Page_102.txt
5b907598cb22ab936050ea68d0da0dc0
a1bba5b87953627f373ae3bb5846a4bc39579b33
56013 F20101109_AAAIEF hayes_s_Page_180.pro
d0bf827f5e50de4d876267ea951b5cb2
75c727dd078cb8fd718fdccb5ed23fa49b2c804b
F20101109_AAAHUX hayes_s_Page_042.jp2
f4b95750a1354609dd8b1c10ec002266
263be0c8eee6b2875034c2923794e509f7118512
F20101109_AAAIRQ hayes_s_Page_091.jp2
5f356047d19765db018e230bcab9b966
e2883f4de4d1c6d23e73722f11a2fd76d8c76449
27379 F20101109_AAAHHM hayes_s_Page_062.QC.jpg
1b32e8e0f82b6ede2419e2068dfe7f68
60be55834cc0bae794ed107bfa641e08b9e43847
52207 F20101109_AAAIEG hayes_s_Page_035.pro
929ff2097d4f0064e30c6f0d688e0371
146b595fefd1582d6da10e6ef01b2deef3090335
F20101109_AAAHUY hayes_s_Page_153.jp2
b77812e443fa43ef523c9036c214639f
c2cb4b10346a4616607b1c1d652e9130cb2fa28b
1051938 F20101109_AAAIRR hayes_s_Page_092.jp2
9baebb18f32047d4cf1aa067d7ecd230
d6ed72e6daf59c0a8604ac0b1950549f02b89a9e
F20101109_AAAIEH hayes_s_Page_195.tif
d0e2c4afbc5ccd52d8d4bf27b030bd76
9de15e797025084b5d556b5132ba20a0eff9d8f7
46329 F20101109_AAAHUZ hayes_s_Page_160.pro
613d5de307fdfd7d0ef173a264c821bc
37efe1eb09acad112b840fd6f64a484a95059ff2
2032 F20101109_AAAJBA hayes_s_Page_064.txt
b07b4713ec1d3f16ee340ccbce7f5483
852051dc53a83104d6059649473f0025328fa404
604248 F20101109_AAAIRS hayes_s_Page_093.jp2
47e071e0b5723dc2a15f18985f92387b
4569891ecbb99096d74a9ccd25b18beceeb95cf6
F20101109_AAAHHN hayes_s_Page_118.tif
2cab59ad24deffd729c2781983b5587c
68a681aa70ff115d6bf98ed0a52eaf5c5f44f216
81274 F20101109_AAAIEI hayes_s_Page_057.jpg
aa900fa128fb0ec313ef92d5073a7f2d
ac0b3d52f67f12aa0543c77fc2839e254130cd9e
2070 F20101109_AAAJBB hayes_s_Page_065.txt
7f886795d6b254718e4761dba486f039
9723ee7bd85c80867f33369745eb047f5ca29220
1051900 F20101109_AAAIRT hayes_s_Page_098.jp2
68bb7e5a8fd56f12c801d2dfda3eb0ad
8e0c46383887da6f778312f10bcf246d7e77b2bd
74024 F20101109_AAAHHO hayes_s_Page_159.jpg
72751fc949dea041838d1ea51d83a124
8ce29e95485d375bfb7e28944e3592763cfaa859
2163 F20101109_AAAJBC hayes_s_Page_067.txt
d0bcf5545ae69c94b86a6c1c4d031e56
d533384afe7a8aa353e06212fa3e1545a03ed95b
F20101109_AAAIRU hayes_s_Page_099.jp2
e0e15bb18f2e175d2a2a55d9bdf7521f
8244c2bb55fd6611fb766d84f8f8b6acefbdcd3e
56592 F20101109_AAAHHP hayes_s_Page_024.pro
0f7b39eeae382c1d9cc16c5840915768
aa5f5f9365196a93f375ffaecbd3d69943bea1a7
88473 F20101109_AAAIEJ hayes_s_Page_026.jpg
3f731c5010bba70f4d494a4003735cf8
4b2b697f5b90847c70e85948ba96fba0ab5634e7
2331 F20101109_AAAJBD hayes_s_Page_068.txt
ad6f5f2824d235b4e7ec25057fdbb68c
be56bbd9b21a48a32b6666367c664a38d9faa763
F20101109_AAAIRV hayes_s_Page_100.jp2
2db652417d7d116ed6ddd7cd69d85a20
28467e0b3d4336de8de6003a9118d2523b11c726
93293 F20101109_AAAHHQ hayes_s_Page_178.jpg
ee7f591f6a6273df14d936e929ea1b77
febca8b49c5e780e1b23cfe641dfca372da7ba90
7663 F20101109_AAAIEK hayes_s_Page_137thm.jpg
fbd1354e56bf91c30bef69563b9fa337
230f174d4ae6ebdef71512db6463cc4b0380cfac
2090 F20101109_AAAJBE hayes_s_Page_071.txt
55b81dc059bd7fd1b0dcc06c2ad3ca6a
a8f4b18e15f13d9f5adc1c8f5da56ae448aaefd7
51485 F20101109_AAAHHR hayes_s_Page_193.pro
d16dc65d2ba363ccd43c8ec00ad99edc
edda99dc96dfc3d63f6146dca952a6fc69cc0f08
F20101109_AAAIEL hayes_s_Page_115thm.jpg
b3d1396ca73e5ee7db57eb5c9cb8e7d3
efb836106ed9e2aed0a0c09c628ef86f4843fd51
F20101109_AAAIRW hayes_s_Page_101.jp2
94740c09c232649658bc8ba984ce22dd
b27be8b4a59556d4b93f4b33ac3011b4d47e334b
F20101109_AAAHHS hayes_s_Page_133.txt
7f033f082a0542f17cc0bf7edc68aa3e
f45be736a836721ca65e2d593808accc8e383def
5841 F20101109_AAAIEM hayes_s_Page_151thm.jpg
f9f3928f1f1dea972eacc9951f07c3a9
69ef6fe6e4e3f5bcdb6746b361f93c11394d34c2
2216 F20101109_AAAJBF hayes_s_Page_075.txt
cc9d9a00e2d851693ef0df6677a92a68
1111a307123c00c92b42a0252a74c2fe18969b2f
F20101109_AAAIRX hayes_s_Page_103.jp2
8c51d94fb9d336a6dc4a575e7fe691b5
3a198f1d9928134768ebe1eada9a39b673116109
93318 F20101109_AAAHHT hayes_s_Page_105.jpg
9d1e5f35876f03ad32f3beb39bee87ea
3b4102ba4b71a4ac89f49ff81c53ab1bcd69b175
28038 F20101109_AAAIEN hayes_s_Page_198.QC.jpg
cc22d40075c3a2b19053aa8e776a3e5d
1c3941729813728df71948587178f9709843dfee
1997 F20101109_AAAJBG hayes_s_Page_080.txt
319d1ff79a24d4558394ccddf2193f96
5dbce51872b3185528543ecd8e02d966f0e3a232
F20101109_AAAIRY hayes_s_Page_105.jp2
6def6f86a38a3b2493e3a552f5e42f65
d8afc292f9c6dbc4f1b728843233d45292009807
F20101109_AAAHHU hayes_s_Page_149.tif
1fbb864abcccb211d98689643e042016
09299d53b453fe3d73c4d094a99508c44f6b63fa
89609 F20101109_AAAIEO hayes_s_Page_143.jpg
57e871e3384573430193d4a05a56147c
cc41f59e19f9b99c5f32da001a8abf76e2287d3f
2299 F20101109_AAAJBH hayes_s_Page_081.txt
43b370d342cd3ee2e703cc1614d3fc65
6419d6aeb4e76ee468eca47d1b2429feb7e12c13
F20101109_AAAIRZ hayes_s_Page_107.jp2
47744033593f67f37e2c880404e3d485
54e1f8ed5263c8d076f2cb7d1298e9b9fc44fbec
26361 F20101109_AAAHHV hayes_s_Page_085.QC.jpg
a3735a74561341d7efbc2268b6698abf
a41e033e878cfb484a04e280742830c7dd93bd54
1051965 F20101109_AAAIEP hayes_s_Page_097.jp2
3a200d38fde2e38d6c610364b55616ad
0d36524d1db1ab3fbfcc422e933923639dc858bf
F20101109_AAAJBI hayes_s_Page_090.txt
8dcab73974ecacedd681b112be504e7e
8ba3cea4934c4f9ed1cec3bf3ccb2a5b552a6c2c
55475 F20101109_AAAHHW hayes_s_Page_058.pro
00449ae9aec0bc14a11e19d1d410747a
7fa4f30952fda49f3b44fce4be0ad16fa1731608
6951 F20101109_AAAIEQ hayes_s_Page_071thm.jpg
e75863182120d2131f9fbddfbc1f7e74
117ae30470e65cc262f3b8ac34e4e6467ac47631
1311 F20101109_AAAJBJ hayes_s_Page_094.txt
fd30c745e7dccfd002e49aa544a3b880
832cface976682027608e38431f9529e5a72f5da
7052 F20101109_AAAHHX hayes_s_Page_060thm.jpg
e6eeba3ca42f26e0173db26d82f48187
528fe4fbe6c4252177a3cbce2c710e30c304ec66
1729 F20101109_AAAIER hayes_s_Page_205.txt
5071fc75b6de30cb8fd6559b2587fc78
a4a6ed7841065dbe33fbf30d51ba1a8202e4ff0d
F20101109_AAAJBK hayes_s_Page_095.txt
820f2c11648738c8d5e7a8ac59810a82
15a212e4d6caebf2fbea05b653a678f67a05c04b
F20101109_AAAHHY hayes_s_Page_035.jp2
dd7d10999418400eb36d1cb1e2d1bd6f
b6c050b1f9c41640aaa292d391f73e2fe3d1af7c
55806 F20101109_AAAIES hayes_s_Page_087.pro
feee82e709ea7de3ba05288914ba0f08
beb1f65695cc66a3520b4bb99c1cb5ee5c8f3d9f
F20101109_AAAJBL hayes_s_Page_103.txt
c7a02ba830019d3ea45dcfe8d666d17d
c422dfcae67711f6c0791e997776de2206fa5d3d
2354 F20101109_AAAHHZ hayes_s_Page_074.txt
0d0136c7d53e64a7d826c2ce46154c4c
cc4867ac0ec88db34e758d032c0ab360d2db881e
F20101109_AAAIET hayes_s_Page_155.jp2
de17c994f551e1be02d142a82322f45e
1d4b8586a27d2460de6989ebe7ce429cf6615b92
2405 F20101109_AAAJBM hayes_s_Page_105.txt
b1928d5ff88f08e2109fb60a789a05ad
5c7c7602cf8c792c0f81201ca9690ee12340eac5
6239 F20101109_AAAIEU hayes_s_Page_114thm.jpg
374c2910548f5607eac901868e56c8fc
7f1f7e9a2e0ab06c99fe5d6cf32af560baacde95
2054 F20101109_AAAJBN hayes_s_Page_108.txt
cb098fd58dace2d002b9063676d399b8
38281236f3e087c6594526621ff6ce29e2d1ca79
F20101109_AAAIEV hayes_s_Page_142.jp2
642d497de7484dd362b2ea90987a7117
e977eef0f13920ac268c038155e680647d6a2cbd
2027 F20101109_AAAJBO hayes_s_Page_112.txt
718e9b1b4c209b857d09b00be50a12ee
d4d2b989cc5d912356035dab4666765a92104b33
49118 F20101109_AAAIEW hayes_s_Page_159.pro
8a91aa210032b8677aebbbc742408e70
8645aff1aad817c0a3126216284565462eb044b7
2056 F20101109_AAAJBP hayes_s_Page_114.txt
cdee3f7c974eba45b1483f0d826acf21
2a307a8d331d28f06a8978aa65545899e188353b
72908 F20101109_AAAIEX hayes_s_Page_127.jpg
899a03b03b4cb31f6ed9dbc32ec1e84e
a9dd42d3c7386402d681351f2765340569befc4d
22126 F20101109_AAAIXA hayes_s_Page_010.pro
f62d368891383928145f5729bbe97386
c205035dd87973b47cc67c44ec2403fa7c70e5d0
F20101109_AAAJBQ hayes_s_Page_118.txt
6bad966dd44ae2c938bacdf49c795548
dad522de2a8f479b977ff1e55887122e55c98d62
61775 F20101109_AAAIEY hayes_s_Page_169.pro
c83fc842883d3eb1e8136f8207ba2592
794388d31672bf23a8d8af938a839c50bea15f46
48547 F20101109_AAAIXB hayes_s_Page_011.pro
fb97462da9cabfda5fe53f77b35ace4f
b75e9aaf4bf572cdc5e7ee8d9ed13f31ae1a9a93
2650 F20101109_AAAJBR hayes_s_Page_119.txt
c680ccacfc1ba0ede03ae3ef3aca70e9
6a099cb0a0e1d45b37fc69471a10847a54bcd368
2062 F20101109_AAAIEZ hayes_s_Page_012.txt
8c193b707e5bf5f780e837e57affda48
313ce898823b7a5e0de0a99daa0b63f2c71bfd1c
51025 F20101109_AAAIXC hayes_s_Page_014.pro
71545b0d9ee4b9b130aca2f1d4df849f
1f9f7e5ff3fafcda9c351ebdaf409f3c62d1a7a8
F20101109_AAAJBS hayes_s_Page_123.txt
597f17f53c7331c72e8c6c2f740794b2
048b1cb692e5ee03034da181a31b9b7e224a5127
56048 F20101109_AAAIXD hayes_s_Page_016.pro
0905aee5b75f47467062b94e993e6c27
78637dd8b199eaa5e6867c4fc067bebd21b7279c
2681 F20101109_AAAJBT hayes_s_Page_124.txt
e1f09c888e2cd3a8cf5032802adda449
b500a734d09fe9b89c71af86cdf5dbe7c3d72f17
54753 F20101109_AAAIXE hayes_s_Page_019.pro
5b42d0959d30ecc30939d4a2ddbcbc40
263ed04d283f21c332af0152a9d5f6d46a9981d6
2269 F20101109_AAAJBU hayes_s_Page_125.txt
74eba027ca5b4d82f66e1b88fb6a93f1
6b794c447c11877d42f7d0a7c1eebd8823fd490a
F20101109_AAAHNA hayes_s_Page_088.jp2
47ae4eb75f45d7ffb00d1ecaee03023b
c27b8403bb3aed33fe8639e91cf14a2cfb8ad6a1
56402 F20101109_AAAIXF hayes_s_Page_020.pro
cccc3b09ccbe4e8213fabc503accd462
087a6eb49fc48f7d19fc885ef6f2a9e0ad415a58
F20101109_AAAJBV hayes_s_Page_127.txt
8bbfc914f36fe29202f8e8eb99236a97
97b613fe4cf8993a314eb869088a14056cffbb7a
7002 F20101109_AAAHNB hayes_s_Page_112thm.jpg
064d2afb11ae1f3f360b6463c2a18a47
32bb3bff62fce1a253b031c3dc305a042143df75
56745 F20101109_AAAIXG hayes_s_Page_021.pro
b7a7061e227ae7829eb8187c70c71869
3d6a5d474f2cfcb91754465d531b64179b4c4606
2113 F20101109_AAAJBW hayes_s_Page_129.txt
036c5017a2744dbd0039f77a6e2a5011
755ec0164229a645979b168bb2c21db49b758b40
49594 F20101109_AAAHNC hayes_s_Page_117.pro
7149fba6255cb95845c3f99f2fe620e8
7b4fdd9b4ea16b02a8c4f6c02df73f5a7db56f80
54667 F20101109_AAAIXH hayes_s_Page_029.pro
624804e31e40a3612a80ce6e038a3226
7f97364025d62c831a0180242bd92d7e7b23bf9a
F20101109_AAAJBX hayes_s_Page_131.txt
59636f1c75f76bf1462e7382bd59dc9d
2e65ec176aa0d67005fcfd1e066279912fde505e
F20101109_AAAHND hayes_s_Page_104.tif
5726cab4eacc760bd159f2c68ef7343e
f409a8e6df0542d736ba713d696124c4e0dffee6
54472 F20101109_AAAIXI hayes_s_Page_030.pro
6339032a81d7a87af3e0fb3fd6de2cd9
de326b723e7c9862ff5b28118d2be16c26bdefba
2334 F20101109_AAAJBY hayes_s_Page_136.txt
d034bcbdcab796cdb3c3f7b5106d7c2c
dc4a933b6de552da5d012e04035f83c18d71e484
59024 F20101109_AAAHNE hayes_s_Page_074.pro
bc5e325102f49f2e210a4fd611514b4f
c4a247d54a1e3dfcf42563ff8432e3403ade86aa
55251 F20101109_AAAIXJ hayes_s_Page_032.pro
058dbf8caaa4657f8e352f21abc051cc
68eb317e7ee56fceab7a833b6d0aef6f3e189e47
2665 F20101109_AAAJBZ hayes_s_Page_137.txt
79e0969bd859f675e35c3ad0f3e48c36
7d94b17c7c6ab05f39ac41c0afd1376a3be542e9
72669 F20101109_AAAHNF hayes_s_Page_113.jpg
71b02f1757472ef7b8e5533ef1e5a240
f4beb6747377caeb5b1df3dd1af5d6e1ffa68985
53681 F20101109_AAAIXK hayes_s_Page_033.pro
bf8ffee0d369b65769e3569b5edca009
4c4b39a81c471841e3ab717b69e48111d96b08d7
F20101109_AAAHNG hayes_s_Page_218.tif
989facb7504e297ae47d3e95352d9dbe
49ca534f02e865958952fc765d90f13ed6b116c8
49738 F20101109_AAAIXL hayes_s_Page_037.pro
67a31581833a87c5752217b99e477b58
cecd6dfb4eec76b357cbb827529f7dd3f4c9de1f
25490 F20101109_AAAHNH hayes_s_Page_221.QC.jpg
da1e4c58eb2ac2d74a10d2885465d6cd
35a16579dac8d73abc11db640737e0a7f810ed3f
F20101109_AAAIKA hayes_s_Page_005.tif
8bc4d2ab487240712f120d1e3a8540d3
c7860800d116c3e4d70589bdf3a695043c224052
52508 F20101109_AAAIXM hayes_s_Page_040.pro
a95282c149ce03c33a8f2acdfbe94c51
ff1e245eb66460de1ff8e1789acd61fd6aea11ce
F20101109_AAAHNI hayes_s_Page_093.tif
827e0c1afb421c1514b67b28f08571d7
9a52136c97b57ab1500cc1773540f52754709c05
F20101109_AAAIKB hayes_s_Page_101.tif
ce243f51274d86a59ca29872386abe54
f7c2db3d8f655f9efc76af12265f8038a5c17755
53046 F20101109_AAAIXN hayes_s_Page_045.pro
d6dc5778fe5f92d030047632f5a4e383
75f3266e9ddfba6d5baf10faac448dd450423b4d
27136 F20101109_AAAHNJ hayes_s_Page_136.QC.jpg
2b69ca28845bef9809d0d678cb6661bb
57468bf7df3ee4a58140ac3e4323ab5d227dc9ec
1051914 F20101109_AAAIKC hayes_s_Page_210.jp2
b71a58f77feeaeeaf6f157e826a2973a
91e771272b68fe7c0d5c7a5cc156157797c0aa69
56971 F20101109_AAAIXO hayes_s_Page_046.pro
eb9e2eacda0c3500bba7ff00567aa8af
8021091f4067a73f719771010e3a3330a4b80ed5
27964 F20101109_AAAHNK hayes_s_Page_163.QC.jpg
1defec9aa203709b64844ac76f648959
11d893b8d88c747c4ec318808b41e4600f8e1227
2048 F20101109_AAAIKD hayes_s_Page_117.txt
c9b21e258506b7c46ecb96b653d33095
939663b9bdba3a33776ded8f3b88681ca5ee9083
29505 F20101109_AAAIXP hayes_s_Page_047.pro
65512a5acc43671aefa8dc931630a766
b8073e020e1a2e44709550b8443941c5f461e55f
40490 F20101109_AAAHNL hayes_s_Page_200.pro
cb036759cabd6f0cc038b02ba4ca6640
ec3843bd9b4050f4f3d6531757e6ca6ad7be694f
57126 F20101109_AAAIKE hayes_s_Page_203.jpg
bfab946feece52982f8331fc29ee39f3
644787b584c38a5485cd4d21083b7cdb8c5fa3e0
50735 F20101109_AAAIXQ hayes_s_Page_048.pro
29c7b660cc5d9525545fa48d33f0d2a5
0f88278d1875551021228d94253413226897569a
46689 F20101109_AAAHNM hayes_s_Page_093.jpg
ebf7a51b32f9cf740cc1eb6812fe5733
1a263419d9cbb2a8c27a509dd3c645ad475f4e7e
F20101109_AAAIKF hayes_s_Page_034.tif
e724c108f9e486aee3b8e544569b3693
4cde5dd17f005de8a353ff8dd416658ae2781aff
56547 F20101109_AAAIXR hayes_s_Page_049.pro
88d1a978b0bcfec55e7263798807c664
b312d660978d129a36f84a73f70766ffdb16fcc1
27133 F20101109_AAAHNN hayes_s_Page_153.QC.jpg
0830ba152e052834876fcb2d308e5548
e1c30618e4e1b053fee4adb12f4d1e25e49d9377
F20101109_AAAIKG hayes_s_Page_026.tif
2d9903d838c31e47abd2ca8213f3cad0
8c43ba96c9598c8f6d9eef7edbb422a2a915907f
28417 F20101109_AAAJHA hayes_s_Page_121.QC.jpg
52826a450cb90b56c437267b1a48e26a
39297e0b13d109c5aadd0e53bd4d9f1a3ead6648
59664 F20101109_AAAIXS hayes_s_Page_050.pro
428b1cb5fdedebc6cb7ce0332dfc2ab0
8d4c6b7301e02c06a4a33f64fe163380019a31df
6963 F20101109_AAAHNO hayes_s_Page_007thm.jpg
482e25eaa24d2e3efbcf3877187ba8b0
ccd564e8b8176074a7783784b0f58797f07e1393
F20101109_AAAIKH hayes_s_Page_094.tif
ae30d8314745fa21c807d9755ec28713
0edff6a1d940c369129ebb65fa4fd3622a1692d8
7469 F20101109_AAAJHB hayes_s_Page_123thm.jpg
9c490cf4b721ae6c7ce9bc2ce9cf4808
881c41087659c3e545dc73a1f2c0f84687a872a6
53120 F20101109_AAAIXT hayes_s_Page_054.pro
ab18049a86ebf767c6fd0fb0f9ef5a1c
eaa419b184beac73228939fcf448cd0ab398db0c
6552 F20101109_AAAHNP hayes_s_Page_080thm.jpg
1cdac1dad019e455bd93941de3d9abf3
147111f634d9cdfe3250c2411c8966164d651aa2
59880 F20101109_AAAIKI hayes_s_Page_222.pro
265d7a1b12004180fab895a20644a70d
d6bf5fe82f682e7baa7f4ab192565dbcc27e1baa
7702 F20101109_AAAJHC hayes_s_Page_176thm.jpg
29a7b54d583c99170933d043f8b22ea0
0b015721d977a1f2179d75a8bc139ba8a5f6ab4e
56109 F20101109_AAAIXU hayes_s_Page_056.pro
980a5ff89fca82489e8763d5b9e8d936
53c5d4e553133bd32770d9322686e4062de25da6
F20101109_AAAHNQ hayes_s_Page_146.tif
c625db9695f2b8e9fe4b7fffd790288b
89f23d5d331c189bfa977e81a2ef230a4de5c860
49809 F20101109_AAAIKJ hayes_s_Page_112.pro
c4d1a497a7f311eec5c22e4d0f8418d0
1745e768348f25ff67516228b7de51b26ca6a9e1
15695 F20101109_AAAJHD hayes_s_Page_204.QC.jpg
c6b43720dcbd124081331ce4ea76f2ac
db945ecc07b1961dc9687855a2c1815b079f706a
51933 F20101109_AAAIXV hayes_s_Page_057.pro
803c83e7978e4895c58ce5b2bdd14174
d4ad7aa777d01886317b186a1f92ec07a7621bf0
10035 F20101109_AAAHNR hayes_s_Page_002.jpg
2341186cef35e944d14da6545f31ac1a
83fcc98f66563c083b0b7a93f5ca1fd88026fb43
F20101109_AAAIKK hayes_s_Page_053.jp2
0b9b55c209c57189b64b2d47ae4f817d
9ff1c4973f84c379bfb456b72db0d855180c07c1
27992 F20101109_AAAJHE hayes_s_Page_189.QC.jpg
519920691ecd3aed457bfe52eba97c11
304a5e4124b14ae1603c6a5193b0a86ab9a74e1f
55710 F20101109_AAAIXW hayes_s_Page_059.pro
f9d0697bccd9f0d5e5207fc647a6a82d
e09a878b2ffea48b61654ebb8a12aa8b30488c2d
85084 F20101109_AAAHNS hayes_s_Page_019.jpg
ad1462448aa741277be540e9b8ed7b4a
868698f0dd396bc83926660ecf8a268dce692208
87925 F20101109_AAAIKL hayes_s_Page_032.jpg
0a69f21399ae1a4ba5cca9f2d0d91c42
b0bfe68abb7b18fd3c4142406dd0e8646a576455
7327 F20101109_AAAJHF hayes_s_Page_062thm.jpg
753ef4459fc5a28ea3fe3447f80cac4a
61f9cc8b22eac114c5b70f60f9fd31f5e5187beb
60524 F20101109_AAAIXX hayes_s_Page_062.pro
c2d7fe841178fb3df1eea93f4d332f0e
826c469fc7348f278bfc391b1c2d56b597e1c2f8
F20101109_AAAIKM hayes_s_Page_032.jp2
8cb8fcadbc3cc062ba18ab1b1243a357
a4b68a78b1e15847b94de9dc04b9ebd001732e3d
26467 F20101109_AAAJHG hayes_s_Page_044.QC.jpg
817a1a884c7bd228a1ea2e56f925cf2a
0f677cdf96eb109d47f43517b28a200b54c1e95a
F20101109_AAAHAI hayes_s_Page_049.tif
e42c5cb87b93672a689375f749794622
c1ae82fcd2416808d5deca185bc0f03a9afd4581
51360 F20101109_AAAIXY hayes_s_Page_064.pro
ce0fd448cf0fadf977355e9dbdd9fe08
0d2d086fb8d077f34876c34e74bea909f950f44e
F20101109_AAAHNT hayes_s_Page_184.tif
d048b2fefdd9ab20f0573e9828b1484b
92bfb23930bfed6e7ab5c65e9c0515a0f7e2d53d
3015 F20101109_AAAIKN hayes_s_Page_212thm.jpg
0b9cafbef1ac21281f934d8d196a009a
3ecb1a2d649192ad80e80923868d71cf6f19a968
25427 F20101109_AAAJHH hayes_s_Page_077.QC.jpg
c1de8bb9bca9028dcaa6a51a8bedb019
e5b606def4a4d5975be40e9e0f44a2f03bcdfcd4
1864 F20101109_AAAHAJ hayes_s_Page_113.txt
25ccffa635d2091eec7143393032205b
da8ef24b0b27c904158be5a2d6d10a7abeb160ff
54965 F20101109_AAAIXZ hayes_s_Page_067.pro
6d709abb6b8d79507ee53bc86441e798
4c48653facb59466ef0a5ef9591e248adc03d87d
8019 F20101109_AAAHNU hayes_s_Page_208thm.jpg
7bc40bbfad536f6b10547db3cbae73b7
083bcd768004b9624710280497bb49dd27581cd0
87802 F20101109_AAAIKO hayes_s_Page_083.jpg
83bb437bdf1a169ff73cb814ebcaee3f
ce51fbba89146db773922667c28d859292178072
F20101109_AAAJHI hayes_s_Page_074thm.jpg
a1e36faeb28fe23b41ea6ed82c77512b
50b03d98d409f8fce60c8147262e16d802a3eb5d
7384 F20101109_AAAHAK hayes_s_Page_066thm.jpg
cf638af9aaf0a7a53fd6c151ce9d4c48
109af71ee9cb0474f77cee7d8a90a4a2ff841904
F20101109_AAAHNV hayes_s_Page_225.jp2
3463d176af825698de3e0fd1fdb7db9c
78da68f2262fbcbca1262bbc11f55e57be3f5517
6693 F20101109_AAAJHJ hayes_s_Page_160thm.jpg
f7bf7840eb808cadcfcc4a697ee61b14
fbe7bc52cdf41b9b442daaaba5d19aaea5b761b7
66492 F20101109_AAAHAL hayes_s_Page_137.pro
14592521845705ceac9d56f0bad27762
d91dcdc4582f3bfee48f9ab97c09cf9cf846bb69
F20101109_AAAHNW hayes_s_Page_073.tif
3222ec5a8b030ad02e9027f06f1c4f88
daf83042dc0337c887e3cff1354a76d9713edcd8
27342 F20101109_AAAIKP hayes_s_Page_179.QC.jpg
fedd874e2b81af0c0f450d23293ccaa2
61db1157be994a4dd7a6047859ebfdcfba8244db
26634 F20101109_AAAJHK hayes_s_Page_169.QC.jpg
3e500659efd45f6be9202aaa7f8dbba5
1ab360558fb8251b44ef7b440a973456f69bb44c
F20101109_AAAHAM hayes_s_Page_027.jp2
9f1b9eff1e4a89127dc1939c24a9f8bb
6fbbdcc265371e1154486d744bbb10c0bf0c93ac
F20101109_AAAHNX hayes_s_Page_085.tif
3a691c9a8dac7a0f935d7f1ebf841adf
d2d05d14086ebbc523cc1d9535b76d9dd8d77727
2861 F20101109_AAAIKQ hayes_s_Page_158thm.jpg
fed46e06eae4c19c89eee882c30e7f22
7c43fc64aacc6a3a77db3ddae2d0bfbd1eb8c50f
F20101109_AAAHAN hayes_s_Page_003.tif
b5611ded2dc819bd0426d13f07512693
3c53640bc4662a1fba7c0521c834b2e51f3d5817
F20101109_AAAHNY hayes_s_Page_172.jp2
657b4bd56f5782452aed02b294376fcf
71561355fca5b626be1799edf5caec9e5c65c2df
F20101109_AAAIKR hayes_s_Page_104.jp2
efddf18ef14d521cf6bc8063d3d4378f
14f3195c6dbff0a28101e25453a903f75c35cd63
25738 F20101109_AAAJHL hayes_s_Page_092.QC.jpg
7c2af0ba46c1282a15d823b24d0dc45b
b1acaa8531e980c3c1ef828e5360baec33951a28
7340 F20101109_AAAHAO hayes_s_Page_086thm.jpg
f7ef430c11ad20d50e8e7c7af71a686c
3cbb1ce29acc55586805d49ddb1153bd8aa5eef6
2074 F20101109_AAAHNZ hayes_s_Page_057.txt
2bfe8c50d323958ddb77d75d48c7ea8e
674707c48e885879c771f47357fe737434cf6c27
83431 F20101109_AAAIKS hayes_s_Page_161.jpg
38cc5fe985f3e199665e93cf3a6eac85
ebfc472c764b1c1d051a6e617cd275f1ad24f893
28374 F20101109_AAAJHM hayes_s_Page_021.QC.jpg
f06311e8ac2949c3034fa266ee91e6fd
13d26971e3cbd9372a1f3b3d2a618abe156ba717
F20101109_AAAHAP hayes_s_Page_145.tif
1a997d19028ec10115782a7c539b4546
2e5828f803ffde3e1c6a52ef78d9f7a2ba7c62b9
F20101109_AAAIKT hayes_s_Page_032.tif
65d69ac564794413c1882fd2f2468d1d
0eeb8df93aa3a93a7d96d258156dd3e8bd4f380b
F20101109_AAAJHN hayes_s_Page_026.QC.jpg
9237d5ab90d657a2c57a688193eb2c02
82ba16c2b55f819c5fdc25100e0fe9d717735ccf
1051913 F20101109_AAAHAQ hayes_s_Page_157.jp2
cd4843ec083afd01d37abfcb10f621f2
52fdad4886dc8167ee497223bac08ba1c6fdf901
2154 F20101109_AAAIKU hayes_s_Page_092.txt
30b31e8ff5d5d9936aa485d71d967df5
d80cc4083ba8db80d38ecf344f3131973945120d
26590 F20101109_AAAJHO hayes_s_Page_187.QC.jpg
635ff1b38779c67e6e466346a2567f50
02de1851356c31e6bb7a3d2befd104a2e1a15963
55780 F20101109_AAAHAR hayes_s_Page_125.pro
bd53f0e11a648fccfcd19aeeb7ae5f51
3f4d0ed9256f2b0cfb1b49aeef72ba311001f97f
2120 F20101109_AAAIKV hayes_s_Page_162.txt
4f1fa3a194bdda473d51847a1b3b6496
c5228a7951ae129b206bd05a32409b4c71185008
5209 F20101109_AAAJHP hayes_s_Page_126thm.jpg
e1188378c3924f3707dd4ab378ff9f12
c2bc91f6da4f0e70e08cec5b90d79b2820c936fd
52476 F20101109_AAAHAS hayes_s_Page_060.pro
296fc1e6e0d60984e057a58f35b65f31
abe983d9239b3eb72cc06399b3393da03a54cb4a
19987 F20101109_AAAIKW hayes_s_Page_174.QC.jpg
6345b3e524a0f0732ceef3fefff46452
598b5aeb6fa2e59f84006e8b5f4098d8cb4adbe9
23075 F20101109_AAAJHQ hayes_s_Page_114.QC.jpg
82da0c0346b6f9e7f3b79e15528575c7
40b8b05fae54703ea19979d7de63f7bac1b7484b
F20101109_AAAHAT hayes_s_Page_209.tif
74fcaf76b74eb08bb5c13c0e58e5f2c3
5b5d09cf12dfcee334c52c4e0f675c587ae12c93
F20101109_AAAIKX hayes_s_Page_077.tif
a66140f6faa50c8aac46cb8e351e86af
849b3aa499323d4a6e2e99a177f5f46e4b9f8c49
7445 F20101109_AAAJHR hayes_s_Page_021thm.jpg
60c6942c9c7722ec93c13a6628f7fd63
83e364298341a210aacdc0d53485d9db476385a2
1051928 F20101109_AAAHAU hayes_s_Page_144.jp2
92b7c76e8781002cd3dcd682757d655a
a6a6ad9fe013bc82afaf67969a77ccfbd0004cdc
F20101109_AAAIKY hayes_s_Page_215.jp2
59ebb1d972b54c5c9a09e1d754f9419e
293904efdbf9ce03483cd0850e46c3381f565df3
7787 F20101109_AAAJHS hayes_s_Page_135thm.jpg
2a00cb9327122b9627a11eb94f6a695f
db9e98a453338ef4469a6ffcbdfd9f4462ae2c7b
60193 F20101109_AAAHAV hayes_s_Page_182.pro
028931e0f140565107da1ff136207592
b55a6ce91ce5a438386f4d34dfc92104d26c4224
81409 F20101109_AAAIKZ hayes_s_Page_012.jpg
d786baa5ef11f27b9f2494d882ab7338
071d775046c00324d389c6e4c39d19211ddff48e
20108 F20101109_AAAJHT hayes_s_Page_151.QC.jpg
7273d0ca011b560dd30809fe46651346
f9d70447097dc1a761b4f5040eb64b6448ac6e22
5264 F20101109_AAAHAW hayes_s_Page_186thm.jpg
54be1e053cbbd332a83b6d5b84bdd6f6
d9bbad6a55ecdf9d59076ed81b5c1482f44722b3
27027 F20101109_AAAJHU hayes_s_Page_149.QC.jpg
024e6ccbc337cec574bcfcaf82a8ec77
971b556769fed1b9c68c8ffac96f9070a3a20374
6839 F20101109_AAAHAX hayes_s_Page_064thm.jpg
5cfa4d92de5f10964181b1ba37656b07
375b62bec632536a81301c15b105252e272f5f39
83378 F20101109_AAAHTA hayes_s_Page_053.jpg
fee04707ee6a775d38ef5aeee68e1efb
947e9a4216902142f1fd0eab9ffe1bfb335f897e
20686 F20101109_AAAJHV hayes_s_Page_200.QC.jpg
65fb07242c4b107b63137caec91b8b5f
c1511617490e4547fec4275d43cc3a90784f47a1
54709 F20101109_AAAHAY hayes_s_Page_190.pro
eac267ade59245134992ff4ee60e0a3b
3bf901340bc535803f9f5912e03eca92f072faf3
F20101109_AAAHTB hayes_s_Page_087.txt
0b5f1ee3c8d523ba0880cdb7fd602813
d475e1fcf7ed6859e70d4d4ec6f7e7c28c7d355d
7128 F20101109_AAAJHW hayes_s_Page_221thm.jpg
20528c9c83cefee58546e31ba263ca9e
b36de70462b3bd1135590d88c8b7a9bd0791e8de
70848 F20101109_AAAHAZ hayes_s_Page_216.pro
7c309782704e8dacc23683c07a1c3b3c
0e1c2716bc601d17392bcf5faa9409f4c19c2270
1758 F20101109_AAAHTC hayes_s_Page_213.txt
7b035684f74ca0c51b49e7f75765afc1
a68125b59b6ba739f9d139e10b514df5779965ec
26507 F20101109_AAAJHX hayes_s_Page_131.QC.jpg
682b6b9e0db4e7bb5ba11d0f369e53e5
2af7d85cc379db3531055c05ab63566415cce3d4
52380 F20101109_AAAHTD hayes_s_Page_012.pro
edea1675724c69bf58992f4786ebbf79
e188dc91dee29b70f0d1c0fb6831a068fadfe040
7013 F20101109_AAAJHY hayes_s_Page_013.QC.jpg
2906e34a9f5a0ebc04dcbc28b7db1193
3504018c57743100dc94dc3349108a298f89f458
52372 F20101109_AAAHTE hayes_s_Page_207.jpg
3682866d395019341acf9242d3521ba5
9474f2be3c8e2e2328b55ffc22491837e25047af
F20101109_AAAJHZ hayes_s_Page_120thm.jpg
e77d20250b3cd42f08219b74fceb5c6d
2d8fbd3ae631224e8e2e9fcba4b29d48cd01bd3f
F20101109_AAAHTF hayes_s_Page_190.jp2
3af9e6b747a075c2d5b9c24de5d42727
3fd19b56e28fae689482e962eb3689180d536bed
1051924 F20101109_AAAHTG hayes_s_Page_057.jp2
08c6ca4bf8ef5de3a723df6af835a466
646fc8fb47c4cf8143b8b784ccd4285f8a13b82c
F20101109_AAAHTH hayes_s_Page_141.tif
9ab0b245b68cb7ac21813a73198b8dca
9f0aa665fc05f3bbf8a0de12e9ad4e3a00a805bc
87353 F20101109_AAAIQA hayes_s_Page_197.jpg
180626c3e029d07528998f65785d4456
9d2bbfd46fc904830841826b2c7025e7b96cde94
F20101109_AAAHTI hayes_s_Page_082.tif
3f7797a0d804947d9ec0023069488fbc
86131a3b3f2a1b8eeb22b0098aed9c2ea77905b9
64749 F20101109_AAAIQB hayes_s_Page_200.jpg
0b51cfb3753b48e4d16e9c49180e96a5
5c3d70516e9d588eedcbc9b499e1566d17a9e636
F20101109_AAAHTJ hayes_s_Page_202.tif
9ec0fb9dac92c296bfc8b3ac72f6cb22
7e50dda379d09e6b502fa56718151d43bfa6069c
35504 F20101109_AAAIQC hayes_s_Page_201.jpg
1eea7ba22a6423d215c044d9de60d8a5
06639878dbe78a012ebf56db31b5a535a4e1ac16
85993 F20101109_AAAHTK hayes_s_Page_140.jpg
b7e5faeebf6ca87e67f17cf653db0588
bf0a7cc0e446ce7f4c036ab907f358fafb4be028
70216 F20101109_AAAIQD hayes_s_Page_206.jpg
ded7a070240bafa10931af73d20f55e3
b1ad77b2641965350f2efed72003b2ce3c5ac59e
F20101109_AAAHTL hayes_s_Page_009.tif
2c4953a9668291af9b3ff5a30e2f3417
c305f3d89abedfd841862e334312c964b5a610fc
141789 F20101109_AAAIQE hayes_s_Page_210.jpg
c66fcd37ce0e0514b5d92242c29c6105
9c57237557b072d13b97828038dfaf3ddbba62be
2325 F20101109_AAAHGA hayes_s_Page_051.txt
99ee197b587e5983db036481c7cc7f87
f5ae499680ee184c68c28b65dd810746eec25a20
2357 F20101109_AAAHTM hayes_s_Page_187.txt
2459a5ab6f4451f9a23d52ffe04b6b8d
8ac2aaf3f69ad6162f7b6a633f14b3b15991f331
140085 F20101109_AAAIQF hayes_s_Page_211.jpg
7514402200aea651584467301b4c9012
7e4fd10ea8ca8dd542389c492ad12a4bb375b4ef
7432 F20101109_AAAHGB hayes_s_Page_020thm.jpg
c4ea9781d33bd3f9c810ad2c13f59535
acf85673b663a6057a600175e556280845514a7e
2243 F20101109_AAAHTN hayes_s_Page_049.txt
7fdddc21be35992cae653060e789430a
3dfad3d18d32586ae683a748606642c0f1fcadb6
60838 F20101109_AAAIQG hayes_s_Page_214.jpg
309d9d46fb7da2d830751a6568391fe7
72909888d9ae89a8489cb4a4678ac2292e13172d
F20101109_AAAHGC hayes_s_Page_138.jp2
f8857f8d52c8196a82ec5990ffa9c79a
2252d30a4f753618f751a388c45a875bc3b10066
7098 F20101109_AAAHTO hayes_s_Page_142thm.jpg
30b38c7973ec9599815ef135a30f2518
7e27a44516f9ab74a912b05f90dcbc545efc4081
86233 F20101109_AAAIQH hayes_s_Page_221.jpg
3bf6c9acdde4149278116f7e2993c713
b52fc2bfec2f2873af47d96b94cbc286f3a6d6f3
F20101109_AAAHGD hayes_s_Page_036.tif
33ec66e91f29ad7868be618fd225fa06
00d6b0f1ebf6ebd246450191edc6342e10a9453c
2215 F20101109_AAAHTP hayes_s_Page_029.txt
8d369aba4f8f0a167b602265c40fc967
75fbcba759399e4b433c0c8364544eb56a6f1a0f
84804 F20101109_AAAIQI hayes_s_Page_223.jpg
e86d18901ed2ac789d342f1d9893b126
36927a8b45139b3343dfde758ded2bc2c5c3b277
F20101109_AAAHGE hayes_s_Page_184.jp2
1755bd73311750ac7c8f8d8c6de414d6
a799074bb0b11ef4a3b7a03b3e8357772c7baade
F20101109_AAAHTQ hayes_s_Page_016.txt
810bf1824062c841e9fabccf8bc17cc9
2f21ece52f6d65a21f490438550ff676aee04396
83654 F20101109_AAAIQJ hayes_s_Page_224.jpg
bda584f70189f19cc5c61e85631c1180
789c1d72f85e121d812a0dc56f9c54cf82de3060
13657 F20101109_AAAHGF hayes_s_Page_005.QC.jpg
f5bb8d8dbd1fc13a537cfb7764bd609a
3cf3e5c180247177fae2a45ee8ab02acb950b8da
F20101109_AAAHTR hayes_s_Page_181.txt
bb6fe245aee0b3e4e0a2ec5d553feb5f
27829c1eabd3cb15acf147bbfeaac98575276e50
91761 F20101109_AAAIQK hayes_s_Page_225.jpg
c121627dee0805ae5dfdd611f36ac2fd
bc6ca637c7579d5b30c35faa2e7b1a94365e7a41
903 F20101109_AAAHGG hayes_s_Page_009.txt
33c91d7656f197b36c42ad0e2988f983
5570ee5a5a865b1a8a66644d3df951e095965210
58310 F20101109_AAAIDA hayes_s_Page_102.pro
2c0675c6973b98c76fc24db6cb8ffefe
3eb6fc171a0286799d0f7ec0384b25937772263c
727139 F20101109_AAAHTS hayes_s_Page_202.jp2
c0b06854927b95670957a6761e2e4cc9
7584736a76703a1b06af6dbf3e9c5d8402e13056
28783 F20101109_AAAIQL hayes_s_Page_226.jpg
df41299cea2fa388814e09ac19392362
cd11938e0288a5314a939bbc4f66b29f92dd0afc
F20101109_AAAHGH hayes_s_Page_180.tif
7df6beca3b45f9cefccc022585dfa415
0c02ad585411cd06964b987d573b793a0d451cb3
2236 F20101109_AAAIDB hayes_s_Page_116.txt
e681f040ea89e853a1b451717fdd3497
65810022bc089579411d0597ef6c0a36ac69b394
27036 F20101109_AAAHTT hayes_s_Page_144.QC.jpg
27174e0b16ad82813b6efad35ff4fa04
f03b09ba7bac93cd3ef08ff92f5d7a5495f09ad0
41281 F20101109_AAAIQM hayes_s_Page_227.jpg
6d6190985a2023ff6b323ab040d69709
586f0531799a0ba8e14ab737d4b67217ed1a000f
7435 F20101109_AAAHGI hayes_s_Page_028thm.jpg
7895fa8f8512018eae3f5b8c70b670b3
ea200505f6b45e6b21b1c06ff54ef7da57451aa6
2246 F20101109_AAAIDC hayes_s_Page_083.txt
a9444cf197bd8bb29c07853994031ab7
af060fa35e1a668a957838c407baf2ce65537101
F20101109_AAAHTU hayes_s_Page_130.tif
0ad381968acefe62bf9ef0802683d52f
51bc0e46f83c34fa01c1cef7de0b7f2fcbb75b04
F20101109_AAAIQN hayes_s_Page_004.jp2
36cd3b9c58d1a97d73b4036a825e4b25
2e3c7ff0e345276d18f6b4a0b5d3f2aef263039b
26328 F20101109_AAAHGJ hayes_s_Page_199.QC.jpg
5a6b0166fdd277d1d781f028b7a90b6d
7c0b447e51f79ec4fa1e5cccc4dc5da943c0da26
87170 F20101109_AAAIDD hayes_s_Page_116.jpg
7788f0b64f08e042e3ec6349beba74a3
bcdbb6ab7ddf691546c1cc12b36e343c4a441e6f
52652 F20101109_AAAHTV hayes_s_Page_041.pro
1706c242cc7d47772597b1838f422f88
8028c98cac5205c435d2adb846021fbfe77e9697
538350 F20101109_AAAIQO hayes_s_Page_005.jp2
625c048b0def4cf0d6daa1f1cdb46984
2bdd33f62f418f01ec8518ea5bb0eec98e84a8e1
52827 F20101109_AAAHGK hayes_s_Page_031.pro
7b4d4732db8e0e428e171281e24c7741
0573eb007f3935b3e23d50d258c515a5bcb5f4c4
48089 F20101109_AAAIDE hayes_s_Page_022.pro
29a6b3f36b1ae3ae12c9a3e848c66a49
0d527b3737b1fc61d80c64ee12e5c979f40cf4b8
F20101109_AAAHTW hayes_s_Page_023.jp2
8af0ff1473cb38a4616fbdeb487532ec
9daebea70206e91a278d9353db80a6eb5423c4dc
F20101109_AAAIQP hayes_s_Page_007.jp2
c4a84ad8e1b90b24a4302a579682541e
dd39edd27b15760b6ec3b0c218f33bc8b4b8081a
88037 F20101109_AAAHGL hayes_s_Page_106.jpg
5f90f8b90448cbfe52d18ffd49a8db33
5719fed84f25e8b22aefc6ce18835973b76ecc92
59652 F20101109_AAAIDF hayes_s_Page_134.pro
baea5a2af9ca612ac555625ac3f4bf27
50fd852015c89eab466c09394ee0d35811e282c7
7456 F20101109_AAAHTX hayes_s_Page_198thm.jpg
ad27508e9555b416b8cff183551bf76c
b7eaf74d28a389e3564a53b21bc6ad7f9b60c8d3
912723 F20101109_AAAIQQ hayes_s_Page_009.jp2
0a317c434c68b1f1e10f04013178bac6
4ee2ebd26159ad451fb5404edc14395ab4d7dab1
58447 F20101109_AAAIDG hayes_s_Page_081.pro
6a472bbf67d4737cae3f4783594d49c3
c6712f1fbb46bf8445326081480c751c9fd51744
56888 F20101109_AAAHTY hayes_s_Page_204.jpg
f7b8d22b4c0f04b9760a1681bb7183d0
6f1f2a8deed685196371c705b44623703c13c85b
F20101109_AAAIQR hayes_s_Page_014.jp2
29d05669a6c8ad4c08316fa7932241eb
d8d4ca651037a1eb6fff018275225bccdb641fa6
1051859 F20101109_AAAHGM hayes_s_Page_017.jp2
4ada765eba22e3cf059a8790f21fbf45
2fadaff26d6762c981ec39cdc614bddcd6a36123
F20101109_AAAIDH hayes_s_Page_052.jp2
86c3019885d921d043d99231fb59712d
1ca99b88eee395a84a0f0b70c8651a50b2c04c26
3840 F20101109_AAAJAA hayes_s_Page_008.txt
48c7441ca707ce5d94bbbccf1c8579f1
207421093a9ad79c9b3e11fd3095f5f3cf39d523
F20101109_AAAIQS hayes_s_Page_016.jp2
0ea4be71e9707fdeb9edaf0367aabe05
9aedbbecbba20ab018b076bd5ecfe6c0c5f46097
56058 F20101109_AAAHGN hayes_s_Page_122.pro
3ebee1d11d649686afca74a9fe66081c
70de63aed2f791b9bfb33d8b93c47eda0ffd8a88
2174 F20101109_AAAHTZ hayes_s_Page_086.txt
266f3e3178587e2e4cd8b0799c18c477
5100649b755ca5f6782fbb9ef94da748f2a5602d
386 F20101109_AAAJAB hayes_s_Page_013.txt
a15b3d12894f462e4741b1debd788d48
63d0c680fd6972126c654d1de624590d9f22a3ea
F20101109_AAAIQT hayes_s_Page_018.jp2
e42ea301c149365d6a6aedb8873b5b51
5c578a854b2b0ba07ce3602c6ebd09596e7ef914
2201 F20101109_AAAHGO hayes_s_Page_109.txt
79ea5317567bde3af908732b6703bf11
bcfe7b040c16fb3910f1b8ed5b1e897f4d89ac67
F20101109_AAAIDI hayes_s_Page_028.jp2
dac0f7a1dd777a7fa9fda471f9f99b7e
e55a4593569e1ededcfd26ec00f8f90bba509ced
2114 F20101109_AAAJAC hayes_s_Page_014.txt
417f575e57a9f7a61edde500878a5fbb
d367fa6f71d60a47ef53945706e8ddd1af31d7e3
F20101109_AAAIQU hayes_s_Page_020.jp2
ecdf9c11efc7f252bf16f14132f6915b
c575872646b77b435f46c048bbeaa13c625e0a20
566 F20101109_AAAHGP hayes_s_Page_001.txt
3f0f734d89776c1e4e3cdbc26c643c26
3b5661458465d7395934954d4051949b02998db5
1828 F20101109_AAAIDJ hayes_s_Page_217.txt
b8f65ca79f64157044991e97216ad0b6
20dd8755d0e1c376176d8a03cef593a7ad9caf7c
2146 F20101109_AAAJAD hayes_s_Page_015.txt
4075e41121131d2f3a1b8c00533f8832
32626f85c8255deccca62fe06562628221868452
64126 F20101109_AAAHGQ hayes_s_Page_034.pro
14d9d62c3bea98d7ae9afee45c614f23
5439128af93330dba2682438ea73bcce873e27f9
581 F20101109_AAAIDK hayes_s_Page_158.txt
a97ea50dfa56e90c0ccfbabe3db0385b
67d48c27e604078878214183db69078d4e6b31ba
F20101109_AAAIQV hayes_s_Page_022.jp2
edfa9622759ad317880b3061dfd79cd7
6edd35c8b55f2167ffbb811ec66edba19def5403
54190 F20101109_AAAHGR hayes_s_Page_070.pro
c149cb2dde112cb99f5824bb1d508bf0
c6272934d4d5983d4ac5b3e73342357ae54bcbfe
7480 F20101109_AAAIDL hayes_s_Page_109thm.jpg
a7e69caac58bebb2da6b54e92ebdafa9
239185468623bf56848524b8abacb2d6cb4b72b9
2257 F20101109_AAAJAE hayes_s_Page_017.txt
b14c612277d92fc6a4f61c136b6fe923
fbc1556a0881fba42d3cb78f36cc485c9cbe1b2f
F20101109_AAAIQW hayes_s_Page_024.jp2
c535e6c9d0346c64d7ccf0950fc847c0
d6c8aa44df1192ab28f75eccb0baec9b579b0439
F20101109_AAAHGS hayes_s_Page_198.jp2
2d2df2c1350df90eb4839d4a7132158f
9d90a74da89c1e5ac9f7246bee05f2f7cccbf183
F20101109_AAAIDM hayes_s_Page_191.jp2
114801ce4e212c0110f1a3e6a6adbb1c
f70cab35ea2f7ad798b1cbc60e6c4f44bfb5909b
2148 F20101109_AAAJAF hayes_s_Page_019.txt
fd0de3fffba81f3c5ac7fde60f93acbd
e3df7a9bc804693a7f3261168e1526b5f02ba3ff
1051863 F20101109_AAAIQX hayes_s_Page_026.jp2
c63a15e4dd82d7dd204c4321c045ff11
466c1b61a2ff793349763b48d331a9b7944835c3
F20101109_AAAHGT hayes_s_Page_128.jp2
e55385992a2e91cc0b9e2ed93b1441e8
367f62c38bb1a7213ae2ed82ca8e21acdd46175e
F20101109_AAAIDN hayes_s_Page_015.jp2
8ba7ceb6b90a9aca684b6de60dfcfce2
e9a63103361b839030d0e55e9abab14c654aa9fd
2206 F20101109_AAAJAG hayes_s_Page_020.txt
11bac750068a2fc3df8fa0fdda68c535
7083c719f0c1b3687a272200423f234033683f38
F20101109_AAAIQY hayes_s_Page_029.jp2
f202e47fc80088f3ac49cc8a53038618
dbaed50c1305266cdd510f620d87319be0a3f7c5
26314 F20101109_AAAHGU hayes_s_Page_065.QC.jpg
dc4ee4c5be06150fed7459f2f7131f5d
015260a2343f30742721a23881381bb347627e07
2232 F20101109_AAAIDO hayes_s_Page_061.txt
f7a9daf5a4d86d1c1ca06a94ced5e1c1
82d91a862fb935c54d6038abce3323bf59cf0231
2245 F20101109_AAAJAH hayes_s_Page_023.txt
4b952024d20cba2c958e4e7da6fd41e4
d087119368587ba4d6bd2db26ec5ba0d07135cd1
F20101109_AAAIQZ hayes_s_Page_031.jp2
4767f590b90c1d4a52d40119ee7abc45
ba3450152d35913cf5611981ffb111c594dfe881
82848 F20101109_AAAHGV hayes_s_Page_129.jpg
5dd9a26788f0c10fb48aa2cd3fd9678f
0c180d84864bbdbf9548b98f829402f789098e8a
56125 F20101109_AAAIDP hayes_s_Page_023.pro
0d038a0b3cfd8c309a679e2f66f04c11
136c65497faa437f265bf80d13d1db6f32cb8cc0
2258 F20101109_AAAJAI hayes_s_Page_024.txt
e97e0d0362868bc65e77aeeed503e36d
b8809731392881bb40975d922d532b7f2b5e01cd
F20101109_AAAHGW hayes_s_Page_019.jp2
967d9925bce910ab6282491f6413542c
c5e79451e3420c037392314d0255ebeb8aeec4c6
F20101109_AAAHZA hayes_s_Page_077.txt
aaf8d2216e432c8c9f6756942f5dcd4c
96018918fdbe6eec61b2c25d3e6a1074c317cf51
27478 F20101109_AAAIDQ hayes_s_Page_088.QC.jpg
d54eacd59edde74978469a1d70b639fe
69e715370f6b73c7fc87ebe486bdf799ae83f291
282 F20101109_AAAJAJ hayes_s_Page_025.txt
8c43cdcbf9e0c60848ba08f04739cff2
28d35efaf4f5cc4c3f88d1aca81a5afd37b668af
F20101109_AAAHGX hayes_s_Page_043.tif
bcac44535c5309f68ba299deef1d5ae9
9d07b23acb1a46791bfb3f4d104c598830e3323c
52521 F20101109_AAAHZB hayes_s_Page_110.pro
e287b607d89afebd10ffc88caed2271d
383e2e3d4c243c711f82662adf50510bd7225dab
1051896 F20101109_AAAIDR hayes_s_Page_046.jp2
6a70259c395a33ed24bbe50ab1358495
a586da9e84fcb6c114970870ecabbec08061bafc
F20101109_AAAJAK hayes_s_Page_028.txt
dc89d4ed1816a9a2c18c224e45ce55f6
370a7dbb32fa0126df83552f760633dd4cd4bf19
971233 F20101109_AAAHGY hayes_s_Page_206.jp2
9fd5a5f92d0689d087665944244a8819
9ee91002cf0e287fdd662230e85e9fbb6e2010ea
27958 F20101109_AAAHZC hayes_s_Page_192.QC.jpg
ab7762c02451645b9bf43bb88c264e3e
2b71ec13ad0cfeae950947418beb79eaa5c29bda
20416 F20101109_AAAIDS hayes_s_Page_206.QC.jpg
bc63554efc798b3102ea6ce3600f0eae
635272c0b5c805c86c3efbdc6ae06e34fdb46139
2140 F20101109_AAAJAL hayes_s_Page_030.txt
837681af4c7ea484529a84797726932b
6927c5004371ec22a1b2520c41482568cf12f760
419 F20101109_AAAHGZ hayes_s_Page_209.txt
9f2925bc747ac10326ef63c1f18d1607
84024edd41b1ce9b78dc19b7b2a4c29deac290ce
27319 F20101109_AAAHZD hayes_s_Page_090.QC.jpg
22765fbe727d60900809b85b5ef74034
0a32a110a7d0e271f55dbe8ec70a70916e7fc0df
24899 F20101109_AAAIDT hayes_s_Page_148.QC.jpg
108c214ce7e9edd59fed547c99710cc7
e1c81b4c33223dae3bd6f5b53046406f9eb67051
2555 F20101109_AAAJAM hayes_s_Page_034.txt
9107b8caa043a5d67c6a0a3a95de3fa8
c4200545cda76c15d7a9f550b7f538d9a2c9382a
F20101109_AAAHZE hayes_s_Page_121.tif
1abb67eec0e86af0dfbe9907a67ad0ec
947578187e7cde257be2b3a8270a2538fbd3664e
62814 F20101109_AAAIDU hayes_s_Page_184.pro
cec7a7781bbc0ef78d17a7ed98fb374d
56a8dc12eb5fc2d7c4d16bf1bb21a21551e9176d
2036 F20101109_AAAJAN hayes_s_Page_036.txt
c9057d03be2673de71e16793c711587f
6624f371685cb7ef4d0bcf4871455a1dbdfecce3
2167 F20101109_AAAHZF hayes_s_Page_076.txt
49b32b039c29af81e379e75effc1f85b
dafa6867a94dab889b9d280eea986331628af10b
30533 F20101109_AAAIDV hayes_s_Page_202.pro
f48920c1687261dd88801167cd1233b0
9ad280293351bbcca26afe2e8cb061df0b0a1345
2028 F20101109_AAAJAO hayes_s_Page_037.txt
fef8f42d32626444601ffb4d061e995d
a53eae3966a8246fec2c213dfb880c956526c564
27191 F20101109_AAAHZG hayes_s_Page_154.QC.jpg
3b4cf6e04d410797d2ccbb0c9e2865ce
40860ebcaab3eac1061fd9ef56f6a3b47758c714
F20101109_AAAIDW hayes_s_Page_129.tif
78afaa45be4f8470ffe49455743a0033
e1789ad9cb90d6487d6678b145c4e5b23b30b212
2044 F20101109_AAAJAP hayes_s_Page_042.txt
9f22c565dfadc9028f14e5fa0c67dd57
b0449eefb2fe125ba57b44bbe5708f44536199d7
F20101109_AAAHZH hayes_s_Page_212.tif
e9317cd45a5e52ff358a10f2b6e092cd
40ab4994c55dd6acba5295d182adc168e33bf3ab
26997 F20101109_AAAIDX hayes_s_Page_042.QC.jpg
315081e66747fdee08fe3d51ae38a14b
7f11bde26f011895bf5f14f55fe7454f0643e764
F20101109_AAAIWA hayes_s_Page_172.tif
48ea25a797efc121caddcecf79d02dcc
cafc03011b66d07a583edd716647274260375104
2058 F20101109_AAAJAQ hayes_s_Page_043.txt
340883f8749f47f6d70469cb40e62048
46e96d89b449752f3b7702938e0a29ffbf1b8770
27665 F20101109_AAAHZI hayes_s_Page_165.QC.jpg
8472ad96105f90de32b3905145063f71
c119d658cf289be62774444bd2abcdf8164b2296
27689 F20101109_AAAIDY hayes_s_Page_101.QC.jpg
c14f57bb078495efb5146ae8ab0ec4cb
0953372da0de3bcada0ef20294d707687f4ee639
F20101109_AAAIWB hayes_s_Page_173.tif
076a26e6338ebb35be6b5eeaafa7c7d9
44beeffba9e6c259c6545cf4f650bb0b88d864bf
2124 F20101109_AAAJAR hayes_s_Page_044.txt
b8db86b19cb084dd56eafb8065aaecdb
155a1290f3a7eb156fd653410302307eaac4a07e
F20101109_AAAHZJ hayes_s_Page_038.txt
e1b1e692596eec7f4f2c309547d35873
9c234655f99c6c1d0343c4f8c0cab83f49e4951a
6128 F20101109_AAAIDZ hayes_s_Page_145thm.jpg
5098bf75fcd1b95028439737b4dce20f
65e94870e6922a54a00956e203ae8c8cfeca42aa
F20101109_AAAIWC hayes_s_Page_176.tif
c922bca91e9d140b8a151539f0836451
84c043108cf7f139a45b80c008743d3c129f72c6
2082 F20101109_AAAJAS hayes_s_Page_045.txt
ab4abc1ed82897436e5a1798b16bc6c5
e5981e192d546946a8b517265e49bdf4c53030a3
26982 F20101109_AAAHZK hayes_s_Page_218.QC.jpg
b336d41a7e2ead58beab06dc097aae2e
e9a205af6d2d75f669f65d1268e3ace906071543
F20101109_AAAIWD hayes_s_Page_183.tif
cf17d54178bac1ce8038709007c6d077
2b7d6d3493f2b21e73ba22f6fa13771ac54deca0
2307 F20101109_AAAJAT hayes_s_Page_046.txt
62926959ecb36e754532d513f3330682
a8ec6f34c4765bdbff8d82d132b6a719fcd5dda2
7591 F20101109_AAAHZL hayes_s_Page_016thm.jpg
beb24d1b01152748fd4ed4aa4f6a3ae6
32284b084e5aff6c16e86aaed1b1c1a91e86ceaa
F20101109_AAAIWE hayes_s_Page_185.tif
1b2e5e83a1c92fba58668c51a06d534c
0d2af16ca65483b749e18f7425b737faceb4c3a0
2105 F20101109_AAAJAU hayes_s_Page_048.txt
fbe4b68ec3a3915c8efcb32f14b6e9ed
ebd8b1451c095962ad9c0e77659ce620b73198c6
F20101109_AAAHMA hayes_s_Page_018.txt
3557e5448a4f4975d5f46ecdb2f1d99e
179f705b5887239e57453249f56a73fda3fe8ba5
65748 F20101109_AAAHZM hayes_s_Page_124.pro
5c81d48719a67ed107aaf4ae9d05a1ca
e7e932209adb2af9a4e6d73cf2334b73c4807c09
F20101109_AAAIWF hayes_s_Page_186.tif
0edf0c5d3bbc1698684cd7251f0ebaf5
a80cdd334d11aebd4799c4a0443bb7747e37fc11
2368 F20101109_AAAJAV hayes_s_Page_050.txt
5ffb6e6ebffc1ec1d49b8498deb32a62
38596a369508254960336ff971f1e6147614dda9
334187 F20101109_AAAHMB hayes_s_Page_158.jp2
03cb6ce2d5d71781196718af43615bda
6291dd2a3f52e985a977ad8ecfbb642378deade3
F20101109_AAAHZN hayes_s_Page_008.jp2
b173d0464832bca4d8ffb0e407b1f02a
8090eff8a30a0298a8e65d8248adc8d48dfe1115
F20101109_AAAIWG hayes_s_Page_190.tif
24a21a49af445592f54952d392568683
dcc9f11b0359adf30be4bc4bad595d1ae94b1691
F20101109_AAAJAW hayes_s_Page_056.txt
70ca7b87bedddd7bbf403573ea8429c9
b7e18cf012f38ffbe04159a40ca819c51d1def6f
F20101109_AAAHMC hayes_s_Page_081.jp2
3829525d1a0074e893c1acd6e0a7a478
90acdd70aafadd70d245314b28c1b29dfbc4100b
26805 F20101109_AAAHZO hayes_s_Page_140.QC.jpg
fe09c1deb0d12a9b52e552af0601aab6
9f9e7c30b0195715bd1aca8daeceff129f2fd096
F20101109_AAAIWH hayes_s_Page_192.tif
d3846b159aa91174917b0b0e4aaeae11
f1b11bdc2af3ed32025766f5eae519e328800d85
2197 F20101109_AAAJAX hayes_s_Page_059.txt
52092f969c14355347b289736d9951bb
30f619548525a4c1a407bfd27516804e2034fce1
F20101109_AAAHMD hayes_s_Page_080.tif
79d1bdd0cbfd5f41dfee02bb26aff9b8
1a35a85bdb1f0e765eec0fe6d986d912bc67b42e
F20101109_AAAHZP hayes_s_Page_058.tif
a262608789319aa2ebc2909427a9c21a
5b22d62f01268a77f8013f07ce6d5ce7662c7737
F20101109_AAAIWI hayes_s_Page_193.tif
378d12d538615740aab772c4589343cd
5ed1b15910268fd2d3d8130dbaee5cee72089d07
2407 F20101109_AAAJAY hayes_s_Page_062.txt
efdf79c906bc0399309f32743fe422d3
34a957db6024d87622c481cfa581f7a5285bc820
114277 F20101109_AAAHME hayes_s_Page_007.jpg
376c3ae3ca2d867b433eeaf300ab1009
8a66d0280f7f6f1c009bbc70f9aa87b7186116a8
25523 F20101109_AAAHZQ hayes_s_Page_002.jp2
76dff17d56f195d5bcad93f834c0be27
740c60bee1fd53a2b223991f703b50bd9ef01374
F20101109_AAAIWJ hayes_s_Page_194.tif
9a234cd808c06351c3ab25a86efb8a7d
2b0ddc1f6ba4a5e6d6d5fa7051292cf6268b8afd
2312 F20101109_AAAJAZ hayes_s_Page_063.txt
bc6f80a8f2d94082589a42f5467c802a
dc9f8b460ea146c79a7204a437081554639043c5
7220 F20101109_AAAHMF hayes_s_Page_138thm.jpg
ca79a07c82a7cdb3882350d934bcc71e
3582f193806a7a8ebdf4de2e2da8dc044f9f67f8
7295 F20101109_AAAHZR hayes_s_Page_152thm.jpg
b95c74ba82e38e74d2796011b4d2bb07
b2bdc3246d7890b9b1ce574c15c17eb2ce2bd0e7
F20101109_AAAIWK hayes_s_Page_196.tif
1768204593aad724edeb783fae3edff0
f0d77a8fbb11eba7d68c67df9e28dd88df665e86
26420 F20101109_AAAHMG hayes_s_Page_141.QC.jpg
d6c7c64e699993d39bfa750c8d27df2c
1e94665046bd73b37fd5359ea65252b04a0ef832
58595 F20101109_AAAHZS hayes_s_Page_100.pro
dd01b35b53b35e4bbc3b2daa6707972f
f4320dc092ab1d62f0ca229fd463f46ef47ddc41
F20101109_AAAIWL hayes_s_Page_199.tif
2e8cef0d2a1571ac926bcd61fe397334
1e193b6cf8721f8975a451da8931a388fe454cca
61241 F20101109_AAAHMH hayes_s_Page_155.pro
56c5d2472b2753305e87d35f7f669f1b
15ea469f259268e4d42718d0b36906105932c67a
F20101109_AAAIJA hayes_s_Page_011.tif
6edcad6ab20e92bf60ed90e787ac9581
7bd7c44e0b79da948c24a90077960a4eebf3edba
F20101109_AAAHZT hayes_s_Page_024.tif
044ae20503fc01e57f5f15f6d5b5c32d
9dd6595c04a612c1aae1871c58b52b5206584373
F20101109_AAAIWM hayes_s_Page_203.tif
478393a7e66601d3df2daaccf089535d
a6c4752e1c6d1bf3044e78f0d8715105122641aa
2244 F20101109_AAAHMI hayes_s_Page_224.txt
05b86e5ce898b3038bdd1c3ddb5537c5
3f5dca97634018b71fa1b5b55946004449c197e9
F20101109_AAAIJB hayes_s_Page_144.txt
c5ab0aff7ca54f1ad20ce2012cba8ad7
d70149d3dac1513ca21ca8e9264927767eb1e219
F20101109_AAAHZU hayes_s_Page_047.tif
06820d09cd35d08dfdd4b10857a9bac9
561270bf26cdf4754658e4178950a5fdbb107561
F20101109_AAAIWN hayes_s_Page_204.tif
2754f34f38f581ab5bb8b05ae59df406
7d5a9053b892bca6272242409e0b4a279b36ba3a
F20101109_AAAHMJ hayes_s_Page_112.tif
c936e97d1be4a202eb68807366dffeb7
cfbef4a83207e51e1919f433d9e8bc493a4af62a
F20101109_AAAIJC hayes_s_Page_056.tif
b3a31e14d9c11d438288affa11c71589
ce1e670ce41ab5e7a9a3894c5ecca5701bd229da
122115 F20101109_AAAHZV hayes_s_Page_008.jpg
0c19a48649b25a346039d63494f764e5
593412a944e3b57ab406d160d977c3965ebd1594
F20101109_AAAIWO hayes_s_Page_207.tif
abeb08f82eae7b720469e1e888056535
7934257c73dc255f7b22ff9d5914a1de60116820
F20101109_AAAHMK hayes_s_Page_150.tif
8894f6acf21936f669cd7571c082ef54
99df073ee122679cdc88a9e42640cefe2cff5332
591 F20101109_AAAIJD hayes_s_Page_226.txt
c563d7b87c72d6df98386588fcd6a7f7
952f14576eae2488bea9d9c5445edacf6b57d00c
7310 F20101109_AAAHZW hayes_s_Page_190thm.jpg
44286e66f2b3a3f22fe17e52b9d7c5cd
f4fa5cd2dd6a124bd151f7a3fd321f42cceff144
F20101109_AAAIWP hayes_s_Page_211.tif
3f9f697fbc9164471c1fe63629439477
95e4e0f72a48633abf25bf21a39d3a9738299cc7
F20101109_AAAHML hayes_s_Page_066.tif
cd130e5d80b958a8c005bc25c5324816
400538a3c2e314d8f1829d008c4bf70aa45b5c60
86194 F20101109_AAAIJE hayes_s_Page_027.jpg
f70d4e0613a11e8da447189c05421669
0d28c54702593201d0cb610ad04c55e14f62a703
4017 F20101109_AAAHZX hayes_s_Page_007.txt
8919f69c591b2a35006150ac82733573
fc0018c096ce7125c35341d77e28d4ec372e2087
F20101109_AAAIWQ hayes_s_Page_217.tif
054c7a3490b0f10210c19e60a7835beb
1e0926c9479570327d7052fcb37ab6225ac7d6a0
7684 F20101109_AAAHMM hayes_s_Page_163thm.jpg
51edccc3eaec071884f08d211e020f22
64f732663fece46eab2e764e7af78fd1e5c5673b
56853 F20101109_AAAIJF hayes_s_Page_017.pro
74154b52503344fe32eabdc9e4a36c5a
fd35df9de8721cdcf2c23750437920f461c926f8
F20101109_AAAHZY hayes_s_Page_039.txt
b6a4df9060634fe98682723f27197789
9b7bb71ddb6faa8caf20b1090a71c4b1ce68c91a
F20101109_AAAIWR hayes_s_Page_221.tif
e13b43713f4a6b35cc82d61be558ce84
f3487b5e9535df2e6b67563b21fc49a6f7442eda
2253 F20101109_AAAHMN hayes_s_Page_130.txt
89ecd80fc86634b801dee11aaffefff5
f0fea408d5a1f7f775e1bf0dcd9870dda85ed6f9
1912 F20101109_AAAIJG hayes_s_Page_145.txt
267d6b2608056f20d40337a62bbeb87e
d2387eecd268520bb14c2a271adf45ef312366d0
53214 F20101109_AAAHZZ hayes_s_Page_091.pro
c7274bdfb75613b8f89184949ce135bd
f01759a47157b93a12a758a15aa8c3fd271ab0a0
27106 F20101109_AAAJGA hayes_s_Page_138.QC.jpg
58cddd382e6d309464d7e7d0b2d067c0
818f3fc11f5b00b5945488b331ece7e2d126c24f
F20101109_AAAIWS hayes_s_Page_223.tif
067b0941bdb254524f92fe21d285aeb2
1a2efdec205339a507f692f5f0a8c29edb4c5869
F20101109_AAAHMO hayes_s_Page_075.jp2
451b8b3bace4dd7dae0de69907e543a4
1fbf970b956bb0b21e0a4c5596417b1641fcd408
F20101109_AAAIJH hayes_s_Page_153thm.jpg
f27b97a329b95329eba306a9994daca4
9f81678e0a07eaae55e943de3cebc1469c112808
7549 F20101109_AAAJGB hayes_s_Page_018thm.jpg
b56cbdab360bf2e0af4cfa74c550d7ee
e5d55f1112f010c5fda2ad2ed312a2fb5397e2d2
F20101109_AAAIWT hayes_s_Page_224.tif
c14d73c5683ce37590c1f2dcfbad1b88
61b772bddb50fca5f1dcbc00a994fa6035a3077c
2451 F20101109_AAAHMP hayes_s_Page_153.txt
6f3f7c83e6e59b1b0dc39366069642c3
eac5673b719a24a76442b307d6e081f76b473f67
F20101109_AAAIJI hayes_s_Page_079.tif
4d6ebdf03675905bc03eafc3d4e54575
8922fbe5c48e09529786dbf66d4769c09ef34103
27085 F20101109_AAAJGC hayes_s_Page_195.QC.jpg
23a9573b539afa617d13117c0721b120
32e42656d5499f71c204a8ad1cdec117aae9aa2c
F20101109_AAAIWU hayes_s_Page_225.tif
1ae9af299b7214402b0c9aa10fc69bc6
50f18666dd378f0fe05bcb3095e6051af3bb7a23
F20101109_AAAHMQ hayes_s_Page_050.jp2
4dc2084f4ec950524472e3d9e63758b5
56a21615d0446db2c233f4a763690f47ce983bba
F20101109_AAAIJJ hayes_s_Page_101.txt
c222c94062861a089b3608309a109392
8a877c12274cf6e6d1294962aeda0cd37de05da4
28356 F20101109_AAAJGD hayes_s_Page_147.QC.jpg
3ff8c414f8a04f4d21942b46113e74ad
9ad71eec07c2d534ebea42d3ea89ca2e86ceb02a
F20101109_AAAIWV hayes_s_Page_227.tif
83568c7442f3a4afa52b48809cb2a349
a1ee280999789cccc1ec2c6eb1f69ebb9c79a17d
2031 F20101109_AAAHMR hayes_s_Page_011.txt
c8254fa1df186fdc86e3f9fcb9f3370f
e52e4204d9f6a7fc41accef1eb34fc092b2bd845
F20101109_AAAIJK hayes_s_Page_176.jp2
0b774c91faf407f600becfe5edc8e31c
d8f074e32aa6a910dd91f9ff974101e11b4e5cfa
26169 F20101109_AAAJGE hayes_s_Page_172.QC.jpg
3e7eb61fd195b563dd715426e98b45cb
7e51a64469451f542b53e13c1b0c3982bf4f7192
10310 F20101109_AAAIWW hayes_s_Page_001.pro
bcf0be01049bf2e712acf7d78eb6966c
f016fd5e71edb2c9bddc19d3e9d452a9658be8d2
F20101109_AAAIJL hayes_s_Page_029thm.jpg
c8c9af3cc8822c4457de26a2e28449b4
00c0e24a1eeb69b84055d470bec4923f575f22df
27565 F20101109_AAAJGF hayes_s_Page_162.QC.jpg
87f2fefe9bf8f46e91a559590ed1d4f9
e49812c603143f901935b38642d3cdcf8b4e4739
855 F20101109_AAAIWX hayes_s_Page_002.pro
790bda98354def9db2d84d8f392295b9
6a2304dbcb4334ab324aef0bfc00ec49b599b07b
57641 F20101109_AAAHMS hayes_s_Page_225.pro
789645722f7a2a00d7c17fe409a32216
775da38848ee8634a54e734cb7c17fd7978ee379
F20101109_AAAIJM hayes_s_Page_191.tif
264966f24036a5f5582d6e758bfe3157
fa1af377fd080ca1b09b7c5d4bf33f450b12484e
7095 F20101109_AAAJGG hayes_s_Page_077thm.jpg
2e2fde8ecf1ca3a92dd42471b7563fb4
20ad7fce747439a95beaae38ee71f6a04c98ca7d
2456 F20101109_AAAIWY hayes_s_Page_003.pro
0e008ada4940628e1e5010f4513f17d2
7e45e4a4f4f09f8e6303c315f0ce6c9bb5d65cf0
27285 F20101109_AAAHMT hayes_s_Page_052.QC.jpg
99861f45719a682baf20a8b4ad27c759
e141383654911c9a5766ff2d68c5f57705a914e5
F20101109_AAAIJN hayes_s_Page_124.tif
04028d55151d4e4808b332f2b626473a
942eb93c2df57c1b7a337398564981ba3e819195
7381 F20101109_AAAJGH hayes_s_Page_015thm.jpg
0af37d751df09705e468ca377244fa0f
1f35d1d39825bbf76cbcbc0a67e1a41b725b99a6
24187 F20101109_AAAIWZ hayes_s_Page_005.pro
5753c1b64acbec73b7ae3fd92ed11e10
41622e3f0bc9b1ef51c0efc5d382c4f50c5c35c3
F20101109_AAAHMU hayes_s_Page_135.jp2
e1408cc35724fc88dc9ca47a8d541fe0
289efb0499a49f818d043b6164e7089b023d476a
28489 F20101109_AAAJGI hayes_s_Page_170.QC.jpg
08cf53b6e367500c045fd9b1459a06b0
c020302bb6c76264add57dce6b3b179168214c3b
82350 F20101109_AAAHMV hayes_s_Page_199.jpg
f38ee77a91ce074f90dd4edacf43c990
70e1afb2b193a6644bbad3b15671cc44fec23a4d
56444 F20101109_AAAIJO hayes_s_Page_072.pro
0658ddc98b46a9eaf28febc46b816f88
d6d6a9d8c5888880da5db2b3b69d4dd020712986
F20101109_AAAJGJ hayes_s_Page_199thm.jpg
86a3b03222dcd476a79c25720103afff
92d8c0e05263a988240bfacf80a5330136ae8e4f
7260 F20101109_AAAHMW hayes_s_Page_067thm.jpg
03f02d9ea8746feec6823140b39e00a4
a2bfc76e2f887bc6f0dae343b4a725a6350985eb
77137 F20101109_AAAIJP hayes_s_Page_022.jpg
1918b0e30e037d78db7f915b46f25d69
433fea26eb13bad9fa1d8c4cba05e162c8d28087
89708 F20101109_AAAHMX hayes_s_Page_167.jpg
f34219635269826df2a693b7675ea0c1
e9cafc0d048688bf3e80b7996e1367a75370b4a7
F20101109_AAAIJQ hayes_s_Page_214.tif
3d5f15086fd58c5d86735edc67cf7e54
251a5e2cf1b001cbca1d63738d0f62db6f18a61e
16672 F20101109_AAAJGK hayes_s_Page_207.QC.jpg
555c3b500b2cdc6ea56e85dced58ba98
c002224459ba6fff5123a646705cc4ec9014e546
56242 F20101109_AAAHMY hayes_s_Page_101.pro
fe7800211771aad835df0a52260cdc17
78312b12f4f7c49665178f42299f3c6ca22734ce
84758 F20101109_AAAIJR hayes_s_Page_033.jpg
b99bf569fd6d6943b7d4e4a1cc4bc3e6
9a7ec413f99183c87947a3d7c8f925cebdcef01d
F20101109_AAAJGL hayes_s_Page_179thm.jpg
2a2b1eee1b9692571088a9e1e1694adc
6089ae759ba942811357a937bcefe82304cc009a
2116 F20101109_AAAHMZ hayes_s_Page_194.txt
81d7eb411a32826d585a4b172c000c4f
b5d1c1f256c72367e7866a582f5b0f36df8e3017
F20101109_AAAIJS hayes_s_Page_058.jp2
5e4bc8bc9828a964ead06c354c242fbb
bc5b3fb9ea4dc5c0809ddcd29c69cd594411e602
7463 F20101109_AAAJGM hayes_s_Page_184thm.jpg
42b9759aafbb57748233fa552d2c4163
373d864f6043332073912fb7e46a4ad9a55189c8
61687 F20101109_AAAIJT hayes_s_Page_177.pro
21c5c1ce162d2f5e712e381362c5b019
62f2f2394372144e8dd9728b8480f43f993888d1
15848 F20101109_AAAJGN hayes_s_Page_094.QC.jpg
3e34aca07661de3eeeb94bee1cc08ac2
57c58cf06e2c7d58b738c535703ae06259ba90c2
4175 F20101109_AAAIJU hayes_s_Page_203thm.jpg
3bc62e697da924dcbe207f7b0ab469d4
828370ff63c8d8b6f5e714420a4e59a20d7ee1cc
28184 F20101109_AAAJGO hayes_s_Page_018.QC.jpg
dde798e7a354562ead5f46e3b7975132
397652a5dbeca3ef52cd9c3ed9620a7c5d487cc1
F20101109_AAAIJV hayes_s_Page_146.jp2
ed468da2c737bc9d3c2614029c9aa059
43054d11c001d67d05675c50aad9fc31e9cab12e
26485 F20101109_AAAJGP hayes_s_Page_039.QC.jpg
2317e70bbdbfa405ee151babac78cd9a
62827df39395b7b5a42dd247470ceff76b152216
F20101109_AAAIJW hayes_s_Page_092thm.jpg
f85510e1b0d504d90133567d51e9eec6
94fa1481fa436f4606f00c8a15b7d11b494b2db5
7531 F20101109_AAAJGQ hayes_s_Page_196thm.jpg
583ab6d492b3c6611319387fa810786f
dc2940d0d44986b326f215f77053b27bf27e22d8
6194 F20101109_AAAIJX hayes_s_Page_113thm.jpg
da838057b32fbed3db0a038d3ddbcd41
e79458ce1d1386fdef0163f45031a91e4b871951
7313 F20101109_AAAJGR hayes_s_Page_194thm.jpg
1c6774c0a4add9d27f9beb2251f2d60d
f6eb6e5e508e765b3173f14aa9d291112c6a8020
1594 F20101109_AAAIJY hayes_s_Page_126.txt
d3c50fbe2cdded3758aa00cff832b73b
a4844b71cdad7940e696ee241f7e26689d25594e
7230 F20101109_AAAJGS hayes_s_Page_059thm.jpg
503f0bdbbb98f63b4ae987d3ca2e3b16
62cbe77e6900905bb1dc76a8b5d30add99e04478
2196 F20101109_AAAIJZ hayes_s_Page_180.txt
1bc3b150c23dddbc46ce0e8bee5c47da
f9c510bd6da7e1d6380e87651ff6bc896ba6578c
6026 F20101109_AAAJGT hayes_s_Page_159thm.jpg
c9895110d6a896cdae481bcbf81f2b90
b37c60359da4cb7a55da00560cfaf502c72ce203
6950 F20101109_AAAJGU hayes_s_Page_220thm.jpg
ed71b45e221c4bc3d87690e82c02a8d0
f09ec06fbedaceac3df23fa6961d32dbcffb5213
2409 F20101109_AAAHSA hayes_s_Page_182.txt
8b556030d8a6493aabd943e2b698c02e
770ad5a5e5a2c28942bd3f5c89aedf5bf85a7688
7468 F20101109_AAAJGV hayes_s_Page_131thm.jpg
2cc64c77eb207a6e6c313fb6d659aa9b
4b3762156e0c21f6a4c750cf776e921d3da1eee3
2088 F20101109_AAAHSB hayes_s_Page_053.txt
d71251a0cc79d5bedfcbed981695202b
7a1e90b2348721cbb1413218df5c3157bab02a35
28033 F20101109_AAAJGW hayes_s_Page_183.QC.jpg
3d792ecbf80321055309551b313706fa
7dfac8903e46a6ebac4a3e9ab215d337361eea3c
F20101109_AAAHSC hayes_s_Page_143.tif
d61f60368b2e31a8dc89a82b19f1f22d
d6f857891e92eb0369f71cd26dfea1310020ed73
23521 F20101109_AAAJGX hayes_s_Page_117.QC.jpg
f4e5eb49b9771ea7f66d68de5c383303
321591b4e4145b97722b7873009f577a981429bc
1934 F20101109_AAAHSD hayes_s_Page_160.txt
b84aabb7c2e6eb4d3a88bdff829f0adc
be52d664cded8b058f7651810c8c2606cb4d9d70
F20101109_AAAJGY hayes_s_Page_084thm.jpg
302b1b7673ba5629fe33fc297d576a75
c03c480714794d7719cd5c6cc5064b7458b875b0
7504 F20101109_AAAHSE hayes_s_Page_072thm.jpg
28be9bd64ab8808b10d62ff94aa2e5c0
b5d5b942b7d7f06d6d53937a8ab6727e31b3bd4a
26751 F20101109_AAAJGZ hayes_s_Page_004.QC.jpg
0602d1900825821b38736b443cce6ebc
2b51850da16a1a1168a74e2f70ba7cc2b8350fc6
52268 F20101109_AAAHSF hayes_s_Page_043.pro
5996a0c8c5649ff8f2c76794c685b2ee
b8b505cbd34d650202ecbe9bfe43574a2878443c
20485 F20101109_AAAHSG hayes_s_Page_159.QC.jpg
652189e2113162b6ad47c21780f6a326
d387b4b514f66cc03641c09b86a9365eb2ffe6a9
F20101109_AAAHSH hayes_s_Page_045thm.jpg
78a37213d5671ede101a09d0fd8e0eaa
8b2521a58bc86f91625133a807dfddd44c4cc2e2
89393 F20101109_AAAIPA hayes_s_Page_123.jpg
66da94b12596c3712f8202ba3dcddd12
cee56e7245f3370eda282cd6e7a0177f141b4fdf
934815 F20101109_AAAHSI hayes_s_Page_186.jp2
d1da047e988ccccecc95ee5daa4c1859
e9dfeb3b0b2380cff4a67a38085366b30af9c19d
62845 F20101109_AAAIPB hayes_s_Page_126.jpg
651a1808b040608341e8cb808aba0b64
3cfa71e0a6867166d52038116d7d1c7fc328b597
6637 F20101109_AAAHSJ hayes_s_Page_150thm.jpg
ceeecc2871b81313f0b5f1be1a9265fb
36b2063048c16a5d965dd1e8fa439cdd664ad639
84497 F20101109_AAAIPC hayes_s_Page_128.jpg
cd5e77c6e7162eecff480e20c571f56e
cb949ff46cb5f651c2e50860d0971e04321c2453
F20101109_AAAHSK hayes_s_Page_099.tif
af275773345f116dde63bfa59e079ec0
cc2c6f12030dc8a67ae596a664686f8489663c21
83528 F20101109_AAAIPD hayes_s_Page_131.jpg
d348725c9eb31ef02f2e64eadc7b955d
63fececa6f375e73606f9f1cf2f36dd3dadbbfa5
1051921 F20101109_AAAHSL hayes_s_Page_117.jp2
1de99c8443652a600ba3eb214027d26b
1f5622e27737196098f865b4a0f1bd2067f6bed6
81441 F20101109_AAAIPE hayes_s_Page_133.jpg
5095f2e6056bc47ecabe67ff093eb15f
f1e010f37f415acafe1b2d12f7b4a8786c246a40
6824 F20101109_AAAHFA hayes_s_Page_095thm.jpg
32f5ef46bba4102b1ddea2605c612b62
9bf96ee4d68f8cda90482c92a3bd292ac5711871
53254 F20101109_AAAHSM hayes_s_Page_199.pro
76bbe02c49ec47155b24f1f07b45b9df
db6b45881be67177802b48145e1ba8fc89ae7c3b
93774 F20101109_AAAIPF hayes_s_Page_134.jpg
db7890754b41c7f9b1d1514dd187ea20
110b284c4ba38dd1aaa592d25295bdf34b34079a
7493 F20101109_AAAHFB hayes_s_Page_195thm.jpg
45cd073351d3f1581899ff30c15cd3d0
82b82a6c07ef7a16c9f179668199a0eb2a396ee4
2220 F20101109_AAAHSN hayes_s_Page_021.txt
b709eb960607562bb8d0d3288abbd5ed
b45d542608bb35ef54ba6022b470bc346a7617ad
97543 F20101109_AAAIPG hayes_s_Page_138.jpg
6edf9163c508a7b8cdf7d1bd2f4b6245
5fca446a9a59b3d9cf65eb070374552a3661de8a
59860 F20101109_AAAHFC hayes_s_Page_178.pro
61ccda9678f45acfb0c17d37cf80cf95
0627640dc8cf969e82771cd897fa0fa7666d4da8
26999 F20101109_AAAHSO hayes_s_Page_072.QC.jpg
b98708536762ab0fadc642059e4d5ceb
a571ff4f408ec183849bfcadf5a67b3788caa3ac
86878 F20101109_AAAIPH hayes_s_Page_144.jpg
19bad5aa73dd8290242da547b7c3f037
fc4ea140ee25c1dfb6e8e44325a9f2d6c92f6a44
7273 F20101109_AAAHFD hayes_s_Page_139thm.jpg
38fd50a2b9370bd2d9ff9dc984c91a3f
670c13afe915debb4dbc9115e69d303fb0805648
F20101109_AAAHSP hayes_s_Page_181.jp2
a5fe0e2d0c8d18c0ab5691e68499cd4b
f1b5a6f78905bedfa935bcaec4f06497f4a10a72
88314 F20101109_AAAIPI hayes_s_Page_147.jpg
c6936edb73fe75b4410b135391f32a94
b1b22fd639cf22e684e485e2be1ab32bcab9e225
F20101109_AAAHFE hayes_s_Page_161.tif
4a9521834f790b421cccb33e2c8aa792
e60bf782c3ac3be74f2e6702e57011add2dce74c
7001 F20101109_AAAHSQ hayes_s_Page_156thm.jpg
79aaf90b8b65533fb345b876a9ccd149
e5e6992a6037d8823097802ebcf2a32fcfc9dd3a
64159 F20101109_AAAIPJ hayes_s_Page_151.jpg
ab5c35909315ddd23e64ea716c899f81
76b15380636f01d4d5a6219e19082d7185c91364
F20101109_AAAHFF hayes_s_Page_189.pro
fcaf6ba378154ba3d7580549b8fa79d9
00efcf9f487bb1784e33ff9e4673ebd2aefb3810
F20101109_AAAHSR hayes_s_Page_152.jp2
cc25db945ab923351935a4bac9e5541f
dbe41107a2e042ea2d4f951be21b015d72e07f08
93848 F20101109_AAAIPK hayes_s_Page_152.jpg
4f0c6560da898fb45e471ef9af32354b
c67d92852b865f1f05501a3eba1502d5709a2b20
86517 F20101109_AAAHFG hayes_s_Page_190.jpg
94d6e9bbdaa48bd5d8afeccbe30699f8
d296efa5ae3a2621ee88a5002d826cc21a371af6
F20101109_AAAICA hayes_s_Page_012.tif
97608aa7a5abf5018dc446940afca7d6
53d0e0c53fc93efbc75575d83e00bf37ebfd79d9
7339 F20101109_AAAHSS hayes_s_Page_070thm.jpg
f7ce3c49c9afa2a8d0327b6f9fa976c3
083d7028118363b924775241c8887a292b3937aa
92161 F20101109_AAAIPL hayes_s_Page_153.jpg
6a93a952c6f12dd8f0572f3cb1b5a9c5
ca5907d3b252ca8e08fe0e751fde61554752d0f2
F20101109_AAAHFH hayes_s_Page_066.jp2
0a0a0921c989a8d8fef760f3c2f2da36
ffaad7800d6b2523ea2a6ead584abf45e4400e61
2273 F20101109_AAAICB hayes_s_Page_106.txt
e91c41e4f51938af1efb933cded1bc7b
fbcadc2aca380681c6d55bd6e8f8270779e40802
58675 F20101109_AAAHST hayes_s_Page_028.pro
f063ca078976ea623bf17a2d3cdb8eff
d7a1c0e1c73403612dccbd8816c51e16a47cca96
93634 F20101109_AAAIPM hayes_s_Page_155.jpg
66b28d42c12342bba4ed1c7be3424e3e
df83d3b098ce1b01d96882f69e5e1f3eacdb5f24
85657 F20101109_AAAHFI hayes_s_Page_132.jpg
515ba586411502f9069c337c7ba1421a
a0d4f8b43961581e335e79572c0af7803bf0c29b
49727 F20101109_AAAICC hayes_s_Page_114.pro
366eb68fd1a6d077f75c1c90a637a1e0
49f80443a8285932a5ae9080ba5a5afd1911b454
F20101109_AAAHSU hayes_s_Page_099thm.jpg
e48d19c2fddb4b9c2471c90a7a4bfee2
2937652f7e7a797847cfbab651d2872dccb2ba56
75534 F20101109_AAAIPN hayes_s_Page_160.jpg
c03615d9b9066eaaf56eea7603c3305a
b01a345729e5114568cfc29880c4f70d25efc79e
2099 F20101109_AAAHFJ hayes_s_Page_188.txt
8b0707acd1732dabef45152304c09686
7d096e741d25aabf576934c996f8ca334722b6e4
F20101109_AAAICD hayes_s_Page_062.jp2
d7ae137f294028b8f0cb6faa3c3d4008
018c4f5cbac269af748f4749aeb3a86578e4e3ff
F20101109_AAAHSV hayes_s_Page_096.tif
4c6f3d98c22a9a6ecfdd9d37f456c03c
5048bcd92593e785e8f1b4a09ae1647aba366d71
92241 F20101109_AAAIPO hayes_s_Page_169.jpg
e00158f8a164e5a3718428a8e95700b6
7c3cfaac074f36d8c9c3afcea1bfbe9a06b8a6f6
F20101109_AAAHFK hayes_s_Page_045.tif
1e92531a5a3fe3acd1cf313774f64c6a
78f85171a809b36501410139d9acb34b2d28991d
27177 F20101109_AAAICE hayes_s_Page_171.QC.jpg
be41810b213ec616cc96f7d884377981
5d6d7a7cca93119791cb1bec394d5820935ddf94
F20101109_AAAHSW hayes_s_Page_043.jp2
b6a20df8b637d282572897217d25f18b
14edcbdd7cc2c573cff9b0f83bb9cca95ecb2b0e
61825 F20101109_AAAIPP hayes_s_Page_174.jpg
0d77944f75be4a4af9fa5d236b5366f4
c8a085c5f80313e5c34256952d2cf7628874fb9a
F20101109_AAAICF hayes_s_Page_033.txt
a047a48bb26c6df913210f291d9e793c
96deafcb5f32acbe4961fcdd82c992b41e2415af
26645 F20101109_AAAHSX hayes_s_Page_194.QC.jpg
c1dc177bf049a220332516ab0231451d
f2103f708a32046385afd41f5d857e4da0ac7c9e
86885 F20101109_AAAIPQ hayes_s_Page_176.jpg
346b6bdd9e7af3155c80b5063dadafc3
f28b874320a4af809d22f8cef873a0ee328b1789
224683 F20101109_AAAHFL hayes_s_Page_013.jp2
a7c5b13886cc0c31fe2e2887c7fb8ed3
61e22a41ffcf1c8234d2483616ee31644fe98f2c
84161 F20101109_AAAICG hayes_s_Page_110.jpg
dfa50d76aab62b2e0830c41023f0c015
6bfea97c9ade7978629ff9745dd7f57211c6debd
89986 F20101109_AAAIPR hayes_s_Page_181.jpg
aff4805057dfb7fb179c7a5583c9c5a9
20851ceb2ea55c74cd816e9a00c57d5a0e25b5bf
7187 F20101109_AAAHFM hayes_s_Page_055thm.jpg
79c180ce6ac51552efc0c68eacb49342
923d3b2c94989a08b08fe272b7b54f451f58d6f2
90270 F20101109_AAAHSY hayes_s_Page_008.pro
24601934d2b6cc6a4db5390286844b7e
d4819d6622ae57ea4333adfc609d8a3e8c007ad1
95086 F20101109_AAAIPS hayes_s_Page_184.jpg
06fc196edfd2fd884f6b615cc166b232
3ad938e07905a77cb6c6a81618724362b733abcf
28076 F20101109_AAAHFN hayes_s_Page_051.QC.jpg
fcf9dd0acdbc144031c7464cd73d0c7f
1ac2dbf4b233127719b74b26e9f5ecbdd5371cb4
1051923 F20101109_AAAICH hayes_s_Page_061.jp2
66a42b068977b04b9106ee50ed72f730
e35d7cd635579330c808ac62bd83f765bb4c76e3
97647 F20101109_AAAHSZ hayes_s_Page_210.pro
968a2013327bdeddbefe6d323fdbabeb
a9641ff01e8fdb28654b0632a42186bff6c52d74
53614 F20101109_AAAIPT hayes_s_Page_185.jpg
ba8d6324feb59d40324e77f5a47737f2
255490d531faf6d946e13cf40ce1142cfa222904
7349 F20101109_AAAHFO hayes_s_Page_073thm.jpg
325751323870a1abedfe54df9175bfe3
7003b4bc81c703bcaffdac2a833c88613f1d6b3c
6125 F20101109_AAAICI hayes_s_Page_213thm.jpg
88174206877687bf424ed04ef286cc70
38aafc7c7a9d8c9ac2a183112c8cb3e47289705f
335085 F20101109_AAAHFP hayes_s_Page_226.jp2
868f856a6fffc0ad173fc497e101e115
8b5b87c2d3598a42f23c8f50814dea5cc44f2bee
F20101109_AAAICJ hayes_s_Page_110.txt
45227316d242a6c25d5bc3063e4f456f
21b54d0e1e4745fe85ca7988ceb5b0f552fbf3b3
67903 F20101109_AAAIPU hayes_s_Page_186.jpg
4c8293374e839e1e622b136b8931ad45
77333972ef81c3a7e66b4c45d48cdfd6d8e61d8a
56499 F20101109_AAAHFQ hayes_s_Page_018.pro
ccf0de7ab5e9afad93faebc54960be6e
f92d2cb1e908bd036bd8fba9eec86dee359968ae
7404 F20101109_AAAICK hayes_s_Page_189thm.jpg
19776b7eae46d676493f4e4ea7953fda
f1bee08b63e972edac38263e2e8c9d81b396825d
87527 F20101109_AAAIPV hayes_s_Page_187.jpg
dd6f78307f2aac59e8df1c855eabfdee
92909b61ce25da427dd6c7e1c966b51a96b8aea7
F20101109_AAAHFR hayes_s_Page_090.tif
b3852c9d60f746053bfa180d1c9a2ec1
57c34afe5a1fc511ef5185a405c56d7d279fe39e
24524 F20101109_AAAICL hayes_s_Page_112.QC.jpg
acd367541261db56d59c500cd0638aa7
d4dcec17ffaeffad7c6367556d4da681f892f15f
86803 F20101109_AAAIPW hayes_s_Page_189.jpg
f8e19a64a266d8e64f3b71e05bd685c3
07ea4ea275af18c77b16f8b88066c76ca1760f2c
86135 F20101109_AAAHFS hayes_s_Page_052.jpg
b9f40a8371e8a2dcd7e468205bc7ed9b
ce5388d79dbf92446935bd35b968b3a0f451b62e
F20101109_AAAICM hayes_s_Page_197.tif
0efa92b5350079c352d34ccde26d6835
22633b1ac59e34e05ed2ab790ebea7f423811d23
85639 F20101109_AAAIPX hayes_s_Page_191.jpg
8c62d1ed754ad298215a29e7ac7fcfca
217baf0a06167f1b2c042a6ff11844309c85e3b4
85154 F20101109_AAAHFT hayes_s_Page_067.jpg
112539f0d406ea72a30db87b5b1f7f01
11a268d995e3476b3471dcd83286f8db330e0147
86341 F20101109_AAAICN hayes_s_Page_090.jpg
da1bae08a1cf412d836d927e1d27371e
6497972950064eed56d922ace358cde0cd8d34ba
82976 F20101109_AAAIPY hayes_s_Page_194.jpg
244933df08c33efabb9e45669a505286
0f578f7f5a7ab5816ed56aca194e12995bc9a8ba
92027 F20101109_AAAHFU hayes_s_Page_164.jpg
39d2bd0d9482b3cef8b61a5d5ba8c238
17f4bda3753cd4095ee4cdadc3091e42f73f2435
7362 F20101109_AAAICO hayes_s_Page_079thm.jpg
4413a2aee78bc980edd9e39d60815ac3
2a1efc75d32500739facf065ef7dea38cc07afd7
84594 F20101109_AAAIPZ hayes_s_Page_195.jpg
13e625b7e6c6d1df38c98fa26cb8d31d
2400411ae7c0a8206c9873bb830c52631b97fe51
47786 F20101109_AAAHFV hayes_s_Page_150.pro
d06a245a6baded8ebacaf0473e750a85
d653b13055bbc88697308f82ab03d2c1b7b8fe15
2141 F20101109_AAAICP hayes_s_Page_132.txt
81e34eb87b513c54563d76e7de512bc2
f5457a8b73b7aa3f9564b7c81e4194e638d55d47
F20101109_AAAHFW hayes_s_Page_120.jp2
021e03c74be9f663f5b370c922f9673f
b441587d481fbc9abd81207f4628897364dacc8c
7119 F20101109_AAAHYA hayes_s_Page_038thm.jpg
99bf1c4dccc2256fa1e55a117726088b
9339897d65b024ce75fd976b5a5c1b1b751a13f1
29256 F20101109_AAAICQ hayes_s_Page_102.QC.jpg
2a9384a976dab05dfec4f89447f60552
6b50a4d127ae4ace5219fe60ae5ef96662e50f8c
81905 F20101109_AAAHFX hayes_s_Page_082.jpg
68528c21c49ae921323708856be6c881
96169737b347b3b9be24997b5352816f20430f8e
27825 F20101109_AAAHYB hayes_s_Page_167.QC.jpg
6fda98b6f153331fa2e42e4e5cb5c2f5
ef8bb8498032bc8e2456d8063d71bbe2d52a41f6
5879 F20101109_AAAICR hayes_s_Page_206thm.jpg
1d3dde7f2d8b63cc5e299fd43ea700cb
173d5fcfcaf2ae3114bf9bd0a64592f0469dc95a
62764 F20101109_AAAHFY hayes_s_Page_121.pro
ef2f16d0f5a766ef850f63a9ec9b3002
d88b8648efece557e0dce5c10f764905931314a4
8328 F20101109_AAAHYC hayes_s_Page_210thm.jpg
26adb7b67f58b06e66d82a83f0ce66c4
948c6640d4d0399438e20c20ea0d4e2eb8ff2eaa
4241 F20101109_AAAICS hayes_s_Page_204thm.jpg
34cee24008197666973d60f5918f0bc5
c33cd1d4ed9a51a90bf016ef4c42577b73b0d11e
55830 F20101109_AAAHFZ hayes_s_Page_192.pro
a46d789166fb388c7de52d797f9ed4e7
db1c7bb6b35c34f1206dfe8273d508eb1268f367
88867 F20101109_AAAHYD hayes_s_Page_021.jpg
0a5757e800a2e4655f68f9bea4489dbc
a4ac7fedea65f60d0ddfb009fc12b7ea6dca61de
5697 F20101109_AAAICT hayes_s_Page_214thm.jpg
95239c2b9d22565b011cf30ba9b0e0ae
d6b20fe37d23e4a9a204a00c594ae6b7b9e16887
F20101109_AAAHYE hayes_s_Page_219.jp2
2b9a82ac4546a8561625751766c0e0a5
2384c5b1fcacaf13fc08867279b246a7f0f5ee67
F20101109_AAAICU hayes_s_Page_049.jp2
435d50ad2ce97a85e66da9a96075a159
15b9148e5c56d5b63c00d95eff847c1bea3d2cbf
2293 F20101109_AAAHYF hayes_s_Page_122.txt
b8312ffb793067e478fdf82fd9e1c6e3
39e507c3349a53a938f332d2cd15aa6f2903f4be
53444 F20101109_AAAICV hayes_s_Page_219.pro
3b67271d61aa9e90667af28af9808aa4
b1e984e18edcc32f875c67ca6bc0301c1e029870
89948 F20101109_AAAHYG hayes_s_Page_136.jpg
6a41d837b9258f366d4847f3c1a15dc9
4268ea6b6ed36829f9e0986411b76d697f2ecc51
F20101109_AAAICW hayes_s_Page_054.txt
c70c69b0d3ffb4de88ad640869f09932
b04b2678d4490bf624224845fcc83ef54dff7180







THE DISCURSIVE NATURE OF MENTORING: HOW PARTICIPATION IN A
MENTORING RELATIONSHIP TRANSFORMS THE IDENTITIES AND PRACTICES OF
PROSPECTIVE AND PRACTICING TEACHERS




















By

SHARON B. HAYES


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008



































O 2008 Sharon B. Hayes



































For Mom & Dad and Megan & Matthew
Thanks for your unwavering love and belief in me.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While it didn't take a village, it certainly required a committee, and I would like to thank

each and every member of my doctoral committee Nancy Dana, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Jeff

Hurt, Colleen Swain, and Sondra Smith. Your counsel and support have only served to improve

my work, and I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to my study and me. I

want to extend a special thanks to Nancy, who agreed to chair my committee when I was already

well into this research, and who always provided me with the just-in-time mentoring that I

needed at so many junctures in this journey. I am looking forward to years of friendship and

collaboration with you. I would also like to acknowledge Lee Mullally, chair of my doctoral

committee, until his retirement. I want to thank you for your warm welcome to the university,

for sharing your insights and expertise over the years, and for providing me with the opportunity

to become engaged in the work I want to do.

And I offer a most heartfelt thanks to Mirka for so many reasons. I am in awe of your

intellect, your skill as a researcher, and your generosity of spirit. I have always been able to

count on you for mentoring that has challenged me to read between and beyond the lines and has

supported me in accomplishing my dreams. This is an ending of sorts, and I am taking many

happy memories with me, but I believe it is also another beginning for us. I cherish your

friendship and feel so very blessed to have you in my life.

I am also very grateful to my family, whose enthusiastic and steadfast support has always

ensured that I was able to find my way. I want to thank my parents, my brothers, Gordon and

Timothy, my sister-in-law, Sharilyn, my children, Megan and Matthew, and my nephews and

niece, Grant, Parker, and Sheridan for their belief in me, for always providing a soft place for me

to land, and, most of all, for their love. Because of you, I have always known that the endless

possibilities are, indeed, possible.









I have also been blessed with many friends, but Donna Dewey, Shannon Shanely, and

Carol Isaac deserve special thanks. You've all endured this roller coaster ride on my way to a

doctoral degree and have commiserated or celebrated with me depending on the circumstance.

Thank you for all of your advice, for reminding me to laugh, and most of all for assuring me that

the light at the end of the tunnel was not an oncoming train. I am so very thankful for your

friendship and encouragement.

Finally, I would like to thank the men and women who volunteered to be a part of my

study. It was a pleasure and a privilege to work with all of you. I have learned so much about

mentoring, about teaching, about research, and about the human spirit. I can only hope that our

paths will cross again someday.

At this point, "thank you" seems so inadequate I can only hope you know that I am

forever grateful to all of you.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ............_...... ._ ...............10...


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 1 1..


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............14.......... ......


Back ground ................. ...............14.......... ......
Origins of the Study ................. ...............17.......... .....
Purpose of the Study ................. ...............22.......... .....
Research Questions............... ...............2
Si gnif icance of the Study ................. ...............23.......... .....
Sum mary ................. ...............24.......... ......

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............26................


Definitions of Mentoring ................. ...............26................
The Mentoring Relationship ................ ...............29........... ....
Mentor Characteristics and Roles ................. ...............31........... ...
Mentee Characteristics and Roles............... ...............36.
Benefits of Mentoring............... ..............3
Mentoring Pre-Service Teachers .............. ...............37....
Classroom Instruction and Mentoring ................. ...............40................
Classroom Management and Mentoring .............. ...............41....
Ethical Considerations and Mentoring ................. ...............42................
New Directions .............. ...............44....
Summary ................. ...............46.................

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............. ...............48....


Purpose of the Study ................ ... .......... ...............48.....
Theoretical Perspective: Social Constructionism .............. ...............49....
Constructionism and Relationships ................. ......._._ .........54__.....
Constructionism and Discourse ........._.. _......__ ...............55...
Defining Discourse ........._.... ........ .._ ...............56....
Discourse and the Positioning of Self. ........._.. _..... .__ ...............57.
Discourse and Power .............. ...............61....
The Research Context............... ...............63
Allenton ........._.... ...... ..._ ...............64....
All enton El ementary School ........._.. _......__ ...............64...
ProTeach: A Teacher Preparation Program ......_......._.__... ....._._...........6











The Participants and Their Roles .............. ...............66....
The Researcher and Her Roles .............. ...............67....
Data Collection .............. ...............72...
Data Sources: Dialogue Sessions .............. ...............73....
Data Sources: Participant Observation ................. ...............76................
D ata Analysis............... ..... ... .. ...............7
Gee's Discourse Analysis (Macro Analysis)............... ...............7
Activity building: ..80.................
Socioculturally-situated identity building: ...80.................
Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis (Micro Analysis) .............. ....................8
Trustworthiness................ ...........8
Limitations .................. .... ......... ........ ..... ..... ........8
Subj activities and Positionings of the Principal Researcher .............. ............__ .....88
Quality/Authenticity of the Interactions between the Researcher and the
Participants ................... .. ......... .. .......... .. ...........8
The Challenges of Social Constructionist Research............... ...............89
Limitations of the Data Collection Methods ................. ...............91...............
Sum m ary ............... .. ......... ......... .............9
Overview of Chapters 4, 5, and 6 .............. ...............92....

4 ASKING QUESTIONS TO PROMOTE MENTEE-CENTERED MENTORING AND
COLLABORATION .............. ...............96....


Mentoring Group 1: Kenneth and Susan .............. ...............96....
The Participants ................ ...............96.................
The Context ............... .......... ..... .......... .... ... ...........9
Developing and Maintaining a Mentoring Relationship ................... .. ...............99
Developing an Understanding of Mentoring: Mentor and Mentee as Co-
Constructors of M eaning.................. ......... ... .. .... ... ........9
Establishing and Maintaining Rapport: Mentor and Mentee as Partners/Friends .........102
Communication: Mentor and Mentee as Partners and Collaborative Problem-
Solvers................... .. .. .. .. ...............10
Co-Constructing Knowledge of Teaching and Learning............_ ......... .. ................108
Observation: Mentor as Model and Mentee as Observer and Active Learner ..............108
Co-Planning: Mentor as Facilitator, Model, and Instructional Designer and Mentee
as Instructional Designer. ........._........ .. ...._...... .. ...._.... ...........11
Planning: Mentor as Facilitator and Mentee as Instructional Designer ........._..............115
Providing Reflection and Feedback: Mentor as Critical Friend and Facilitator and
Mentee as Reflective Practitioner ................. ...............118...............
Concluding Thoughts............... ...............12

5 USING DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS TO PROMOTE MENTEE-CENTERED
M ENTORING ................. ................. 128........ ....


Mentoring Group 2: Barbara, Melissa, and Elizabeth ................ ................ ......... .128
The Participants ................ ...............128................
T he Context ................. ................. 129........ ....











Overview of Barbara' s, Elizabeth' s, and Melissa' s Discourse ................. ................. .. 130
Developing and Maintaining a Mentoring Relationship ................... .... ..............13
Developing an Understanding of Mentoring: Mentor and Mentees as Co-
Constructors of M eaning.................. ......... .. ... ............13
Establishing and Maintaining Rapport: Mentor and Mentees as Partners and
Friends.................... ... ..... ...............13
Communication: Mentor and Mentees as Colleagues ................ ........................136
Co-Constructing Knowledge of Teaching and Learning .............................._ ...............140
Developing Background Knowledge: Mentor as Knowledgeable Facilitator and
M entees as Novice Colleagues ................ .. .. ... ............ ...............14
Planning and Co-Planning: Mentor as Model, Provider of Feedback, and Co-Planner
and Mentees as Instructional Designers and Co-Planners .................... ...................14
Providing Feedback: Mentor as Evaluator and Facilitator and Mentees as Novice
Colleagues ........._..._.... ......... ... ... ....... .. ...... ....... ... .............. 4
Behavior Management: Mentor as Model and Collaborator and Mentees as
Decision-Makers and Collaborators .............. ...............147....
Concluding Thoughts............... ...............15

6 USING DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS TO PROMOTE MENTOR-CENTERED
M ENTORING ................. ................. 160........ ....

Mentoring Group 3: James, Amy and Jessica .............. .....................160
The Participants ................ ...............160................
The Context .............. ... .. ........ ... ......... ............16
Overview of James's, Amy's, and Jessica' s Discourse ................. ................. ........ 161
Developing and Maintaining a Mentoring Relationship ................... .... ..............16
Developing an Understanding of Mentoring: Mentor and Mentees as Co-
Constructors of M eaning.................. ......... .. ... ............16
Establishing and Maintaining Rapport: Mentor and Mentees as Partners and
Opponents .............. .. .. .......... .. .......... ............16
Co-Constructing Knowledge of Teaching and Learning .............. .. ..........._ ............__.175
Developing a Professional Knowledge Base: Mentor as Expert and Co-Constructor
and Mentees as Novice Colleagues and Co-Constructors .............. .... .................17
Planning: Mentor as Provider of Feedback and Mentees as Instructional Designers ...176
Providing Feedback: Mentor as Evaluator and Mentees as Novice Colleagues ...........178
Managing Behavior: Mentor as Model, Decision-Maker and Collaborator and
Mentees as Decision-Makers and Collaborators ....._____ ......... .................1 80
Concluding Thoughts............... .............. 18

7 DI SCUS SSION ............ ..... .._ ............... 187..

Discourse as a Context for the Construction and Negotiation of the Identities and
Practices of Mentors and Mentees ............... ...... ..__ .. ...._ .. ..... ........8
Situated Understandings of Mentoring and Their Implications for Teacher Education
and M entering ............ _...... ._ ...............196...
Concluding Thoughts............... ...............20












APPENDIX


A TIMELINE OF THE STUDY .............. ...............201....


B DIALOGUE SES SINS: ACTIVITIES/TOPIC S OF DISCUS SION. .............. ..............202


C MEMBER CHECKING .............. ...............205....


D RESEARCHER' S NOTEBOOK: REFLECTION AFTER DIALOGUE SESSION...........208


E EXPANDED FIELD NOTES ................. ...............210...............


F TRANSCRIPTION WITH NOTATIONS .............. ...............213....


G FINAL EVALUTION FORM ................. ...............215......... .....


H EDUCATOR ACCOMPLISHED PRACTICES ....._._.__ ..... ..__... ......_._..........21


LIST OF REFERENCE S ........._...... ...............218_.._. ......


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............227....










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Conversational interactions and their notations ................. ...............78......___...

3-2 Participant Information ................. ...............94....... .....

3-3 The Reiterative Process of Data Analysis ................. ...............95......__. ..

4-1 Mentoring Group 1: Identities and Activities within the Discourses of Mentoring,
Instruction, and Classroom Management .............. ...............127....

5-1 Mentoring Group 2: Identities and Activities within the Discourses of Mentoring,
Instruction, and Classroom Management .............. ...............159....

6-1 Mentoring Group 3: Identities and Activities Constructed within Discourses of
Mentoring, Instruction, and Classroom Management. ....._._._ .......... ........._.....186









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE DISCURSIVE NATURE OF MENTORING: HOW PARTICIPATION IN A
MENTORING RELATIONSHIP TRANSFORMS THE IDENTITIES AND PRACTICES OF
PROSPECTIVE AND PRACTICING TEACHERS

By

Sharon B. Hayes
May 2008
Chair: Nancy Dana
Cochair: Mirka Koro-Ljungberg
Major: Curriculum and Instruction

In the field of education, mentoring has become increasingly important for improving

teacher retention, job satisfaction, and teacher quality. However, researchers have documented

that mentoring within an educational context was often focused on situational adjustment,

technical advice, and emotional support, which enculturated new teachers into the current

systems rather than helping them to critique or challenge the existing practices of schooling.

Consequently, a new understanding of mentoring has emerged called educative mentoring,

which encourages novices to challenge their thinking and practices and to engage in critical

reflection that can be used to foster reform in schools, as well as in classrooms.

My personal interests, as well as my beliefs that mentoring and the identities of mentor

and mentee are socially constructed through discourse, led me to design a study that investigated

how mentors and mentees utilized discourse in negotiating their relationship and what role the

mentoring relationship played in their co-construction of knowledge about teaching and learning,

as well as the transformation of their individual identities and practices. The following questions

guided my research: (1) How does the relationship among mentors and mentees, engaged in

studying their practices, develop and evolve? and (2) How do the relationship among mentors









and mentees and the discourse(s) in which they are situated transform their identities and

practices?

This research was framed by social constructionism and employed audio-taped dialogue

sessions, field notes from participant observations, and a researcher' s journal to explore how the

mentors and mentees negotiated their relationships, co-constructted understandings of teaching

and learning, and transformed their identities and practices. Aspects of Gee's (2005) discourse

analysis and Fairclough's (2003) critical discourse analysis served as a vehicle for illuminating

the discursive aspects of the participants' dialogue, as well as how they established and

maintained rapport, planned and co-planned lessons, and participated in reflective discussions

about instruction and classroom management. Although the mentors and mentees engaged in

many of the same mentoring activities, their identities as mentors, as mentees, and as teachers

were influenced by the ways in which they negotiated power, as well as the ways in which they

positioned each other. Mentors and mentees who shared power and positioned each other as

collaborative partners developed relationships that shaped and transformed their practices and

identities. Moreover, the nature of each mentoring relationship was influenced by the discourses

that constructed the sociopolitical context in which the mentors and mentees were situated, and

the interdependence between mentors' and mentees' identities shaped not only the nature of their

situated mentoring discourse, but also the ways in which the activities of mentoring were

enacted.

This research provided evidence of the complexity of mentoring and the ways in which

discourses are constructed and changed as they are employed to engage in the activities of

mentoring and to transform the identities of the relational partners. These findings have

important implications for teacher education, as well as for the mentoring practices of









individuals. Teacher education programs might consider providing prospective mentors and

mentees with a better understanding of the philosophies and practices of educative mentoring

and how the discourses in which they are situated, as well as the dialogues they co-construct, can

be used to create a relationship and a context for learning and transformation.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Background

Athena, in the guise of Mentes, sought out Telemachus and said, "For you, I have some

good advice, if only you will accept it .. It all rests with you. Take my words to heart"

(Homer, trans. 1996, pp. 86-87), and so it seems that with these words, the phenomenon of

mentoring was born. Indeed, it is this story that most scholars cite as a starting point in their

search for an understanding of this multi-faceted, multi-layered, enigmatic term. This original

Mentor, rooted in Greek mythology, was an Ithacan noble in Homer' s epic tale, The Odyssey.

Mentor was entrusted by Odysseus with the care and development of his son, Telemachus, still

an infant, when Odysseus went off to fight in the Troj an War. Ten years after the war ended and

The Odyssey began, Telemachus was a young man, helpless to stop the mob of suitors who were

attempting to devour the estate of Odysseus and to court his mother, Penelope. Athena pled her

case to Zeus and was dispatched to provide Telemachus with sage advice and guidance, "to

inspire his heart with courage" (Homer, trans. 1996, p. 80). She appears throughout The

Odyssey, often in the guise of Mentes or Mentor, in order to explain the mysteries Telemachus

confronted, to point the way and clear the obstacles, as well as to provide him with

encouragement. Thus, Mentor served as the embodiment of wisdom, a parental archetype, with

male and female, mortal and immortal qualities.

For many of us, myself included, Homer' s epic tale, The Odyssey, served as our

introduction to mentoring, and colored our initial understandings of the phenomenon and what it

meant to mentor, to be mentored. This mythological character also seemed to serve as a divine

benchmark against which we often measured the mentoring we received. Although our

inspiration might come from divine sources, we remained mere mortals, fascinated by the stories









of mentors and their proteges, often consumed by our attempts to understand what it meant to

mentor within a particular human context. The intricacies of this complex relationship often

confounded attempts to develop a mutually satisfying relationship that effectively met the needs

of both participants. Even so, we continued to seek out those who recognized, and perhaps even

embraced our dreams, seeking their counsel as we began a transformational journey in which we

searched for new perspectives, negotiated new meanings, and possibly forged new identities.

Faced with such a daunting task, both mentor and protege might wish for the wisdom of the gods

as they engaged in what was often a sacred journey together.

The relationship between Mentor and Telemachus, as well as the relationships between

other historical examples of mentors and mentees (i.e., Socrates and Plato, Freud and Jung, Anne

Sullivan and Helen Keller), set a benchmark for characterizing and setting expectations for our

future mentoring relationships. This mythological legacy provided us with a sense that

mentoring was a powerful emotional interaction between an expert and a novice, a relationship

in which the expert was trusted, loving, and experienced in the guidance of the novice (Merriam,

1983). Thus, the mentor helped to shape the growth and development of the protege. Levinson

(1978) concurred and described a mentor as one who assumed the roles of teacher, sponsor,

counselor, developer of skills and intellect, host, guide, and exemplar. He believed that

mentoring synthesized the characteristics of the parent-child relationship and peer support

without being either and concluded that not having a mentor could be a great handicap to one's

psychological, as well as career development (Levinson, 1978).

Business adopted a different view of mentoring and developed understandings of

mentoring from the perspective of career development, rather than from a more general

framework of adult development. The system of apprenticeship developed during the Middle










Ages could be viewed as a specific case of just such mentoring. These apprenticeships involved

a craft master, or mentor, who employed young people, or proteges, as inexpensive forms of

labor in exchange for providing the protege with formal training in a craft. Most apprentices

during this era were young males (usually from fourteen to twenty-one years of age) and

unmarried. They lived in the household of the master craftsman during their contract term,

usually seven years, after which they spent time as a journeyman or acquired their own

workshops as master craftsmen. Apprenticeships focused on the development of specific career

skills, rather than any psychological or social benefits, although we might assume that the craft

master also socialized the apprentice into a particular community of craftsmen. Modern business

also focused on the benefits of mentoring from the perspective of a protege' s career

development. Mentoring was often characterized as a means of providing a role model for

younger associates in an effort to teach them the skills necessary for career advancement, as well

as socializing them into a professional community. Shapiro, Haseltine, and Rowe (1978)

arranged these advisory/support relationships, which facilitated access to positions of leadership

and authority in professional fields, along a continuum from peer pal (someone at your own level

with whom you share information and strategies) to mentor (an intense relationship in which an

individual assumes the role of both teacher and advocate).

Mentorships also occurred within academic settings in which the learning experiences

were central to the mentor-protege relationship. The mentor was a sometimes older, definitely

more experienced professional, who guided and cultivated the intellect of the usually younger,

less experienced protege. Academic mentors were aware that their proteges needed to observe

them as they engaged in the activities that were specific to a particular profession. They invited

their proteges to participate with them in their professional work and allowed them to gradually









assume greater responsibility and autonomy (Johnson & Huwe, 2003). They also hoped to

instill within their proteges a sense of pride in the profession and a commitment to behave in an

ethical manner (Johnson & Huwe, 1990; VanZandt, 1990).

Origins of the Study

Much of my life has been lived in a classroom, as a student and/or a teacher and as an

observer and/or participant. For me, and possibly for others, this life in the classroom has proved

to be a relational one. The relationships I have encountered and participated in have occurred

between and among the individuals within the classroom, between those individuals and

learning, as well as between the individuals in the classroom and the larger community in which

the classroom was situated. In my own experience, some of these relationships developed easily

and proved beneficial for all involved, while other relationships were more troubled and seemed

to stymie, even resist my efforts to meet my own needs and expectations, as well those of my

relational partners. Additionally, I developed relationships beyond the classroom walls with

parents, colleagues, and administrators, as well as with published research, various universities,

and state and federal departments of education. Although I still find myself spending a good

deal of time in classrooms, my roles and responsibilities within it have changed considerably. I

am no longer responsible for any of the day-to-day interactions with elementary school students;

rather, I supervise pre-service teaching interns for a university, observing their teaching,

providing feedback, and encouraging them to reflect on their practices and learning as they

discover the teachers they are meant to be. My autobiography, with its stories of the

relationships I have experienced as a student and teacher, has provided me with lenses that

influence what I see and how I interpret what I observe in the classrooms I visit. While I must be

aware of these lenses and subj activities, as they may blind me and constrain my ability to reach

other possible interpretations, they have also provided the impetus for this study.









Given the complexity of learning how to teach, it was not surprising that in-service

teachers almost always mentioned the primary importance of their student teaching or internship

experience in the development of their teaching practices (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). There

was evidence that this mentoring relationship between the pre-service teaching intern and the in-

service teacher was an important one, and so I was interested in how this relationship was

constructed and negotiated and how it affected each of the participants. I would agree that my

student teaching experience was important, although possibly not in the ways my "mentor"

teachers may have intended. While my relationships with both of the teachers with whom I was

placed were cordial and congenial, these "mentors" did not fashion a relationship with me or

provide a place in which I was encouraged to reflect and question and discuss. Indeed, these

women were identified as my "supervising teachers," and perhaps the semantics of this label

determined the nature of the relationship that developed between us. My first supervising

teacher was unable to provide me with specific feedback. Her usual comment after she observed

my teaching was, "The lesson was fine." Even when I persisted in asking what could be

improved, she was unable or unwilling to provide me with specific suggestions. Although I

complained to my university supervisor, the situation remained unresolved, and I was at a loss as

to how to initiate a conversation that would have enabled me to make my needs and expectations

clear, so that she might have been motivated and able to provide the kind of guidance I needed.

In contrast, my second supervising teacher took the time to present me with written

feedback after every lesson. She specifically commented on what had gone well and what I

should do the next time in order to improve my lesson and its presentation. However, there was

never an in-depth or critical discussion of the lesson, my teaching style, and whether or not

student learning had occurred; instead, she simply prescribed what I could do to improve future









lessons. Indeed, much of the teaching I saw modeled was derived directly from a teacher' s

manual, and so I spent many hours in the years that followed searching for ideas and strategies

that were more compatible with my personal philosophies of teaching and learning and the needs

and abilities of my students.

I did not encounter the woman I would consider my first "real" mentor until I had almost

completed work on a Master' s degree. She was the first person who was genuinely interested in

what I had to say and seemed to see in me the "teacher," even the person I was meant to be. She

encouraged reflection and engaged me in lively discussion about ideas, challenged my thinking,

and provided me with opportunities that encouraged me to make use of all I had learned. These

discussions encouraged me to become confident in my abilities and to take the risks that would

be necessary for my growth and transformation.

However, it is my current work that has most directly influenced the focus of this study.

For the past five years I have served as a university supervisor for groups of pre-service teaching

interns as they completed a nine-month long internship. Although the interns have changed from

year to year, many of the mentor teachers have remained the same. I have been able to observe

these mentor teachers as they developed relationships with their interns and have watched as

these relationships have either flourished or floundered. Some of the mentors seemed capable of

matching their mentoring style to the needs of the particular intern with whom they were

currently partnered. Other mentors seem to have an unalterable mentoring style and required the

intern to adjust her needs accordingly. Whether these other mentors were unable or were simply

refusing to furnish the scaffolding the novice teacher needed was questionable, but they often

structured the mentoring relationship in such a way that the intern's ideas and questions were

ignored or discounted. Thus, I have watched interns, fresh from the university, brimming with









ideas about the teaching strategies and learning activities they wished to implement in a real-

world classroom, unable to find an acceptable way of questioning the practices they saw

modeled and being constructively critical of their mentor teacher' s traditional practices.

Unfortunately, these mentoring relationships often devolved into adversarial confrontations,

which silenced the intern's voice, as she acquiesced to the mentor' s prescriptive expectations.

For other interns, their mentoring relationships were purely social in nature, due to the fact that

they were mismatched with regard to their teaching styles and educational philosophies, and so

the mentors were unable to provide these interns with models of teaching that they deemed

credible. While some of these pairs maintained a friendship that went beyond the term of the

internship, without a clear and compatible professional model, these interns often felt adrift as

they attempted to develop identities as teachers.

Additionally, during the course of my doctoral studies, I came across an article entitled,

"Multiple Annies: Feminist Poststructual Theory and the Making of a Teacher," which provided

an illustration of some of what I had been observing in the field placements of my own interns.

Annie was placed with two teachers (Candace and Sheila) during her internship and she

described their very different mentoring styles and how these mentors influenced the

development of her teacher identity. Annie and Candace had similar teaching philosophies, and

so, in Candace' s classroom, Annie felt free to be the kind of teacher she had envisioned herself

to be (Jackson, 2001). In contrast, Annie felt controlled and dominated by Sheila whose rigid,

teacher-centered pedagogy left Annie baffled as to how to engage the students and to develop an

identity as a teacher. It seemed that the power relations between the participants, as well as the

discourses in which they were situated produced a "truth" about what it meant to teach, which

often had a powerful effect on the identity a mentee developed, as well as her ability to become a









member of a community of practice. Moreover, this particular article provided me with two

other relational aspects to consider: power and discourse. Thus, the following questions

occurred to me: What can we legitimately expect from mentoring? How can participants make

their needs known in a way that is constructive to the development of a collaborative

relationship? How does the discourse or dialogue affect the way in which a relationship is

constructed? If we believe that relationships are dynamic, how do participants continue to

negotiate their roles and responsibilities as the relationship develops? Is it possible for mentors

and proteges with differing expectations and needs to construct a relationship that is effective for

both? How does mentoring transform the participants? Is it possible that some people are

incapable of mentoring, of being mentored? These questions influenced the ways in which I

continued to think about mentors and mentees and their relationships and consequently, proved

crucial in my construction and framing of the research questions that guided this study.

As I continued to read, I came across another study, this one by Sharon Feiman-Nemser

(2001) entitled "Helping Novices Learn to Teach." In this article the mentor teacher stated, "I

want to be a co-thinker with them (the pre-service teachers) so that I can help them to see new

perspectives, new ways to solve the problems they have" (p. 17). Feiman-Nemser (2001) labeled

this mentor an "educative mentor" and described the work of the mentor as enabling a novice to

learn in and from his or her practice by creating opportunities and conditions that supported

meaningful teacher learning in the service of student learning. Additionally, Feiman-Nemser

(2001) suggested that educative mentoring "promotes teacher development by cultivating a

disposition of inquiry, focusing attention on student thinking and understanding, and fostering

disciplined talk about problems of practice" (p. 14). It was equally obvious, given the nature of

the data excerpts, that the roles of mentor and mentee, as well as the activities in which they










engaged were influenced and enacted through the discourse(s) in which the mentor and mentee

were situated. However, while the mentor teacher, who was the subject of this article, eloquently

described his mentoring practices, what was missing was a description and interpretation of the

interactions between mentor and mentee. I wanted to explore the relational process of how

mentors and mentees co-thought or co-constructed knowledge and how their interactions

transformed their identities and practices.

Purpose of the Study

Thus, the purpose of my study was to investigate how mentors and mentees utilized

discourse in negotiating their relationship and what role this mentoring relationship played in

their co-construction of knowledge about teaching and learning. In addition, I was interested in

understanding how this "knowledge of practice" might transform their individual identities and

practices (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).

Research Questions

I framed my study within a constructionist perspective because the knowledge, which is

produced within this framework, is a product of social processes, in which all understandings and

statements about what is true, are situated within particular communities and are always subj ect

to other interpretations (Gergen, 1994). In this way, constructionism was a means of

democratizing the conversation about human practices and of submitting these practices to a

continuous process of reflection (Gergen, 1994). Therefore, this perspective allowed me to open

a space for reflection upon and reconsideration of the traditional meanings and understandings of

mentoring and provided a foundation for considering new interpretations and constructing new,

possibly more appropriate, situated meanings. Accordingly, the following questions guided my

research:










* How do the relationships between mentors and mentees, engaged in studying their
practices, develop and evolve?

* How do the relationships among mentors and mentees and the discourse(s) in which they
are situated transform their identities and practices?

Significance of the Study

Learning to teach and the pre-service teaching internship seemed to be a kind of situated

learning that was accomplished through a process of legitimate peripheral participation (Lave &

Wenger, 1991). In this kind of learning, individuals participated in a community of practitioners

in which their mastery of knowledge and skills required novice teachers to move toward full

participation in the sociocultural practices of the education community. Within this perspective,

the character of knowledge and learning was relational, meaning was negotiated so that the

practitioners, the activities, and the social world in which they were situated continually shaped

and defined each other (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Through participation, novice practitioners

became members of a professional community, participating in and negotiating the meaning of

the activities, the discourse, even the identities they assumed as members of that community.

Thus, mentoring might play an important role in socializing and welcoming pre-service teachers

into a community of educational practice.

Many scholars have attempted to define mentoring and to describe the roles of mentors and

proteges (Kram, 1986, 1988; Levinson, 1978). Others have described the developmental nature

of the relationship itself, enumerating stages through which the participants passed as the

relationship proceeded over time (Kram, 1986, 1988). Moreover, there have been studies

conducted that specifically described the mentoring relationship from the perspective of the pre-

service teaching intern (Huffman & Leak, 1986), as well as the mentor teacher (Hayes, 1999).

However, few studies explored the relationship as it was constructed and negotiated by the two

participants. The goal of this study was to explore, and possibly to illuminate, how mentor and









mentee engaged in dialogue in order to make their expectations known to each other and then to

collaboratively design, negotiate, and construct a mentoring relationship that transformed their

practices and identities.

Summary

My personal experiences, as well as my reading of the mentoring research, provided the

basis for my interest in pursuing this study. The phenomenon of mentoring, while based in

Greek mythology, has been transferred to a number of settings, redefined by the contexts, and

enacted in ways that were influenced by those who were involved in the relationship. It seemed

that mentoring relationships were dynamic and that their shapes were constantly questioned; they

were continually co-constructed, affecting the activities, identities, understandings, and practices

of their participants (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Fletcher, 2000; Lucas, 2001; Zachary, 2002). Thus,

this study explored not only the nature of the relationship that developed between mentors and

mentees, but also the way in which the relationship was negotiated through discourse, as well as

how this collaboration transformed the identities and practices of the individual participants.

The chapters that follow illustrate how I studied and understood the discourses that were

employed by mentors and mentees to co-construct their mentoring relationships and their

knowledge about teaching and learning, as well as to transform their identities and practices. In

Chapter 2, I present a review of the literature pertinent to mentoring, specifically the mentoring

of pre-service teaching interns, which includes the ways in which mentoring has been defined,

the roles and responsibilities of the mentors and mentees, the developmental phases of the

relationship, and the professional, as well as personal benefits for the participants. In Chapter 3,

I describe the methodology, including the theoretical framework of social constructionism, my

data collection and data analysis methods, as well as the trustworthiness, and the limitations of

my methodology. In Chapters 4, 5, and 6, I provide excerpts from my data that are relevant to










my research question and illustrate the activities and identities co-constructed by the participants

within each of the mentoring groups. In Chapter 7, I present my conclusions and the

implications of my findings for teacher education, as well as mentoring.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of the research related to mentoring

generally, and more specifically, to the mentoring of pre-service teachers. This chapter includes

relevant professional literature that traces the development of our understanding of mentoring,

describes the phases of mentoring, and identifies the characteristics and roles of mentors and

mentees. In addition, this chapter will review research that describes some of the benefits

derived from effective mentoring, as well as new perspectives for mentoring in teacher

education.

Definitions of Mentoring

One of the consequences of a concept' s applicability across contexts and disciplines was

an increased susceptibility to variation in interpretation and meaning (Brookfield, 1995). Thus,

the focus of many research studies has been to define this somewhat elusive term as it was

experienced within specific contexts. Indeed, this quest began with the Greeks, and since that

time, many authors and researchers have offered definitions of mentoring based on their

understanding of the most compelling and salient features of mentoring. Among these scholars

was the oft-cited Levinson (1978), who conducted studies of mentoring relationships among men

that were situated in the work place. He concluded that the mentoring relationship was one of the

most complex and developmentally important relationships his participants experienced as young

men. He defined this relationship as one in which:

He [the mentor] may act as a teacher (emphasis added) to enhance the young man's skills
and intellectual development. Serving as a sponsor, he may use his influence to facilitate
the young man's entry and advancement. He may be a host and guide, welcoming the
initiate into a new occupational and social world and acquainting him with its values,
customs, resources, and cast of characters. Through his own virtues, achievements, and
way of living the mentor may be an exemplar that the protege can admire and seek to
emulate. He may provide counsel and moral support in times of stress. (Levinson, 1978, p.
98)










Zey (1984) also studied mentoring from a corporate perspective, but unlike Levinson, who

cast mentoring in terms of human growth and development, Zey believed that the roles of the

mentor were tied to the politics and economics of business. He defined a mentor as "a person

who oversees the career and development of another person, usually a junior, through teaching,

counseling, providing psychological support, protecting, and at times promoting or sponsoring"

(p. 7). Similarly, Parkay (1988) investigated the mentoring relationships that occurred in the

business world, and his understanding of mentoring corroborated the definitions provided by

other scholars. He characterized mentoring as "an intensive, one-to-one form of teaching in

which the wise and experienced mentor inducts the aspiring protege into a particular, usually

professional way of life" (p. 196). In the same vein, Kram (1988), who also studied mentoring in

the context of organizational life, found that these relationships supported the career

development of the individuals involved and enabled them to move through adulthood and an

organizational career. She found that these relationships encouraged individuals to address

concerns about self, career, and family and provided opportunities for the participants to gain

knowledge, skills, and competence and attend to personal, as well as professional dilemmas

(Kram, 1988).

On the other hand, Daloz (1986) provided a perspective on mentoring that occurred in

educational settings. He believed that we had much to learn from the mythology of mentoring

and suggested that, "if mentors did not exist we would have to invent them" (Daloz, 1986, p. 16).

Through investigating his own mentoring practices, he understood the mentor as someone who

"engenders trust, provides encouragement, and offers a vision for the journey" (Daloz, 1986,

p.30). For many mentees, the mentor served as a concrete manifestation of what they wished to

become. Moreover, Johnson & Huwe (2003), who were interested in academic mentoring,









developed the following definition as they attempted to describe the contours and boundaries of

mentoring in an educational setting:

Mentoring is a personal relationship in which a more experienced (usually older) faculty
member acts as a guide, role model, teacher, and sponsor of a less experienced (usually
younger) student. A mentor provides the protege with knowledge, advice, challenge,
counsel, and support in the protege's pursuit of becoming a full member of a particular
profession (p. 6).

Meanwhile, Zachary (2000) maintained that learning was the primary purpose of any

mentoring relationship. She suggested a learner-centered mentoring paradigm to replace the

more traditional "authoritarian teacher-dependent student-supplicant paradigm" (Zachary, 2000,

p. 3). In this kind of mentoring, "wisdom is not passed from an authoritarian teacher to a

supplicant student, but is discovered in a learning relationship in which both stand to gain a

greater understanding of the workplace and the world" (Aubrey & Cohen, 1995, p. 161). The

mentor and mentee shared accountability and responsibility for achieving a mentee's goals and

the mentor nurtured and developed the mentee's capacity for self-direction over the course of

their relationship (Zachary, 2000).

Additionally, Achinstein and Athanases (2006), whose interests focused on the mentoring

of pre-service and novice teachers, advocated educative mentoring, which provided more than

emotional support, technical advice, and professional socialization. This kind of mentoring

provided mentees with opportunities for learning and dialogue that challenged the mentees'

thinking and practice in order to inform, or even transform their practice (Feiman-Nemser,

2001). Educative mentoring highlighted the critical nature of a mentor' s focus on her mentee's

cognitive development. Educative mentors supported novice and pre-service teachers as they

developed an inquiry stance, critically questioned and re-framed their thinking and beliefs about

students, teaching, and learning, and problematized their practices and assumptions (Achinstein

& Barrett, 2004). Thus, educative mentoring supported and encouraged a "critical constructivist










perspective," furthering the efforts of new teachers as they posed problems, uncovered

assumptions and reconstructed their practice (Wang & Odell, 2002). Moreover, this kind of

mentoring moved from knowledge transmission to knowledge transformation as mentors and

mentees co-constructed knowledge of practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) and questioned

their taken for granted assumptions of educational systems and classrooms in an attempt to foster

reform (Cochran-Smith & Paris, 1995).

Finally, an understanding of mentoring from a multicultural perspective had implications

for any mentoring relationship, in which the diverse backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, and

abilities of mentors and mentees added a layer of complexity to the already complicated world of

human relationships. According to Gonzalez-Rodriguez (1995) multicultural mentoring was:

The mentoring of individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds, from traditionally
underrepresented populations, and of many cognitive perspectives....It creates spaces for
differences and celebrates democracy by facilitating inclusion and participation. It allows
learning to take place while guarding that no one's voice is silenced (p. 70).

Hence, mentoring no longer scaffolded a reproduction of the status quo. Instead,

institutions and individuals explored, challenged, and critiqued their cultural assumptions and

philosophical stances, and mentoring became a vehicle for pluralism rather than assimilation

(Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 1995). Educative mentors supported pre-service teachers as they taught

for social justice and equity (Wang & Odell, 2002) and these mentors, along with their mentees,

became agents of change as they engaged in critical reflection about their classrooms and

schools.

The Mentoring Relationship

These understandings and definitions of mentoring characterized it as a complex, diverse,

and complicated phenomenon which encompassed a "myriad of social and psychological

interactions based within diverse organizational and personal settings which are often subj ected









to differing aims, obj ectives, and interpretations identified by the organization, the mentor, and

even the mentee" (Roberts, 1999, p. 145). Moreover, Hardcastle (1988) understood the mentor-

mentee relationship as mutual, comprehensive, informal, interactive, and enduring. Ultimately, it

seemed the mentoring relationship was comprised of multiple and dynamic relational

interactions that had definite, predictable patterns and cycles (Phillips-Jones, 2001).

According to Daloz (1986), mentoring was a passionate relationship comprised of

developmental stages. He acknowledged that the relationship most often began in a

complementary mode in which the mentor was clearly dominant, but that the relationship

became more symmetrical as the participants came to know each other more intimately. Kram

(1986) also described four phases through which a mentoring relationship progressed. The first

stage was an initiation phase in which mentor and mentee met and set expectations. This was

followed by a cultivation phase in which the opportunities for meaningful interactions increased

and the emotional bonds between participants were strengthened. The third stage was a

separation phase in which the nature of the relationship was altered by structural changes in the

organizational context and/or by psychological changes within one or both of the participants.

Finally, a redefinition occurred in which the relationship either developed into a completely new

form or was brought to a close.

Zachary (2000) also identified four predictable phases of mentoring relationships: (a)

preparing, (b) negotiating, (c) enabling, and (d) coming to closure. These phases formed a

developmental sequence, which varied in length from one relationship to another. During the

preparing stage, both mentor and mentee prepared individually and in partnership by assessing

their motivations and readiness for mentoring. In this initial stage, expectations and roles were

clarified. The negotiating phase was the business phase of the relationship in which the









mentoring partners defined their learning goals, as well as the content and process of their

relationship. The next phase, the enabling phase was the implementation phase of the mentoring

relationship. This was the time in which the journey toward the mentee' s goals was

accomplished. Finally, the relationship was brought to closure, which involved evaluating,

acknowledging, and celebrating the achievements of the relationship.

Furthermore, Phillips-Jones (2001) also identified five developmental stages in mentoring

relationships, which corresponded to the developmental models of other scholars and included:

(a) mutual admiration, (b) development, (c) disillusionment/realistic appraisal, (d) parting, and

(e) transformation. Thus, the metaphorical association of mentoring with a journey, or odyssey,

seemed an apt one, as this relationship began with a voyage of discovery that most often ended

with the mentees' induction into a community of practice.

Mentor Characteristics and Roles

Phillips-Jones (2001) characterized mentors as "experienced people who go out of their

way to help a mentee clarify her vision and then help her build the skills to reach them" (p. 21),

who took on the roles of coach, learning broker, accountability partner, cheerleader, and

sounding board. Additionally, mentors have been described as guides, facilitators, gurus,

friends, and mothers who provide support and challenge, explain and protect (Daloz, 1986).

They were often expected, indeed, required to assume multiple roles that included coaching,

exposure, challenging work, role modeling, and the encouragement of reflection (Anderson &

Shannon, 1988; Hawkey, 1997; Koemer, Rust, & Baumgartner, 2002; Kram, 1986, 1988;

Levinson, 1978, 1996; Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992), although some research has

suggested that mentees should seek and develop relationships with multiple mentors in order to

meet their specific needs and expectations (Burlew, 1991; Phillips-Jones, 2001).









Moreover mentors were individuals who provided mentees with knowledge, advice,

challenge, and support (Johnson & Huwe, 2003). Successful mentors assumed specific roles or

provided specific functions at various junctures in the mentor relationship. Kram (1986, 1988)

summarized these functions that enhanced a mentee's personal growth and professional

development into two broad categories: career functions and psychosocial functions. Career

functions were those aspects of the relationship that supported a mentee in "learning the ropes"

and becoming a full-fledged member of the professional community. They included

sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments and

these functions were possible because of the mentors' experience and influence in the

organizational context. On the other hand, psychosocial functions were those aspects of the

relationship that enhanced a mentee's sense of competence and clarity with regard to her

professional identity. These functions included role modeling, acceptance and confirmation,

counseling, and friendship or mutuality. The psychosocial functions were possible because of an

interpersonal relationship between mentor and mentee that fostered mutual trust and intimacy.

Together the career and psychosocial functions enabled a mentee to address the challenges of

becoming a full-fledged member of a professional community (Kram, 1988).

Daloz (1999) characterized an effective mentor as one who was able to provide support,

challenge, and vision. He described support as "the activity of holding, providing a safe place

where the student can contact her need for fundamental trust" (p. 209); whereas, challenge was

sometimes referred to as a creative tension that sought resolution. Thus, feedback was often an

effective tool for assisting students as they encountered challenges (Zachary, 2002).

Additionally, challenge provided the means for mentors and mentees to engage in discussion, set

up dichotomies, construct hypotheses, and set high standards (Daloz, 1986). Finally, mentors









were expected to provide vision in a variety of ways, such as role modeling specific behaviors

and reminding the mentee of the j ourney and growth ahead (Zachary, 2002).

Similarly, Hardcastle (1988) identified mentors as people with integrity, high expectations,

a sense of humor, and "the ability to act as a catalyst" in the lives of the mentees (p. 206). "They

offered [the mentees] unique visions of themselves, motivated them to grow professionally,

showed them new ways to be, and were spiritual supports" (Hardcastle, 1988, p. 207). Mentors

have also been described as being guides to practical knowledge, sources of moral support, and

creators of a context in which mentees could "show their stuff" (Awaya, McEwan, Heyler,

Linsky, Lum, & Wakukawa, 2003).

Other scholars such as Burlew (1991), Kram (1988), and Merriam (1983) have emphasized

the importance of trust within the mentoring relationship and the supportive role of the mentor.

A mentor not only taught the mentee what it meant to be a professional (Bova & Phillips, 1984),

but al so served as a role model, teacher, sponsor, encourager, counselor, and friend, with the

ultimate goal of promoting the mentee's personal, as well as professional development (Brown,

Davis, & McClendon, 1999). Thus, experienced mentors assisted mentees as they were

socialized into a community's practices and made those practices part of their subj ective reality

(Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Parkay (1988) concurred, stating that "the protege learns from the

mentor not only the obj ective, manifest content of professional knowledge and skills, but also a

subj ective, nondiscursive appreciation for how and when to employ these learning in the arena

of professional practice" (p. 196). In other words, the mentor helped socialize the mentee into a

profession over the course of their mentoring relationship and during that time, the mentee

selectively chose those attributes of the mentor or mentoring relationship that would contribute

to his or her unique identity.









Several authors have chosen to discuss the "spiritual" roles a mentor might fulfill within a

mentoring relationship. Johnson and Huwe (2003) suggested that excellent mentors bless their

proteges by calling forth their life and career aspirations or what Levinson (1978) called "the

dream." In other words, "the mentor nourishes a dream in the student and sets the students into

creative flight, tempering idealism with the wisdom of experience" (Davis, Little, & Thornton,

1997, p. 61). Daloz (1986) agreed, believing that the first business of a mentor was to listen to

the dreams of the protege. He wrote that mentors were spiritual guides

[who] lead us along the journey of our lives. We trust them because they have been there
before. They embody our hopes, cast light on the way ahead, interpret arcane signs, warn
us of lurking dangers, and point out unexpected delights along the way (p. 17).

In this way, the protege experienced a transformation and became an equal colleague and

perhaps, trusted peer of the guide who was once his or her mentor. Yamamoto (1988) believed

that mentors were transfor~rtrt~t~rmerst~rt~ and that mentoring involved an experience of transcendence for

the mentor and one of transformation for the mentee. Mentors must (a) see a person yet to be

born in their mentee, (b) anticipate and guide the mentee to see what is yet to be seen, and (c) see

the world they themselves can only dream of through their faith and trust in the guide

(Yamamoto, 1988). Thus, "a mentor helps the person under his or her care to see beyond oneself

and become more fully human" (Yamamoto, 1988, p. 188). Additionally, according to Carger

(1996), true mentoring was more than imparting information or training skills.

It is a human process, in which one sees, reflected in a mentor, aspects of one's self,
facets not clearly in focus, potentials not fully realized. True mentoring is an intimate
process because it involves more than just modeling; it requires self-discovery as well.
There is a bond that forms when "kindred spirits" encounter one another and see
beyond the surface to the substance" (Carger, 1996, p. 27).

Ultimately, mentoring was concerned with touching the life of another, sharing core

values, and encouraging one another; thus, what transpired within a mentoring relationship

affected the generations that followed (Carger, 1996). Moreover, mentoring could be viewed










as gift giving in which the mentor was a gift giver (Gehrke, 1988). Over time, the mentor

created a gift of wisdom, a new way of seeing things that permeated all the mentor did with

the mentee. The mentee underwent a transformation, a realization of the possibilities for his

or her life, as a result of receiving the mentor' s gift. Out of gratitude, the mentee then made a

commitment to further work, desiring to meet the mentor's expectations and to be worthy of

the mentor' s belief in him or her. Finally there was a passing of the gift to a new recipient

when the mentee became a mentor (Gehrke, 1998).

Lipschutz (1993) also viewed mentoring as a process that extended beyond the mere

transmission of subj ect matter. For him, mentoring was a valuing, transforming relationship

in which the mentor was actively invested in and aware of the responsibilities he or she

assumed for shaping a mentee's knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors. Along those lines,

Peddy (2001) described a mentor as one who helped a mentee to develop the qualities she

would need to attain her goals without a mentor. These qualities included wisdom,

judgment, resilience and independence (Peddy, 2001). Developing wisdom meant learning

the spoken and unspoken rules of the profession so that the mentee could become an integral

part of the community. Judgment was characterized by understanding the consequences of

one' s decisions and actions, as well as the long-term impact of one' s choices. Resilience

involved learning from one's mistakes and moving forward with confidence, strength, and

determination. Finally, independence occurred when the mentee was ready to accept

increasing challenges and reasonable risks (Peddy, 2001). The mentee became a colleague

and a bona fide member of the professional community.

Healy and Welchert (1990) held a similar view of mentoring and defined it as "a

reciprocal association between superior and subordinate that effects their mutual









transformations" (p. 19). Oftentimes, mentees did more than become proficient in a domain

or job skills. They also acquired risk-taking and political skills (Bova & Phillips, 1984).

Hardcastle (1988) found that mentors gave mentee unique insights into their potential while

Zuckerman (1977) described how mentors often influenced the modes of thoughts and

identities of their mentees. Thus, the imbalance between superior and subordinate shifted to

an affiliation between equals (Healy & Welchert, 1990). Additionally, in the act of guiding

and promoting others, mentors affected their own transformations (Healy & Welchert, 1990).

In addition, Blackburn, Chapman, and Cameron (1981) observed that academic mentors

derived gratification from collaborating with mentees to produce new knowledge, and Kram

(1986) reported that successful mentoring provided the mentor with intrinsic satisfaction,

added responsibilities, and leadership recognition. Thus, the mentoring relationship was

often created and re-created, thereby providing opportunities for collaboration between

former mentors and their mentees, who were now colleagues and partners.

Mentee Characteristics and Roles

The mentoring relationship was not the sole responsibility of the mentor; indeed, the

mentee had equally important roles to play. Johnson and Huwe (2003) suggested that

mentees should be emotionally stable, coachable, committed, and similar to their mentor with

regard to interests and philosophy. Additionally, Portner (2002) described mentees as those

who were willing and able to participate, take responsibility, observe, ask, take informed

risks, reflect, and give back. More specifically, mentors of student teachers expected their

mentees to be willing to listen and learn as a means of extending their professional

development, to accept advice and act upon it, and to develop positive relationships with

their students (Hayes, 1999).









Benefits of Mentoring

The benefits of mentoring often seemed more obvious for the mentee. According to

Phillips-Jones (2001), mentees benefited from their mentor' s encouragement as they gained

new or improved skills and knowledge, as well as being provided with an exemplary role

model and opportunities to perform. The mentor reaped rewards from her relationship with a

mentee through getting more work done, being rewarded for developing talent, achieving

vicariously through his/her mentee, investing in the mentee's future, repaying past debts, and

enjoying a positive relationship (Phillips-Jones, 2001).

Additionally, "mentors feel a tremendous pleasure that one could have shared so much

in common with someone else and that one could be so privileged to think one is actually

contributing to the real intellectual and full awakening of another human being" (Daloz,

1986, p. 182). They also enjoyed the benefits of rich learning opportunities and their own

growth was nurtured through their interactions with their mentees and their reflections upon

the experience (Zachary, 2000). Ideally, the mentoring relationship had a profound, deep,

and enduring impact on both participants.

Mentoring Pre-Service Teachers

Traditionally, mentoring had been characterized as the transmission of knowledge and

skills. As previously discussed, Kram (1988), who studied and described mentoring in a

business context, suggested that mentoring was a developmental relationship whose goal was

to enhance the mentor' s and mentee's career advancement, sense of competence, identity,

and effectiveness in a professional role. Thus, mentors taught, coached, counseled, and

challenged their mentees. However, the activities and identities of the mentoring

relationships she described demonstrated a propensity to reproduce, rather than to transform

the organizational context.









This business model of mentoring was appropriated to educational contexts and

classrooms where it has been reconceptualized and enacted in various ways. In fact, since

the late 1980's, teacher education reformers have promoted teacher mentoring as an

important aspect in novices learning to teach (Holmes Group, 1986, 1990), and most

teachers, when they recalled their professional education, named their field experience or

student teaching as the most important element in their development as teachers (Guyton &

McIntyre, 1990). This experience of student teaching most often involved pre-service

teachers assuming the responsibilities of teaching while establishing and developing

relationships with one or more mentor teachers and a university supervisor. They were

surrounded not only by other adults who shared in certain power relationships, but also by

students with whom they shared a different sort of power relationship (Jackson, 2001). Thus,

student teaching was a complicated emotional and interpersonal experience that was often

critically important in the making of a teacher (Koerner, Rust, & Baumgartner, 2002).

The cooperating or mentor teacher was a classroom teacher who had been asked by a

teacher education program to work with pre-service teachers in their classrooms. According

to Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann (1987) "cooperating teachers set the affective and

intellectual tone and also shape what student teachers learn by the way they conceive and

carry out their roles as teacher educators" (p. 256). Some cooperating teachers allowed pre-

service teachers into their classrooms as participant observers, while others viewed pre-

service teachers as colleagues in their own professional development (Koerner, Rust, &

Baumgartner, 2002). Furthermore, these mentor teachers were expected to possess and

model instructional and management strengths and to be active listeners, who were sensitive

to the views of others and who were able and willing to articulate the intricacies of their craft









and the subtleties of the school culture (Enz & Cook, 1992). In addition to these socializing

functions, mentor teachers also served as educational colleagues who supported pre-service

teachers as they reflected on their experiences and gained insights that promoted the

development of their teaching skills. Finally, those mentor teachers who acted as agents of

change sought to break down barriers that prevented teachers from sharing, inquiring, and

collaborating about their teaching (Enz & Cook, 1992). In these ways, the mentor teacher

was still cast in the roles of expert and director, albeit a caring and nurturing one.

Pre-service teachers had rather broad conceptions of the roles of their mentor teachers

and often relied on them to be models of good pedagogy and classroom management (Copas,

1984). Additionally they expected their mentor teachers to provide them with the basic

information needed to adjust to their placement, to help them acquire materials and

resources, to involve them in planning and evaluation, to hold conferences with them

regularly, to observe them teach, and to provide feedback on their teaching (Copas, 1984;

Grimmett & Ratzlaff, 1986). Moreover, the relationship that developed between mentor and

pre-service teacher often had a significant effect on the mentor teacher' s own work and

career (Ganser, 1996).

Furthermore, a study by Wildman, Magliaro, Niles and Niles (1992) found that pre-

service teachers expected their mentors to encourage reflection, direction and support their

actions and plans, to provide direct assistance in the development of a product, policy, or

process, as well as to provide information or products for the pre-service teachers' possible

use or modification. In other words, mentor teachers were expected to encourage and

support their mentees. This research also found that the personality characteristics of the

mentor affected the nature and effectiveness of the relationship. The following mentor









characteristics were deemed important by pre-service teachers: (a) willingness to mentor, (b)

sensitivity, (c) helpful, but not authoritarian, (d) diplomatic, (e) able to anticipate problems,

(f) enthusiastic about teaching, and (g) good role model at all times (Wildman et. al, 1992).

Moreover, the prime trait that supported and maintained the relationship was the willingness

of the mentor teacher to mentor. However, the personality characteristics of the pre-service

teacher sometimes undermined the mentoring relationship. The traits mentioned most often

by mentors as having a negative impact on the mentoring relationship included the pre-

service teachers' inability to admit problems and ask for and accept help, their unwillingness

to reciprocate in the sharing process, as well as their lack of professionalism with regard to

attendance, punctuality, and dress code (Wildman et. al., 1992).

Hence, mentors and mentees often entered a mentoring relationship with specific

expectations of each other. Perhaps none were more important than the pre-service teachers'

expectations for encouragement and counsel with regard to their instructional decision-

making and classroom management. These aspects of learning to teach and their

implications for mentoring are discussed in the next two sections.

Classroom Instruction and Mentoring

Providing pre-service teachers with opportunities to become involved in structuring

classroom environments for learning and building a series of experiences for students who

have a wide range of abilities, interests, and learning needs was an important aspect of

mentoring novice teachers in the complexities of classroom instruction (Gunter, Estes, &

Schwab, 1999). In these ways, mentors supported pre-service teachers as they began the

process of constructing their identities as teachers, identities that would remain flexible and

sensitive to social contexts (Danielewicz, 2001). Consequently, mentoring novice teachers as










they planned and provided instruction was an important aspect of their learning to teach in

real world classrooms.

Current conceptions of teaching have cast teachers as instructional decision-makers

who "set goals and developed a rationale for instruction, defined obj ectives, constructed a

means of evaluation, created units of study that will encompass the content, and designed

lessons for instruction using a variety of instructional models" (Gunter et. al., 1999, p. 1). In

this way, teachers were responsible for assessing their students' needs, abilities, and interests

and providing instruction that was differentiated and culturally relevant. They also needed to

be aware of the local, state, and federal mandates that influenced what their students needed

to accomplish and were expected to adapt the curriculum and their individual lessons

accordingly. It was through engaging in all of these instructional activities and soliciting

feedback from their mentors that pre-service teachers constructed identities as educators and

reflective practitioners, who created environments in which their students developed

understandings of content, as well as the habits that would promote their engagement in life-

long learning.

Classroom Management and Mentoring

Pre-service teachers also needed to develop their skills, strategies, and dispositions as

classroom managers who were concerned with creating and maintaining environments that

promoted and supported students' learning. According to Evertson and Emmer (1981),

effective classroom management consisted of teacher behaviors that produced high levels of

student involvement in classroom activities, minimal amounts of student behavior that

interfered with the teacher' s or other students' work, and efficient use of instructional time.

Classroom management also included the related functions of student socialization and

disciplinary interventions. Student socialization included "articulation of ideals;









communication of expectations; and modeling, teaching, and reinforcing of desirable

personal attributes and behavior; as well as counseling, behavior modification, and other

remediation work with students who show poor academic or social adjustment" (Brophy,

2006, p. 17); while disciplinary interventions "are actions taken to elicit or compel improved

behavior from students who fail to conform to expectations, especially when their

misbehavior is salient or sustained enough to disrupt the classroom management system"

(Brophy, 2006, p. 17).

Hence, teachers who were effective classroom managers planned rules and procedures

carefully, systematically taught these to their students, organized instruction to maximize

student task engagement and success, and communicated directions and expectations to

students. It was also critical for teachers to consider the developmental progress of theur

students, as understanding child and adolescent growth and development, as well as issues of

students' cognitive and cultural diversity was essential for laying the foundation of an

effective and positive learning environment (Brophy, 2006). Thus, mentees expected their

mentors to model effective management strategies and to engage them in dialogue about the

consequences of their management decisions.

Ethical Considerations and Mentoring

Mentoring also involved some ethical considerations. Research by Silva and Tom

(2001) suggested that mentoring had a moral basis, which consisted of three imperatives: (a)

embracing a moral stance, (b) creating a moral context, and (c) engaging in a pedagogy of the

moral. These imperatives recognized the importance of mentors creating spaces and caring

contexts and engaging in moral pedagogies that moved pre-service teachers beyond

competency (Lemma, 1993) and encouraged reflection and critical thought (Zeichner &

Listen, 1996). The first imperative, embracing a moral stance was central to a mentor' s










acceptance of a mentoring role. According to Silva and Tom (2001), becoming a mentor

meant assuming responsibility for a pre-service teacher' s growth, which was either an end in

itself or a means for furthering their students' growth.

In addition, three motives were ascribed to mentors who assumed responsibility for a

pre-service teacher' s growth (Silva & Tom, 2001). First, many mentors engaged in

mentoring because they believed that having an extra "teacher" in the classroom enabled

them to more effectively meet the needs of all the students in their classrooms. Second, some

mentors believed that they had a professional responsibility to educate tomorrow' s teachers

so that these new teachers would be able to meet the demands and needs of tomorrow' s

students and schools. Finally, many mentors felt obligated to engage in their own

professional development as teachers and teacher educators. These motives for mentoring

occurred singularly or in combination and were dependent on the individual mentor' s stance

toward and philosophy of mentoring.

The creation of a moral context provided a caring and supportive place in which pre-

service teachers could develop their skills and identities. Such contexts were accomplished

through conversations between mentors and mentees which encouraged pre-service teachers

to take risks and to seize opportunities for developing their own ideas (Silva & Tom, 2001).

Additionally, the imperative of engaging in a moral pedagogy suggested that mentors went

beyond the transmission of knowledge and skills to intentionally supporting pre-service

teachers as they constructed their own pedagogical thinking through reflection and inquiry

(Silva & Tom, 2001). Moral mentors did not advocate a particular set of values or promote a

specific view of good teaching. Instead, these mentors acknowledged the individuality of the

pre-service teacher and fostered his or her independence. Thus, these moral imperatives










required mentors to act in ways that promoted and supported the pre-service teachers' growth

and development (Silva & Tom, 2001).

New Directions

In their review of the literature, Wang and Odell (2002) found that learning to teach in

a manner consistent with standards-based reform was (a) a process of active construction and

reconstruction of beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, and pedagogical learner

knowledge, and of the relationships among them, (b) situated in the practice of teaching in

which the relationship between theory and practice could be explored and assumptions about

teaching and learning examined, (c) an ongoing process that involved individual reflection on

and collaborative inquiry about teaching practice, and (d) a process that required mentoring

and coaching, resources and time. Mentors of pre-service teachers must be committed to

teaching reform and to supporting pre-service teachers as they continually questioned their

practices, beliefs, and the context in which they were situated.

Recently, policymakers have attempted to define teacher mentoring policies and

guidelines by aligning them with standards for professional teaching (Odell & Huling, 2000).

They attempted to define what mentors must know in order to support novices and pre-

service teachers in learning to teach in a way that educational reformers expected. First,

mentors must be able to work with pre-service teachers as agents of change (Cochran-Smith,

1991). They needed to know how to support pre-service teachers in problematizing their

teaching practice, in uncovering the assumptions that supported their practices, and in

constructing and reconstructing curriculum and practice in their unique contexts (Wang &

Odell, 2002). Second, mentors needed to develop a deeper understanding of subj ect matter,

as well as how to engage pre-service teachers in developing similar understandings of

subjects, students, and their relationships (Wang & Odell, 2002). Third, mentors were










expected to have a deep understanding of the relationship between knowledge and teaching

practice and to support pre-service teachers in developing these understandings (Carter,

1988). Finally, mentors were expected to inquire systematically about and critically reflect

on pre-service teachers' practices and engage these novices in learning to teach through

inquiry and reflection (Wang & Odell, 2002). They were expected to guide pre-service

teachers' discovery of learning to teach, rather than simply providing a repertoire of teaching

strategies and techniques. Thus, mentors, alongside their mentees, were co-explorers of

teaching practices, rather than evaluators of the positive and negative aspects of pre-service

teachers' observed teaching behaviors (Wang & Odell, 2002).

Moreover, Achinstein and Athanases (2006) have suggested that "mentors are not bomn,

but developed through conscious, deliberate, ongoing learning" (p. 3), and this process of

becoming a mentor involved reflecting on one's own practice, inquiring into teaching and

learning, and engaging in communities of practice with other mentors (Yendol-Hoppey &

Dana, 2007). These mentors were problem posers who examined practice and sought to

identify avenues for ongoing learning and growth. Furthermore, they worked with novices

and pre-service teachers to co-construct knowledge and learn from their mentoring

relationships (Achinstein & Villar, 2004). Thus, this new conception of mentoring cast

mentors as lifelong learners and, "situated mentoring in complex contexts where issues

collide and compete" (Achinstein & Villar, 2004, p. 8). Mentors were viewed as

"cothinkers" who engaged in productive consultations with their mentees (Feiman-Nemser,

2001, p. 22). In this way the act of mentoring moved from knowledge transmission to

knowledge transformation as mentors collaborated with novice and pre-service teachers to

challenge classrooms and schools in order to foster reform (Cochran-Smith & Paris, 1995).









Summary

Mentoring has crossed disciplines and undergone a number of instantiations.

Currently, mentoring seems to be understood as co-constructed by the mentor and mentee

within the confines of a situated relationship that must be continually negotiated. The work

of mentoring no longer signifies the passing of knowledge to a less experienced mentee.

Instead, mentor and mentee work together to problematize, inquire into, and understand, not

only their own individual and situated practices, but also the larger institutional and political

arenas in which education is enacted. Peddy (2001) suggests that mentoring is often more art

than science. Sometimes the mentor must be a storyteller; at other times, an empathetic

listener. Thus, "the art [of mentoring] is not merely knowing what to say, but how to say it

and when (Peddy, 2001, p. 25). Because time, experience together, and the perceptions and

interpretations of each participant continually define the roles of the mentor and mentee, the

mentoring relationships itself is a dynamic and interpersonal process (Lucas, 2001). Through

the relational process:

The partners come to recognize their similarities and differences, are challenged to
reassess their commitment to the relationship, respond to the reactions of their partners,
cope with their own feelings of connection or discomfort, are affected by the limits of
the social and physical context of their meeting place, explore the effect of engaging in
different types of activities, and grow in their affection or lack of affection for one
another over time (Lucas, 2001, p. 46).

Given all the research devoted to understanding the relationship between mentor and

mentee, it seems that mentoring has most often been described and interpreted based on the

experiences or the memories of one of the participants or conceptualized by scholars who

have reviewed the literature. There are studies that describe the roles that mentors and

mentees assume, as well as the developmental stages of the relationship itself. Moreover, the

mentoring relationship has been characterized as being beneficial to both participants with









the mentee gaining the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for membership within

a profession, and the mentor feeling valued for promoting the professional development of a

future colleague. The relationship even has the potential of becoming a vehicle for change as

mentoring moves from knowledge transmission to knowledge transformation (Cochran-

Smith & Paris, 1995). However, what seems to be missing is a window through which to

view the lived experiences of classroom teachers (mentors) and pre-service teachers

(mentees), as they engage in the dialogue and activities that may influence their

understanding and practice of teaching. How is the relationship enacted and negotiated? In

what ways does mentoring enable and encourage transformation? Consequently, this study

will investigate how mentors and mentees utilize discourse in negotiating their relationship,

what role this mentoring relationship plays in their co-construction of knowledge about

teaching and learning, and how this "knowledge of practice" might transform their individual

identities and practices (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2001)









CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative inquiry was a natural choice for my study because it is concerned with

understanding and interpreting what other human beings are doing and saying (Schwandt, 2000).

Thus, this type of inquiry provided me with methods that enabled me to focus specifically on

what in-service teachers and pre-service teaching interns were doing and saying as they

constructed and negotiated their mentoring relationships. Additionally, a qualitative design was

suited to studying the mentoring relationships as they were constructed and enacted within

sociopolitical systems and cultures. It also accommodated a description of the role of the

researcher, as well as a description of my own biases and ideological preferences. Finally,

because qualitative design requires an ongoing analysis of the data, I was able to construct a

more authentic and compelling narrative of what occurred in the study and within the stories of

the participants (Janesick, 2000).

Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to describe the qualitative methodology that I

employed as I conducted this study. This includes the purpose of my study and my research

questions, the theoretical framework in which I situated my study, a description of the

participants and context, as well as the data collection and data analysis methods that I utilized.

The chapter concludes with a consideration of the trustworthiness of my research and the

possible limitations of my research design and methods.

Purpose of the Study

My personal interests, as well as my beliefs that mentoring and the identities of mentor

and mentee are socially constructed through discourse, led me to design a study that investigated

how mentors and mentees utilized discourse in negotiating their relationship and what role the

mentoring relationship played in their co-construction of knowledge about teaching and learning,









as well as the transformation of their individual identities and practices. The co-construction and

negotiation of this relationship was studied through data collected as the mentors and mentees

engaged in interactions (teaching, reflecting, and inquiry), which provided snapshots of their

situated relationship at particular moments in time. The participants also reflected upon the

development and evolution of the relationship, as well as how the relationship served as a

catalyst in the transformation of their identities and practices. The following questions guided

my research:

* How do the relationships between mentors and mentees, engaged in studying their
practices, develop and evolve?

* How do the relationships among mentors and mentees and the discourse(s) in which they
are situated inform/transform their identities and practices?

Theoretical Perspective: Social Constructionism

Because I was interested in studying the relationship between mentors and mentees and

investigating the development and evolution of their relational responsibilities, as well as how

the participants perceived and understood their mentoring relationships (Bodgan & Biklen,

1998), I framed my study within the epistemology of constructionism and the theoretical

perspective of social constructionism. A constructionist epistemology rej ects the idea that there

is an objective truth waiting to be discovered. Truth, or meaning, is a result of our engagement

with the world (Crotty, 1998). In fact, different people might construct different meanings

regarding the same phenomenon; thus, subj ect and obj ect emerge as partners in the generation of

meaning, albeit, influenced by the culture in which they are situated (Crotty, 1998; Gergen,

1999, 2001). In this way, "the mind, which can only see what its existing cognitive structures

allow, creates rather than reflects, and the nature of this creation cannot be separated from the

surrounding social world" (Kincheloe, 2005, p. 42). In addition, this meaning making is always

an ongoing accomplishment (Crotty, 1998); our co-constructions of knowledge and relationships









are constantly in flux, negotiated through the diverse perspectives of those participating in the

production of knowledge. Thus, any meaning we make is always partial and incomplete.

As humans, we have always attempted to make sense of the reality in which we are

situated. Consequently, constructionism recognizes the unique experience of each one of us and

suggests that each individual's understanding is valid and worthy of respect in the construction

of meaning. According to Gergen (1999), this stance has led to the characterization of

constructionist views as relativist. "As it is said, constructionism has no values; it seems to

tolerate everything and stand for nothing. Worse, it discourages commitment to any set of values

or ideals; all are 'just constructionns"' (Gergen, 1999, p. 230). However, Gergen (1999)

maintains that constructionism does not espouse relativism. Instead, he maintains that there is no

position of relativism that is a transcendent viewpoint from which one could make decisions

about the merits of various positions. Indeed, every viewpoint espouses some political and moral

values. Constructionism simply invites us to engage in a process of constructing and possibly re-

constructing our understandings and positions. As Gergen (1999) suggests:

All evaluations, deliberations, or comparisons of competing positions will necessarily
carry with them presumptions of the real and the good. To be intelligible at all is to render
support to some view of the world and what constitutes proper action within it.
Constructionism may invite a posture of continuing reflection, but each moment of
reflection will inevitably by value-saturated. (p. 231).

Therefore, because constructionism does not value one ideal over another, it invites

deliberation about these positions or perspectives and provides us with the opportunity to create

new, possibly more appropriate constructions. Because constructionism does not privilege one

tradition or position over another, and because we all participate in the cultural generation of

meaning, constructionism provides all of us with an opportunity to engage in a dialogue that

"challenges the 'truth' and 'the facts' of the dominant order" (Gergen, 1999, p. 23 1) and to










participate in the construction of our social worlds. All interpretations and understandings are

subject to question as we create situated knowledge and ways of being in the world.

Furthermore, defining or arguing for an obj ective "truth" is never the goal of

con structi omsm.

Constructionism does not ask to be accepted because it is true. Rather, constructionism
invites collaboration among people in giving sense and significance to the world and
pressing on toward more inclusive futures together. Alternate "truths" are not thereby
abolished; they are invited as participants in the dialogue (Gergen, 1999, p. 228).

This collaboration with others enables us to make sense of our realities, the intersubjective

worlds we share with other, and to constructt meanings for our realities that are continually

understood and negotiated individually, or through interactions and communications with others

(Berger & Luckmann, 1966). However, our knowledge of what others are doing and saying is

always contingent upon some background knowledge or context that was defined through shared

meanings, beliefs, values, and practices (Schwandt, 2000). In this way, although the others in

this common reality might not share our perspectives, there is often an ongoing correspondence

between the meanings of the self and the meanings of the other; therefore, one' s self and the

other are able to share a "common" sense about their reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). This

"common" understanding is necessary, even paramount, to the success of our interactions with

others, for without it, communication and relationships would be difficult, if not impossible.

Moreover, social constructivism emphasizes the importance of culture and context in

understanding what occurs in society and constructing knowledge based on that understanding.

Therefore, moving from one culture to another, or from one discourse community to another,

often provides strikingly diverse interpretations and understandings about reality and

phenomena. "What constructionism drives home is that there is no true or valid interpretation;

there are useful interpretations and...there are liberating forms of interpretation" (Crotty, 1998,










p. 47). Accordingly, constructionist research requires that the researcher not remain blinded by

the conventional meanings she has been taught to associate with the obj ect; instead, the

constructionist researcher is "invited to approach the obj ect in a radical spirit of openness to [the

phenomenon's potential] for new or richer meaning. It is an invitation to reinterpretation"

(Crotty, 1998, p. 51). Gergen (2001) concurs and characterizes a constructionist intelligibility as

one that opens a space for reflection, reconsideration and possible reconstructionn as we explore

the possibilities of new meanings and new futures. Thus, constructionism is a means of

broadening and democratizing the conversation about human practices and of submitting these

practices to a continuous process of reflection (Gergen, 1994). In this spirit, my role as a

constructionist researcher compelled me to engage in an ongoing analysis of my data and to

search for possible interpretations, always recognizing that my understandings must be subj ected

to continued scrutiny and challenge.

Additionally, constructionism focuses on the collective generation and transmission of

meaning (Crotty, 1998). In the same vein, Gergen (1994) argued that knowledge is the product

of social processes and that all statements of the true, the rational, and the good are products of

particular communities of interpreters. Thus, terms and actions acquire their meaning within the

particular traditions of a relationship or community (Gergen, 2001).

Furthermore, the taken for granted world of today is also influenced by the meaning

making of previous generations (Gergen, 1999). Culture directs our behavior and organizes our

experience and is best seen as the source, rather than the result, of human thought and behavior

(Crotty, 1998). We are born into a world of meaning, inheriting a cultural lens through which we

view reality. Our culture brings certain phenomena into view for us and endows them with

meaning, while, at the same time, predisposes us to ignore other phenomena or meanings










(Crotty, 1998). Phenomena come to be reified, and we believe that the sense we make of things

is the way things actually are.

In addition, layers of interpretation are placed on top of one another and our sedimented

cultural meanings serve as a barrier between the culture in which we reside and the cultures of

others (Crotty, 1998). Gergen (1999) suggested that our explorations of other understandings

draw us into questions of similarity and difference that might aid us as we evaluate our inherited

interpretations and consider their sustainability. We might come to realize that every evaluation

of the other is not so much a reflection of the real; instead it is a reflection of our own modes of

being and how it is that we constructed the world and with what end in mind (Gergen, 1999). A

social constructionist sensibility recognizes that "the way things are" is simply just "the sense we

make of them" (Crotty, 1998). The researcher views her understandings as "historically and

culturally effected interpretations rather than eternal truths of some kind" (Crotty, 1998, p. 64).

Different cultures in different eras have given birth to very divergent interpretations of the same

phenomenon. The social constructionist researcher understands that when she describes or

interprets something, she is "reporting how something is seen and reacted to, and thereby

meaningfully constructed, within a given community" (Crotty, 1998, p. 64).

In this way, social constructionism served as a meaningful framework for understanding

and interpreting mentoring. The mentoring relationships in this study were fluid, ongoing, and

situated constructionns that were shaped by the interactions between a mentor and his/her

mentee(s) and their individual relational histories provided the lenses through which they

understood and interpreted their relationship. The individual understandings that mentors and

mentees brought with them to a new mentoring relationship were influenced by the cultures or









discourse communities in which they were situated and the sociohistorical interpretations that

their particular communities acknowledged and valued.

However, in order for a mentoring relationship to be effective, mentor and mentees,

despite their differing perspectives, created some shared understandings of mentoring that

provided a foundation for their work together. In this way, mentoring was always understood

within the boundaries of a particular mentoring relationship, although these situated

understandings might have transferability to other relationships and contexts. Consequently,

mentoring has been transformed in the process of being transferred from one profession or

community to another, and while the sense that educators make of mentoring was influenced by

the ways in which they understood their community of practice, as well as their motivation and

rationale for engaging in mentoring relationships, the dialogue about the meaning and value of

mentoring continues to refine and modify our understanding of this phenomenon.

Constructionism and Relationships

A constructionist perspective, specifically social constructivism, was well suited to a

study of the relationships that developed and evolved between mentors and mentees because the

process by which their relationships developed, as well as the learning that was constructed by

the participants was often idiosyncratic and unpredictable. Due to this variability in the nature of

individual relationships, McNamee and Gergen (1999) suggest that we develop "an appreciation

of the contingent, indeterminate, historical, and relational aspects of our modes of constructing

reality" (p. 20) when we reflect upon how our relationships are constructed and maintained, as

well as the ways in which the relationships and the participants are transformed. Thus, each

mentoring relationship created a unique construction of reality that was shaped by the relational

histories and distinctive perspectives of the participants.









Constructionists also suggest that individuals be viewed as the manifestations of multiple

relationships and that their relationships are enacted as particularized constructions of the world

that are influenced by the participants' unique relational histories. Therefore, any single

description or narration of mentoring can no longer be considered the only representation of

reality (Crotty, 1998). At different times, in different places, and between different people there

have been very divergent interpretations of the same phenomena. Indeed, "different people may

well inhabit different worlds and these worlds constitute for them diverse ways of knowing"

(Crotty, 1998). The mentoring relationship itself, as well as our understanding of it, is locally

and socially constructed in our relationships and "our interpretations [of mentoring] are not

constructed in isolation but against a backdrop of shared understandings, practices, language, and

so forth" (Schwandt, 2000 p.197). In this way, our cultural understandings influence the

development of the mentoring relationship, but, at the same time, the divergent perceptions and

interpretations of mentor and mentee actively influence the mentoring as it occurs, redefining the

identities of the mentor and mentee and the activities of mentoring (Lucas, 2001). It was this

relational evolution and its transformational effect on mentors and mentees that was explored in

this study.

Constructionism and Discourse

Constructionism also places primary emphasis on discourse as a means through which

self and realities are articulated, as well as the ways in which such discourses function within

social relationships (Gergen, 1999). In fact, the construction of the relationship itself is a

dialogic process that has two transformative functions: (a) transforming the participants'

understanding of the action in question and (b) altering the relations among the participants

themselves (McNamee & Gergen, 1999).









Moreover, because mentoring is often described as a social relationship that uses

language in order to construct the identities, activities, beliefs, and attitudes of its participants,

this study considered the questions posed by Gergen (1999): "What are the repercussions of

these ways of talking? Who gains? Who is hurt? Who is silenced? What traditions are

sustained? Which are undermined? How do I judge the future we are creating?" (p. 62)

Additionally, because mentor and mentee are often immersed in many discourse communities,

they must assume responsibility for developing an awareness of the connections between these

diverse discourse communities. Furthermore, they must reflect upon the influence these

communities exert on the construction of their relationships and identities, so that ultimately,

mentor and mentee are able to reconstruct the world in a less adversarial way, which is better

suited to their needs as they engage in a relationship (Gergen, 1999). Hence, mentors and

mentees might choose to ask: How are we involved? How can we work together to create

change? (McNamee & Gergen, 1999). These questions seemed especially appropriate for

mentors and mentees who embraced an understanding of mentoring that was educative and who

constructed identities as agents of reform in their classrooms and beyond.

Defining Discourse

The mentors and mentees in this study used Discourse to enact specific social and cultural

perspectives, activities, and identities. For Gee (2005), their language-in-use (discourse with a

"little d") often commingled with non-language aspects of communication thereby creating "big

D" Discourses. Thus, while discourse is specifically associated with the language participants

used, Discourse is understood as "ways of acting, interacting, feeling, believing, valuing, and

using various sorts of obj ects, symbols, tools, and technologies to recognize yourself and

others as meaning and meaningful in certain ways" (Gee, 2005, p. 7). As mentors and mentees

interacted with each other they were producing, reproducing, sustaining, and transforming a










given "form of life" or Discourse (Gee, 2005). In this way, "all life [or relationships] for all of

us is just a patchwork of thoughts, words, objects, events, actions, and interactions in

Discourses" (Gee, 2005, p. 7).

The dialogic interactions in which the mentors and mentees engaged over the course of this

study revealed that they moved in and among several Discourses. The sociohistorical and

political foundations and interpretations of these Discourses which have been enacted,

interpreted, and transformed by often disparate communities of practice, as well as a number of

scholars situated in various disciplines, are described in Chapter 2. Furthermore, because these

Discourses recognized situated ways of interacting, the behaviors of those engaged in discursive

relationships involved the positioning of one' s self and one' s relational partnerships, as well as

the distribution and negotiation of power. Social constructionism would suggest that these

positioning and the distribution of power would be fluid, co-constructed by the relational

partners, and subj ected to a process of continual reflection and transformation as the participants

collaboratively constructed their own social world and their practices and identities within this

world.

Discourse and the Positioning of Self

Scholars have suggested a number of understandings of identity and self. Some view

identity as a relatively stable self that remains more or less uniform across contexts. Others

believe that identities are multiple and in a constant state of flux. For Gee (2001) identity is "the

'kind of person' one is recognized as 'being,' at a given time and place, [which] can change from

moment to moment in the interaction, can change from context to context, and of course, can be

ambiguous or unstable" (p. 99). He describes four ways of viewing identity: (a) nature identity,

(b) institution identity, (c) discourse identity, and (d) affinity identity.









According to Gee (2001) nature identity is a state developed from forces in nature, such as

being an identical twin. These identities arise through "forces" over which we have no control.

However, they can only become identities when they are recognized as meaningful by us and

others. In contrast, an institution identity is a position authorized by authorities within

institutions, such as being a classroom teacher or a student. This is not an identity provided by

nature, nor can it by accomplished without the authority of an institution. In contrast, a discourse

identity is an individual trait recognized in the discourse of or with "rational" individuals. An

example of this would be someone who is recognized as an accomplished teacher. This identity

depends on the recognition of others, as it is only because people treat, talk about, and interact

with this teacher as an accomplished teacher that she is, indeed, one. Finally, an affinity identity

is an experience shared in the practice of "affinity groups," such as Trekkies or professional

learning communities. People in an affinity group share "allegiance to, access to, and

participation in specific practices" (Gee, 2001, p. 105) that provides each member with the

experiences necessary for participation in the group. The process through which an affinity

identity is constructed is accomplished through participation in and sharing among members of a

particular community.

Danielewicz (2001), who wrote about teachers' selves, defines identity as "our

understanding of who we are and of who we think other people are" (p. 10). These identities are

not fixed and they are always in flux, always multiple, and continually under construction.

Every person is composed of multiple, often conflicting identities, which exist in volatile states

of construction or reconstruction, reformation or erosion, addition or expansion (Danielewicz,

2001). Ultimately, no matter what the context, we are continuously engaged in becoming

something or someone (Smith, 1988). Individuals are constituted by and their identities are










produced through Discourse (Danielewicz, 2001; Gee 2006, 1999). Because all of us are

members of a variety of Discourse communities, we possess the agency to determine and

transform our identities, but, at the same time, the Discourse affects the construction of our

individual identities. It is this interplay of internal and external forces in the midst of social

interaction that enables the construction of specific and situated identities (Danielewicz, 2001).

In this study, the identities of the mentors and mentees tended to be created through their

experiences with institutions or discursive partners and practices. The university identified the

individual participants as mentors and mentees. However, it was within their situated

relationships that the individual mentors and mentees co-constructed and transformed their

identities as teachers, as well as mentors and mentees, and they accomplished this through

engaging each other in dialogue that was situated within a particular Discourse community.

Positioning can influence the construction of identity and is understood as "the discursive

construction of personal stories that make a person' s actions intelligible and relatively

determinate as social acts and within which the members of the conversation have specific

locations" (Harre & van Langenhove, 1999, p.16). Fluid positions, rather than fixed roles, are

used by people to make sense of and cope with the situations in which they find themselves.

These positions are relational and emerge naturally out of their conversations and contexts.

However, there are times when an individual seizes a dominant position within a conversation

and forces other speakers into positions they would not occupy voluntarily. Additionally, initial

positioning may be challenged and speakers are sometimes repositioned.

There are several forms in which positioning occurs as a discursive practice. First order

positioning refer to the way people locate themselves and others within an ongoing and lived

storyline. Within a conversation each participant always positions the other while









simultaneously positioning him or herself. Thus, first order positioning include the discursive

practices in which people position themselves, position others, and are positioned by them.

Second order positioning occur when the first order positioning is questioned and has to be

negotiated. These second order positioning can be questioned within the original conversation

or within another conversation about that first conversation. In this way the discursive practices

that result in these second order positioning become a topic or target.

The rights for self-positioning and other-positioning are unequally distributed, creating

four forms of intentional positioning: (a) situations of deliberate self-positioning, (b) situations of

forced self-positioning, (c) situations of deliberate positioning of others, and (d) situations of

forced positioning of others (Harre & van Langenhove, 1999). Deliberate self positioning

expresses a personal identity and references a unique point of view, or an event in one' s

biography. This kind of positioning assumes the speaker has a goal in mind, and the stories

people tell about themselves vary according to how they wish to present themselves. Forced

self-positioning differs from deliberate self-positioning in that the initiative for the positioning is

with someone or something else (i.e., an institution), rather than the person involved.

The deliberate, as well as the forced positioning of others can be accomplished in the

presence or absence of the person being positioned. The deliberate positioning and forced

positioning of others when the person is present creates a space in the speaker' s storyline which

may or may not be taken up by the person being positioned. People also differ in their capacity to

position themselves and others, in their power to achieve positioning acts, as well as in their

willingness or intention to position and be positioned. However, all conversations involve some

sort of positioning.










Therefore, although all the classroom teachers in this study have been identified as

mentors, they used dialogue to position themselves in various ways depending on their

understandings of mentoring, their particular situations, and the needs of their individual

mentees. In this way, mentors might choose to position themselves as facilitators, thereby

positioning their mentees as teachers or practitioners in one instance, and in another

circumstance they might position themselves as models that the mentee was expected to emulate.

Discourse and Power

Power is an omnipresent and tightly intertwined aspect of the ways in which we, as

relational beings, relate to each other and our systems of knowledge or truth (Foucault, 1980).

Indeed, power is often sought, envied, and feared as it controls, subjugates, represses, and can

provide a catalyst for resistance. "What makes power hold good, what makes it accepted, is

simply the fact that it doesn't only weight on us a force that says no, but that it traverses and

produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse" (Foucault, 1980, p.

119). In this way, power produces most of our ideas about what we should do and be in order to

locate, supervise, and control individuals.

Foucault focused on the forms of knowledge and techniques of power that serve to

discipline and train human beings, thereby turning them into the sorts of obj ects society needs.

This disciplining occurs through the exercise of classification, surveillance, normalization,

reward, and punishment, and "these disciplining forces that affect us individually include the

beliefs, expectations, values, practices (e.g., of Discourses) which not only dictate what we

should say, but reward or punish us when we fail to comply with the standards built into them"

(Jardine, 2005, p. 25). Thus, these discursive and nondiscursive ideas, expectations, values, and

practices leave us with the sense of being continually monitored, compared, classified, and

judged in relation to disciplinary categories of the normal and the abnormal. Once we are









acculturated, we then experience the world through a set of discursive practices. To the extent

that this disciplining power is successful we became, willingly or not, complicit in its

continuance and maintenance. Jardine (2005) reminds us that Foucault insisted we be

"continually vigilant about the effect of everything in which we participate in order to undo the

obj ectifying, controlling effects exerted by the operation of knowledge and acts of power in

modernist, Western normalizing, disciplining societies" (p. 26). Finally, Foucault (1990)

believed that critique is a crucially important aspect of life and that where power is exerted there

is always resistance:

A critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. It is a matter of
pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar unchallenged,
unconsidered modes of thought the practice that we accept rests. Criticism is a matter of
flushing out that thought and trying to change it: to show that things are not as self-evident
as one believed, to see that what is accepted as self-evident will no longer be accepted as
such. Practicing criticism is a matter of making facile gestures difficult (Foucault, 1990,
pp. 154-155).

Heinrich (1995) also investigated the ways in which power is manifested and used in

relationships. Her participants described two types of power: personal power and legitimate

power. Personal power was the power within a person and both mentors and mentees have this

power simply through the virtue of being human. Legitimate power was power bestowed by an

institution. For instance, only the classroom teachers in this study have legitimate power vested

in them by the university and the school district.

Heinrich (1995) also noted three ways in which power was manifested within

relationships: (a) "power with" relationships, (b) "power over" relationship, and (c) "power

disabused" relationships. In "power with" relationships, power was defined as strength and it

was shared. "Power with" mentors owned their legitimate power, shared their power with their

mentees, and negotiated any conflict openly and directly. They balanced the task and

interpersonal dimensions of their mentoring relationships. They also protected their mentees,










when necessary, within the bureaucratic system. In "power over" relationships, mentees

relinquished their personal power and found themselves in relationships in which control,

authority, domination, concern for being objective and fair, and strength in the form of force

were central issues. "Power over" mentors owned their legitimate power, established

relationship with mentees that were hierarchical and task oriented, and handled conflict through

direct confrontation. Finally, in "power disowned" relationships, the mentor abdicated her

legitimate power in order to focus on interpersonal harmony to the detriment of task

accomplishment. These mentors were kind and empathetic as long as the situation did not call

for advocacy or direct confrontation.

All relationships involve the negotiation of power, and the mentoring relationship was no

exception. In these relationships, power was manifested in the discursive practices of the

participants and often served to control and manage them within the contexts of their situated

classrooms. However, as Foucault (1990) has suggested, this power also provided an impetus

for resistance, and those mentors and mentees who engaged in educative mentoring called into

question the disciplinary nature of our taken for granted understandings of schooling and

challenged their previously unquestioned assumptions about their own teaching practices and

identities.

The Research Context

In qualitative inquiry, context is critical to understanding (Patton, 2002). Patton (2002)

cited portraitist Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot' s (1997) understanding of context as crucial for the

documentation of human experience and I found her insights relevant for my study:

By context, I [Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot] mean the setting--physical, geographic, temporal,
historical, cultural, aesthetic--within which action take place. Context becomes the
framework, the reference point, the map, the ecological sphere; it is used to place people
and action in time and space and as a resource for understanding what they say and do.
The context is rich in clues for interpreting the experience of the actors in the setting. We









have no idea how to decipher or decode an action, a gesture, a conversation, or an
exclamation unless we see it embedded in context (p. 41).

Thus, the context in which the mentors and mentees constructed their relationships, their

practices, and their identities influenced their constructions of mentoring and their discursive

interactions in multiple and sometimes unexpected ways. The next sections describe a number

of aspects of the research context including the city and school in which the research was

conducted, the university's teacher preparation program in which all of the pre-service teachers

were situated, as well as a description of the participants and the researcher and the roles they

assumed within the research setting.

Allenton

This study took place in Allenton, a rural, southeastern city, which was located fourteen

miles from the state's largest and oldest university. Allenton had a population of 17,420, with a

median age of 28.8. Seventy-seven percent of the population was Caucasian, 20% black, 1%

Asian, 5% Hispanic, and 3% other. There were 6,752 households with a median income of

$46,863. It was located along a maj or interstate corridor and supported industry that ranged

from agricultural to manufacturing.

Allenton Elementary School

Allenton Elementary School, located in Allenton, and one of the oldest continuously

operating schools in the United States, provided the specific site in which this study was situated.

The school served nearly 500 students in grades three, four, and five. Sixty-four percent of the

students were Caucasian, 29% black, 4% Hispanic, 2% multiracial and less than 1% American

Indian or Asian. Its mission was excellence through initiative, innovation and involvement.

Moreover, Allenton was a Title I school and 57% of its student population was eligible for the

free or reduced lunch program. The student teacher ratio was 15:1 and 61% of teachers at the









school held an advanced degree. Additionally, Allenton received a grade of "A" from the state's

department of education for the 2006-2007 academic year.

Three classrooms within Allenton Elementary served as the settings for the dialogue

sessions and observations. The demographics of each of the classrooms were representative of

the demographics of the school. These classrooms will be described in more detail in Chapters

4, 5, and 6.

ProTeach: A Teacher Preparation Program

The teacher education program, from which all the pre-service teachers were selected, was

designed to prepare teachers with a dual emphasis in elementary education and mild disabilities.

All graduates were prepared to work with students who are English Speakers of Other Languages

(ESOL). The curriculum of this teacher education program incorporated information about

effective teachers' knowledge, skills, and dispositions, as well as current developments in

instructional approaches and new technologies. Teachers who completed this program would be

capable of: (a) creating and maintaining supportive and productive classrooms for diverse

student populations and (b) working collaboratively with school personnel, families, and

members of the community to develop alternative ways of educating children, including those

who have traditionally been labeled hard-to-teach and hard-to-manage (Ross, Lane, &

McCallum, 2005).

The pre-service teachers in this program were organized into cohorts of 25-35 during each

semester of the program and cohort groups changed at the end of each semester, so that they had

a chance to interact with a variety of their peers across the program. Moreover, all of the pre-

service teachers were involved in early and continuous field experiences. During their freshman

and sophomore years, students engaged in several observation and participation activities in

elementary school classrooms during prerequisite coursework. Beginning in their junior year,










students had required field work each semester of the program. During their junior year, the

students completed a pre-internship which involved spending 16 hours a week in a classroom

over the course of the semester. ProTeach students also completed an internship during their

senior year and this involved full-time attendance in a classroom.

The pre-service teachers who participated in my study were in the second semester of their

junior years and were beginning their pre-internship placements. Two pre-service teachers were

partnered in an elementary school classroom and were expected to design lessons and to plan,

implement, and evaluate accommodations for struggling learners, as well as to engage in various

models of co-teaching. Every effort was made to place these students in schools with inclusive

classrooms in which the teachers modeled best practices (Ross, Lane, & McCallum, 2005).

The Participants and Their Roles

Criterion sampling (Patton, 2002) was used to select three groups of participants from the

ProTeach pre-interns and their classroom mentors. For this study all of the pre-service teaching

interns were registered in the ProTeach teacher education program and completing their pre-

internship during spring, 2007. All of the in-service mentor teachers: (a) were over 21 years of

age, (b) identified by their principal as exemplary teachers, and (c) had at least three years of

teaching experience (d) were teaching at a professional development school (PDS). Professional

development schools were chosen as the site for this research because these schools supported

the development of teachers as leaders and inquirers into their own practice, and I believed that

teachers who have adopted an inquiry stance might be more amenable to becoming members of a

study that was designed to explore their practices. Table 3-1 provides a brief summary of the

participants' biographical information, and their biographies will be described in more detail in

chapters 4, 5, and 6.









All of the participants engaged in a number of roles over the course of this study.

Sometimes they taught lessons in the classroom. Other times they observed and then worked

with individual students as they independently completed assignments and learning activities.

Sometimes, the mentor and mentees engaged each other in conversation during our dialogue

sessions and answered the questions I posed; at other times they participated in specific

mentoring activities, such as pre- and post conferences. Finally, they reflected on their learning

and the transformation of their identities and practices and took part in member checking my

interpretations of their mentoring relationships and their co-construction of knowledge about

teaching and learning.

The Researcher and Her Roles

Subj activity has always been a part of research (Glesne, 1999) and in this section I explore

aspects of my relational history and past experiences that might influence my perceptions and

interpretations of the data in this study. I have spent most of my life in educational contexts.

There were times when I was positioned as a student, and there were other times when I was

positioned as a teacher. I have come to believe that these two identities, student and teacher,

exist for me in a fluid, interactive, and ever changing relationship. One identity influences and

informs the other, and there are instances in which they operate in tandem. Even now, my

identities as a teacher and a student are not fully formed, and I will continue to use my life's

experiences to make sense of who I am as a teacher and student.

Student teaching is usually a requirement for becoming a certified teacher. Thus, the

mentees, their mentors, and I have all had an experience of being placed in a classroom with an

in-service teacher in order to begin to construct our teaching practices and our identities as

teachers. As a pre-service teacher, I was placed in the classrooms of two in-service teachers

who were responsible for supervising my practicum experiences. I remember friendly









relationships with both of my cooperating teachers, and they provided me with the technical

assistance I needed, as well as the evaluations required by my program. While my relationships

with them did influence my understanding of teaching, I would not have described either of them

as a mentor. They provided me with feedback regarding my teaching, but we did not engage in a

critical reflection of our practices and the larger educational context. More recently, during my

Master' s and doctoral studies, I have encountered several professors whom I consider mentors.

These professors were often not the advisors that the university assigned me. Instead, we found

each other and made a mutual decision to develop a relationship. They have provided a critical

friendship that has proved beneficial to my growth as a researcher and scholar. However, as I

write this, I'm reminded of a quote from Fish (1990) that, "all obj ects are made and not found

and they are made by the interpretive strategies we set in motion" (p. 191). So while we had to

physically find one another, my understanding of mentoring has been constructed in relationship

with these men and women. My identity as a mentee has developed and is understood in relation

to the experiences I have had with my mentors in the particular contexts in which we are located.

As Lucas (2001) suggests,

Defining what a mentor or a mentee is presents a perfectly arranged, still-life painting.
Although this image is beautiful and inspirational, it is a lovely fantasy of recollected
impact. I propose that taking on the role of a mentor or mentee in a planned mentoring
relationship is a dynamic, interpersonal process (p. 46).

For me, mentoring is continually constructed and reconstructed, and my identity as a mentee, and

the identity of my mentor are the obj ects of constant assessment and negotiation as we share

experiences within the context of our particular relationship.

I have also had the opportunity to work as a supervisor of pre-service teachers for the

university and have supported interns and pre-interns as they began to develop identities as

teachers. Positioned as a supervisor, I believed my main responsibility to be one of facilitating









the interns' critical reflection on their own practices, as well as the educational contexts in which

they were situated. However, I found that, once again, my identity as a supervisor and the roles I

fulfilled were constructed in relationship with interns and mentors. Some interns needed more

guidance when developing lesson plans; others had very specific ideas about the teaching

behaviors they wished me to scrutinize, which influenced my observations of their specific

lessons and the ways in which I engaged them in reflection. I also developed relationships with

the classroom mentor teachers and sometimes supported mentors and interns as they negotiated

particularly troublesome times within their relationship.

Because our perceptions of any experience are influenced by our relational histories, it is

important to disclose that my history includes previous relationships with all of the mentor

teachers who volunteered to participate in this study. I was James's university supervisor during

his internship in 2002-2003. Both Barbara and James mentored some of the pre-interns whom I

supervised during fall, 2006, and I had numerous conversations with Kenneth in the faculty room

of Allenton Elementary. As I conducted my analysis and shared my findings, I noted instances

when I believe my subj activity might have influenced my interpretations.

All of these experiences, as well as extensive reading of the literature devoted to

mentoring, piqued my interest and provoked a passion to study the relationships of mentors and

mentees. Because many of the same classroom teachers volunteer to be mentors each year, I had

witnessed the different ways in which the interns and classroom teachers co-constructed their

mentoring relationships and identities as mentors and mentees. Some of the mentors and

mentees were closely aligned personally and professionally and this alignment seemed to benefit

the learning of both. Others found that the disparity between their professional beliefs

constrained their relationship. Sometimes these differences were negotiated, other times, ignored,









often with consequences that went beyond the particular situation. My experiences as an insider

and an outsider have led me to believe that, because relationships and identities are constructed

through discourse, there is something to be discovered in the dialogue and silences of a

mentoring relationship. It is these beliefs that shaped my study.

My roles within this study were multiple and this multiplicity created a number of tensions

that furthered complicated the decisions I made about how to position myself at particular

instances over the course of this research. My initial role and positioning as the principal

researcher was reinforced by the university's IRB requirements, as well as by the expectations of

the men and women who volunteered to participate in this study. In our first dialogue session, I

told my participants that I wished to position them as co-researchers and that I wanted them to

engage each other as we discussed mentoring and to suggest meaningful topics and issues we

could explore together. Although there were instances when one or more of my co-researchers

would begin our dialogue sessions with a pressing concern or observation, I found that they often

looked to me for specific questions to guide their discussion. In addition, my participants had

not been involved in the design of the study and were not necessarily as interested in or as

passionate about studying situated mentoring relationships. I was also conflicted about the

consequences of engaging with the mentors and mentees in the co-construction of knowledge

about mentoring. What were the parameters of my being a participant in the dialogue sessions?

I found that not only did I sometimes have to ask the questions that provided an impetus and

direction for our dialogues, but I also realized that sometimes when I commented on what I had

heard, my words often normalized and ended that particular discussion. Even when I attempted

to probe further, the discussion was short lived and generated no new meanings or

understandings.









Moreover, although my educational background provided me with some inside knowledge

of the context and the various discourses, I felt, for the most part, like an outsider, especially

with regard to the particulars of the mentoring relationships that were being developed between

these mentors and their mentees. For the most part I observed them as they used dialogue to

negotiate their positioning and to define their identities. I was unsure of my place in their co-

construction of knowledge about mentoring and did not wish for my participation in any of their

discussions to be viewed as interference or, even worse, harmful. Consequently, I was often

silent and simply listened to their dialogue and observed their interactions. Even so I influenced

their co-construction of mentoring because I provided them with a space in which to discuss the

issues that concerned them and to reflect on previous experiences that were shaping their

identities and practices a space they might not have created otherwise. In fact, one of my co-

researchers commented that their relationship was even better because of their discussions during

our dialogue sessions.

While I was always positioned as an observer of the interactions within the classroom, I

also actively participated in those same classrooms and worked with individual students who

needed assistance with assignments. In these instances, I focused on the task at hand and may

have missed other interactions in the classroom that might have been pertinent to my study.

However, I did gain a more elaborate understanding of the context and the students, which

enriched my understanding of the dialogue, especially when I was reduced to relying only on the

transenipts.

In summary, my roles within this study varied between those expected of a more

traditional researcher and those emerging from a social constructionist perspective of co-

researchers. Thus, I asked questions and listened to responses, all the while encouraging the









mentors and mentees to suggest topics for discussion and to co-construct the dialogue sessions

with me. I was an observer and a participant in the classroom. I interpreted the data, shared my

understandings, and returned to the data again. My varied roles within this research context have

transformed the ways in which I think about research and I will discuss my shifting

understandings and perceptions in the trustworthiness section of this chapter.

Data Collection

There were a number of gatekeepers from whom I had to obtain permission before I was

granted access to a context for my study. Initially, I applied to the university's IRB and gained

consent to conduct my study in November, 2006. I then applied for permission to conduct

research from the school board' s department of research, assessment, and student information.

In their application I described the purposes of my study and the kinds of data I would be

collecting, as well as the responsibilities of the participants. I was also required to name the

specific schools to which I hoped to gain access. I applied to nine different elementary schools

and ultimately one principal agreed to grant me access. On January 25, 2007 I attended a

meeting of all the mentors in that school and solicited volunteers for my study. I described the

purpose of my study, the parameters of their participation in it, as well as the potential benefits of

this research for me and for them. Three mentors, Kenneth, Barbara, and James volunteered to

participate. I then scheduled and conducted meetings with their pre-interns and explained the

study and the ways in which they might participate in it. All of the pre-interns agreed to

participate. At this point I asked all the mentors and pre-interns to sign an informed consent. A

complete timeline of the study can be found in Appendix A.

Data were collected from the three mentoring groups through the use of interviews (or

dialogue sessions) and participant observations. Interviews were chosen because they made use

of the discourse in which the participants were situated and could be used "to understand the









world from the participants' points of view, to unfold the meaning of their experience, and to

uncover their lived worlds" (Kvale, 1996, p. 1). However, there are limitations to what can be

learned through what people say, so participant observation was used to elaborate the complexity

of the relationship as demonstrated through the mentors' and mentees' behavior and other non-

verbal aspects of their discourse. The data collected through these two methods complemented

each other and were used to reveal and illuminate the realities that were being co-constructed by

the participants as they engaged in the social world and practice of teaching.

Data Sources: Dialogue Sessions

Traditionally, interviews have been conceptualized as interactional situations in which the

researcher coordinates a conversation designed to elicit certain desired knowledge and the

participants are limited to a relatively passive role of providing information from his or her

personal experiences (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003). Interviewing has also been understood as a

means of enabling the researcher to understand the world from the participants' point of view, to

unfold the meaning of peoples' experiences, to uncover their lived worlds prior to scientific

explanations (Kvale, 1996; Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

However, the interview itself is a construction site of knowledge and the knowledge

generated is related to the conversation, the narrative, the language, the context, as well as the

interrelational nature of knowledge, and "here is an alternation between the knowers and the

known, between the constructors of knowledge and the knowledge constructed" (Kvale, 1996,

p.15). According to Holstein and Gubrium (2003), "the interview is more than a simple

information-gathering operation; it's a site of, and occasion for, producing knowledge itself" (p

4). Thus, meaning is actively and socially constructed in the interview itself and the value of the

interview data lies not only in their meanings, but in how those meanings are constructed

(Holstein & Gubrium, 2003).









These new understandings of interviewing were well suited to the study I had designed, but

I felt that the term "interview" might carry the remnants of its traditional meanings into my

research context, and so I decided to name my data collection methods "dialogue sessions."

These sessions encouraged all participants to be actively engaged in and responsible for the co-

construction of knowledge, and Koro-Ljungberg's (2008) understanding of a constructionist

interview provided a framework for these sessions:

Constructionist interviews are dialogical performances, social meaning-making acts, and
cofacilitated knowledge exchanges. In order for researchers to understand the meaning-
making activities that take place during an interview, they must focus on the actions of
individuals that influence the immediate social process and context of the interview, as
well as those actions that have been influences by other sociopolictical contexts or
discourses (p. 430).

Finally, the qualitative researcher is, herself, a research instrument and is not neutral,

distant, or emotionally uninvolved (Kvale, 1996). In fact, neutrality is not a legitimate goal;

rather the researcher attempts to achieve balance, listening for multiple sides of a story (Rubin &

Rubin, 1995). However, a qualitative researcher must be "sensitive to her own biases and to the

social and intellectual baggage she brings to the interview" (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 14) and

consider how these subj activities influence the knowledge that is co-constructted within the

interview, as well as the interpretations she arrives at during analysis. For these reasons I have

provided a subj activity statement and continually considered how my subj activities might have

influenced the research process.

I spent one day a week in the classroom of each mentoring group. Monday were spent

with Kenneth and Susan, Tuesdays with Barbara, Elizabeth, and Melissa, and Thursdays with

James, Amy, and Jessica. The dialogue sessions with Kenneth and Susan were scheduled for

after school, while the dialogue sessions for the other two groups took place during their

planning periods. I conducted five dialogue sessions with Kenneth's group and seven sessions









with each of the other two groups. The discrepancy in the number of sessions conducted was

due to a federal holiday that occurred on a Monday and personal obligations of some of the

participants. Sometimes the dialogue sessions included a discussion of a felt difficulty or

concern of one of the participants. Other discussions focused on what had occurred that day in

the classroom. Still other dialogues sessions captured the interactions of the mentor and mentees

as they engaged in one of the activities of mentoring or teaching (e.g., planning a lesson,

conducting a post conference). See Appendix B for a summary of the dates and topics of the

dialogue sessions for each of the mentoring groups.

Each dialogue session was audio-taped and transcribed verbatim, within a week' s time

when my schedule permitted. In order to prepare for each week' s dialogue session, I listened to

the previous week' s tape, noting points within the discussion that I wished to revisit or noting

additional topics that might make for fruitful discussions. Although the topics of our interview

discussions, as well as the roles we assumed within these dialogue sessions were negotiated by

the mentors, the pre-interns and me, I also prepared a list of questions that might be used to

initiate a discussion. At the beginning of each session, mentors and mentees were encouraged to

share any thoughts they had on previous dialogue sessions or on any interactions that had

occurred during the past week. If the mentors and pre-interns had nothing pressing to discuss, I

used the questions I had prepared to begin the dialogue session. The participants, including

myself, determined the breath and depth of each discussion, reflecting and elaborating on our

own statements, as well as questioning each other. Before the final dialogue session, I listened to

the tapes of all the sessions for each group and noted salient points (see Appendix C), which I

shared with the participants of each group in order to member check my initial interpretations

(Creswell, 1998). I encouraged them to extend or elaborate their understandings of any of these










points and to propose additional topics that would further illustrate or illuminate their mentoring

relationship and individual transformations. The comments I received during this member check

most often included the participants' amazement as to the elaborate nature and influence of their

mentoring relationships.

In addition to these dialogue sessions, I kept a researcher' s notebook in which I recorded

my personal feelings about and reactions to the discussions, as well as reflections about the

meaning and significance of what was said (Patton, 2002). I described the setting and the

demeanor of all participants during the dialogue session. Moreover, I used the notebook to

record my insights, interpretations, and beginning analyses of what was happening in the setting

and what it meant (Patton, 2002) (See Appendix. D)

Data Sources: Participant Observation

Although my primary source of data collection was the dialogue sessions, I also wanted

to study our relationship in action, as the activities in which we engaged in the classroom were

part of the discourse in which we were situated and reflected the knowledge we were co-

constructing or our own individual transformations in non-verbal ways. Participant observation

enabled the study of our relationships and activities, as well as the immediate sociocultural

contexts in which these relationships unfolded (Jorgenson, 1989). Thus, I noted the language,

behaviors, and interactions among us, as well as between any one of the co-researchers and the

students in the classroom. However, this observation data was a secondary data source and was

not subj ected to extensive analysis. Instead it was used to elaborate and understand the social

context in which we were situated and to locate my study within that context.

My observations took the form of written field notes in which I noted my own actions, as

well as those of the mentors and mentees. These notes were expanded the evening after each

session. The expanded field notes also contained information similar to that found in the









researcher' s notebook in which I reflected upon my dialogue sessions with the pre-service

teachers and mentors (i.e., my thoughts, feelings, initial interpretations, additional questions). I

shared my expanded field notes and reflections with my participants and asked for their

interpretations and reflections, which, if there were any, I then recorded these in my notebook

(see Appendix E).

Data Analysis

According to Phillips and Hardy (2002), "social reality is produced and made real

through discourses and social interactions and cannot be fully understood without reference to

the discourses that give them meaning" (p. 3). Therefore, I decided to use discourse analysis to

analyze the interactions that occurred between mentors, mentees, and a university researcher as

we engaged in the study of their mentoring and teaching practices. Because their discourses

were embodied and enacted in a variety of texts, and these texts took a variety of forms including

spoken words, symbols, pictures, and artifacts (Fairclough, 2003; Gee, 1999; Phillips & Hardy,

2002), discourse analysis was a useful method of analysis due to its strong constructionist view

and the way in which it explored the relationships between text, discourse, and context (Phillips

& Hardy, 2002). Ultimately, discourse analysis examined how language constructed phenomena

and assumed that the world cannot be known separately from discourse (Fairclough, 2003; Gee,

1999; Phillips & Hardy, 2002). Because mentoring relationships were most often constructed

and negotiated through dialogue, I felt that discourse analysis would prove useful in uncovering

the meanings that are often veiled by our taken for granted assumptions about language-in-use.

To this end, I employed two aspects from two complementary forms of discourse analysis: the

method developed by James P. Gee, as well as the critical discourse analysis described by

Norman Fairclough.










Table 3-3, found at the end of the chapter, provides a summary of the data analysis I

describe in this section. My analysis began as I transcribed the interviews. The dialogue

sessions were transcribed verbatim and certain dialogical interactions were notated, those

interactions being pauses, words or phrases that were emphasized, overlapping speech, and

descriptions of events such as coughs or laughter. Appendix F provides an abbreviated example

of my transcription and Table 3-1 lists the conversational interactions that were identified and the

ways those interactions were notated (Grbich, 2007).

Table 3-1. Conversational interactions and their notations
Conversation Interaction Notation
Just noticeable pause
Longer pause
Word Underlined sounds or words were emphasized
() Unidentifiable speech
[ Successive brackets on two lines with utterances
from different speakers indicate the start of
overlapping speech.
] A right bracket bridging two lines indicates that
overlapping or simultaneous utterances at this point
have stopped.
(( )) Description of events, e.g., ((coughs)) or ((laughs))



After the tapes were transcribed, I printed each transcript and read through the entire set

of each groups' dialogue sessions. I read through the data a second time, making notes next to

excerpts that seemed to apply to one or both of my research questions. I used open coding

during a third read of the data in order to reduce and organize it. Once I had a list of open codes,

I grouped similar codes together and used these groups to identify the discourses in which the

codes and accompanying data excerpts were located. After the discourses were identified, I

employed two aspects of both Gee's and Fairclough's discourse analyses in order to further

interpret and understand the data. Gee's discourse analysis was used to conduct a macro analysis









of the data, identifying the activities and identities of mentoring. Fairclough's discourse analysis

was used to conduct a micro analysis of the same excerpts in order to understand how language

was used to construct the activities and identities of mentoring. The analytic process was an

iterative, not a linear one and each step in my analysis caused me to return to previous steps and

interpretations, and even now, I do not feel that my analysis is definitive or final. The sections

that follow describe the two analysis methods I employed, as well as the ways in which I utilized

them .

Gee's Discourse Analysis (Macro Analysis)

According to Gee (1999, 2005) discourse is "language used in tandem with action,

interactions, non-linguistic symbol systems, objects, tools, technologies, and distinctive ways of

thinking valuing, feeling, and believing" (p. 11). Because discourse plays an important role in

the construction of mentoring relationships, this analysis method can be used to discern the

meaning and value of aspects of the material world, activities, identities and relationships,

politics, connections, and semiotics that occur between mentors and mentees (Gee, 1999, 2005).

Moreover, Gee (2005) suggests that we use language to build seven areas of reality and I focused

on two of them: activities and identities, as I believed that these building tasks provided me with

analytic methods that would enable me to answer my research questions. Therefore, I asked the

following two questions of the identified data excerpts that exemplified language in use:

* What activity or activities is this piece of language being used to enact (i.e., get others to
recognize as going on)?

* What identity or identities is this piece of language being used to enact (i.e., get others to
recognize as operative)?

The activities were sometimes described by the participants in statements or longer

narratives (e.g., I emailed my mentor teacher for advice). At other times the participants were

actively engaged in the task (i.e., teaching a lesson, reflecting on a lesson) and the activity (i.e.,









asking for feedback) became apparent based on the language they used as they interacted with

one another (e.g., I wondered how I could have managed that situation differently?). The

identities being enacted in the excerpts were either stated directly in "I" statement (e.g., I am a

special education teacher) or were implied by the language used in their statements. For

instance, in a discussion about how to teach vocabulary, Melissa cited course readings and

research and assumed an identity of expert in this particular discussion as she was the one

providing the information.

According to Gee (1999, 2005), "an 'ideal' discourse analysis involves asking questions

about how language, at a given time and place, is used to construe the aspects of a situation

network as realized at that time and place and how the aspects of the situation network

simultaneously give meaning to that language" (p. 92). Recognizing that no discourse analysis

could be ideal, I still made use of the following questions that he suggested were relevant for an

analysis of how language is used to construct activities and identities:

Activity building:

* What is the larger or main activity (or set of activities) going on in the situation?

* What sub-activities compose this activity (or these activities)?

* What actions (down to the level of things like "requests for reasons") compose these sub-
activities and activities?

Socioculturally-situated identity building:

* What identities (roles, positions), with their concomitant persona, social, and cultural
knowledge and beliefs (cognition), feelings (affect), and values seem to be relevant to the
situation?

* How are these identities stabilized or transformed in the situation?

* In terms of identities and activities, what Discourses are relevant (and irrelevant) in the
situation? How are they made relevant (and irrelevant), and in what ways?









While Gee' s discourse analysis was used for a macro analysis of the data, I also thought

it was important to analyze the distinctive grammar of the social languages) employed, as well

as the ways in which the grammatical units were used to create patterns that influenced the

situated identities of the participants and the specific activities in which they engaged. "The

whos and whats are not really discrete and separable. You are who you are partly through what

you are doing and what you are doing is partly recognized for what it is by who is doing it" (Gee,

2005, p. 23). Thus, l utilized two aspects of Fairclough's critical discourse analysis to illuminate

how language was used to construct and was constructed by the participants' identities and

activities within a specific context, and how these situated meanings and identities were

negotiated by the participants engaged in communicative interactions.

Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis (Micro Analysis)

Fairclough's (2003) approach to discourse analysis is "based upon the assumption that

language is an irreducible part of social life, dialetically interconnected with other elements of

social life, so that social analysis and research always have to take account of language" (p. 2).

The main emphasis of this discourse analysis is a grammatical and semantic one; although he

acknowledges that texts, or language in use, contribute to transformation in people, actions,

social relations, and the material world. He believes that texts need to be analyzed in order to

clarify their contribution to processes of meaning making and his analysis methods are designed

to uncover the ways in which social agents construct texts by setting up relations between the

elements within a text. Fairclough (2003) further cautions that no analysis of a text can reveal

everything there is to be said about it. The analysis of any text is always biased by the

subjectivity of the analyst and remains provisional and open to other interpretations.

I decided to use two aspects of Fairclough's critical discourse analysis: (a) difference, and

(b) exchanges, speech functions, and grammatical mood. Each of the mentoring relationships









that I explored was composed of people with disparate relational histories, previous experiences,

and perceptions, and according to Fairclough (2003), "the production of any interaction as

meaningful entails active and continual 'negotiation' of differences of meaning" (p. 41).

Therefore, it seemed that the participants would use their dialogical interactions to negotiate their

differences; therefore, analyzing their orientation to difference might uncover the ways in which

their perceptions, understandings, and identities were transformed. Additionally, because Gee's

theory of discourse is one of language in use, I wanted to investigate how the participants used

words and sentences to co-construct knowledge and identities as they engaged in the activities of

mentoring.

Fairclough (2003) identified five scenarios related to difference that I employed to analyze

the dialogue:

* An openness to, acceptance of, recognition of difference; an exploration of difference, as in
dialogue in the richest sense of the term

* An accentuation of difference, conflict, polemic, a struggle over meaning, norms, power

* An attempt to resolve or overcome difference

* A bracketing of difference, a focus on commonality, solidarity

* Consensus, a normalization and acceptance of differences of power which brackets or
suppresses difference of meaning and norms

Finally, social events, such as the activities of mentoring are enacted in dialogue, which,

according to Fairclough (2003), consists of two primary types of exchanges, a number of speech

functions, as well as the grammatical mood, or the way in which meanings are realized through

sentence type. Questions that were asked of the data included:

* What are the predominant types of exchange (activity exchange or knowledge exchange)
and speech functions (statement, question, demand, offer)?

* What types of statements are there? (realis statements, [i.e., statements of fact], irrealis
statements, [i.e,. predictions and hypotheticals, and evaluations)?










* Are there metaphorical relations between exchanges, speech functions, or types of
statements (e.g., demands which appear as statements, evaluations which appear as factual
statements)?

* What is the predominant grammatical mood (declarative, interrogative, imperative)?

An exchange is a sequence of two or more conversational turns or moves with alternating

speakers, where the occurrence of move 1 leads to the expectation of move 2 and so forth, with

the proviso that what is expected does not always occur (Cameron, 2001). Exchanges are

oriented toward knowledge or activity. A knowledge exchange is a speech act that is oriented to

providing information. It might be initiated by the person with the information (e.g., "I am

twenty-two years old.") or by the person who wants the knowledge (e.g., "How old are you?").

On the other hand, activity exchanges are often oriented to non-textual actions, such as doing

things, or getting things done, rather than just saying things. However, "Answer the question!"

is an activity exchange that is oriented to a textual action, that of providing the information in the

form of an answer. Activity exchanges might also be initiated by the one who will perform the

action (e.g., "Do you want a coke?") or another desiring a specific action (e g., "May I please

have a coke?").

Speech functions include demands, offers, questions, and statements. Statements are of

three types. "Realis" statements are statements of fact about what is, was, or has been the case

(e.g., "I met Violeta yesterday evening."). "Irrealis" statements include predictions (e.g., "I will

meet Violeta tomorrow.") and hypothetical statements (e.g., "I might meet Violeta [if she comes

to England]"). Evaluations might be phrased as statements or exclamations (e.g., "Violet is a

fine person" or "What a fine person!") Demands include ordering, requesting, and begging;

while offers included promising, threatening, promising, and thanking.

Speech function and the distinction between main sentence types (declarative,

interrogative, and imperative) are related to grammatical mood, but the relationship is not










necessarily a straightforward one. The strongest link is between declarative clauses and

statements. Questions are usually interrogative, but there were also "declarative questions" (e.g.,

"How old are you?" and "You're over eighteen?") Offers could be interrogative ("Do you want

a coke?"), imperative ("Have a coke."), or declarative ("Here's a coke."). Demands are most

often imperative ("Give me a coke."), but they could also be interrogative in the case of

question-requests ("May I have a coke?"), or declarative ("I want a coke."). Determining the

speech function of a clause often requires taking account of social contextual factors. Then the

mood of a text is differentiated by the distribution of speech functions among the participants

and the ways in which the speech functions are realized (e.g., as declarative questions rather than

interrogatives.

Fairclough (2003) also recognizes the metaphorical relationships among exchanges and

speech functions. One such metaphorical relationship is a hortatory report in which "texts are

apparently oriented to knowledge exchange but were actually oriented (also) to activity

exchange. Factual statements were to a significant degree evaluations" (Fairclough, 2003, p.

112). For instance, the website of a university, while providing information about its location

and academic culture may, at the same time, be promoting itself as the best of all possible

educational worlds.

Thus, l used Fairclough's critical discourse analysis in order to uncover how discourse was

used to make meaning of a social practice (mentoring), how discourses were used to represent

the practice of mentoring, as well as how discourses were used to negotiate the practice of

mentoring. This analysis was useful in that it supported the notion of a constructed reality and

provided analytical tools that enabled a micro-analysis of the interaction between participants.

Furthermore, the analysis of the participants' orientation to difference uncovered the multiple









and diverse voices that were created or constructed as a means of collaboration or resistance.

According to Fairclough (2003), discourses are inherently positioned and the ways in which the

participants in this study utilized discourse to make meaning, as well as to negotiate their

differences provided insight into the ways in which they understood and transformed their

practices and identities.

Trustworthiness

In this section, I begin by discussing the more traditional understandings of validity as they

apply to qualitative research. I then consider Gee' s understandings of validity and use them to

assess the trustworthiness of my study. The chapter concludes with a summary and an

introduction to the Eindings chapters.

Because research is designed to understand and improve practice, researchers want to feel

confident when incorporating research Eindings into practice, for what we do affects the lives of

real people (Merriam, 1995). Establishing the internal validity of a study is a way of doing this

and by attending to how congruent one's findings are "with reality." The following strategies

were employed to strengthen the internal validity of my study: (a) triangulation, (b) member

checks, (c) peer review, (d) statement of the researcher's experiences, assumptions, biases, and

(e) submersion/engagement in the research situation. Triangulation, as described by Denzin

(1978) is of four types: (a) data triangulation, (b) investigator triangulation, (c) theory

triangulation, and (d) methodological triangulation. For the purposes of this study, I engaged in

data triangulation, using data collected from dialogue sessions and observations. I also employed

two complementary discourse analysis methods (methodological triangulation) when interpreting

the data. Member checking involved returning to my participants with my data and

interpretations and seeking their feedback as to the credibility of my representations of their lived

relationships (Creswell, 1998). Before each dialogue session, I shared my understanding of the










previous dialogue session with the participants and asked for their comments and feedback. At

the beginning of our final dialogue session I shared my interpretations of the activities and

identities that had been constructed by the mentors and mentees and solicited their feedback as to

the validity of my interpretations. At that time, the participants did not dispute my

interpretations and several commented that they had not been aware of how much had occurred

within and as a result of their mentoring relationships.

Peer review (Creswell, 1998) involved soliciting the comments of peers and colleagues,

and I have asked Dr. Nancy Dana and Dr. Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, as well as other members of

my committee, for their feedback regarding the rigor of my methods and the trustworthiness of

my interpretations. I made clear my biases and assumptions in a subjectivity statement that

enabled the reader to understand the influences and lenses that shaped my interpretations. My

researcher' s notebook and reiterative process of data analysis provided me with an ongoing

means of assessing the influence of my subjesctivities. Finally, I engaged these participants over

the course of nine weeks, in a series of complex interactions, and I used data obtained during

previous interactions to make decisions about subsequent interactions.

Additionally, I have provided my readers with an audit trail, a precise and detailed

accounting of data collection and analysis and a description of how decisions were made

throughout the research process (Creswell, 1998). My audit trail included my audiotaped

interviews, as well as the written transcripts of the interviews, my reflections on the interviews,

my observation notes and expanded field notes, as well as my researcher' s notebook that served

as a record of my activities and reflections about the data and the research process.

External validity is concerned with the extent to which the findings of one study can be

applied to a new situation, and this is not usually the goal of qualitative inquiry (Wolcott, 1994).










Qualitative researchers realize that their findings are situated and they leave the speculation of

how their findings can be transferred to new situations to the readers of their research. However,

there are several strategies that might enable a reader to make judgments regarding the

transferability of the results of this study, among them thick description. Due to the detailed

accounts of my methods, my data, and my interpretations, readers of my research will be able to

determine whether or not their specific situation matches the one found in my study and whether

or not the transferability of my interpretations to their context is appropriate.

Gee (2005) argues that "validity is never 'once and for all"' (p. 113) and that some

discourse analyses are more valid than others. However, he suggests that validity for discourse

analysis can be based on four elements: (a) convergence, (b) agreement, (c) coverage, and (d)

linguistic details. For Gee (2005), convergence is concerned with the ways in which the answers

to the building task questions converge in the way they support the analysis. The two building

tasks that I chose for the analysis were complementary, and I was able to answer all of the

questions for Gee's (2005) activity building and socioculturally situated identity building tasks

for the excerpts that I chose to analyze. Indeed, the answers that I uncovered to these questions

converged in a way that provided a relatively detailed and situated interpretation of the

participants' activities and identities.

Agreement considers the answers to the building task questions as more convincing when

other discourse analysts or other kinds of researchers support our conclusions. Dr. Dana' s and

Dr. Koro-Ljungberg's peer review supported the conclusions I drew from my analysis, and

provided agreement for my findings. On the other hand, coverage provides a measure of validity

through questioning whether or not an analysis can be applied to related sorts of data. My

interpretations uncovered some similarities across the three mentoring groups, with regard to the









kinds of activities that the mentors and mentees constructed, providing coverage. All of the

mentoring groups engaged in developing rapport, in communicating, in planning lessons, and in

providing feedback. However, the ways in which they engaged in these activities was also

dissimilar based on the specific identities the mentors and mentees constructed. For example,

when providing feedback, Kenneth constructed an identity as a facilitator of reflection; whereas

James and Barbara constructed identities as experts and providers of constructive criticism.

These differences in coverage were due to the mentors' situated understandings of mentoring and

the nature of the mentoring relationships in which they were engaged. Additionally, my analysis

of the speech exchanges and the participant' s orientation to difference provided a means of

linking their dialogue to the communicative functions they were enacting and the activities and

identities they were constructing, thereby providing validity through my analysis of linguistic

details or the linguistic structure of the dialogue. However, as Gee (2006) suggests, validity is

social, not individual, and is never Einished. Therefore, although I can argue for the validity of

my study, it will always be subj ect to further discussion and dispute as the Hield evolves.

Limitations

While research is conducted in order to broaden and deepen our understanding of human

beings and other phenomena, it is also limited or constrained by its design and the ways in which

the data are collected and interpreted. Limitations of my study included: (a) subjectivities and

positioning of the principal researcher, (b) quality/authenticity of the interactions between the

researcher and the participants, (c) limitations of social constructionist research, and (d)

limitations of the data collection methods.

Subjectivities and Positionings of the Principal Researcher

Because I co-constructted the context, as well as many of the interactions with my

participants, my subjectivities and biases influenced the data collection and data analysis. I










wrote a subj activity statement in which I made my relevant experiences, beliefs, biases, and

affiliations transparent. As I reflected on my data collection and analysis, I attempted to remain

aware of how my subj activity was influencing the context and processes of data collection and

analysis, as well as the interpretation and conclusions I drew from my findings. I have used

member checking and peer review as a means of overcoming this limitation.

Quality/Authenticity of the Interactions between the Researcher and the Participants

Furthermore, even though I attempted to position the mentors and mentees as co-

researchers, there may still have been instances when they felt as if they were research subj ects,

and so I considered the impact of this perception on the nature of our interactions, as well as the

candor of their responses. I worked hard to establish a rapport and friendship with my

participants, and I used member checking in an attempt to allow my participants to clarify any

misunderstandings or misinterpretations that may have occurred during the data collection and

data analysis process.

The Challenges of Social Constructionist Research

According to Weinberg (2008) "social constructionist studies are those that seek, at least in

part, to replace fixed, universalistic, and sociohistorically invariant conceptions of things with

more fluid, particularistic, and sociohistorically embedded conceptions of them" (p. 14). My

research, in which I chose to investigate the very particular and evolving relationships of mentors

and mentees, who were situated in a specific context and within specific Discourse(s) that

influenced the constructionn of their knowledge, identities, and practices, seemed suited to a

social constructionist study. However, I was interested in more than simply designing a social

constructionist study. I also wanted to conduct it in a social constructionist, more participatory,

way.









Social constructionist research does not recognize the authority of one participant over the

other. Ideally, all participants are involved in every part of the research process. However,

certain aspects of my particular study made this ideal situation impossible. First, I was required

to design the study in order to attain IRB approval and was unable to engage the participants in

designing the research and choosing the research questions. Moreover, even though I attempted

to position the mentors and pre-interns as collaborative researchers, they tended to resist this

positioning and although they did become comfortable suggesting topics for discussion in our

dialogue sessions, they never fully reconstructed their positioning of me as a principal

researcher. Their understanding of the research process was aligned with more traditional

understandings of the interview situation in which the researcher dominates the interaction

within the interview session and controls the data and its interpretations (Kvale, 2006). As Koro-

Ljungberg (2008) has suggested in social constructionist research, "The knowing subj ects

negotiate the research design, interview agenda and topics and analysis methods, analytic

insights, and preferred representation of the data" (pp. 442-443). This is what my co-researchers

and I must learn to do together.

Additionally, the ways in which the knowers participate within a study are affected by their

prior knowledge and commitment to the project (Koro-Ljungberg, 2008), and our roles in the

research process, as well as the knowledge we are constructing, will be subj ect to continuous

critical reflection and negotiation. As Wagner (1997) has suggested the research process should

be one of reflexive, systematic inquiry that is stimulated by ongoing collegial communication

between researchers and practitioners. Consequently, an openness to difference and a

willingness to explore those differences in an effort to create "new worlds" (Gergen, 1999), as

well as an ability to collaborate and negotiate with others who may or may not agree with our










perspective (Koro-Ljungberg, 2008) are essential characteristics of a social constructionist

researcher.

Unfortunately, from my point of view, teachers (the most likely population of my future

studies) have tended to regard themselves as research subj ects (Wagner, 1997) and I will have to

consider ways in which to negotiate and reconstructt this perception with those who wish to

engage with me in studying our practices. Although I have long since relinquished any notion of

a researcher as a person in a white coat sitting behind a one-way mirror observing subj ects in a

sterile, laboratory setting, I have found that I am still affected by residual aspects of my previous

conceptions of research and the Discourses in which I have been situated. I will continue to read

and to seek opportunities to engage with others in this kind of research and to engage in the

constructionn and transformation of the social constructionist research process.

Limitations of the Data Collection Methods

Each data collection method has its own strengths and limitations. Interview data is

sometimes limited by distorted responses due to personal bias, anger, anxiety, politics or simple

lack of awareness (Patton, 2002). In addition, the interview data may also be distorted when

interviewees resort to self-serving responses. As researchers, we must be aware of our

relationships with those being interviewed and take care not to reduce them to obj ects. These

were issues that I considered as I analyzed and interpreted the dialogue sessions.

A limitation of observation data is that it only focuses on external behaviors and is often

constrained by the limited sample of activities that are actually occurring during the timeframe of

the observation (Patton, 2002). Again, because the participants were aware of being observed,

their engagement with others in the setting might have been less authentic and intended to

promote an identity that they believed was self-serving or desired by the researcher.









Triangulating my data collection methods might serve to overcome the limitations inherent in

using any one of these methods alone.

Summary

In summary, my research study was framed within a social constructivist perspective in

order to investigate how mentors and mentees utilized discourse in understanding and

negotiating their relationship and what role this mentoring relationship played in their

construction of knowledge about teaching and learning, as well as the transformation of their

individual identities and practices. Data, in the form of dialogue sessions and observations was

collected from three mentoring groups. Each group was composed of an in-service teacher, two

pre-interns, who were enrolled in the ProTeach teacher education program at a local university,

and me. Data were analyzed using two of the building tasks from Gee' s discourse analysis

(activities and sociocultural identities), as well as two aspects of Fairclough's critical discourse

analysis (orientation to difference and speech exchanges, speech functions, and grammatical

moods). My interpretations underwent member checking and peer review in order to enhance

their validity. Ultimately, I attempted to share a rich description of the research process, the

multi-layered voices of the mentors, mentees, and myself, as well as the questions I asked of the

data so that a reader of this research could make his or her own decision about its validity, ethical

rigor, and transferability.

Overview of Chapters 4, 5, and 6

The purpose of the next three chapters is to present my findings, filtered through the lenses

provided by my research questions. In each chapter, I shall first provide a biographical

description of the participants in the mentoring group, as well as the context in which they were

situated. Next, I utilize a table, which is located at the end of each chapter, to summarize how

the participants used dialogue, which was situated in and among three discourses (i.e., discourse









of mentoring, discourse of instruction, and discourse of classroom management), to transform

the activities and practices of mentoring and teaching, as well as the identities they co-

constructed and enacted over the course of their relationship. In addition, the table also

summarizes the textual analysis that was performed throughout each chapter. Evidence of this

textual analysis included the types of exchanges and speech functions that were used to enact

each of the activities and identities, as well as the participants' orientation to difference as they

negotiated and constructed their identities and interactions within each of the activities. Next I

use relevant and compelling excerpts from my data to illustrate how the mentor and mentee(s)

used discourse to develop and maintain their mentoring relationships and to co-construct

knowledge about teaching and learning. Each chapter will conclude with a consideration of how

the mentor and mentee(s) co-constructed their individual practices and identitie










Table 3-2. Participant Information
Mentoring Group Participant
Kenneth





Mentoring Group 1


Biographical Information
Age: Thirties
Race: Caucasian
Role: Fourth grade teacher and
mentor
Teaching Experience: 9 years in
ESE, third, and fourth grades
Most Advanced Degree: Ed.S
Mentoring Experience: 5-6 years
Age: 22
Race: Caucasian
Future Plans: To teach in a Title
1 school
Age: Fifties
Race: Caucasian
Role: Third grade teacher and
mentor
Teaching Experience: 23 years in
junior college, second and third
grades
Most Advanced Degree: Master's
degree
Mentoring Experience: 7-8 years
Age: 22
Race: Caucasian
Future Plans: To teach special
education
Age: 21
Race: Caucasian
Future Plans: To teach 2nd Or 3rd
grade in a school like Allenton
Age: Twenties
Race: Caucasian
Role: Fourth grade teacher and
mentor
Teaching Experience: Fours years
in fourth grade.
Most Advanced Degree: Ed.S
Mentoring Experience: 3 years
Age: 22
Race: Caucasian
Future Plans: To coach
gymnastics
Age: 21
Race: African-American
Future Plans: To teach third,
fourth, or fifth grade in Miami


Susan



Barbara


Mentoring Group 2


Elizabeth



Melissa



James


Mentoring Group 3


Amy


Jessica










Table 3-3. The Reiterative Frocess of Data Analysis
Analytic Step, Description of Process Approximate Timeframe
Transcription Audio-tapes were transcribed verbatim and 1 month
notated.
First reading of the data The transcriptions were divided by mentoring 1 week
group and each set of transcripts was read in
its entire.
Second reading of the data Each set of transcripts was read in its entirety. 1 week
I noted excerpts that applied to one or both of
my research questions.
Third reading of the data: Each set of transcripts was read in it entirety. 2 weeks
Open coding. I used open coding to reduce and group the
data.
Identification of the I used the open codes to identify the 1 week
Discourses Discourse that were being employed in the
data.
Consideration of Gee's and I re-read the books by Gee and Fairclough and 1-2 week
Fairclough's Discourse consulted with Mirka Koro-Ljungberg to
Analysis make decisions about which aspects of these
analytic methods would be most useful for my
stud.
Fourth reading of the data: Each set of the transcripts was read in its 2 weeks
Identification of the entirety. This time I noted which
Discourses Discourse(s) were evident in each of the
excerpts related to my research questions.
Fifth reading of the data: The identified excerpts were analyzed using 2 weeks
Gee's analysis Gee's activity-building. questions.
Sixth reading of the data: The identified excerpts were analyzed using 2 weeks
Gee's analysis Gee's socioculturally-situated identity
building questions.
Seventh reading of the data: The identified excerpts were analyzed using 2 weeks
Faircloughs's analysis Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis. The
types of exchanges, speech functions, and
grmaical mood were identified.
Eighth reading of the data: The identified excerpts were analyzed using 2 weeks
Fairclough's analysis Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis. The
participants' orientation to difference was
identified.
Construction of narrative for I used the excerpts I had analyzed to construct 2 months
each mentoring group narratives that illustrate how each of the
mentoring groups developed and maintained
their mentoring relationship and how they co-
constructed knowledge of teaching and
learning, and how their identities and
practices were transformed









CHAPTER 4
ASKINTG QUESTIONS TO PROMOTE MENTEE-CENTERED MENTORING AND
COLLAB ORATION

Mentoring Group 1: Kenneth and Susan

This mentoring group was situated in a fourth grade classroom at Allenton Elementary

School. Originally the group was composed of a classroom teacher, Kenneth, and two pre-

service teaching interns, Susan and Karen. However, shortly after the semester began, Karen

withdrew from this placement for personal reasons. She was not present when my study began;

however, she did return for a visit and participated in one of the dialogue sessions. I spent

Monday with this group and most of our dialogue sessions occurred at the end of the school

day.

The Participants

Susan was a twenty-two year old Caucasian female who will graduate with a Master' s in

elementary education. She has always wished to pursue a career in education because she

believed it to be a rewarding profession. In fact, she has wanted to become a teacher ever since

she attended kindergarten. Currently, she would prefer to teach students in the primary grades,

preferably here in the Allenton area, or she would consider moving north. Susan has chosen an

interdisciplinary focus for her degree because she did not want to limit herself to teaching a

specific content area, and she would prefer teaching in a Title 1 school.

Kenneth was a Caucasian male in his thirties. He was a national board certified teacher

and held a specialist degree. He had nine years of experience teaching, all of it in Allenton

Elementary. His first job after graduation was in an ESE classroom. The following year he was

placed in a third grade classroom at Allenton, but he has been teaching fourth grade for the past

eight years. In addition, he has mentored pre-interns and interns for the past five or six years.

While he has enjoyed and benefited from mentoring pre-service teachers, Kenneth originally










requested that no one be placed with him in the fall of 2006. He believed that in order to become

a better mentor he needed some time to redefine himself as a teacher. However, due to a

shortage of mentors, he agreed to take an intern during fall, 2006 and pre-interns during spring,

2007. Kenneth has also taught methods courses for the university, and next year he will be the

site coordinator for Allenton Elementary and will work part time for the university as field

advisor for the pre-intemns and part time for the school district as a gifted educator at Allenton

Elementary. Kenneth believed that this new role, as site coordinator, would strengthen and

improve the connection between his school and the university's teacher education program.

The Context

Susan and Kenneth were responsible for 24 fourth grade students and their class reflected

the demographic makeup of the school. Students' desks were arranged in groups of four. There

was a blackboard on one wall, a screen on another and bulletin boards and several computers on

a third wall. The teacher' s desk was located at the back of the classroom. There was also a

classroom library in the back of the room with several beanbags for student seating.

Susan's class schedule affected the amount of time she was able to spend with Kenneth in

their fourth grade classroom. On Mondays she was able to spend the entire school day at

Allenton Elementary School. However, on Tuesdays Susan was only able to spend three hours

in the morning and on Thursdays and Fridays Susan spent four hours in the morning at school.

Because Kenneth's planning period occurred in the afternoon, he and Susan only had one day in

which an extended amount of time could be devoted to discussion, planning, and mentoring.

They frequently engaged in abbreviated conversations in the morning before the students entered

the classroom and in whispered asides when necessary throughout the day. Kenneth and Susan

also made use of email and the phone in order to communicate after hours and on weekends.












Overview of Kenneth's and Susan's Discourse

The purpose of this chapter was to investigate how Kenneth and Susan utilized discourse

to negotiate their relationship and what role their mentoring relationship played in their co-

construction of knowledge of teaching and learning. Hence, I sorted Kenneth' s and Susan's

discourse into two categories relative to the purposes of my study: "relationship development"

and "co-construction of knowledge." Table 4-1, which can be found at the end of this chapter,

utilizes these two categories to summarize the ways I made use of aspects of Gee' s and

Fairclough' s discourse analysis to understand Kenneth' s and Susan' s co-construction of their

mentoring activities, as well as their identities as mentor and mentee.

As I analyzed the data in each of these categories, a number of distinctive activities

emerged that characterized the nature of Kenneth's and Susan's discourse. These activities

included developing an understanding of mentoring, establishing and maintaining rapport,

communicating, observing, co-planning, providing feedback, and reflecting (See Column Two).

Each activity resulted in the construction of specific identities, such as mentor and mentee as

partners/friends; as facilitator and model, and as facilitator and reflective practitioner (See

Column Three). Table 4-1 also reflects the ways that these activities and subsequent identity

formations were situated within three distinct discourses as discussed in Chapter 2: (a) the

discourse of mentoring, (b) the discourse of classroom management, and (c) the discourse of

instruction (See Column 4). Finally, the table indicates the ways in which these activities and

subsequent identity formations emerged through a textual analysis and consideration of how

Kenneth and Susan used dialogue to negotiate their differences as described in Chapter 3 (See

Column 5). In the remainder of this chapter, I utilize excerpts from the data to illustrate how each









activity and identity summarized in Table 4-1 contributed to Kenneth's and Susan's relationship

development and co-construction of knowledge.

Developing and Maintaining a Mentoring Relationship

According to McNamee and Gergen (1999), "persons represent the intersection of multiple

relationships" (p. 22); therefore, anyone who begins a new relationship brings with him or her

unique and specific relational histories that affect the ways in which future relationships are co-

constructed and enacted. In this way, the relationships developed by each of the mentors and

mentees were the result of their "broader relational engagements [which] intermingle [and] are

created and transformed" (McNamee & Gergen, 1999). These previous relationships often

resulted in the development of habits and expectations and it was through dialogue that the

participants created possibilities for new and unique configurations, which were always in flux,

and reshaped or recreated by the particularities of a specific interactive moment.

Developing an Understanding of Mentoring: Mentor and Mentee as Co-Constructors of
Meaning

Susan's and Kenneth's prior knowledge of and experience with mentoring were vastly

different. In fact, Susan's previous experience with mentoring was limited, and the only

relationship she discussed had occurred during her practicum with a classroom teacher in a

different school. She revealed that while she had learned a lot about teaching and classroom

management through her observation of this teacher' s practices and methods, there had been

little time for questions and reflection and their conversations most often concerned the specific

assignments required by her university coursework or a discussion of their personal lives. In a

knowledge exchange, which included a number of evaluations, not only of her personal feelings

about this teacher, but also of the relevance of the learning that occurred, Susan summarized her

experience with this teacher and said:










I mean she was awesome and we really enjoyed it and we learned a lot from her but it
wasn't .. us sitting down and talking to her about how she does certain things .. I don't
really think that .. we had much of a mentor experience before. It was more like
observing and sitting there just watching .. you know, not getting a chance to interact.

While the relationship Susan developed with this classroom teacher seemed to have met

some of the psychosocial functions of mentoring (i.e., role modeling and friendship), it did not

provide Susan with any of the career functions (i.e., coaching and challenging assignments) that

would have supported Susan's development as a teacher and reflective practitioner. Obviously,

Susan recognized that a mentoring relationship encompassed more than she had previously

experienced.

Consequently, Susan entered this new relationship with few preconceptions about

mentoring and was open to the understandings she and Kenneth would construct about their roles

as mentor and mentee, and the ways in which they would interact and relate. Her perceptions of

mentoring underwent rapid and considerable transformation. In our first dialogue session she

shared her changing impressions of mentoring in a series of realis statements that described her

perceptions of how Kenneth provided mentoring. She said, "whereas now .. it's [mentoring]

constant .. back and forth. What you could do. What you're .. doing ood. You know?

Things like that." In the mentoring relationship she developed with Kenneth, Susan was

positioned as a partner or collaborator; although it also appeared that she, at least some of the

time, positioned Kenneth as a coach or expert and depended on his feedback and counsel.

Unlike Susan, Kenneth had several years of experience as a mentor and described his

concept of mentoring using the metaphor of a jigsaw puzzle enthusiast (Yendol-Hoppey & Dana,

2007). For him, the mentoring relationship was a jigsaw puzzle and the "many intricate pieces

must come together to attain a cohesive, collaborative learning relationship" (Yendol-Hoppey &

Dana, 2007, p. 45). Kenneth believed that one of his first tasks was to become acquainted with









the mentee personally, as well as professionally. In a succinct evaluation that was framed as a

statement of fact, he shared one of the underlying tenets of his mentoring philosophy,

"Everybody is different and you have to get to know them to be able to be a mentor." For

Kenneth, knowledge of and about his mentee was an important relational precursor if he was

going to be able to be responsive to the needs of his mentee.

In concert with these beliefs, he espoused a learner-centered mentoring paradigm (Zachary,

2000) in which mentoring was characterized and performed as a learning partnership. For

instance, he had learned that Susan liked "to have things very neatly organized and in a certain

order. She wants to know exactly what's expected." Thus, every week Kenneth made sure to

preview his instructional plans with Susan and to discuss her specific responsibilities. He also

felt a responsibility to support his mentee in negotiating her goals as a teacher and her tasks as a

university student. In this instance, he positioned himself as an advocate for Susan, who would

guide her through this process, pointing out obstacles and facilitating her discovery of multiple

interpretations and perspectives regarding her teaching practices. Ultimately, Kenneth believed

that his mentoring should support and scaffold his mentee's learning, teaching, and reflection,

ensuring that a mentee' s "actions fit the teacher' s [mentee' s] platform, adhere to research-based

practices, and suit the current teaching context" (Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2007, p. 46).

However, there were also times when Kenneth expressed his thoughts and provided

explicit feedback regarding a specific situation. This was illustrated in an evaluation of his

student-centered stance toward mentoring and his prediction of how his stance might affect

future mentee behavior: "What I think isn't as important as what they think and hopefully what

will happen eventually is they'll be able to .. put what they think into action." For Kenneth, a

mentoring relationship involved collaboration and transformation. His philosophical stance









toward mentoring, inferred from the previous excerpts, seemed to indicate that he believed in

sharing power with his mentee and in negotiating the nature of the relationship, as well as his

own identity as a mentor as the relationship developed and evolved.

Establishing and Maintaining Rapport: Mentor and Mentee as Partners/Friends

In accordance with the research of many scholars, Susan and Kenneth agreed that

establishing rapport and developing a personal connection was important to the effectiveness and

quality of their mentoring relationship. Susan shared that she and Karen met Kenneth through a

mutual friend early in the semester before their pre-internship. During the fall semester, 2006

Susan and Karen spent some informal time together with Kenneth and their mutual friend,

attending the university's homecoming parade, playing games, and eating. Susan shared that

there was "a lot of playing games that I didn't know how to play" and there was much laughter

about a "shoe game" that each of them had trouble understanding. According to Kenneth, this

"suffering together" helped them to form a rapport based on a shared experience of getting to

know one another in an unofficial, informal, and more personal way. Susan and Karen also

contacted Kenneth and asked if they could spend a day observing in his classroom before the

Christmas break. He agreed, beginning the process of welcoming Susan and Karen into a

particular community of practice. Furthermore, when Susan and Karen applied for placement as

pre-interns, they requested Kenneth, "even though we might not have been supposed to," and

Kenneth, in an evaluative statement that assessed the effect of their actions, said, "Well I asked,

too .. and that hel ed." Their publications were a proved and the university formally

accorded Kevin the legitimate power of mentor and positioned Susan and Karen as his mentees.

Finally, Susan, Karen, and Kenneth met at a restaurant for the formal meeting suggested by

the university in their placement letters. The interrogative mood of this conversation was created

by the questions they asked each other about their personal, as well as their professional lives. In









this way they continued the process of becoming acquainted with one another. Some of the

questions Kenneth posed included, "How many brothers and sisters do you have?" and "Where

do you live?" Additionally, because Kenneth had also completed the teacher education program

at the university Susan was attending, their conversation included a series of knowledge

exchanges about the particularities of their individual experiences at the university and ended

with an activity exchange in which their future interactions as mentor and mentee were

discussed. Kenneth described this interaction and said that they had shared, "funny stories that

we both .you know, [had] been through and then at the very end we talked about what we

would be doing while we were interning ((laughs))." For Kenneth, this personal connection was

paramount to the development of a successful mentoring relationship. He believed that the

rapport and trust they developed provided a necessary foundation for the work of teaching and

mentoring.

Kenneth's and Susan's orientation to difference was one of searching for the

commonalities within their experiences and understandings, as well as recognizing and accepting

the differences that contributed to their unique relational histories and would enrich their

relationship. In knowledge exchanges, composed of evaluative statements, they shared their

interpretations and emphasized the value of establishing rapport for the development of their

relationship and the effectiveness and relevance of the mentoring. Susan accentuated this

difference, when she contrasted it with her previous mentoring experience and stated:

I think it hel s because you know .. we know something about one another .. it was
kind of intimidating when we walked into Ms. Hawthorne' s class, that' s who we, our
mentor teacher was last year and we didn't know her. And had never met her before and
she's like, "Hi. Who are you?"

Kenneth accepted this difference and then focused on the commonality of their

understandings, providing further elaboration of Susan' s evaluation when he said:










It' s much easier to communicate with someone that you have trust with or you feel
comfortable around .. Our personal lives, you know, really are .. the rest of our day
and this is part of it so we have to make sure that we take into account all of it. And I think
a lot of times that doesn't happen just for a variety of reasons. Like you said lack of time
or lack of preparation.

While they both agreed that trust was a necessary aspect of an effective mentoring

relationship, Kenneth acknowledged that there were often barriers, such as lack of time, which

sometimes made it difficult to establish and maintain such a connection. However, it also

appeared that Kenneth believed finding creative solutions for overcoming those barriers was an

important part of his role as a mentor. Moreover, the level of trust they developed was of

considerable significance in Susan's development as an educator. She shared how their rapport

created an environment in which she felt valued, respected and comfortable applying and

reflecting on a variety of teaching practices that would inform her nascent identity as a teacher.

In a realis statement, which evaluated the climate that had been created by the rapport she had

developed with Kenneth, Susan said, "Because you feel more comfortable, you're feeling like

you're, you can be yourself. You don't feel like you're .. uptight and have to act a certain

way." Thus, Kenneth's recognition, even celebration of the differences between them

encouraged Susan to enact her philosophical stance and to become the teacher she envisioned. In

the knowledge exchanges that follow, Kenneth described and evaluated his philosophy of

mentoring that was informed by an openness to and exploration of the differences between him

and his mentees:

Kenneth: [I know] that everybody is different and you have to get to know them to be able
to be a mentor .. because you're not gonna do the same thin for each person. What
was good is I got to know them [his mentees] .. a little bit before they came, ou know.
And then I could know like, Oh, ou know, they make good cookies, ou know. Little
things like that.

Sharon: Mm hmm

Karen: ((laughs))









Kenneth: So, I, I think that that' s important to kind of be responsive to whatever you know
that the person's personality is like and what you know about them. Like I know that, um,
Susan likes to have things very neatly organized in a certain order. And she wants to know
exactly what' s expected and all those kinds of things. Not that Karen' s any different but,
just using that as an example.

Kenneth accepted these differences and used them to tailor his interactions with Susan. He

did not feel a need to resolve or overcome them. Instead, he used their differences to guide his

interactions and dialogues with Susan. For instance, he always arranged to spend some time on

Monday reviewing the instructional plans for the week and discussing their individual

responsibilities and roles within each lesson. Because his mentoring style was a learner-centered

one, Kenneth believed that getting to know Susan enabled him to become an effective mentor for

her. Kenneth positioned her as an authority on her needs and preferences and an irreplaceable

contributor to the co-construction of their relationship. His mentoring stance accounted for the

fact that his identity as a mentor was continually transformed by the relationships he developed

with each of his mentees. For Kenneth, being a mentor was an ongoing process of

transformation and becoming that was shaped by his openness to the nuances of each particular

relationship.

Moreover, establishing and maintaining this rapport and connection with each other had

implications for the professional work they accomplished. In an evaluative statement, Kenneth

expressed their common perspective, "it was really important to have a building block for a

relationship first before you do the tasks second." Susan described how many of her peers had

not had the opportunity to develop a relationship before beginning their pre-internships and how

this had negatively affected not only their relationships, but also the nature of their teaching

experiences in the classroom. According to Susan, some pre-interns were expected to design

lessons and teach in a way that mirrored their mentor teachers' styles, rather than experimenting

with and evaluating the practices that were more suited to their own philosophies and teaching










practices; others were simply sitting in the back of the classroom grading papers. This

recognition of the differences between her own experiences, as compared with those of her peers,

provided Susan with additional confirmation of the efficacy of their mentoring relationship for

her professional development and growth.

Communication: Mentor and Mentee as Partners and Collaborative Problem-Solvers

While Kenneth and Susan continually acknowledge the importance of rapport and trust for

engaging in the work of mentoring and learning to teach, in a subsequent knowledge exchange,

Kenneth shared that maintaining their personal connection was not always easy. During the

week of the state test, he described their routine in the following realis statement, which revealed

the starkness of their interactions that week, "I didn't even have a chance to say hello pretty

much. Come in in the morning, going hello. Here, go get your tests." Furthermore, the only day

that Susan was available for any extended dialogue and mentoring was Monday. Kenneth, who

had embraced his positioning by the university as a mentor and was committed to developing a

relationship that supported Susan as she became a teacher, summarized their dilemma in a

knowledge exchange, which included his evaluation of the constraints imposed by their

individual schedules on the time they could devote to mentoring. He said:

It is hard. When she gets here, it' s like fifteen, twenty minutes in the momnin .. And
we do that. And we tr to, we talk at lunch (ause) a lot .. But with the exce tion of
Monday .. it' s difficult. It'd be much more successful I think for both of us if we had
more planning time.

In order to solve their predicament, Kenneth and Susan used a number of alternative means

of communication including a dialogue journal, email, and phone calls in order to remain

connected and to maintain their rapport. They also made good use of any time they had together

throughout the day. For instance, when Susan arrived in the morning, she and Kenneth discussed

any questions she had about the day's instruction in the fifteen minutes before students entered










the classroom. When necessary, Kenneth had short, whispered conversations with Susan, while

students were working independently, about what he had observed during the lesson that would

be important for Susan to know as she worked with individual students. They also used their

lunches for conferring about their students and instructional decisions, as well as sharing aspects

of their personal lives. Both agreed that because Susan was rarely at school during Kenneth's

planning period, these lunchtime conversations were important to the success of their

professional and personal relationship. The following exchange began with their evaluations of

these lunchtime conversations and ended with realis statements that described the nature of their

discourse:

Susan: I mean just eating lunch together I think helps.

Kenneth: Yeah. Our lunches are great though. I wish we had more lunches.

Susan: Yeah.

Kenneth: We talk about like, you know, this weekend, what'd you do? And all that stuff.
And then we also talk about, so what are we gonna do with so and so? Or did you notice
that so and so on his test did X? You know?

Susan: Mm hmm.

However, while they did their best to make optimal use of whatever time they had together

for mentoring, Kenneth, in another evaluative statement ruefully admitted, "It'd be more

successful I think for both of us if we had more planning time." Ultimately, external factors

constrained the amount of time available for mentoring, but Kenneth' s and Susan's perseverance

and flexibility with regard to their lack of shared planning time in all likelihood contributed to

the successful development of their personal and professional relationship. They felt a shared

commitment to maintaining a connection, and their positioning as partners within this

relationship supported an openness that only enhanced the quality of the limited time they had

for mentoring, professional development, and reflection.










Co-Constructing Knowledge of Teaching and Learning

Co-constructing knowledge of teaching and learning, as well as enacting and evaluating

that knowledge was an important aspect of the mentoring relationship that developed between

Susan and Kenneth. During this process, Susan was absorbed in developing her identity as a

teacher and classroom manager, often positioning herself as a novice, who welcomed, even

depended upon the guidance and support of her mentor, Kenneth. On the other hand, Kenneth,

who already had a well-developed, yet flexible identity as a teacher, usually chose to engage

Susan as a collaborator and partner as they co-planned and co-taught lessons. However, he never

fully relinquished his positioning as a mentor in any of his interactions with Susan. He always

seemed to be aware of his mentoring responsibilities, which included questioning, scaffolding,

and modeling or providing expertise and specific direction when necessary. Thus, the mentoring

discourse intermingled with the discourses of instruction and classroom management as

Kenneth's and Susan's interactions and dialogues moved her from legitimate peripheral

participant to full-fledged colleague.

Observation: Mentor as Model and Mentee as Observer and Active Learner

Susan's pre-internship began in January; therefore, Kenneth had already established and

taught the routines for his classroom and had also invested time in getting to know his students.

Consequently, Susan positioned herself as an observer and Kenneth as an expert and model and

relied on him as a source of the information she would need in order to be an effective classroom

manager and teacher. Kenneth accepted this positioning, realizing that Susan needed to become

familiar with the everyday routines he used with students to manage classroom activities and

instruction. Kenneth acknowledged his positioning and described their early relationship in this

knowledge exchange:









As time went on I would do things and they [Karen and Susan] would have no idea so they
had to .. ask me questions because I .. you know, I can't remember what I've said to
whom or whatever so, like, they'd be like, "What is that? What's the point?"

He expected Susan to be an active participant in her learning, questioning him about what

she had observed and engaging him in a discussion that focused not only on what she had

noticed, but also on the rationale for the behaviors, strategies, and techniques Kenneth

demonstrated. Thus, mood of their initial relationship was primarily an interrogative one, as

Susan had questions about the students and everything she was observing in the classroom. In a

realis statement she recounted that Kenneth had described "what kind of students we had, kind of

getting to know .. Our diverseness of our classroom. Kenneth's take on co-teaching. What co-

teaching models he felt .. would work in certain types of lessons." Even though Susan

completed a classroom profile, which identified the characteristics and demographics of the class

as a whole, she depended on Kenneth to provide further elaboration about each of the students in

their classroom. Susan recognized that she needed specific and detailed information about the

learning needs of each of the students if she was going to be effective in providing instruction

that encouraged and supported student learning.

Additionally, Susan was expected to co-teach, and although she had been introduced to the

various models, she had not yet developed a comprehensive understanding that would enable her

to choose an appropriate co-teaching model for a specific lesson. Therefore, she positioned

Kenneth as a teacher educator and relied on his experience and expertise to extend her limited

knowledge and understanding of co-teaching, so that she would be able to make instructional

decisions that would be suited to the content and would best support student learning. Kenneth

was another resource for Susan to consult as she continued to make sense of the complex nature

of teaching.










Co-Planning: Mentor as Facilitator, Model, and Instructional Designer and Mentee as
Instructional Designer

Kenneth and Susan planned their instructional week on Mondays. Sometimes they co-

planned lessons they would co-teach. In these instances, they positioned each other as

collaborative partners, who brought their own unique expertise, perspectives, and skills to the

task. Other times, due to university requirements, Susan was positioned as a designer of

instruction for a lesson she would present by herself. In these instances, Kenneth provided

support and positioned himself as a facilitator, using a combination of think-alouds and questions

to scaffold her decision-making and consideration of alternative strategies for student learning.

An instance of co-planning occurred during our first dialogue session as Kenneth and

Susan planned a math lesson that would introduce probability and the fractions used to represent

probabilities. They had decided to develop two math stations, and Kenneth provided Susan with

a choice as to which concept she would feel most comfortable teaching, creating the opportunity

for her to be successful in planning and presenting instruction. Kenneth posed questions that

positioned Susan as a designer of instruction and encouraged her to examine the knowledge base

she was developing about teaching and learning:

Kenneth: We need to talk about our stations for tomorrow with math.

Susan: Yes.

Kenneth: Which one did you .. wanna do? Did you wanna do the certain, unlikely,
impossible, likely .. or the fraction?

Susan: Um, it doesn't matter to me. I mean, I feel comfortable with both. I .. I don't
know. I can do the fraction one.

Kenneth: Ok y. So do you have, have you thou ht about what you wanna do? Like what
materials you wanna use?

Susan: You know, it' s funny because, you know, I was saying, I said that, I said, do you
always use the spinner? The example that they gave in the book. And he said, "No, you










can use this or that or that." And we actually .. years ago, when I was at home at
community college, we had to do a lesson for technology.

Kenneth: Right.

Susan: And I did M&M' s

Sharon: Oh

Susan: on a spreadsheet.

Kenneth: Oh yeah

Susan: But it was like, it was on probability ((laughs)).

Even though Kenneth positioned Susan as a collaborator in planning this lesson, he was,

once again, always aware of his responsibilities as a mentor and his questions provided a space

in which Susan was able to make instructional decisions and to develop her identity as a teacher.

In this instance, her choice of a learning activity revealed her belief that instruction should

actively engage the students in the learning. The activity she described required students to

count how many of each color M&M was in their individual bags and then calculate the

probabilities for pulling a particular color M&M from their bags. This learning activity also

made it possible for students to collect data for their group or even the entire class and

recalculate the probability of pulling a specific color from this larger set of M&M data.

Kenneth's questions also made transparent the ways in which teachers think as they plan lessons,

and encouraged Susan to position herself as an expert. Susan's choice of a learning activity led

to a number of activity exchanges on Kenneth's part, requesting and modeling certain

expectations for teacher behaviors during the lesson:

Susan: I can do the fractions with the M&M's.

Kenneth: You can tr .. And you can do other things too. I would do more than one
thing.

Susan: Right. Like different examples.










Kenneth: So I would do like, you could do a two color counter cause that' s just one or two.

Susan: Right

Kenneth: You know, as long as they, the basic thing they have to know by the end is, of
course, the top number is .. you know

Susan: The out, the number of .. whatever.

Kenneth: The actual outcome. And they have to use certain terms. And you want to use
those.

Susan: Right.

Kenneth began this discussion with a very general, open-ended question (e.g., Which one

do you want to do?) and then proceeded to ask more specific, probing questions as Susan

identified the learning activities she would plan for this lesson. His requests directed her

attention to specific aspects of planning a lesson and reminded Susan that the obj ective for

student learning influenced her choice of learning activities and determined the instructional

vocabulary that would be used.

Kenneth also addressed one of the practical issues involved and asked, "What kind of

M&M's are you gonna get? Are you gonna get like little bags?" Susan decided that the little

bags would make the learning activity manageable and would also ensure that each student

would actively participate. As Susan continued to participate in actively planning this lesson,

she had questions of her own to pose, and she positioned Kenneth as a knowledgeable and

experienced colleague. The mood of the dialogue that ensued was a declarative one composed of

realis statements and evaluations. In this way Kenneth and Susan made decisions about the

lesson and then questioned their decisions in order to Einalize the format of the lesson they would

co-teach:

Susan: Now would you, for the M&M's would you have them like, with their own little
sheet, Eill out like their own .. personal bag of M&M' s with their .. have you seen that
before? Where they have the sheet...is that how you would do it or?









Kenneth: I would as long as I modeled it for them first.

Susan: Right

Kenneth: And then say, "Here' s my bag of M&M' s and watch what I do."

Susan: This is how many red ones I have, green ones I have

Kenneth: And ask 'em questions as you go and then say, okay, here are your M&M's.
And make sure that, of course, you do little simple things like you don't wanna eat them
'til you're done because you're not gonna have accurate results, you know?

Susan: ((laughs)).

Kenneth: What if I ate, you need to ask them something like that, what if I ate one blue
one? Then what will I have?

Susan: Okay.

Kenneth: But no, I think that' s great so, I would do, you know if you just wanna do like the
coin counter just at the very beginning. Just so they have multiple ways of getting to the
same thing.

Susan: Okay.

Kenneth. I think they're gonna love that. And that' s good.

In the above series of activity exchanges, Kenneth provided some specific modeling of

how Susan might introduce and conduct the activities at her station. Based on his teaching

experience, Kenneth was able to present some scenarios for Susan to consider as she created her

plan at home that evening.

Susan also questioned whether or not she should design a worksheet, which the fourth

graders could use to record their data, of if they should develop their own chart. This time,

instead of responding directly to her question, Kenneth encouraged Susan to draw on her

knowledge of teaching and learning in order to discover her own answer:

Susan: Do I need to come up with some type of .. worksheet for the M&M's or should
we just have them rip a piece of paper and do it?

Kenneth: Whatever works best for you.










Susan: It'd probably be quicker to go ahead and have a worksheet.

Kenneth: Right.

Susan: Just that way they don't have to draw the table

Kenneth: Right.

Susan: Especially if you have some of 'em in your group

Kenneth: Right

Susan: and then you'll spend twenty minutes getting ready .. to count M&M' s (laughs).

Kenneth: And our goal isn't to have 'em learn to make a chart for this thing.

As a planner of instruction, Susan was beginning to identify the multitude of decisions that

determine whether or not a lesson is effective. She understood that due to limited time in their

daily schedule, it was more appropriate for her to design a worksheet for students to use, rather

than asking students to construct their own table for recording data. Kenneth provided some

additional elaboration for her rationale, reminding Susan that the goal of this lesson was not to

teach students how to make a chart; rather it was to teach students how to calculate probabilities.

Susan learned that every aspect of the lesson needed to be planned and refined according to the

needs of her students. Their dialogue continued, and Kenneth orally shared the instructional

plans for his math station in a series of activity exchanges:

Kenneth: And then I'll do the certain and unlikely. I'll use, that's really .. handy for
s winners. So I'll use spinners for one thin And m ybe, oooh, I like to use dice because .
.. we can talk about like .. craps ((laughs)).

Susan: ((laughs)).

Kenneth: Or Yahtzee. You know, but you can talk about like which, how, you know,
which one's the most common. Seven. Wh is seven considered luck seven? Well, if
you roll these dice, you're gonna hit seven more than you hit anything else, you know?
That'll be good. Then we'll do that. But we'll have some sort of rec, record sheet, to so
they can get experience with that.

Susan: Okay.









In this exchange, Kenneth made his planning practices transparent, sharing how he would

connect his learning activities to the obj ective (learning how to calculate probabilities), to

Susan's station (students would also be recording their data), and to the fourth graders' real-

world experiences (playing Yahztee). His elaboration of the thought processes he employed

when making decisions about a specific lesson provided Susan with an authentic and meaningful

experience of co-planning a lesson. Additionally, Kenneth's and Susan's openness to and

exploration of their differences resulted in the differentiation of instruction and provided their

students with alternate ways of accessing and understanding the content. They were co-teachers,

whose individual roles in planning for student learning, were valuable, indeed necessary. In fact,

their differing instructional approaches were essential for the design of a meaningful lesson that

would result in students mastering the learning objectives.

Through dialogue that encouraged collaboration, Kenneth and Susan co-constructed the

professional knowledge necessary for designing a lesson that would meet the diverse needs of

the students in their classroom. Kenneth posed questions that encouraged Susan to consider the

practical, as well as the educational aspects of planning a lesson. Using a think-aloud technique,

he modeled practitioner thinking, which provided Susan with feedback and scaffolded her

development as a designer of instruction. Additionally, the interrogative mood, characterized by

the questions Kenneth posed and indicative of his mentoring style, supported the development of

Susan's identity as a teacher who differentiated instruction.

Planning: Mentor as Facilitator and Mentee as Instructional Designer

In another instance, Susan was responsible for planning a reading lesson that would be

observed by her university supervisor, and Kenneth embraced his role of supporting Susan in

accomplishing this requirement of her teacher education program. Their fourth grade students

were going to begin reading a chapter book and Kenneth suggested Susan spend that evening










becoming familiar with the book and considering the kinds of learning activities she might use to

teach vocabulary and comprehension. Through requests and questions, as well as realis

statements, which described the nature of the chapter book and his previous experience with

teaching it, Kenneth shared his perspective regarding the pacing of instruction and the complex

nature of making instructional decisions. As a mentor, he made decisions about how much

scaffolding he needed to provide Susan. Ultimately, he decided to foster her instructional

decision-making skills through providing a brief glimpse into his previous experience and

professional knowledge, which encouraged her to discover how to enact her teaching beliefs in

ways that supported students' learning:

Kenneth: So I guess, um, we'll talk about tomorrow. And then by tomorrow give .. kind
of have a general idea about what kind of things you want to do. I saw you looking at the
book today. What are the things you'd like to do with them?

Susan: So .. are you planning .. do you know, are you doing like .. a chapter a day?

Kenneth: Well, probably not a chapter a day .. cause they're longer .. and they're
meatier. And I have to .. it' s hard for me to tell you. I want to see what they [the fourth
graders] do with it first.

Susan: Okay.

Because Kenneth' s teaching stance was a student-centered one, his pacing of these reading

lessons would be determined by his students. However, Kenneth was also aware of his role as

Susan's mentor and of her need for more specific expectations. Thus, he continued this dialogue

and provided Susan with some specific suggestions to consider as she previewed the chapter

book. In these knowledge exchanges, Kenneth expressed his openness to difference,

encouraging Susan to develop her own plans based on her own assessment of the materials and

their fourth grade students:

Kenneth: Um, we're gonna do a lot with sequencing with the book because there's a lot of,
like the whole thing is structured around six o'clock, seven o'clock, eight o'clock, nine
o'clock










Susan: Like a time line. Okay.

Kenneth: Right. So, I mean, we'll do that .. Um .. so .. it's up to you, what you feel
like you want to do with it. There' s a lot of skills that are embedded and if you want to, I
mean, tonight just look it over and see what you think.

Susan: Okay.

Kenneth: Like what I, what I'll do is I'll try to Eigure out .. naturally what skills fall into
that book.

Susan: Okay ..

Kenneth: It's just .. like increasing the level of difficulty .. so the higher level of
Bloom's, you know.

Susan: Okay.

Because Kenneth provided Susan with an example of one of the reading skills she could

teach, Susan was more comfortable tackling this challenging assignment. Kenneth positioned

Susan as a competent designer of instruction and welcomed the instructional decisions she would

make when planning her lesson.

However, Susan's abbreviated responses during their previous interaction may have

prompted Kenneth to provide additional knowledge and support to Susan. Their conversation

about planning this lesson continued, and Kenneth provided Susan with a possible framework for

the structure of her reading lesson. Because he suggested some specific strategies without being

prescriptive, he created room for Susan's ideas, as well as any additional questions she might

have:

Kenneth: Like tomorrow, we'll do .. vocabulary .. for the chapter and, you know, read
it .. in a certain w y. Have them res ond to it somehow .. I want to preview it a ain
and make sure I know what he [the main character] does. I mean I know what he does, but
I want to read it again.

Susan: So are you gonna have 'em .. Are you going to show them a timeline and have
them fi11 out a timeline throughout the book? Like were you gonna have an add on each
day?

Kenneth: Well, kind of. We're gonna have like a sequence of events.










Susan: Okay.

Kenneth: Like one of the things I want them to do is look at how well the author describes
things in here. And get them to develop image, talk about imagery.

Susan: Okay.

Kenneth: And they're going to, cause these kids who, pretty much really enjoy drawing ..
.. so they get a lot out of it [drawing], so I'll have them draw things, of what they see. In
sequential order basically, so, I mean .. sequencing by using a timeline.

Susan: Okay.

Kenneth responded to Susan's questions and described how he modified a learning activity

based on the interests and needs of his students. Therefore, this dialogue provided Susan with a

number of issues to consider as she familiarized herself with the story and made decisions about

how she would engage the students in reading and understanding one of the chapters in this

book.

Providing Reflection and Feedback: Mentor as Critical Friend and Facilitator and Mentee
as Reflective Practitioner

In addition to using their time together for planning lessons, Kenneth and Susan also

engaged in reflecting on the lessons that Susan presented. Kenneth chose to temper his role as an

evaluator and positioned himself as a critical friend, engaging Susan in co-reflection through the

use of questions and evaluations, as well as sharing his own prior experience. The post

conference I observed and audiotaped during our second dialogue session began with Kenneth

posing an open-ended question that was followed by probing questions designed to elicit more

specific answers from Susan:

Kenneth: So I want to start by asking you how you thought your lesson went today.

Susan: I think it could have gone a lot better.

Kenneth: What particular things are you thinking about? .. Every time I'm teaching I
know, and I noticed you did this throughout your lesson, you're thinking about, okay, what
do I need to do next? What do I need to do next? And so at the end when I'm done I










always think about, okay, if I did this again .. what would I do? So that' s kind of what
I'm asking you.

Susan: Um .. it seems like no matter how prepared I am, like I told Sharon, I had note
cards up there. Things I wanted to say. Do you think I said what I wanted to say off
((laughs)) my note cards? No. I looked at 'em for two seconds and the .. eh, there went
that idea .. I don't know. I don't think they [the students] got it [the learning objective].

Kenneth: And what are you .. what do you think .. um, will change in order, like, to
help that? What do you think's gonna happen to where you'll be able to focus on your
note cards or how much you've prepared? How'll you be able to change? Why do you
think you didn't in other words?

Susan: I feel like .. hopefully, eventually I won't need note cards. Because it becomes
intrinsic and I won't have to, you know

Kenneth: Mm hmm .. Mm hmm

Susan: But .. I feel like, I write down the steps then .. I say them, but then like I forget
one or something. You know what I mean? Like I talk to you, co-teaching, how I really
liked it because .. it gave you a chance to fix ((snaps fingers)) everything the second time
that you knew you messed up on or you knew you needed to change.

In this interaction, Kenneth encouraged Susan's reflection by addressing her specific

concerns with the lesson. The interrogative mood of their dialogue, created through Kenneth' s

questions, helped Susan clarify the nature of her concerns and prompted her to consider how she

would modify her teaching in the future. Kenneth then offered his perspective in the following

series of realis statements, which cast him in the role of an observer who described Susan' s

teaching practices during the lesson, and evaluations, which provided his insights regarding the

behaviors of certain students:

Kenneth: Well, to me just from what I was, I mean, who am I? I'm just an observer. But it
looked to me like .. you had your plan. And you wanted to follow your plan. But at the
same time you were trying to respond to what the students were doing. So sometimes
when you do that, it's kind, it' s hard to go back to your plan when you've got so many
other things going on.

Susan: Right.

Kenneth: And I think the only way that' s gonna change is with the experience of doing
more. I don't think there's anything that you can do right now .. to change that, you
know? ((laughs)).










Kenneth reassured Susan that it was evident she had planned and that, with experience, she

would gain expertise in implementing her plan while, at the same time, remaining attentive to the

needs of her students. However, effective instruction also depended on motivating students and

managing any inappropriate behavior. Thus, Kenneth asked Susan to consider a specific

situation he had witnessed during her lesson. He first employed realis statements to describe

what had occurred during the lesson. Then he used questions and requests to encourage Susan's

reflection on a the situation, which, in turn, facilitated her search for strategies that would

address the perceived problems:

Kenneth: But I wanna ask you a co ple qestions. One of the thin s that I saw and that I
heard, two kids particularly, Harry and Jacob. Um, Harry left his desk like this ((Kenneth
used his two hands shoved himself and his chair back from the desk)).

Susan: I saw 'im.

Kenneth. There was a reason for it though. And I figured out what the reason was. And I
want you to figure out what it could be. .. Do you have any idea what might of caused
him to respond in that way? .. Why did he do that?

Susan: Harry probably cause he didn't have a clear role ((strikes the desk with her hand)) .
.. you know what I mean?

Kenneth: Mm hmm.

Susan: Like I don't think, I know I wasn't clear with their roles. I know that. So I think
Harry's problem was, is he felt like he wasn't .. able to do the whole thing. He wants to
be hands in all the time.

Kenneth: Mm hmm.

Susan: And he wasn't. And that group is just a mess to begin with ((laughs)).

Kenneth: Well, right. That group has a hard time working together ...

Susan: What was the cause?

Kenneth: Well I will just tell you, I don't know. But a lot of the kids asked this question.
They said am I gonna get a turn?

Susan: Yeah. I know I was not clear on the roles. I should have stated ..










Kenneth: Right

Susan: once I Einished doing it with them. The first object, seat number one will do. The
second object, seat number two will do. Third object, seat number three will do.

Kenneth: Right .. Even if you just said, it could just be, everyone' s gonna get a turn. I
mean it didn't even have to be that clear.

Kenneth recognized the difference in an attempt to direct Susan's attention to the

discrepancies so that she might discover how to resolve them. He positioned her as a

knowledgeable and competent classroom manager, and Susan clearly specified the way in which

she would eliminate this management problem in subsequent lessons. However, while

Kenneth's questions served to provide the challenge that would encourage Susan's growing

competence as an educator, he was also keenly aware of his need to provide empathy and

perspective so that Susan did not judge herself too harshly. The following realis statements

evaluated the totality of the activities that occurred in the day's lesson. Kenneth stated:

It' s so hard when you have so many things to think about though because here you had to
explain .. you had to connect, obviously, activate their prior knowledge, which you did
with those questions. You had to explain them handing out the materials and then putting
up the materials. You had the chart to explain. You had the whole procedure of making
sure you watch me and then make sure you do it and whatever. You know and that was a
lot. There was a lot to do .. ..that's just any lesson. A lesson. There's always gonna be
ten things that you wanna do differently, so.

Thus, teaching is a complex activity and learning to teach is a lifelong endeavor. Kenneth

aligned himself alongside Susan, revealing that there were always aspects of his lessons that he

would choose to redesign or present differently if given the opportunity to do the lesson again.

Feiman-Nemser (1998) has suggested that mentors, who wish to help pre-service teachers who

are learning to teach, must have clear ideas about the kinds of teaching they want novices to

learn and what that teaching entails. Kenneth's feedback revealed his understanding of effective

teaching and provided a basis for the knowledge that he and Susan co-constructed. In an

evaluative statement Kenneth told Susan that the graphic organizer she designed made it easy for










the students to organize their information and thinking, and in a series of realis statements and

evaluations Kenneth commended Susan for her attentiveness to the needs of her students,

providing her with specific feedback as to the effectiveness of her teaching practices. He said:

The thing that I noticed that was .. really neat for me was just .. how well you were
monitoring what they were doing. Because you always, you realized, you know, when they
needed somebody to come over there and kinda redirect them. You realized .. the three
times that we needed to come back to as a whole group to like have our new direction or
have .. maybe .. something you wanted to say that you didn't get a chance to or
something you wanted to reiterate because, you know, it didn't sink in or whatever reason.

According to Kenneth, this monitoring of students' attention and learning was far more

important than following what she had written on her note cards. Finally, Kenneth questioned

Susan as to how she would assess students' learning. Susan admitted ignorance and positioned

Kenneth as an expert, a role he willingly assumed in an effort to provide Susan with some viable

alternatives for the future.

Susan: I don't know how I'll know [that the students had learned] ((laughs)).

Kenneth: So we can look at what they did today.

Susan: Mmm

Kenneth: When we get that turned in. And then look at different things that they do in the
future maybe?

Susan: Yeah.

Kenneth: Like when we do .. we're gonna have to do a lesson on buoyancy and they're
gonna have to Eind out the density. So they're gonna have to Eigure the mass. They're
gonna have to Eigure out the volume. And they're gonna have to divide them .. to Eigure
out what the density of the object is, so ..

Susan: Yeah .. so I guess time will tell ((laughs)).

Kenneth connected Susan's lesson with future lessons and provided her with an example of

how she might encourage her students to apply new learning to solve problems. In modeling the

many questions a teacher asks about any lesson, Kenneth encouraged Susan to develop the habits









of an effective educator. She was receptive to his questions and evaluations and willingly

positioned herself as a reflective practitioner.

Concluding Thoughts

The analysis of Kenneth's and Susan' s discourse, as reported in this chapter, revealed that

their mentoring was a relational process and as such, the nature of their relationship provided the

foundation upon which learning, negotiation, and transformation occurred. Kenneth and Susan

developed a relationship in which they viewed each other as collaborators and partners whose

perspectives and expertise benefited the learning of their students, as well as their own personal

growth and transformation. The mood of their relationship was primarily an interrogative one,

providing a context in which their differences were accepted and explored and created discourses

that were critical and creative. Both Kenneth and Susan asked questions and thought aloud as

they discovered answers, evaluated their choices and modified their decisions. Susan shared that

she co-constructed knowledge about teaching and learning with Kenneth through the dialogues

in which they engaged as they co-planned lessons and then reflected on these lessons. She

evaluated these experiences and believed that her interactions with Kenneth were influencing her

identity as a teacher:

Talking to him helps. .. I guess kind of ingrain in my mind, like those are the things that I
need to be thinking of as I write a lesson, as I plan a lesson as I .. teach a lesson I tr to
remember .. those, those things he mentioned that, you know, it might work better this
way, you know. I take his advice with an open mind and I want to, to try .. you know
what he has because .. he, he's obviously been a successful teacher for many years.

However, Kenneth purposefully provided choice and opportunities for Susan to

problematize the situation and discover multiple solutions. He clearly eschewed the role of

providing a template of teaching practices for Susan to emulate. Cloning himself was not

Kenneth's goal. In fact, his own words eloquently expressed the nature of the mentoring

relationship that he and Susan negotiated and nurtured:










I don't want .. to direct someone else's teaching because their philosophy may be
different from mine. And I don't want to like push my philosophy onto them. So I figure
if I question and .. you know .. kind of solicit input from .. whoever I'm talking to
then it's gonna be much more meaningful for them and it' s going to really help me know
more about them so I can help them decide .. ((clears throat)) where they want to go next
or what they want to do cause my job is not to .. have them become me, it' s to have them
become themselves.

Kenneth's stance toward mentoring encouraged Susan to develop her own unique identity

as a teacher; however, the relationship that developed between them, as well as Susan's

observation of Kenneth' s teaching practices influenced her beliefs about teaching and the teacher

identity she was constructing. In the realis statement and evaluations that follow, Susan

described and assessed some of the strategies and practices that were becoming a part of her

identity :

Susan: I think Kenneth has .. great classroom management. Um .. and I, I think that' s
a, a necessity in a class .. Going over and constantly reinforcing procedures is
important. And following those procedures yourself. Kenneth always models it.

Sharon: Mm hmm

Susan: I mean, you know, how you want your students to act, you should act .. I like
cooperative learning because I've, we've read a lot about it, but actually seeing it in the
classroom. I really, really, really, really like and .. you know, teachers say they try it and
then they just kind of give up on it because it' s too much work, but .. it' s constantly
going in here, you know .. it's the classroom community and I think that' s, that's a key
and I think those classroom building activities that he does where they have to write about
one another in their j oumals and um .. you know to earn team points and just, just simple
thi gs like that I think hel s with .. .like learning as a whole.

Observing Kenneth as he engaged in specific teaching practices was crucial for Susan's

understanding of specific strategies and techniques. She has realized the importance of modeling

behaviors for her students, and she has also recognized that building community in the classroom

was an important first step in creating an environment that supported student learning. While

this internship experience was challenging, Susan had gained confidence in her abilities to plan










and present instruction and she was also able to make connections between her university

coursework and its application in a real-world classroom.

In addition, the positioning of Kenneth as a mentor had implications for his own identity as

a teacher. In a knowledge exchange he described and evaluated the influences of mentoring on

his teaching practices and identity:

I think maybe I'm getting .. better at connecting my own platform and philosophy with
what I do. Because by .. constantly rethinking about what I'm doing so that I know what
... I know how to show this to someone. Or I know how to explain this to someone or
whatever. That I'm better at it because .. you know, without Susan or some other
inquisitive person here, I wouldn't have um .. really thought things through as much.

Thus, Kenneth problematized his own practices and became more aware not only of how

he enacted his teaching and mentoring philosophies, but also of their implications for Susan and

his fourth grade students. The interrogative mood of their relationship, which was created, in

part, by Susan's questions, provided Kenneth with an opportunity for critical reflection and a

more elaborated understanding of his practices and philosophy of teaching, as well as mentoring.

Finally, even though there was a certain synchronicity in Kenneth's and Susan's teaching

practices, it was their acceptance and exploration of their differences that more profoundly

influenced and transformed their identities and practices. The following knowledge exchange

occurred during our last dialogue session and provided a final evaluation of the lasting influence

of their mentoring relationship:

Kenneth: It' s really neat because Susan .. does a lot of things the way I would do them.

Sharon: Mm hmm.

Kenneth: It's neat thou h because we're not the same person so I do get to see .. her
ideas about doing some things.

Sharon: Right.

Kenneth: How she, how she looks at things with a similar idea but puts them into practice
differently. I get a different perspective, um, and then being better at connecting my










practice and my platform. Being better at .. not leading someone .. to deciding what to
do in their own practice, so they can, make their own decisions.

Susan: Yeah, I think that' s helped me, too. When he .. when he does ask me, well what
do you want to do in this lesson? Well what do you .. you know, what do you have
planned? And why are you doing this? That helps me .. I guess I have it somewhere in
my head, but it helps me verbalize it .. It helps me rethink it and make sure that' s
exactly .. how I wanna do it and um .. kind of like a reassuring almost, you know?

Sharon: Mm hmm

Susan: Oh, that' s why we have obj ectives ((laughs)). You know what I mean?

Kenneth clearly differentiated his mentoring practices based on the needs of his mentee.

This enabled him to create an environment and engage Susan in the kinds of activities and tasks

that would support her development as a teacher, more specifically, as the teacher she envisioned

herself to be. At the same time, he critically examined his own teaching and mentoring

practices, which only served to support his own learning and the elaboration of his identities as a

mentor and teacher. The reciprocity in their relationship benefited both of them and encouraged

them to critically question their practices and position themselves as reflective practitioners, who

embraced differences as an opportunity for transformation and growth, which ultimately

benefited their students' learning.

































Co-planning Mentor as Instruction: Knowledge and activity
facilitator and Mentoring exchanges. Acceptance
model: mentor and and exploration of
mentee as difference.
instructional
designers
Planning Mentor as Instruction: Knowledge and activity
facilitator and Mentoring exchanges: questions and
model: mentee as realis statements.
instructional Interrogative Mood.
designer
Providing Mentor as observer Mentoring: Knowledge exchanges,
feedback and critical friend: Instruction realis statements,
mentee as novice evaluations. Acceptance
colleague of difference.


Table 4-1. Mentoring Group 1: Identities and Activities within the Discourses of Mentoring,
Instruction, and Classroom Management


Category

Developing
and
Maintaining a
Relationship


Activity


Identity


Discourse

Mentoring



Mentoring


Textual analysis and
orientation to difference
Knowledge exchanges,
evaluations. Focus on
commonality.

Knowledge exchanges,
questions. Acceptance of
difference and focus on
commonality.
Knowledge exchanges,
evaluations. Acceptance
of difference.

Knowledge exchanges,
evaluations. Recognition
of difference.


Developing an
understanding of
mentoring

Establishing and
maintaining
rapport.

Communication


Mentor and Mentee
as co-constructors
of meaning

Mentor and Mentee
as partners/friends


Mentor and Mentee
as partners and
collaborative
problem-solvers .
Mentor as model:
Mentee as observer


Instruction,
Classroom
Management,
Mentoring
Instruction,
Classroom
Management


Co-
Constructing
Knowledge of
Teaching and
Learning


Observation


Reflection


Mentoring:
Instruction:
Classroom
Management


Questions, realis
statements. Acceptance
and exploration of
difference. Interrogative
Mood.


Mentor as
facilitator: Mentee
as reflective
practitioner









CHAPTER 5
USING DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS TO PROMOTE MENTEE-CENTERED
MENTORING

Mentoring Group 2: Barbara, Melissa, and Elizabeth

This mentoring group was situated in a third grade classroom at Allenton Elementary

School and was composed of Barbara, the mentor teacher and two pre-interns, Melissa and

Elizabeth. I met with this group on Tuesdays, and our dialogue sessions were conducted during

their daily planning period, which occurred in the morning.

The Participants

Elizabeth was a 22 year old Caucasian female whose motivation to become a teacher

stemmed from her experiences teaching math, working at a summer camp for mentally and

physically handicapped adults, and working as a teacher' s aide in a special education class at her

high school. Elizabeth considered this special education teacher to be a mentor who "sparked

my desire to do special ed." She would like to teach out of state and mentioned Chicago as a

place where she would like to live and begin her career. Elizabeth will receive a Bachelor' s

degree in elementary education and a Master' s in special education.

Melissa was a 21 year old Caucasian female, who grew up in New Jersey and always

wanted to attend an out-of-state college. To this end, she applied for and received a scholarship

that would fund her out-of-state education as long as she agreed to teach in New Jersey for at

least three years upon her graduation; otherwise she will have to repay the loan. She had some

experience babysitting when she was growing up and she said, "I don't know what else I would

want to do, so why not?" Her philosophy was, "if I don't like it, it' s not like I have to be a

teacher for the rest of my life. But now [after her experiences in classrooms] I like it so .. "

Melissa would like to teach either second or third grade and felt she would be most comfortable

in a school like Allenton or in a private school. She also mentioned a preference for staying in










this state or returning to New Jersey, and at this point, did not see herself leaving the profession

"cause I don't want to have to go back to school ((laughs))." Melissa will receive a Bachelor' s

degree in elementary education and a Master' s in special education.

Barbara was a Caucasian female in her fifties. She held a Master' s degree in education and

had twenty-three years of experience as a teacher. She began her career in education teaching

second and third grades in a private elementary school for six years. She then taught at the

junior college level for three years, as well as Title 1 and gifted classes before settling into her

third grade position at Allenton. Barbara chose teaching as a career because "I wanted to be able

to raise a family .. and work." She has been mentoring interns and pre-interns for at least seven

or eight years. Because one of her favorite j obs was teaching at the junior college level she

thought, "mentoring would be the same thing." Barbara also shared that she has always enjoyed

and benefited from discussing teaching and student learning with the pre-service teachers she has

mentored.

The Context

Elizabeth, Melissa and Barbara taught in a third grade classroom of 23 students. The desks

were arranged in groups of two or three, and these groups of desks were arranged horizontally

and faced the front of the room. A chalkboard and screen were on the front wall. There were

bookshelves on both of the side walls, as well as a writing center and couch for students to sit on

during independent or partner reading. The teacher' s desk and computers were also at the back

of the room, along with cupboards, a sink, and a table that served as a desk for Elizabeth and

Melissa.

Elizabeth and Melissa negotiated their scheduled time at school with Barbara. Because

weekly tests in reading and spelling were administered in the mornings every Friday, Barbara did

not feel that Fridays would provide the pre-interns with the kinds of experiences they wished.










Thus, Melissa and Elizabeth chose to spend the entire day at school on Mondays and Thursdays,

and four hours in the morning on Tuesdays.

Overview of Barbara's, Elizabeth's, and Melissa's Discourse

The purpose of this chapter was to investigate how Barbara, Elizabeth, and Melissa utilized

discourse to negotiate their relationship and what role their relationship played in their co-

construction of knowledge of teaching and learning. Hence, I sorted their discourse into two

categories relative to the purposes of my study: "relationship development" and "co-construction

of knowledge." Table 5-1, which can be found at the end of this chapter, utilizes these two

categories to summarize the ways in which I made use of aspects of Gee' s and Fairclough' s

discourse analysis to understand Barbara' s, Elizabeth' s, and Melissa' s co-construction of the

activities of mentoring, as well as their identities as mentor and mentees.

As I analyzed the data in each of these categories, a number of distinctive activities

emerged that characterized the nature of Barbara' s, Elizabeth' s, and Melissa' s discourse. These

activities included developing an understanding of mentoring, establishing and maintaining

rapport, communicating, observing, developing a professional knowledge base, planning, co-

planning, providing feedback, and managing behavior (See Column Two). Each activity resulted

in the construction of specific identities such as mentor and mentee as partners/friends; as

knowledgeable facilitator and novice colleagues, and as provider of feedback and instructional

designers (See Column Three). Table 5-1 also reflects the ways that these activities and

subsequent identity formations were situated within three distinct discourses as discussed in

Chapter 2: (a) the discourse of mentoring, (b) the discourse of classroom management, and (c)

the discourse of instruction (See Column 4). Finally, the table indicates the ways in which these

activities and subsequent identity formations emerged through a textual analysis and

consideration of how Barbara, Elizabeth, and Melissa used dialogue to negotiate their differences









as described in Chapter 3 (See Column 5). Once again, in the remainder of this chapter, I utilize

excerpts from the data to illustrate how each activity and identity summarized in Table 5-1

contributed to Barbara's, Melissa' s, and Elizabeth' s relationship development and co-

construction of knowledge.

Developing and Maintaining a Mentoring Relationship

Barbara, Melissa, and Elizabeth brought their diverse relational histories with them as they

began their relationship, and their histories influenced the ways in which they engaged each

other in dialogue and shaped the nature of the relationship they developed. Once again, the

mentor teacher, in this case, Barbara, had more previous experience with mentoring than either

of her pre-interns and the initial conversations that she had with Elizabeth and Melissa were

influential in shaping their relationship and the nature of their interactions as they explored the

practices of teaching and mentoring.

Developing an Understanding of Mentoring: Mentor and Mentees as Co-Constructors of
Meaning

Melissa and Elizabeth recounted experiences with other classroom teachers that were

similar to Susan' s and did not provide them with any definitive understandings of mentoring.

Melissa, in describing her experience in another elementary classroom two semesters previous to

this one, shared that the expectations for this preceding placement were very different. She was

only at the school two mornings a week and was expected to observe and to plan and present two

lessons. She did not spend enough time in that classroom to know the students well or to

become actively involved in the daily planning, teaching, and reflection upon lessons. Melissa

stated, "she [her previous mentor] wasn't really, um, all that helpful." However, Melissa

tempered her evaluation and said, "but at the same time we [Melissa and Elizabeth] weren't

really teaching." Melissa excused this teacher from assuming a mentoring role, believing that









she was not positioned as a mentor by the university's expectations for this placement. Although

she and this teacher shared personal stories, they did not engage in co-planning or any reflective

discussions of their teaching practices.

Melissa was also beginning to realize that the interactions between herself and any

classroom teacher with whom she was placed were influenced by the ways in which they were

positioned, not only by each other, but also by the university. In fact, Melissa did not

characterize any of her previous relationships with classroom teachers as mentoring

relationships. According to Melissa, "I don't even know if it was called mentor teacher until I

came here." For Melissa, the university played a role in positioning the pre-interns and the

classroom teacher. In a letter specifying their placement, Barbara was specifically positioned as

their mentor teacher. Thus, Melissa and Elizabeth were provided with a conceptual framework

that they would continue to refine throughout their relationship with Barbara. Already, Melissa' s

relational history was influencing her expectations for this relationship and her understanding of

mentoring. In an activity exchange she shared, "I guess I was, I was expecting for the teacher,

for my mentor teacher this time to be .. um, more .. encouraging and .. um, you know, um

getting me to do more and that kind of thing." Melissa seemed to believe that mentors

encouraged their mentees through providing challenging assignments and opportunities. to

engage in the practices of teaching.

Similarly, Elizabeth shared her lack of experience with the kinds of interactions considered

effective mentoring practice. In a realis statement that described the interactions she had with a

previous "mentor" teacher she said, "I never really talked to her [the classroom teacher] all that

much and then we only had to do the two lessons and I'd say, 'Oh is it okay if I teach a lesson on

rhymes next Tuesday?' and she said, 'Yep.'" While Elizabeth showed initiative and faithfully









met the requirements of the teacher education program and her placement, she did not engage in

any reflective conversations that problematized her own or her supervisory teacher' s classroom

practices, conversations which might have furthered her development as an effective educator.

Thus, Elizabeth' s and Melissa' s fledgling relationship with Barbara would not only provide

entrance into a community of teaching practice, but would also enable them to elaborate and

refine their understandings and expectations of mentoring.

Like Kenneth, Barbara also depended on her mentees to assist her in determining the kind

of mentor she needed to be so that they could design a mentoring relationship that would suit all

of their needs. She shared her perspective using evaluations and realis statements, which

described their initial meetings and Barbara' s perceptions of them:

Barbara: It' s always fun getting to meet them for the first time because they all come in
with different questions. And I remember Elizabeth, the first day she was here and had
like ninety questions.

Elizabeth: ((laughs)).

Barbara: Which I thou ht was prett neat. I like it when they have questions. I never
know exactly where to start.

Because learning to teach is often a process of experiential learning, the experiences of

pre-service teachers need to be taken as starting points for their learning (Koster, Korthagen,

Wubbels, 1998). Moreover, Barbara realized that mentoring was an individualized and

particular practice, based on each pre-intern's unique combination of needs, interests, and

abilities. Thus, the beginning of their relationship was characterized by an interrogative mood.

Furthermore, because learning to teach is a complex, contextualized, and ongoing process,

Barbara believed she was responsible for providing her pre-interns with meaningful and relevant

experiences that would enable them to develop identities as teachers and would encourage and










support their growth as professionals. In the following knowledge exchange Barbara posed a

series of questions that emphasized the situated nature of her mentoring:

There's so much I want to teach them. There's so much to cover. And you don't want to
overwhelm 'em the first three weeks they're here ((laughs)) .. [I wonder] am I modeling
something that's going to be helpful to them? Am I .. ((laughs)) modeling something
that' s not helpful to them. How can I encourage them to get involved in the classroom and
with the kids? .. But, um .. mostly I wanted, I want them to feel comfortable in my
classroom. I want them to feel like it' s their classroom, too. I want them to feel this ..
ownership of kids.

Barbara was aware that Melissa and Elizabeth would be positioning her as an expert, but

she also understood her role of recognizing and providing opportunities for her pre-interns to

become legitimately involved in the teaching and learning that occurred in their classroom.

Therefore, she asked Melissa and Elizabeth to work one-on-one with specific students the first

day of their internship, acknowledging their need for incremental steps in becoming full-fledged

members of the teaching community and providing them with opportunities to become involved

in ways that complemented their skills and abilities. Melissa and Elizabeth began to understand

that their mentor viewed them as novice colleagues and believed that learning about teaching

was best accomplished by becoming actively involved with students and being provided with

opportunities to develop their teaching practices.

Establishing and Maintaining Rapport: Mentor and Mentees as Partners and Friends

Although Barbara, Elizabeth, and Melissa did not spend extended time getting to know one

another before the semester of their placement, they believed it was important to establish a

personal connection and a rapport in order to develop the kind of mentoring relationship that

would promote and support their development as teachers. When Melissa learned she would be

placed with Barbara at Allenton Elementary School, she consulted her roommate, who knew the

interns who had been placed with Barbara in a previous semester, and solicited the opinions of









others regarding their interactions with Barbara. In a knowledge exchange, Melissa shared the

conversation she had with her roommate, as well as an evaluation of her upcoming experience:

I was like, 'Oh I have Barbara' and she's [her roommate] like, 'Oh, she's good' cause I
guess she [her roommate] was friends with your interns, she's like, 'Oh, they like her' so I
knew that I wasn't going into a really scary situation ((laughs)).

For Melissa knowing that other pre-interns had enjoyed their experience with Barbara

seemed to provide a sense of security, which according to Maslow (1987), is an important

precursor to learning, and was, in all likelihood, a necessary condition for Melissa as she began

the work of learning to teach. Additionally, Elizabeth shared that, for her, knowing about

Barbara' s family was especially important in establishing rapport. In a knowledge exchange of

realis statements and evaluations Elizabeth shared her perspective of how learning this personal

information affected her willingness to develop a relationship with Barbara:

Family is so important to me that knowing about her family helps with the relationship just
because I know where she's coming from and how the experience that she's had, you
know, raising kids and, you know, with adopted kids and everything, that was, that was a
big, um, that was important to me to learn about her family.

In sharing the stories of her personal life, Barbara established a connection with her pre-

interns based on their similarities. This focus on commonality was evident in Elizabeth's

evaluative statement that predicted the nature of their time together. She said, "It' s gonna be a

great year ((laughs))." Furthermore, the rapport they established with each other was important

for Elizabeth and Melissa as they engaged in the complex task of learning to teach. Both of the

pre-interns felt very comfortable discussing their ideas for learning activities and lessons with

Barbara and soliciting her opinions and advice. Melissa described one instance in which she

attempted to describe a game she wanted to use in a math lesson. Admittedly, Barbara did not

understand her first explanation, and Melissa shared that had it not been for the trust and rapport

she had developed with Barbara, she would have given up and planned something else. Instead,









Melissa persevered and finally described the game to Barbara in a way she understood.

According to Melissa, "I guess you could say like because we get along, um, like personally it, it

makes it so much easier to get along like teaching wise .. you know what I mean? ((laughs)).

They had developed a relationship in which both Elizabeth and Melissa were willing to take the

risks that were necessary for learning.

Communication: Mentor and Mentees as Colleagues

Finding time for mentoring proved to be a much easier task for this group as they had

forty-five minutes of planning time each morning they were together. Barbara' s evaluation of

their daily opportunities for dialogue and reflection first positioned Elizabeth and Melissa as pre-

interns who needed specific feedback and an occasion to ask questions, but then repositioned

them as co-teachers, whose observations of the third graders provided Barbara with a more

elaborate understanding of her third grade students' needs:

And it's [the daily planning period] wonderful, because it allows them to ask questions
about what they're doing in classes or what their lesson plans are going to be and that sort
of thing. It allows me to give them feedback. It allows me to ask them questions about
what they're seeing with the kids.

Moreover, these daily conversations provided a place in which they could discuss their

differing ideas about teaching. Both Melissa and Elizabeth appreciated Barbara' s acceptance of

these differences. In a series of realis statements and evaluations, they related how they

positioned Barbara as an expert they could depend upon to evaluate their ideas and plans, and to

offer feedback that was meant to challenge, support, and encourage:

Elizabeth: If we have an idea and we go to her and she just, "Yeah, that' s nreat." And, and
if, and if she does find something in it, something, you know, she rather us not do or that
the kids wouldn't respond to because she knows the kids better than we do

Sharon: Mm hmm

Elizabeth: So if she knows that we're going to do something that they wouldn't respond as
well to she would give us a suggestion of something else to do instead .. um, but, for the










most part she's very encouraging about our ideas which, which is very .. uh, you know, I,
I was worried .. that she would, you know, be set in her ways and, you know, and just,
and like, "No, this is how it needs to be done." .. And she even said ((Melissa laughs))
um, she enjoys getting to hear us cause it helps her to stay on top of things .. I like how
she just encourages us to, to be, you know free with, you know, if we want to introduce a
new, new way of doing something she's very for it and, um, I, I know that, that .. I, the
fact that I know that she is for us.

While Melissa and Elizabeth positioned themselves as novice teachers who, in certain

circumstances, needed some specific direction, they were, with Barbara's encouragement and

acceptance of their differing beliefs and practices, repositioning themselves as practitioners

whose ideas were relevant and valuable and would benefit student learning. Because of the trust

and rapport they had developed with Barbara, Elizabeth and Melissa freely shared their ideas

with Barbara. This provided Barbara with another opportunity to know her pre-interns, which

she felt was a necessary condition for fulfilling her responsibilities as a mentor, especially with

regard to the tasks of providing feedback and constructive criticism. In a hypothetical statement,

Barbara illustrated how a lack of familiarity and rapport might have hindered her ability to

mentor:

If I don't know them [the pre-interns] well .. I would be very hesitant to criticize .. I
mean I don't want to squash someone's teaching. I don't want them to become .. you
know .. afraid to tr an thin But it you criticize someone it can come across the wrong
way and, you know, you have to know them .. before you can offer constructive criticism
or they .. might really hurt their feelings.

Effective teaching required a critically reflective stance (Brookfield, 1995; Schoin, 1987)

and Barbara was aware of the necessity of creating an environment in which Elizabeth and

Melissa felt safe to experiment with their nascent teacher identities, as well as to develop and

maintain a relationship in which they felt that any critique was offered to benefit, rather than to

denigrate or demean them. Both Melissa and Elizabeth immediately provided their own

evaluations of this aspect of Barbara' s mentoring in short narratives that were complementary

and focused on the commonalities of their experiences. They also described some of the very










different experiences of their peers. This accentuation of the differences among members of

their cohort seemed to provide Elizabeth and Melissa with a more elaborate understanding of

how their relationship with Barbara was influencing their development as teachers. The

following excerpts combined realis statements and evaluations to convey the perspectives and

emerging insights of Melissa and Elizabeth:

Melissa: We know that .. that she cares enough to think about something like that, where
our other teachers may not .. ((laughs)) we're, we're not scared of her telling us that was
bad. So we'll try new things or come to her with ideas.

Elizabeth: Yeah, there are some, some of our peers were talking, just talking about how
their teacher when she does criticize them, it's it, it does, it breaks them .. Like she
[Barbara] .. she is .. has let it be known from day one that she cares about us. That, you
know, that she is here to help us. That, you know, she respects us as, um, adults, you
know, and I think that, that's, that's really huge .. cause I see how that's not being done
in other classes and how it really affects the way that the pre-interns are teaching and, and
their attitude toward teaching and that kind of thing.

Melissa: Um, just to add to that. Yeah, I think it's like she lets us know that, um, we're not
just in the classroom to help her out. It' s also, she's helping us become teachers. And I
think some of the other teachers are like, oh good. I get interns. They can, you know, teach
certain lessons for me that I don't feel like teaching or they can, you know, do all the
grades and stuff. That' s not the only reason we're here. Sure it' s nice, but .. like we're
also in here, she, she has us in here to help .. create future teachers .. rather than just
have

Elizabeth: Make her workload easier ((laughs)).

Melissa: Yeah

Barbara: Oh, is that why you're here?

Melissa and Elizabeth: ((laugh)).

Melissa's and Elizabeth's experiences within their situated mentoring relationship have

resulted in their co-construction of an understanding of mentoring that embraced both career and

psychosocial functions (Kram, 1986, 1988). For these two young women a caring, familiar

relationship was a necessary precursor for their learning about and becoming part of a particular

community of practice. The respect with which Barbara treated Elizabeth and Melissa validated









their personal power, and the ways in which she positioned them as novice colleagues enabled

the pre-interns to remain open to her mentoring and her critique. Even when there was a

recognition of their differences (e.g., in their choice of particular learning activities or their

teaching styles), Melissa and Elizabeth remained open to these differences and benefited from

considering what might be learned from Barbara's professional knowledge and teaching

practices, even as they were aware of the diversity among their approaches. For instance,

Elizabeth noticed how Barbara treated her third graders with the same respect she showed adults

and often inj ected humor and personal references in an attempt to engage her students with the

learning. Although Elizabeth might have chosen a different instructional strategy for the lesson,

she would emulate the ways in which Barbara developed and maintained a caring and authentic

rapport with her third graders. In these ways, Melissa's and Elizabeth's current experiences

added another layer to their relational histories and would most likely provide a lens through

which they would evaluate future mentoring relationships.

Their positive expectations for this mentoring relationship, their acceptance and

appreciation of their differences, as well as their search for the commonalities among their

perceptions and experiences, and the personal connection that they continued to nurture may

have become a self-fulfilling prophecy for the ongoing development of an effective mentoring

relationship. Through dialogue, the women accepted the different perspectives that each of them

provided on how they had established rapport, as well as the importance of doing so, and this

layering of their perspectives provided a richer story of how their relationship began and

evolved. Additionally, the mentoring relationship they constructed was a fluid and inclusive one,

which respected and valued their differences, and seized any opportunity for collaboration,









discussion, and reflection. Learning was the goal for the pre-interns, for Barbara, and for the

third grade students in their classroom.

Co-Constructing Knowledge of Teaching and Learning

The co-construction of knowledge about teaching and learning was a fundamental part of

Elizabeth' s and Melissa' s placement in this third grade classroom. Through their university

coursework, they had been exposed to and grappled with some of the theoretical perspectives in

which specific educational practices were grounded, and they had also experienced, albeit very

peripherally, the practical consequences of implementing these practices in the classroom. Now

Melissa and Elizabeth were ready to further develop their knowledge about teaching and learning

through more contemplative and continuous participation in a real world classroom.

Developing Background Knowledge: Mentor as Knowledgeable Facilitator and Mentees as
Novice Colleagues

Since this was a spring placement, Barbara had already established a level of rapport with

her third grade students and had taught them the routines and procedures of her classroom.

Therefore, her early conversations with Elizabeth and Melissa were a series of knowledge

exchanges in which Barbara provided them with the information they would need to make

instructional decisions suited to the needs and abilities of the third grade students. Melissa and

Elizabeth were surprised by, but appreciative of Barbara's open and welcoming stance and

developed an understanding of a mentor as one who shared power through providing necessary

background knowledge about the students and the classroom. In realis statements, which ended

with a one word evaluation, Melissa summarized her experience of their first few days in the

classroom :

I feel like the first couple days we didn't have any kind of schoolwork to worry about so
we just like talked .. a lot and like the first day she went and told us .. every single kid,
he's got this problem. He's on this medication, like, very open, like I didn't even know we









were gonna know if the kids were on medication or not .. Like pointed at each desk and
told us every single kid in the class, like, I thought that was really .. good.

At the time Melissa made this statement, she and Elizabeth had already spent a month in

the classroom; therefore Melissa had learned how important it was to have relevant information

about her students in order to create meaningful lessons and manage students' behavior. In their

early conversations, Barbara positioned Elizabeth and Melissa as new colleagues who needed

specific information about each of the third graders in order to become effective in the

classroom. It was interesting to note that in Melissa's recollection of these conversations, the

information Barbara provided seemed to focus on students' problems. Although Barbara might

also have discussed the students' talents and strengths, it was the students' shortcomings that

piqued Melissa's interest. Possibly Melissa perceived teaching to be a problem-solving

endeavor and believed that she must become aware of and overcome any obstacles to student

learning.

Barbara also chose to immediately involve Melissa and Elizabeth in classroom activities.

In a realis statement she recounted how she had involved the pre-intemns on the very first day

they were in the classroom. She said, "You know, the very first day they were here they [the

third grade students] were doing some kind of test and I said, 'Would you take Robert and do it

with him?'" In asking Melissa and Elizabeth to provide support for individual students with

specific learning needs, Barbara positioned them as co-teachers, whose skills could be used to

encourage student learning.

Additionally, some of the assignments for their university coursework provided Melissa

and Elizabeth with opportunities to acquire information necessary for successfully planning and

presenting instruction. In a knowledge exchange, Melissa described the classroom profile they

were required to complete:









We're required to do certain things like a classroom profile so that requires us to sit down
and ask her [Barbara], you know, how many ESE kids are in the class? Like how do you
talk to parents? Um, just get to know how she does things in the class.

Melissa positioned Barbara as an expert with regard to her classroom routines and procedures

and recognized that she and Elizabeth needed this information if the third grade students were

going to position them as competent and effective teachers.

Elizabeth and Melissa also learned the value of some of the more mundane aspects of

becoming a teacher. Barbara had asked them to grade and file the homework that students

turned in each morning. In realis statements and evaluations, Elizabeth and Melissa shared what

they had learned from engaging in this necessary part of teaching and how it benefited their

ability to design lessons and provide support for student learning:

Melissa: Oh, like that's [grading papers] part of the job. You [Barbara] do that, too ...
Like that' just part .. you're alwas gonna have to do that as a teacher.

Elizabeth: I learn .. oh man, I learn, I love, I love to .. I don't love grading papers, but I
love seeing where the students are .. throg grading their homework and um, it really
helps me get an idea ..

Melissa: We wouldn't know as much about them if we didn't see their grades.

The pre-interns had learned that assessing assignments provided them with important knowledge

about their students' learning, as well as their misconceptions. The homework assignments were

a form of data that provided Melissa and Elizabeth with an opportunity to leamn more about their

students and to design lessons that would meet their learning needs. Barbara concurred and in

knowledge and activity exchanges, they all shared what their experiences had taught them and

how they made use of what they learned:

Elizabeth: Yeah, this was kind of my, my first glimpse into grades aren't .. I mean,
you're, you're not doing it lust to give a number. Like you really are looking to see where
they are

Barbara: What they've done.









Elizabeth: Yeah .. yeah

Barbara: We've got to go back and re-teach this because they don't understand it.

Elizabeth: Right

Melissa: For instance, we usually do [grade] the homework and I'll be like, Barbara, they
really didn't understand number two, like I've only seen two people get it right in the
whole math class. Like I don't think they're getting that concept and so we'll re-teach it
the next day because no one got it right on their homework, you know?

Barbara was once again aware that as a mentor she needed to do more than simply talk about

how instructional decisions were made. She also needed to model how the data gathered from a

variety of assessments could be used to teach effectively and to ensure student learning.

Planning and Co-Planning: Mentor as Model, Provider of Feedback, and Co-Planner and
Mentees as Instructional Designers and Co-Planners

The information that Elizabeth and Melissa gained from their discussions with Barbara

about individual students, as well as from their university assignments, enabled them to begin to

plan and present lessons, a requirement of their teacher education program. In a series of realis

statements Melissa and Elizabeth described how Barbara facilitated their planning:

Melissa: We have to do a certain amount of lessons so that requires us to say, "Okay, when
is it gonna be good for us to teach a lesson? She actually even asks, "Would you rather
plan this lesson on, by yourself or do you want to do it from the book?" So we get a
choice, which is good and then, um .. we talk about the lesson that we're gonna do and
then she evaluates us and .. we talk about it ((laughs)).

Elizabeth: She allows us a lot of freedom, which is good and she allows us a lot of time in
front of the class.

The interrogative mood of their planning dialogues, which was created by the questions

Barbara asked her pre-interns, seemed to indicate an openness to difference. Barbara embraced

her position as a facilitator and provided Melissa and Elizabeth with choices. Ultimately, she

was positioned as an evaluator, although it seemed that she shared power with her mentees and

discussed her feedback, rather than simply offering prescriptive solutions.










In our fifth dialogue session, Melissa and Elizabeth previewed a lesson they would be

teaching and explained the game they had developed to teach fact families. Melissa and

Elizabeth expected Barbara to comment and provide feedback that would enable them to modify

and refine their lesson before they actually presented it to the students. Melissa had made a

number of triangles and had written numbers in two of the corners of each triangle. Students

would be asked to calculate the number for the third corner so that the three numbers in the

corners of the triangle were a fact family. For instance, one triangle had a three in one corner

and twenty-four in another corner. In an activity exchange, Elizabeth and Melissa positioned

each other as collaborators and co-planners and made decisions about how to explain this activity

to their students:

Melissa: Um .. either you know, you can multiply two numbers .. you have to either
multiply or divide to find the missing number. I guess that' s how we can explain it. So, in
this one we go, 3 and 24. .um .. so the answer is .. is 8, cause 8 times 3 is 24 .. .I'm
trying to think how I can ((laughs)) ..

Elizabeth: Well, you, I was even gonna say what can you do with 24 and 3 to find this
missing answer?

Melissa: To find the answer .. Okay .. Something like that.

Barbara remained silent as they began their discussion and provided Melissa and Elizabeth

with a space in which they could discover how to provide specific directions that would be

understood by the students. However, Barbara j oined their discussion as they considered how to

group students for this activity. In knowledge and activity exchanges that contained evaluations,

Melissa, Elizabeth, and Barbara positioned each other as co-planners who, through evaluating

each other' s perspectives and ideas, made decisions about the grouping strategies that would be

used for this lesson:

Melissa: I was thinking I would do partners, but I made so many of these [the fact family
triangles] I think we don't have to, um .. we can pass these out .. so each kid gets one.
Tell them to figure out the missing answer on their triangle and just raise their hand and sit










quietly when they're done. And it'll be team 1, team 2, and team 3 ((Melissa pointed to
the three groupings of desks in the classroom as she named each team)) and we'll just go
around and simply say .. yes or no. And so if team 1, four out of Hyve of them [the
students] get it right, then team 1 gets 4 points. Team 2 however many get it right and team


Barbara Well, that' s not fair cause team 2 is way bigger.

Elizabeth: Yeah .. it has more kids.

Barbara: Do boys against girls.

Elizabeth: Okay. That always works.

Melissa: Boys against girls. That's Eine .. They don't have to actually .. do, do we give
them anything if they actually win or ..

Barbara: No

Elizabeth: No

Melissa: Okay, well then, that's Eine.

Elizabeth: Just knowing that they're better than the boys is enough.

Barbara positioned herself as a critical friend and suggested how Melissa's strategy for

grouping the students should be changed, thereby normalizing the differences in their

perspectives. The mood of their discourse was declarative as Barbara provided a specific

strategy to be used, and Melissa and Elizabeth incorporated her feedback and redesigned this

particular aspect of their lesson.

As a result of listening to Melissa' s description of the learning activity, Barbara devised

another way in which the students could use the fact family triangles to practice multiplication

and division facts. She shared her insights with Melissa in the following activity exchanges:

Barbara: What you can do is show them how .. when they .. have .. the certain
number filled in...

Melissa: Mm hmm.

Barbara: They can cover any corner .. ((She held up a fact triangle and covered one
corner with her Einger.))









Melissa: Mm hmm.

Barbara: What goes on this corner? ((She covered a different comer of the triangle with her
finger.)) What goes on this corner? ((She covered the third corner of the triangle with her
finger.))

Melissa: Mm hmm.

Barbara: What goes on this comer? You know, and have them do it with a partner.

Melissa: They can do it, take the ones that they have filled out already and do it with a
partner.

Barbara: Yeah. And cover up different corners.

Melissa: Yeah. That's what the other activity was .. Or they could even like .. that
sounds good .. and another thing you could even do is have them .. you know, they
have 18, 9, and 2. Flip it over and write the four facts that go with 18, 9, and 2.

Barbara: Good idea.

Melissa: Okay ((laughs)).

Barbara and Melissa positioned each other as collaborative instructional designers,

extending the learning activity in ways they had not envisioned before this discussion. Their

differing perspectives resulted in elaborating and extending the original learning activity. In

addition, Barbara identified some of the glitches that could have occurred during instruction and

provided solutions. Both Melissa and Elizabeth positioned Barbara as an experienced teacher

and teacher educator, and her feedback enabled them not only to design a more effective lesson,

but also to elaborate their professional knowledge base.

Providing Feedback: Mentor as Evaluator and Facilitator and Mentees as Novice
Colleagues

Barbara also provided Elizabeth and Melissa with feedback regarding their classroom

management strategies. The pre-interns had taught a lesson the day before our second dialogue

session in which many of the third grade students had called out answers, rather than following

the established convention of raising one' s hand and waiting for the teacher to choose someone









to answer the question. In a realis statement Melissa described the strategy they were going to

use for today's lesson. She said, "Today we're trying to do the popsicle stick thing where you

cannot talk unless your popsicle is called and if you are continuously calling out there will be

some sort of consequence ((laughs))." When I asked her how they had made a decision to use

this strategy, she recounted Barbara' s feedback on their lesson. In a realis statement that

described Barbara' s evaluation Melissa stated, "We talked about it yesterday, um, after when

she, when she observed. She was like everything looked pretty good, but the calling out was

awful ((laughs))." In this way Barbara positioned Melissa and Elizabeth as classroom managers,

who were responsible for upholding the established standards of behavior and providing

consequences for inappropriate student behavior. She identified an aspect of their teaching that

needed improvement and encouraged Elizabeth and Melissa to Eind a means for becoming more

effective in managing student behavior that distracted from learning.

However, there were also instances in which Melissa and Elizabeth were providing

Barbara with feedback about specific students, information that she needed to plan for student

learning. According to Barbara, "They [Elizabeth and Melissa] see so much more .. you

know they can give me a lot of wisdom about my kids." Barbara positioned them as co-teachers,

whose insights enabled her to be more effective as a teacher. Melissa and Elizabeth gained

confidence in their ability to make judgments about what they were observing in the classroom

and how their observations might affect their instructional decisions.

Behavior Management: Mentor as Model and Collaborator and Mentees as Decision-
Makers and Collaborators

Classroom management was discussed in almost all of our dialogue sessions. In the

beginning of March, Elizabeth admitted her feelings about managing students' behavior. She

stated, "I hate thinking about the discipline aspect." Her feelings were due, in part, to her










previous experiences as a resident assistant in college, and Elizabeth evaluated the trauma of that

early experience and predicted how her experiences might affect her classroom management:

Elizabeth: Cause I feel, I feel like I'm gonna struggle the most because I hate ..
disciplining. Like I was an RA [resident assistant] in my sophomore year.

Sharon: Okay.

Melissa: I think it would be harder though, cause like college kids.

Elizabeth: It .. I didn't do it the next year because of the discipline.

Melissa: Of course.

Elizabeth: I, I was like I, I can't do this. This is .. this is not what I was made for.

Even though Elizabeth felt some trepidation with regard to behavior management, Barbara

continued to position her as a co-teacher and co-manager. She told Melissa and Elizabeth that

she depended on them to intervene in classroom situations in which students were inattentive or

distracting other students. In fact, the three of them had been trying to decide what kind of

intervention would be appropriate for two of the students in their classroom, Julie and Robert. In

the following knowledge exchange, Elizabeth positioned herself as a reflective practitioner and

assessed her knowledge of these students and how this knowledge might assist her in becoming a

more effective manager of student behavior:

Elizabeth: Well, I get frustrated with Julie. And ..

Barbara: Yeah, me too.

Elizabeth: Because I don't really I don't really know .. how to get through to her.
Whereas Robert .. I'm around him a lot more because he's in homeroom.

Sharon: Okay.

Elizabeth: And so I, and I've learned how .. to interact with him in a way that .. is
helpful to both of us. I haven't reached that point with Julie. And so, um .. and she was
causing trouble and I, and I, I didn't know .. the best way .to deal with her. But I did
know how to deal with him. So .. that' s why I went over to him and turned his feet and
then I made eye contact with her and she was not gonna break it.









Although classroom management still engendered a certain amount of discomfort and was

a less integral part of Elizabeth' s identity, in accentuating the differences between her

relationship with and knowledge of these two students, she was beginning to problematize the

situations in which the students' inattentive and off-task behaviors negatively affected their

learning, as well as to develop ways in which she might encourage them to engage in more

appropriate behaviors. She was learning that good classroom management involved more than a

set of classroom rules and that detailed knowledge about her students was necessary for making

decisions about behavior management.

Moreover, in Barbara' s estimation, Elizabeth was capable of effectively managing

behavior, as evidenced in this knowledge exchange in which Barbara evaluated Elizabeth's

intervention with Robert. "Your intervention was perfect. 'Robert, turn around. Be quiet.' .

you know and .. unfortunately he didn't heed it." According to Elizabeth, Robert does not like

to face forward no matter where he is seated, but because she has taken the time to develop a

rapport with him and to understand the idiosyncrasies of his learning style, she knew that she

could physically turn his chair around and he would not be upset or distract other students.

Elizabeth was beginning to recognize that her knowledge of particular students enabled her to

choose appropriate strategies for managing behavior, and Barbara' s feedback reinforced the

effectiveness of her choices.

Still, Elizabeth questioned how she would be able to discipline these two students while

continuing to present instruction and to maintain her own sanity. Barbara positioned herself as

an experienced teacher and offered her own solution to this dilemma flipping cards, a behavior

management system that she used in her classroom. This system made use of a pocket chart and

each student had a pocket in which there were several colored cards. The first card was green for










appropriate behavior. The second was yellow and indicated that the student had been warned

about his behavior. The third card was orange and resulted in more serious consequences, such

as losing recess, and the fourth one was red, which usually meant a phone call home to the

student' s parents. In the excerpts that follow Barbara explained the benefits of her behavior

management system in a knowledge exchange, "Flipping cards .. .is a way, you know, that ..

you can .. literally .. continue to talk and teach at the same time you're disciplining the kids .

.. You walk over and flip their card without saying a single word about why." In a knowledge

exchange, Melissa, Elizabeth, and Barbara continued their dialogue, problematizing their

practices, accentuating the differences between various behavior management strategies and

evaluating their effectiveness:

Melissa: I think I still feel too bad, too. It's always, 'Do that again and I'll flip your card.'
But I never actually flip the card.

Elizabeth: Oh, yeah.

Melissa: I think I need to ((laughs)).

Barbara: Every now and then you're gonna have to, you know?

Elizabeth: Follow through.

Melissa: Yeah.

Barbara: At least, if it' s your own class, you're gonna have to follow through.

Melissa: Oh, yeah.

Melissa was experiencing some dissonance as she attempted to develop an identity as a

classroom manager. While she problematized her own practices, she had yet to implement

practices that demonstrated her developing awareness of the need for consistency in reinforcing

the consequences for inappropriate behavior. Barbara recognized the dissonance that Melissa

was experiencing and continued their conversation in a knowledge exchange that evaluated the

efficacy of a different orientation to behavior management:










Barbara: Um .. but the positive reinforcement always works so much better. I kind of
hate flipping cards.

Elizabeth: Yeah.

Barbara: I really .. would much rather give stickers. But .. it's not as obvious, you
know?

Elizabeth: Yeah.

Barbara: You can't (). And, and you can't be writing on an overhead and going around
and giving stickers.

Melissa: ((laughs)).

Elizabeth: Mm hmm. Mm hmm.

Barbara: So it's a dilemma.

Melissa: I like the points still .. that works pretty well, like, um...

Barbara: Mm hmm.

Melissa: They just talk and talk cause all they're doing is writing, so

Barbara: Mm hmm.

Melissa: And, but if I go and stand up there and like .. give group three a, a .. point

Barbara: Mm hmm.

Melissa: Then they all kind of

Barbara: settle down .. Yeah, yeah .. Definitely worthwhile.

Barbara emphasized the differences between the strategies for managing student behavior

and provided Elizabeth and Melissa with an opportunity to evaluate them and consider the

advantages and disadvantages of particular strategies in specific situations. Additionally, she

provided them with a number of strategies they could add to their growing number of behavior

management strategies. Melissa was already making judgments about which approach suited her

particular teaching style, as well as specific situations in which behavior needed to be managed.

Elizabeth' s and Melissa' s interactions with students in this classroom, as well as their dialogues









with Barbara, were providing them with an extensive professional knowledge base, which now

included a number of diverse management practices they could employ in creative and

appropriate ways in their future classrooms.

Concluding Thoughts

The analysis of the dialogue in which Barbara, Elizabeth, and Melissa engaged indicated

that the mood of their discourses, which resulted in the co-construction of their identities and

practices, was predominantly declarative, and even though they all posed occasional questions,

especially during their collaborative efforts, much of their dialogue was composed of realis

statements, or statements of fact, and evaluations of those statements or their experiences.

Barbara shared how being positioned as a mentor and model shaped her teaching practices and

how she positioned the pre-intemns as co-teachers. In a knowledge exchange she related how

mentoring had contributed to her becoming more reflective about her own teaching practices:

I think .. you know I have a hard time sometimes with my young students .. being
Patient with them. And understanding that they don't understand. And t 'in to .. a lot
of times I think they don't understand because they haven't been listening. They're
doodling. They're drawing. They're playing with pencils or pens or just plain not paying
attention. And .. I get frustrated with that and I lose patience with the kids. And I may
even get real snipp with them. And then I think, I can't do that. That' s not encoura g.
That's not promoting leamnin That' s not .. and if .. the interns are here .. number
one, there' s two more people that hit some of those kids that aren't paying attention and
therefore need the extra help. They're here to help. They're also here to remind me
((lauh) that I'm su posed to be a model .. and I need to be modeling ood teaching
behaviors so I'd better not yell at these kids ((laughs)).

The experience of mentoring had enabled Barbara to transform her behavior, which benefited the

learning of Melissa and Elizabeth, as well as her third grade students. Additionally, Barbara

shared how her positioning of the pre-intemns had been transformed from students to co-teachers.

In realis statements and evaluations, she described not only how her perceptions had changed,

but also the reasons for this change:










I look at them now .. as .. cooperative teachers, rather than, I'm the mentor and they're
the students...Because, frankly they know how to handle .. a couple of the students better
than I do because you've worked with 'em so much on a one to one basis .. You can get
them to do stuff I can't. And so in some aspects...they're more qualified than I am .. to
do stuff. So it' s more of a cooperative thing now, I think.

Barbara now positioned Melissa and Elizabeth as colleagues and collaborators, as full-

fledged members of the Allenton community of practice. Barbara' s collaborative spirit was

further evidenced in her relationships with other teachers at Allenton Elementary and this had an

influence on both Melissa' s and Elizabeth' s fledgling identities. In evaluative statements, they

revealed how their interactions with Barbara had shaped their understanding of collaboration and

how it might benefit them in their future classrooms:

Elizabeth: In order to be the best teacher that you can be to your students .. to get, you
know, other teachers involved. Figure out how they're teaching it and to work with them,
um .. I think is, is very huge ...

Melissa: You're gonna have to rely on the other, the other teachers because you don't have
.. like other people watching and giving input in your classroom, so you're gonna have to
say I don't, you know, think this necessarily worked. How did you teach it? .. And they
may come to you for help.

Barbara explained that collaboration among teachers was part of the Allenton school culture and

advised Melissa and Elizabeth that this was not the case in every school. However, Barbara's

willingness to collaborate had made a profound impression on the pre-interns. They had

benefited from their opportunities to work cooperatively with Barbara and would be seeking

opportunities to collaborate with other teachers in the future.

While Elizabeth definitely appreciated and benefited from Barbara' s approach to teaching,

she was unequivocal in her identity as a special educator. Her strong beliefs about her teacher

identity and practices were illustrated in the following evaluation, in which she described how

the discipline in a special education classroom differed from that of a regular education

classroom :










And so .. I feel like the discipline in that arena is different from the discipline in this
arena because I want to do either .. full out resource or secluded classroom .. So ..
um .. I feel like in that sense it' s gonna be on an individual basis as opposed to the class .
.. room-wide way of disciplining. So .. yeah. That's kind of my thoughts on it right
now, yeah.

Elizabeth recognized, even accentuated the differences in classroom management between

special and regular education, and her beliefs about special education were reflected in the ways

in which she approached instruction and discipline in a regular classroom. For instance, she had

learned how to manage Robert's behavior because she knew him and had developed a

relationship with him. Thus, her identity as a special education teacher shaped the ways in which

she related to students in a regular education classroom.

Elizabeth also described how her observation of Barbara further influenced her identity as

an observer of students and a teacher who focused on the learning needs of individual students

when making decisions about teaching. In a number of realis statements she shared what she had

learned from Barbara about meeting the needs and addressing the learning styles of individual

students :

And if you let him ex ress himself in the wa that he needs to be ex ressed .. you're
gonna have a good relationship with him. If you stop him every single story that he starts
to tell, if you, you know, say stop drawing .. you shut him down constantly .. you're
gonna hit a brick wall with him. But I, I've, I've even seen from you .. that you
allowance of, of certain things .. his drawing .. And so, um .just, you know,
learning from you and watching you and how you allow him to do things .. that he
needs to do in order to continue functioning ((laughs)).

Elizabeth's philosophical beliefs and her own experiences with this student were corroborated

and reinforced by her observations of Barbara' s teaching and classroom management practices.

She had gained confidence in her own decision-making skills, and her understanding of the

effects of her own teaching behaviors on particular students had also been elaborated. In other

words, Barbara's modeling had played a significant role in Elizabeth's learning.









Even though Melissa was also getting her Master' s degree in special education, she did not

wish to teach in a secluded special education classroom. Thus, her understanding of classroom

management differed from Elizabeth's and was conveyed in the following activity exchange:

But I think I'm just gonna have to see what classroom I'm in, um, like assess them during
the first week or two and see what I think. Like obviously I'm gonna have a plan to come
in with, but I might be changing it completely, like depending on the group of kids, I think.

Melissa had begun to realize that she needed to know her individual students in order to develop

an effective plan for managing her classroom. It seemed that she was integrating what she had

learned in her special education coursework with what she was learning in this third grade

classroom.

In addition, Melissa's attitudes about teaching had undergone a transformation. Until her

placement in Barbara's classroom, Melissa had been very frustrated by some of the coursework

and her previous experiences in schools. She admitted that while she wanted to be a teacher "it

wasn't like what I really, really wanted to do, like I was just gonna be okay with it." However,

her experience with Barbara and the third grade students had changed her perceptions. In realis

statements that described her new perspective, she evaluated her present feelings:

This has totally changed my view on teaching. Like now, I'm actually excited about it.
Cause now I feel like I finally learned, learned how to teach. Like being those classes [at
the university], if I were, I, I'm still, I'm glad I have an extra year to actually be in the
classroom cause, um .. this has made me extremely more confident as a teacher .. I
felt this helped sooo much more than anything you actually do at like on the university's
campus. So it' s totally changed my view on teaching and I like it now ((laughs)).

It seemed that Barbara served as more than a model of teaching behaviors; she had also

facilitated a change in Melissa's dispositions toward teaching. It seemed Melissa craved the

experiential learning that this pre-internship placement provided and it had affected not only her

developing teaching skills, but also her motivation to engage in teaching. Barbara had created an










environment that welcomed Melissa into the profession and profoundly changed her self

confidence and affect.

Additionally, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), the state achievement

test, played a role in how Barbara, Melissa, and Elizabeth constructed their identities before and

after the test. Melissa believed that teaching was hard work, although it was not often viewed

that way by the public, and that teachers were blamed for shirking their responsibilities when

their students did not perform well on the state test. The three of them engaged in a dialogue

about the FCAT and the ways in which it influenced and shaped their teaching practices. In a

series of knowledge exchanges that evaluated the influence of the FCAT, they described the

kinds of learning activities that had taken place before the test, as well as the lessons they would

be free to teach after the test:

Melissa: I see how it influences .. Like I feel like they're really not learning. They're
just learning how to pass that test, like .. and, but you have to do it .. These kids [low
ability third graders] need so much practice and so you, like we had to completely cut out
spelling, grammar, and reading for an entire week before FCAT just to practice that test.
And I'm sure they still don't all .. do that good ((laughs)) .. So instead of learning how
to spell another group of fifteen words and learning a whole new grammar concept and
things that actually might help them .. pass it in the future you had to just sit and okay,
read this story. Answer these questions ((laughs)) you know? But it seems that's what you
have to do, hmm.

Elizabeth: Yeah .. um, it's sad because .. I have all of these .. ideas and .. creative
things going on that can be .. fun for the kids to learn and...

Melissa: You can do them in the two months after the test.

Elizabeth: Yeah, exactly. Exactly.

Barbara: You know all the teachers are saying save the fun lessons for the quarter after
FCAT ...

Elizabeth: It doesn't allow .. the FCAT doesn't allow you to teach .. the wa you want
to, you know? I mean everyone teaches differently and they have different styles and the
FCAT just seems to .. just carbon copy.









Melissa and Elizabeth accentuated the difference in their teaching practices before and

after the FCAT, but were unable to resolve this tension. Instead, it seemed as if they suppressed

their beliefs about teaching until after the FCAT had been administered. This bracketing of their

differences led to a superficial consensus that in the future they might wish to problematize. An

exploration of the differences in their teaching practices before and after the FCAT might

ultimately lead to a resolution that would result in lessons and learning activities which would

motivate and engage their students, as well as ensure high test scores.

Like Kenneth, Barbara believed it was necessary to know her pre-interns in order to be

able to mentor them in a way that was appropriate for their interests and needs. She used

dialogue to engage Melissa and Elizabeth in discussions about instruction and classroom

management and she provided them with information, often in the form of declarative

statements, which enabled them to extend and elaborate their professional knowledge bases. She

also believed that her role as a model of good teaching behaviors was a significant aspect of her

mentoring responsibilities. Additionally, the trust and rapport that Barbara developed with her

pre-interns created an environment in which Melissa and Elizabeth were comfortable exploring

the facets of their teacher identities and identifying some of the classroom issues that required

critical reflection and creative solutions. In a knowledge exchange that occurred during our fifth

dialogue session, Elizabeth evaluated her mentoring experience in this poignant excerpt:

To be in this relationship where she is encouraninn and when she does have, um, criticism,
it, it always is constructive. I've never felt like when you've give, um, feedback it's been
negative and just hurtful. I've never felt like that. Um .. and also, um, how you have
allowed us to .. um .. be our own person. Like and, and take charge in certain
situations like, for instance, um, in disciplining. In some cases you have allowed us to, to
do that. Um, that' s been a bi help for me because disci line is a hard thing for me to do.
And so when I, when I actually take the initiative and do it (laugh) it' s good to know
that you're backing me up .. backing me up is very helpful .. and not just in
discipline areas, but in other places where we've taken initiative. She's always backed us
up and it' just a really good thing, so ..









Barbara' s mentee-centered mentoring encouraged both Elizabeth and Melissa to develop

unique identities. Like Kenneth, Barbara did not wish to clone herself. Instead she created a

supportive and nurturing environment which fostered the development of their teaching

practices. The pre-interns ended their relationship with Barbara as colleagues, who were able to

articulate, through dialogue, the ways in which their identities and practices had been shaped by

their active engagement in the classroom and the mentoring that Barbara provided.













































Instruction,
Mentoring



Instruction,
Classroom
Management,
Mentoring

Classroom
Management,
Mentoring


Planning


Mentoring


Developing an
understanding of
mentoring

Establishing and
maintaining
rapport.


Table 5-1. Mentoring Group 2: Identities and Activities within the Discourses of Mentoring,


Instruction, and Classroom Management
Activity Identity


Category


Discourse

Mentoring


Textual analysis
and dialogicality
Knowledge
exchanges,
evaluations. Focus
on commonality.
Knowledge
exchanges,
questions .
Acceptance of
difference and
focus on
commonality.
Knowledge and
activity exchanges.
Acceptance of
difference .
Knowledge
exchanges.
Declarative Mood.


Knowledge and
activity exchanges;
questions and
realis statements.
Declarative Mood.
Knowledge and
activity exchanges,
requests.
Declarative Mood.

Knowledge
exchanges, realis
statements,
evaluations .
Declarative Mood.
Knowledge and
activity exchanges.
Declarative Mood.


Developing and
maintaining a
mentoring
relationship


Mentor and
Mentees as co-
constructors of
meaning .
Mentor and
Mentees as partners
and friends


Communicating


Mentor and
Mentees as
colleagues


Mentoring,
Instruction,
Classroom
Management
Instruction,
Classroom
Management,
Mentoring

Instruction,
Mentoring


Co-constructing
knowledge of
teaching and
learning


Developing a
professional
knowledge base


Mentor as
knowledgeable
facilitator and
Mentees as novice
colleagues
Mentor as model
and provider of
feedback; Mentees
as instructional
designers
Mentor as expert
and co-planner;
mentees as co-
planners and
decision-makers
Mentor as
facilitator and
evaluator; Mentees
as novice
colleagues
Mentor as model,
decision-maker and
collaborator;
Mentees as
decision-makers
and collaborators


Co-planning





Providing
feedback




Managing
behavior









CHAPTER 6
USING DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS TO PROMOTE MENTOR-CENTERED
MENTORING

Mentoring Group 3: James, Amy and Jessica

This mentoring group was situated in a fourth grade classroom at Allenton Elementary

School and was composed of a classroom teacher, James and two pre-service teaching interns,

Amy and Jessica. James, Amy, Jessica, and I conducted seven dialogue sessions, which took

place during their planning period on Thursdays.

The Participants

Amy was a twenty-two year old Caucasian female. She was a gymnast and planned to

coach gymnastics at a high level institution after graduation. She may return to a career in

education later and believed that she had learned a lot about child psychology and working with

children that will benefit her, whatever her career choice. She will graduate with a Bachelor' s

degree in elementary education.

Jessica was a twenty-one year old African-American female. She has wanted to be a

teacher since she was Hyve years old. As a young student, Jessica was often paired with students

who were struggling and she felt that she "could make a difference in their lives. I could make

learning fun for them. I could show them, um .. that, I could give them my passion for learning

was always my goal and .. by doing that I could be a teacher." Jessica will graduate with a

Master' s degree in elementary education and dual certification in special education with an

endorsement in ESOL. She plans to move to Miami and teach third, fourth, or fifth grade in a

school that has received a D or an F on the state test for the past three years. This desire may be

due, in part, to her experience with helping struggling learners when she was an elementary,

middle, and high school student herself.










James was a twenty-seven year old Caucasian male and has been teaching fourth grade at

Allenton Elementary School for four years. He has a Master' s degree in elementary education

and will finish his Specialist' s degree during the summer of 2007. James has always wanted to

work with children, especially those who were not as fortunate as he has been. He believed that

he could be a positive role model for boys and girls who might not have a father figure at home.

James has mentored pre-interns for the past three years and has appreciated having other adults

(i.e., the pre-interns) in the classroom believing that "by observing them I see some things I can

improve in myself."

The Context

James, Jessica, and Amy were responsible for 24 fourth grade students and their class

reflected the demographic makeup of the school. At the beginning of our dialogue sessions,

student desks were arranged in a large horseshoe with several of the desks positioned within the

horseshoe. There was a whiteboard and screen on the front wall, and an overhead proj ector and

chair were situated in front of the whiteboard. The teacher' s desk and computer were located at

the front of the classroom. A classroom library was located in the back of the room along with a

couch for student seating, an aquarium for the pet lizard, and a kidney-shaped table. Jessica and

Amy were able to spend from 7:15-1:40 in the classroom on Mondays and Thursdays, which

ensured that they were in school during James' s planning period. They spent from 7: 15-11:15 at

school on Tuesdays and Fridays.

Overview of James's, Amy's, and Jessica's Discourse

The purpose of this chapter was to investigate how James, Amy, and Jessica utilized

discourse to negotiate their relationship and what role their relationship played in their co-

construction of knowledge of teaching and learning. Hence, I sorted their discourse into two

categories relative to the purposes of my study: "relationship development" and "co-construction









of knowledge." Table 6-1, which is found at the end of this chapter, utilizes these two categories

to summarize the ways in which I made use of aspects of Gee' s and Fairclough' s discourse

analysis to understand James's, Amy's, and Jessica' s co-construction of the activities of their

mentoring relationship, as well as their identities as mentor and mentees.

As I analyzed the data in each of these categories, a number of distinctive activities

emerged that characterized the nature of their discourse. These activities included developing an

understanding of mentoring, establishing and maintaining rapport, developing background

knowledge, developing a professional knowledge base, planning, providing feedback, and

managing behavior (See Column Two). Each activity resulted in the construction of specific

identities such as mentor and mentee as partners/adversaries; as expert and novice colleagues,

and as provider of feedback and instructional designers (See Column Three). Table 6-1 also

reflects the ways that these activities and subsequent identity formations were situated within

three distinct discourses as discussed in Chapter 2: (a) the discourse of mentoring, (b) the

discourse of classroom management, and (c) the discourse of instruction (See Column 4).

Finally, the table indicates the ways in which these activities and subsequent identity formations

emerged through a textual analysis, as well as a consideration of how they used dialogue to

negotiate their differences as described in Chapter 3 (See Column 5). In the remainder of this

chapter, I utilize excerpts from the data to illustrate how each activity and identity summarized in

Table 6-1 contributed to James' s, Amy's, and Jessica' s relationship development and co-

construction of knowledge.

Developing and Maintaining a Mentoring Relationship

As with the other mentoring groups, James, Amy, and Jessica brought their previous

experiences and understandings with them. Therefore, the unique relationship that developed









and evolved among them was influenced and co-constructed by events from their past, as well as

by their current interactions and emerging perceptions and interpretations.

Developing an Understanding of Mentoring: Mentor and Mentees as Co-Constructors of
Meaning

While Amy had fully expected to develop a relationship with the teacher with whom she

was placed for her pre-intemnship, she had not considered that it would be a mentoring

relationship. In a realis statement, Amy maintained that ProTeach presented this relationship as:

Here' s your teacher. You're interning for this person and it' s not presented as .. a
fostering, nurturing thing. It' s you'll report here in the morning and this is who you'll be
under and this is who, who's, who will tell you what to do

In fact, Amy had expected to spend most of her time sitting in the back of the classroom

taking notes and only occasionally teaching a specific lesson. In a realis statement she described

her expectations for this relationship, "Well I mean I knew we would have assignments to

complete and we'd have to teach certain lessons and stuff, but I didn't expect to teach every day

or to be as involved in the classroom as we are." However, James positioned her as actively

involved in constructing an identity as a teacher through providing her with opportunities to

engage in the practices of teaching. She began to understand their mentorship as a relationship

in which power was shared, creating an environment in which Amy was able to experiment with

and construct her teaching practices and identities.

Like Amy, James had a number of expectations for this mentoring relationship that were

based on his previous relational history and experiences with mentoring. He had completed his

own internship in the same school district only four years ago, and his relationship with his

former mentor teacher influenced his understandings and interpretations of mentoring. In a realis

statement he related his experiences with his mentor teacher, "Number one when I was an intern

.. I was involved in the classroom. I could not stand to sit. I'd fall asleep if I had to sit in the










back of the room." He positioned his previous mentor as a model for the mentor he was

becoming. In addition, while James understood that observation was a necessary and worthwhile

aspect of learning to teach, he believed that legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger,

1991) should provide the foundation for an effective mentoring relationship. James shared his

nascent philosophy of mentoring in a series of realis statements and evaluations that conveyed

his expectations for their relationship and his rationale for these expectations:

James: I've never had any complaints about my interns being too involved in the
classroom.

Amy: ((laughs))

James: .. You know, their job as interns or student teachers, yes, is to observe me. But .
.. it's also to actively participate in what' s going on in the classroom because you learn by
doing. That' s how I learn. And different people have different learning styles. But if I
just sit here and tell you to do something .. and don't give them the oportunit to do it ..
.well, then, you know, and it's just .. techniques I mean.

James believed that his pre-interns needed to experience teaching and working with

students firsthand in order to understand the complex nature of teaching and to begin to make

sense of who they were as teachers. As a teacher educator, he felt a responsibility for facilitating

his mentees' learning process by creating conditions, giving instruction, modeling, and providing

feedback (DeJong, Korthagen, & Wubbels, 1998). Similar to Barbara, James also recognized

and benefited from opportunities for learning from his mentees. He noted the importance of the

mentoring relationship for his own professional development:

I think that once you become complacent you're not good anymore and I think having
interns, student teachers in your classroom, using fresh ideas .. which I can learn from
and im element into my curriculum. And it' s fun to have peo le in the classroom. And I
can make jokes with them. You know .. and it's .. by, by .. observing them I see
some things I can improve in myself, too.

James believed that engaging in the mentoring activities prescribed by the university (i.e.,

conducting observations and post conferences) was an ideal opportunity for his own, as well as









his mentees' learning and professional growth. The context of their new relationship provided

James, Amy, and Jessica with a situated space in which to modify and elaborate their

understandings of mentoring and teaching and learning.

Establishing and Maintaining Rapport: Mentor and Mentees as Partners and Opponents

This mentoring group had what might be considered a rather inauspicious introduction to

each other and their relationship. Amy and Jessica were aware that they were supposed to

schedule a meeting with their mentor before the spring semester began. However, the mentor

they were originally assigned decided to withdraw from the program, and James was not

assigned as their mentor until a week before the semester began. Thus, they did not have the

opportunity to meet with their mentor in order to begin the process of establishing rapport before

they actually entered the classroom and met their students. Additionally, James was absent on

the first day of school after the Christmas break; therefore, Amy and Jessica did not have an

introductory conversation with James until the planning period of their second day in the

classroom.

Despite these obstacles, they managed to begin to develop a relationship in which each of

them felt comfortable. When asked about the rapport they had established, James, in a realis

statement, which defined the nature of their relationship and his evaluation of it said, "it' s just

that camaraderie that you, that you form when you have a class full of kids and you can talk

about this afterwards .. it' s just neat to do that." Amy also believed that they had established a

relationship that was supportive and trusting, although she could not recall any specific instances

of how they had accomplished this. Instead, she said, "It' s that .. he made us feel comfortable.

Or he, he's easy to be around. He develops a rapport with people just by .. who he is." James

then chose to speculate as to why establishing rapport with his pre-interns seemed so effortless

and natural. In a series of evaluations he suggested several reasons why this might be so:










I think part of it .. might be the fact that I'm twenty .. seven. You know we have more
things in common than with somebody who's .. But I mean we see life .. in more
similar ways than somebody who's married with Hyve kids and four grandkids .. .You
know and I understand .. their life right now because I was in college three years ago.

However, James also wondered if there were disadvantages to being close in age and

sharing similar life experiences. He posed a question, "Is there such a thing as being .. like too

friendly?" He paused and then emphatically answered his own questions in a realis statement

that summarized his own experience, "But I haven't had that problem." Indeed, because of the

rapport they had already established, Amy expected their relationship to last beyond the semester

of their pre-internship. In a hypothetical statement she mused, "Hopefully when I graduate if, if

I'm teaching .. I'll feel comfortable enough to .. to call James and be like, 'Hey, I have this

kid who is a lot like .. the one that was in this class. What did we do?'"

James also believed that it was important to share the expectations he held for his mentees'

behavior, and he did this in the first few days they were together. His straightforwardness

created a strong foundation for the development of their relationship. In a combination of

knowledge and activity exchanges James described his expectations for the nature of Amy's and

Jessica' s participation:

First of all, you guys are old enough to understand what' s expected of you. It' s not my
job. I have to teach my kids. And the second thing I said is the only thing that' s gonna
annoy me is if you sit down ((laughs)). I said other than that, we're gonna get along get.
Just don't sit in the back of the room.

James's expectations positioned Amy and Jessica as active participants in the classroom, and he

expected them to work with individual students and to manage behavior when necessary.

Moreover, James declared that he wished to share power with his mentees, and he

positioned the pre-interns as colleagues with whom he would collaborate. He believed in

discussing and considering a variety of options that might be appropriate for a specific situation,

and he valued the knowledge and understandings of his mentees. He stated:










I don't like spitting out commands. I'm not gonna say, go do this, go do that. I'd rather do
it .. together .. with you .. and, you know .. maybe when I get older and have been
teaching forty years I'll change. Hopefully, not but .. you know, it' s .. important that
you .. form relationships I think with .. the people you're working with. Or else it'll be
miserable.

Thus, James maintained that he did not wish to assume an authoritarian stance. In fact, he

not only believed in sharing teaching responsibility with his mentees, but also in positioning

them as experts, who might provide a window into his own shortcomings and failures. In fact,

he often turned to them for advice and support. Amy related one such instance in an activity

exchange that included her evaluation of being able to actively participate in the classroom, "He

turns lessons over to us and .. that' s good, I think, and we'll get emails that say .. you guys

weren't here on Friday and I've really screwed up area and you have to come fix it ((laughs))."

According to James, his lesson on how to calculate the area of specific shapes had confused their

students, and he contacted Amy and Jessica, explained his failed lesson, and asked them to

design a lesson that would provide their students with a clear understanding of calculating the

area of squares and rectangles. He admitted, "I'm not perfect" and he told his pre-interns "I need

you guys to help me on Monday."

However, their relationship also experienced some conflict, which began when they were

planning for a fourth grade field trip to St. Augustine. Nine parents had volunteered to be

chaperones on this trip, and James, Amy, and Jessica had discussed dividing the students into

manageable groups for these chaperones. Jessica approached James at the beginning of the week

in which the field trip was planned and asked him when he wanted to sit down with them and

divide the class into groups. James insisted that there had been no time for that discussion when

Amy and Jessica were in the classroom. Instead, he decided how the students would be grouped

on Wednesday, when Jessica and Amy were not in the classroom. Jessica and Amy shared their










initial impressions of the groups James had decided upon in a knowledge exchange, in which

several evaluations were framed as realis statements:

Jessica: And we talked about wanting to do the groups together. I, I actually expressed to
him who I wanted.

Amy: So he divided the class up into these groups. And some of the groups have four kids
and some of them have one kid and it's really erratic. There are nine parents .. going
with us on this trip. So he gets to the end of the list and he has two kids left over. And he
gives Jessica one of them. And he gives me the other one. These kids make no sense.
Like there's no reason that we have these kids and Jessica gets the behavior problem in the
class and I get the child who doesn't .. shut up ever. The new student. Who I have
not bonded with .. .I'm gonna document that face (James had closed his eyes and shook
his head) on here [the audiotape of the session].

Because they had established a relationship with James in which power had been shared,

Amy and Jessica believed they would be positioned as co-planners and decision-makers with

regard to this Hield trip, and they interpreted the fact the James had assumed sole responsibility

for planning the student groups as an exercise of his power over them. James gave his list of

students groups for the field trip to Jessica on Wednesday at noon, and he asked her to share the

list with Amy. He told Jessica he wanted them to look at the list and then discuss it with him

later. In a knowledge exchange, Amy shared her reaction to James's plan, and how she

repositioned herself as a decision-maker using a series of realis statement that described how

planning for the Hield trip was proceeding:

So, it's his, it' s his class. And however he wants to divide uphis class for his Hield trip is
Eine. That's his decision. It' s my decision whether or not to go on this twelve hour Hield
trip that I paid seventy dollars for. So my solution to the problem is just that okay, I won't
go. That, I .. I, I don't wanna go and baby sit this one child and be miserable for twelve
hours. That's not gonna make me h pp. It's not gonna make Justin [the fourth grade
student] happy. So .. he [James] made his decision. My decision was .. not to go on
the field trip. Since then we have reworked the groups probably six or seven times.
Jessica and I no longer have students .. that we're responsible for .. on our own at all ..
.. So today my idea was to just have six groups of four and then if we have to put two
chaperones with some groups that' s what we do. But they need to be in groups of four, at
least four.










Their differing perspectives on grouping strategies for the Hield trip had been accentuated,

although it seemed as if they were now engaged in attempting to resolve their differences in a

way that enabled them to share in the decision-making. Up to this point in the dialogue session,

Jessica and Amy had dominated the conversation. James then requested an opportunity to state

his perspective and in a knowledge exchange, composed of realis statements and evaluations, he

positioned himself as an expert on the St. Augustine Hield trip and provided his perspective on

their interactions that had occurred the previous day:

James: They have no idea how tomorrow works. Which is not .. an insult. They don't.
They haven't done it. This is my fifth time doing it. Okay? I understand .. that yes,
they're chaperones, but our whole class is together with Mr. B's class tomorrow. I know
that. I know how it works when you get there. Yes, you're in charge of one kid. No
longer they are .. But it' s not .. to walk around and baby sit that kid. It's when we walk
from .. the fort across the street to make sure the kid doesn't get hit by a car. When you
get to the next place, that kid can go wherever he wants as long as you, you know ..
know that he's still with the group. I don't think they understood that. I also think that
they thought .. I had planned on having them take that kid to lunch with them .. or to
free time with them and no. I was gonna put that kid in another group during that time
because I wouldn't want to take a kid around. That' s our free time .. And I never, ever
said that you were gonna take that kid to lunch and .. I will swear on it. I never told you
guys that. That you were gonna take, I said the kid was your responsibility to watch during
the day. But I never told you you were gonna take him to lunch. I even told you guys we
were gonna lunch together .. And you were like, oooh

Amy: ((laughs)). All of a sudden we're going to lunch together.

Jessica: Oka He never said that. He never said that.

James: I said that yesterday.

Jessica: He never said that.

Amy: You said it yesterday after we were upset

James: No

Amy: You were like, we're gonna go to [lunch together].

Jessica go to [lunch together]. Oh my

Amy: This is the first spat we've had. I feel like we're having a spat.










Amy characterized their discourse as one which accentuated their differences and resulted

in a struggle over meanings and power. Jessica and Amy wanted to participate in every aspect of

their trip to St. Augustine and felt as if they were no longer positioned as co-teachers and

collaborators. Instead, they felt as if James was positioning them as inexperienced pre-interns

and that he had assumed a more authoritarian role in planning the trip. Their conflict escalated

as Amy and Jessica attempted to overcome these differences. James had given Jessica his list of

groups for the field trip and asked her to share them with Amy. Jessica did so and Amy

confronted James and shared the decisions she had made as he stood talking with another fourth

grade teacher. James recounted their interaction in realis statements and evaluations, in which he

shared his recollection of their experience and his feelings about it:

Yeah, you don't walk upto me in front of other teachers and s y, "I'm not going on the
field trip." It wasn't professional, I didn't think. So it, it irritated me .. And then .. then
the 're like, let's do this, this, this, and this. And at that point, I'm already anno ed. And
I'm like, you know, you don't come up to me in front of another teacher and do that. If
you have problems, we talk about it .. in here .. you know. So it annoyed me.

James also shared that the other fourth grade teacher had been surprised by the way in

which Amy had expressed her disagreement and dissatisfaction. Possibly James perceived

Amy's behavior as an attempt to exercise power over him. Ultimately, he characterized their

conflict as a miscommunication and believed that Amy and Jessica would understand his actions

and decision-making after they had gone on the field trip. Whether this would be accomplished

through an exploration or a bracketing and normalization of their differences was unclear.

I asked the three of them, "So, did you learn anything about your relationship?" Their

discourse in response to my question included a number of realis statements, which restated and

summarized their perceptions, as well as their evaluations of the struggle over power and norms.

James: Nah, I knew girls get .. very angry ().










Amy: Every once in awhile James likes to .. likes to exert his power and show us that
he' s teacher and that it' s his classroom and that' s fine.

James: The only thing that really annoyed me yesterday was the way you approached me
outside.

Amy: The only thing that really annoyed me yesterday was when I was honestly upset
about it for the rest of the day and you thought it was funny .. And I told him I was
upset and he laughed at me.

James: I didn't laugh at you. I was laughing at the situation.

Amy: Okay, you laughed.

Jessica: Honestly, I think we approached the situation like that because we're comfortable
with him. And so we, when we, I, honestly, like I don't think that we were outlandish ..
or I don't even think we were rude. He just felt like we were, I think, I at least my
perception he felt like we were undermining him in front of his .. um ..

Amy: Team leader.

Jessica: After that I was just like, you know what? It' s his classroom. And at the end of
the day he' s gonna do whatever he wants. And if he tells me that I have to be with this
student, what am I gonna do? I'm just gonna have to be with that student .. But I did see
it taking a toll on our relationship because I was like, I don't even want to talk to him. I
don't want to see him. Like I was just really uset because of the situation and how he
handled it .. .But we're getting upset because this is a total change in everything that' s
ever happened. Like for the first time I felt like .. oh my gosh, he's my mentor teacher.
He, this is his classroom.

Am : He's the boss.

Jessica: Let me stop doing. Let me stop even trying to put my input into anything.

It seemed that Jessica had redefined a mentor as one who assumed power over his mentees

and she had reconstructed her position in the classroom as one of conformity and capitulation.

Her orientation to their differences had moved from an acceptance and exploration of their

differences to an accentuation of them, which resulted in her nominal compliance with the norms

she inferred from James's behaviors and statements. Their individual understandings of the

effects of this disagreement on the nature of their relationship ranged from James's interpretation

that they had not clearly communicated their intentions and had misunderstood each other to










Amy's and Jessica' s belief that the fabric of their relationship had been irreparably changed in a

way that no longer supported their development as teachers.

Thus, their contrasting perceptions of and disagreements over Amy's and Jessica' s

responsibilities for the class field trip to St. Augustine negatively affected their rapport and

ability to learn from and co-construct knowledge with each other. The following exchange took

place in our final dialogue session when they were asked to reflect on their relationship over the

course of the semester:

Amy: ((laughs)) Um .. well, obviously the way he runs his classroom has, has kind of
defined our relationship. And what he allows us to do and what .. the way he wants
things done and that kind of, I mean, the first day we walked in here he was like .. this is
your classroom. This is your class. This is your desk. We're gonna share this and you're
gonna be a part of this and, from the beginning .. I remember being really excited, in the
car on the way home, we're like .. he's awesome. This is gonna be so much fun.

James: How has that changed .. since the beginning? ((laughs)).

Amy: Well it has changed because you're mean now ((laughs)).

James: ((laughs)).

Jessica: I think he's a little bit less free.

James: They're not happy about the three [from his final evaluation of their teaching].

James attributed his mentees' current perceptions of the nature of their relationship to his

final evaluation of their teaching, which consisted of a checklist of teaching behaviors (see

Appendix G) that were rated: 1 does not meet expectations; 2 meets expectations at minimal

level; 3 meets expectations at satisfactory level; and 4 exceeds expectations. The tension

created by the university's positioning of James as a mentor and evaluator may have contributed

to the devolution of their rapport. As Nolan and Hoover (2005) have suggested, "supervision [or

mentoring] are separate but complementary functions that should provide the cornerstones of a

comprehensive system of professional growth and accountability (p. 6), but as Cogan (1973)









maintained the positioning of a mentor as an evaluator is patently incompatible with the

supportive and collaborative activities of mentoring.

However, Amy and Jessica maintained that there was a more gradual change in the climate

of their relationship and they believed that the issues that contributed to their diminished rapport

were more complex and could not be accounted for by a single event. Jessica attempted to

describe her feelings of discomfort through a series of evaluative knowledge exchanges:

Jessica: I don't feel comfortable .. like I did before. I don't feel comfortable doing the
same things that I was doing because of .. the relationship has changed. It's not that he's
been .. oh well, you're just gonna sit in the back of the classroom and grade papers and
not do anything. It's not that. I just don't feel comfortable .. stepping forward and
stepping out.

James: I haven't notice that .. at all.

Sharon: Okay.

Jessica: It's not affecting you.

Amy: ((laughs)).

James: Well, why wouldn't you say something to me about it?

Am We did. The last time, the last time we sat down and did this [had a dialo ue
session] .

James: Well, you were upset about St. Augustine which I understand.

Jessica: But that .. you keep bringing it back to then, but it' s not just that. It' s the fact
that .. and it's our relationship wasn't the same. It was now .. you're my interns. You
listen to me. And you're gonna do what I s And this is how it should be done. And it
hasn't changed since then.

Jessica perceived a power shift, believing that their relationship had been transformed from

one in which power was shared to one in which the mentor exercised power over his mentees.

Amy and Jessica were no longer positioned as colleagues and decision-makers and their co-

construction of teaching practices and identities suffered. The differences among them were

accentuated with no attempt to resolve them.










Amy and Jessica speculated that this change in their relationship began when they

implemented cooperative learning in the classroom and grouped the students in teams of four or

five. James admitted that he was not comfortable with this instructional strategy. He believed

that the groups generated noise that distracted some students from the task at hand. However,

Amy and Jessica maintained that instead of problematizing cooperative learning, James' s

concerns and desire for a quiet classroom were manifested in his attempts to exercise his power

over them:

James: Am I more strict now?

Amy: No ((laughs)).

Jessica: I think you have less control and you don't like it.

Amy: Over the class. It's not us.

Jessica: Yeah.

James: Well I told you that going into this grouping thing. I don't like it.

Jessica: Well it changed everything when you lost control ((laughs)).

Amy: ((laughs)).

James: Well I haven't lost control.

Jessica: Well...

Amy: Well you haven't lost control, but you perceive it as .. chaos.

James: Right

Amy: All the time.

James: Which is something, that's what I need to work on is that.

Amy: And it, and it makes, it makes you .. it makes you a different person.

James: I don't agree with that.

Their dialogue accentuated their differences and created conflict which remained

unresolved. They struggled over the meaning of certain events and were unsuccessful in their










attempts to resolve these differences. While James had not been aware of the change in their

relationship, the mentees had been affected by what they perceived as a diminishing of their

rapport, and the ways in which this change affected their learning and their practices were not

fully explored. In a series of evaluations James suggested some of the ways in which his

mentoring practices might need to change:

Maybe from the start I needed to be a little more .. not as friendly and more ..
authoritative .. So no .. it comes back .. when I try to do something .. and I'm glad
they feel comfortable to say what' s bothering them. That' s important that they're able to
do that.

He seemed to believe that they had developed a relationship in which there was an

openness to difference while, at the same time, he suggested that perhaps he should have

positioned himself as a mentor who, at least in some instances, positioned himself as an expert,

director, and decision-maker in the relationship. It seemed Jessica's and Amy's orientation to

difference was now one of consensus and acceptance of the difference in power between a

mentor and his mentees. However, they still owned their personal power and freely expressed

their dissatisfaction, albeit at a late date, when there was no time to address and possibly resolve

the power and positioning issues that were proving disruptive and divisive to the previously

promising evolution of their relationship. Ultimately, these experiences became part of their

individual relational histories and the influence of these experiences on future relationships was

hypothesized, but not explored.

Co-Constructing Knowledge of Teaching and Learning

The ways in which power was shared among James, Amy, and Jessica, as well as the ways

in which they positioned and repositioned themselves and each other indicated tremendous

variation. Power sharing and positioning both affected the nature of their collaboration and the

knowledge they were able to construct and share.










Developing a Professional Knowledge Base: Mentor as Expert and Co-Constructor and
Mentees as Novice Colleagues and Co-Constructors

During our second dialogue session, James shared some of his philosophies concerning

teaching and learning. In an evaluation, James described his perceptions of teaching:

A lot of stuff we teach is boring. I mean I don't like teaching a lot of stuff because it' s
boring but I have to find a way to make it fun. And that' s part of the challenge of being a
teacher.

According to Amy, James modeled how to engage their students in learning and devised

games and provided extrinsic incentives when necessary. Amy and Jessica also learned that

what their fourth graders considered engaging and fun did not always match their ideas of

captivating, interesting instruction. For instance, James used the competitive game "Around the

World" to reinforce his students' mastery of the multiplication facts. Amy stated, "They [the

fourth graders] look forward to something like 'Around the World' which .. I wouldn't count

that as fun if I were a fourth grader, but they do .. Then they get through it better." Amy now

understood that she will need to know her students in order to make instructional decisions that

will motivate her students and support their learning.

Planning: Mentor as Provider of Feedback and Mentees as Instructional Designers

Planning was an important aspect of teaching and essential for an effective lesson. James

expected his mentees to spend some time and effort planning their lessons and in an activity

exchange he stated, "You need to make an effort to stay an extra twenty-five minutes cause I'm

not just gonna tell you at 7: 15 in the morning what you're gonna teach .. take it [the teacher' s

manual] home. Plan." He positioned his mentees as novice collea ues and made his

expectations for Amy's and Jessica's planning clear. Amy concurred with her positioning and

stated that James would "go over what we're doing for the next day. And .. how he wants it

done." James was positioned as the expert whose feedback shaped their lessons in what seemed









to be a prescriptive way. In fact, James would suggest specific strategies for Amy and Jessica to

use when planning instruction. Early in the semester he asked them to use choral reading as a

strategy for reading a story with the students. In a knowledge exchange, Amy shared how she

was able to extend her understanding of a specific instructional strategy:

I wasn't sure .. what they [the students] were used to as far as, so when I heard, when I
heard you [James] do it the first time, then I was like oh, okay, well I can do this, but ..
when he was just like choral read, I was like .. I know what that is, but I'm not sure how
it works in here.

Thus, she positioned James as an expert and model and repositioned herself as someone

who possessed the necessary expertise, but needed to construct a more situated understanding

that would not only prove beneficial for the students' learning, but would also expand her

repertoire of instructional strategies and techniques. Observing James broadened her

understanding of choral reading and its uses.

Amy also actively sought James's advice when she was planning a lesson. As she engaged

in planning lesson, Amy was also constructing an identity as a teacher and positioned herself as a

reflective practitioner, who identified potential problems and issues that needed further

development or modification before the lesson was presented. Ultimately, her identity as a

novice prevailed, and Amy related how she sought James' s advice in a series of realis statements

that described her lesson and the questions she had about its implementation:

We have a writing prompt today and I was worried about the writing prompt last night and
I called Jessica and we were like .. "Uh, it' s not exactly what we want them to write, but
we can't figure out how" .. And I called James ((laughs)) and he was like, "Well you're
gonna have to model," like he told us what we're gonna have to do today.

Amy first sought the advice of her partner, Jessica, positioning her as a collaborator and

problem solver. Ultimately, they both positioned James as an expert and engaged him in the

activity of coaching, asking him to provide specific ideas and strategies for accomplishing their

lesson. For Amy and Jessica, these positioning proved invaluable as James's advice enabled










them to make changes in their lesson and develop a plan for modeling their expectations for their

students and for providing more explicit instructions. In an activity exchange, Amy relayed the

benefits of her mentor' s coaching for student learning in several realis statements that revealed

what Amy now planned to tell her students:

Pretend you're an explorer and write about how your actions affect other people. But I'm
gonna like give an example and explain it further and .. if I was writing about this
explorer this is what I might say .. kind of deal and we want it in like diary form .. and
I'll model that.

Jessica also described how she relied on James's expertise and experience in order to

ensure that her lessons were appropriate and relevant and would promote student learning. In an

evaluative statement she said:

I think it' s good for me to be able to ask him, ou know, what he thinks .. and because
he knows the kids, um .. for he's been with them for longer than we have and he's been,
um, a teacher for lo ger than we have it makes me feel better to know that ..
somebody more experienced has seen what we're trying to do and might give feedback on
how we can make things different or change things.

Thus, James' s experience influenced his pre-interns' understanding of teaching and was used to

elaborate their professional knowledge bases. Amy also seemed to believe that these experiences

informed her teaching practices and positively influenced her students' learning.

Providing Feedback: Mentor as Evaluator and Mentees as Novice Colleagues

During our first dialogue session, James conducted a post conference following his

observation of one of Amy's and Jessica' s lessons. In this lesson, Amy and Jessica had provided

some direct instruction and modeled how to calculate the perimeter of an obj ect. They divided

the students into groups and gave each group a number of shapes cut out of construction paper.

Students were assigned j obs and asked to work together to calculate the perimeter of each of the

shapes. During the post conference, James first positioned himself as an expert, who provided

feedback with regard to aspects of the lesson that were effective, as well as constructive criticism










regarding aspects of the lesson that could be improved. In a realis statement that described his

observation notes and clarified his intentions for his feedback he said, "One side says keep doing

and one side says things to ponder, which should be things to think about doing better next time.

Constructive criticism is good, okay?" At the same time he repositioned himself as a learner

stating, "I also learn from the notes I'm taking when I'm writing them down for you, things that

remind me of what I could do better."

James also described the aspects of the lesson that he characterized as "good," which

included their review of the students' homework, their use of peer modeling, their use of

proximity to manage behavior and their use of popsicle sticks to maintain fairness and promote

students' participation. He suggested that they provide scaffolding for students who needed

individual help and devise more open-ended questions for use during instruction.

In an activity exchange James reminded Amy and Jessica of the importance of making

their expectations clear. He said:

Model what you expect the kids to do on the overhead before you have them separate into
groups. Because once they're in groups they're talking. And they're not gonna be focused
as they would be if you have them sit down in the desks .. when it gets a bit loud,
remind them of inside voices. Again that's a thing that .. I .. like. When you have your
classroom, if you're okay with noise, it' s fine. But when it gets loud, I get distracted, so I
feel like some of the kids are getting distracted.

Thus, James positioned Amy and Jessica as teachers who would be making their own

decisions about instructional and management strategies. James encouraged his mentees to

consider that, while they might wish to use cooperative learning as an instructional strategy, this

method might not be suited for all of their students' learning styles, and they might have to

provide accommodations for these students.

Jessica and Amy were developing skill as reflective practitioners and had already

determined that their introduction of cooperative groups needed more explicit instruction and










modeling. Jessica said, "I was thinking .. how we should of went over what' s proper, you

know, while working in groups. Can they switch their jobs? Can they .. help each other out ..

.. And if we had gone over that probably would have gone a lot smoother." Jessica also

recognized the need for more clarity with regard to the job descriptions, and Amy suggested that

if they had taught their students the procedures and routines of cooperative learning they might

have increased the chances for students' successful use of this strategy for learning. The four of

us brainstormed ideas for teaching students how to work as a group and co-constructed various

ways of modeling the expectations. Because the students were asked to calculate the perimeter

of several shapes, we also discussed the possibility of having students switch j obs so that each

student would have an opportunity to measure and to record the perimeter. This collaboration

provided everyone with an expanded understanding of how cooperative learning might be taught

to and enacted by students.

Managing Behavior: Mentor as Model, Decision-Maker and Collaborator and Mentees as
Decision-Makers and Collaborators

Classroom management was another important aspect that affected teaching and learning

and Amy and Jessica were keenly aware of how their management strategies influenced their

students' learning and their developing teacher identities. Once again, in an early dialogue

session, James shared some of his experiences and philosophies regarding classroom

management. He believed that some of the strategies he was taught in his university classes

were not always applicable in the real world. For instance, James employed realis statements

and evaluations to describe his beliefs about managing student behavior. He said, "They say

never si gle out a kid .. I'm real big on self-esteem. But there are certain times when you need

to single out a kid .. I think." He disagreed with this philosophy and maintained that his

students understood that he was singling them out because he cared about them and wanted them










to become good citizens. However, he did not believe in yelling at students. He said, "Number

one I think it' s a sign of weakness. Number two, I'd probably cuss ((laughs)) .. you know,

yelling scares kids and .. I don't think kids leamn out of fear." According to James, a teacher' s

classroom management strategies had implications for student learning, and his beliefs may have

been understood by his mentees as a set of expectations for his own, as well as for their behavior

in the classroom.

Amy agreed that the information provided in her university classes did not always

seamlessly transfer to the real-world of her fourth grade classroom. In a knowledge exchange

that included an evaluation of what she had learned in her coursework she said:

We took a classroom management class and it' s so much different when you're there.
When you're in it and they can tell you all they want to. Use marbles and use popsicle
sticks and do this and do that but it .. it' s so different for each class. And it' s good for us
to .. see this class and how he does it .. you know there are things that...both of us
would say we do different but, it works for the class and that' s a real world thing you just
can't get in a class and .. classroom management [the university course] was quite the
waste this semester ((laughs)).

Thus, while Amy and Jessica deferred to James's expertise in the management decisions

he made regarding their students, they also acknowledged that they were developing their own

identities as classroom managers and that, indeed, their future classrooms might be managed in

ways that differed from those employed by James. They seemed to respect James's authority

and willingly abided by the decisions he made for his classroom; yet, at the same time, they were

developing their own, independent ideas about how they would manage their future classrooms.

Concluding Thoughts

Due to the dissolution of the rapport they had with James and their differing stances with

regard to teaching, Amy's and Jessica' s construction of their practices and identities was not as

collaborative as it might have been. The pre-intemns did adhere to James's expectations for










instruction and behavior, but they tended to accentuate their differences without an

accompanying attempt at resolution.

However, as Jessica reflected on our dialogue sessions, as well as her observations of

students, she realized that both had influenced and transformed her practices and identity. In an

evaluative statement Jessica said:

With a lot of kids who are low in academics, the first problem is their behavior. And once
you can modify the behavior, you can usually address the academics, but if you don't
address the behavior then it' s hard to, you know, figure out .. um, how to help them with
their academics.

Jessica incorporated this insight into her identity as a teacher and asserted, "I've taken this whole

stance with my teaching in, in that looking at the student, past everything else that' s going on

with them, with their home life or even the school environment...just looking at the student for

who they are." She recognized that knowing her students was an important first step in

becoming the teacher her students needed her to be. She further acknowledged that becoming

this teacher might be neither comfortable nor uncomplicated. In an activity exchange she said:

I have to look at him [the student] as somebody who does know the information or has the
ability to learn the information instead of looking at him, like, oh, he's a bad student,
which is my tendency sometimes .. I don't want to deal with the behavior, but I have to
look at the student and be like, okay, you know what. You can learn this. I just have to ..
.get around whatever you're showing me.

Moreover, Jessica was developing a sense of efficacy with regard to her students' learning.

She accepted her responsibility for knowing her students and believed that they were all capable

of learning. As a teacher, she then had to "figure out how to .. get them [the students] to

learn," and in order to do this she might have to adjust her expectations, "I need to modify in my

mind what 'on task' is for him." Jessica believed she needed to differentiate instruction, which

would provide her students with alternate means for learning and for providing evidence of their

learning. Additionally, although James seemed to hold very clear ideas about classroom










management, his mentees appeared to be refining, and even modifying, albeit independently,

their understandings of what classroom management entailed and the practices they would adopt

and implement.

Amy, who was not necessarily committed to pursuing a career in education, seemed to

believe that one is born to be a teacher. She said to James,

You were born to be a teacher. And that, and that scares me cause I don't know that I was
and .. if you're not, if you don't belong in the classroom or you're not that passionate
about it .. am, am I gonna .. hurt twenty-five kid like, am I gonna ruin their futures?

Amy's beliefs might be due to the fact that teaching, when performed by experienced teachers,

often looks effortless (Meijer, Zanting, & Verloop, 2002). Fortunately, her fears did not keep her

from actively participating in the classroom. Perhaps, James's positioning as a mentor provided

reassurance for Amy. It seemed she was secure in the knowledge that he would intercede if

necessary, as well as provide her with feedback that would not only enable her to meet the needs

of their students, but also assist her in making a decision about pursuing teaching as a career.

James positioned himself simultaneously as mentor and learner within their relationship.

In our first dialogue session he characterized their mentorship as a "good working relationship."

However, he also had some concerns about the nature of their camaraderie. He said:

Sometimes I wonder whether or not I'm too friendly but I don't think that' s an issue
because .. you know, it' s important that we feel open to talk to one another because if we
don't, if there's an issue bothering me and I don't feel like I can talk to them then I'm, I'm
not doing my ob as a mentor. And if there's an issue that you gus need to talk about and
they don't feel like they can approach me about it then they're not .. gaining from .. my
knowledge as an educator.

From the beginning James was concerned about nature of their relationship and whether or not it

was appropriate for mentoring. According to Barth (1990), collaborative relationships among

teaching colleagues should be collegial, as well as congenial. Congeniality referred to the

friendly relationships that developed among colleagues, while collegiality described a kind of









collaborative practice among colleagues in which teachers talked about their practice, observed

each other teaching, worked on planning, designing and evaluating curriculum, and taught each

other what they knew about teaching, learning, and leading (Barth, 1990). Thus, while the

relationships between mentors and mentees needed to be congenial, they needed to be collegial

as well. Indeed, James believed that it was necessary for Jessica and Amy to feel comfortable

engaging in critical, and perhaps, uncomfortable conversations when necessary and that

maintaining their collegiality was necessary for their ongoing professional development.

However, a congenial relationship provided an important foundation for collegial collaboration,

and it seemed that the congeniality that characterized their initial relationship had diminished and

was now negatively affecting their ability to collaborate and to engage in collegiality.

James also admitted that it was hard for him to be silent if he saw something happening

during a lesson that he believed needed to be corrected. In realis statements he described and

evaluated his mentoring practices:

I'm not set in m way sb any means, but if I see something that I think should be done
right now then I have a hard time not saying, do this .. But I look at it as an opportunity
for me to develop my practices.

He also described how he learned new strategies and was introduced to new learning activities

through observing his mentees. In a number of realis statements he described what he had

learned from Amy and Jessica:

But .. observing them, I mean there's thin s that I see that I could help them with, but not
only that, there's things that I see that...They did, they did geoboards two weeks ago. I
haven't done that. And I saw the kids, the excitement on the kids' faces when they brou ht
those into the classroom, I mean. And it ins ired me to go do more stuff like that, you
know? It got me out of my element a little bit, so it .. it's good to have fresh ideas
because I think once you become complacent then .. you know, then you lose .. you
just, there's no point in even doing it .. you know?

Amy and Jessica inspired James and it seemed that he wished to integrate other learning

activities and instructional strategies into his classroom. Unfortunately, the experience of










integrating cooperative learning was not successful and did not result in a transformation of his

teaching practices.

Amy, Jessica, and James developed a mentoring relationship in which the mood of their

discourses tended to be declarative, in which James provided specific feedback and shared his

beliefs, rather than engaging Amy and Jessica in critical reflection. This stance benefited the

elaboration and extension of his mentees' repertoire of strategies and techniques, and Amy and

Jessica were provided with many opportunities to develop their teaching practices. Jessica was

appreciative of these opportunities and said, "I know that a lot of people have not gotten that

opportunity to just do what they wanted to. Plan their lessons and implement them. That is

awesome." However, the dissolution of their rapport led to an accentuation of their differences

which they were unable to explore and resolve. Thus, their relationship ended with questions

about boundaries and the negotiation of power and left each of them struggling to understand the

meanings and norms of mentoring. Their struggles were poignantly illustrated through Jessica's

words, "The same freedom isn't there anymore."










Table 6-1. Mentoring Group 3: Identities and Activities Constructed within Discourses of
Mentoring, Instruction, and Classroom Management


Developing and
maintaining a
mentoring
relationship


Activity


Identity


Discourse

Mentoring




Mentoring


Textual analysis and
dialogicality
Knowledge exchanges,
evaluations .
Acceptance of
difference .
Knowledge exchanges
and evaluations framed
as realis statements.
Focus on commonality,
accentuation of
difference: consensus
and normalization of
difference .
Knowledge exchanges.
Declarative mood.
Acceptance of
difference .

Knowledge and activity
exchanges, realis
statements and requests.
Acceptance of
difference. Declarative
Mood.
Knowledge exchanges,
realis statements,
evaluations .
Recognition of
difference. Declarative
Mood.
Knowledge and activity
exchanges. Acceptance
and accentuation of
difference. Declarative
Mood.


Developing an
understanding
of mentoring

Establishing
and
maintaining
rapport.


Mentor and Mentees
as co-constructors of
meaning

Mentor and Mentees

partners/adversaries


Co-constructing
knowledge of
teaching and
learning


Developing a
professional
knowledge
base


Mentor as expert and
co-constructor:
Mentees as novice
colleagues and co-
constructors
Mentor as provider
of feedback and
Mentees as
instructional
designers

Mentor as evaluator:
Mentees as novice
colleagues



Mentor as model,
decision maker and
collaborator:
Mentees as decision
makers and
collaborators


Instruction,
Classroom
Management,
Mentoring

Instruction,
Mentoring





Mentoring,
Instruction,
Classroom
Management


Classroom
Management,
Mentoring


Planning






Providing
feedback





Managing
behavior









CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION

In chapters 4, 5, and 6, I presented my findings for each of the three mentoring groups,

which were related to my research questions. In this chapter I consider how discourse was used

by the participants as a context for the construction and negotiation of identities and practices

within a mentoring relationship. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to look across the three

mentoring groups and discuss how the discourses shaped the sociopolitical context in which the

mentors and mentees were situated and influenced their co-construction of knowledge, the

development of their relationships, and the ways in which their identities and mentoring

activities were enacted and transformed. I shall also discuss possible implications of my situated

findings for mentoring, as well as for teacher education.

Discourse as a Context for the Construction and Negotiation of the Identities and Practices
of Mentors and Mentees

"Discourses, through our words and deeds, have talked to each other through history, and,

in doing so, form human history" (Gee, 2005, p. 27). Thus, the Discourses that we recognize and

use play an important role in constructing not only our individual lives, but also the larger social

worlds in which we are situated. However, these Discourses have contestable boundaries and

because we are members of multiple Discourse communities, we are able to weave the strands of

our multiple Discourses together, creating contexts in which some Discourses die, new

Discourses emerge and others are transformed. According to Gee (2005):

Discourses are out in the world and history as coordinations of people, places, times,
actions, interactions, verbal and non-verbal expression, symbols, things, tools, and
technologies that betoken certain identities and associated activities. Thus, they are
material realities. But Discourses exist, also, as work to get people and things recognized
in certain ways and not others, and they exist as well, as maps that constitute our
understandings. They are, then social practices and mental entities, as well as material
realities (p. 32)









In this way, our membership in various Discourses influences and limits our

understandings, affects the identities we are able to construct and assume, and shapes the

activities in which we engage. The mentors and mentees in my study performed, negotiated and

recognized a number of Discourses and in that process created, sustained, and transformed them

(Gee, 2005). Hence, my analysis of the texts of their dialogues has led to a number of

conclusions about the Discourses in which they were situated and the ways in which they used

them to engage each other in the work of mentoring, teaching, and learning. I will now share a

number of assertions (Erickson, 1986) and attempt to situate them in the larger contexts of

schools and scholarship.

A number of Discourses shaped the sociopolitical context in which the mentors and

nzentees were situated and influenced their co-construction ofidentities, as well as their

enactment of the activities of mentoring. Some of the Discourses that shaped the sociopolitical

context in which the mentors and mentees were situated were more broadly recognized, as they

were constructed and defined at the level of federal and state governments, while others were

created by teacher education programs and individual schools and therefore, more local. These

Discourses included: (a) No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and high stakes testing, (b) the

Discourse of "best practices," (c) the Discourse of national and state instructional standards, and

(d) the Discourse of Proteach, a teacher education program.

NCLB is one of the Discourses created by the federal government. It is now the law of our

land and part of the public' s lexicon about education, and its effect on the Discourses of local

schools is extraordinary. According to the U. S. Department of Education, the four pillars of

NCLB are: (a) stronger accountability for results, (b) more freedom for states and communities,

(c) proven education methods, and (d) more choices for parents (Retrieved from










http ://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillarshm) Thus, all school in Florida now

administer the FCAT once a year, and students' scores on this test are used to grade the schools

as to their ability to encourage and support their students' achievement of adequate academic

progress in reading/language arts, math, and, in the fifth grade, science. In addition, these same

test scores often determine teachers' merit pay. This Discourse has also created a number of

sanctions and rewards based on students' test scores. In this sense, the government is exercising

a form of disciplinary power and teachers have become acculturated through this new discourse

and are now complicit in its maintenance (Foucault, 1990). As Barbara discussed with her

mentees, her teaching practices and identity were influenced by the state test and, in many ways,

she felt that resistance was futile. Consequently, mentors are welcoming pre-service teachers

into communities of practice that must now consider the influence of NCLB and state tests on the

curriculum that is taught, the pacing of instruction, as well as their design of specific lessons and

learning activities.

Moreover, NCLB is currently touting "proven education methods," which are identified as

educational programs and practices that have been proven effective through rigorous scientific

research, as the instructional best practices that teachers should adopt. In this instance, the

authority of teachers to make instructional decisions has sometimes been appropriated by

outsiders, and mentees are learning that classroom instruction is often shaped by prescriptive

programs and publishing companies, whose textbooks are designed to meet the learning

obj ectives tested on the FCAT. While the mentors teachers often created spaces in which they

encouraged their mentees to implement some of the instructional practices promoted in their

university coursework, the mentees also learned that the teacher' s manual often determined their

lesson plans and their identities as teachers were confounded by the perception, fostered by these









outside agencies, that they were presenters, rather than designers of instruction. For many

mentors and mentees their identities as teachers before and after the FCAT were vastly different.

Direct instruction and paper and pencil learning activities were most often the instructional

choices of teachers before the FCAT was administered; whereas, after the FCAT, teachers, such

as Barbara, Melissa, and Elizabeth engaged their students in guided inquiry or cooperative

learning, and the learning activities they planned for those lessons were often hands-on activities

that were designed to accommodate a number of learning styles.

Additionally, national organizations, such as the National Council of Teachers of

Mathmatics (NCTM) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), as well as state

departments of education have developed standards that identify learning goals for each content

area of the curriculum. The Florida Department of Education's standards for student learning are

called the Sunshine State Standards and are described as "World Class Education Standards that

prepare Florida' s students to effectively engage, communicate, and compete globally with

students around the world. Florida's standards incorporate important skills such as critical

thinking, problem-solving, creativity, innovation, collaboration and communication" (Retrieved

from http ://www.fidoe.org/bii/curriculum/sss/). However, these standards, while providing

learning goals and the parameters by which student learning can be assessed, do not prescribe the

methods or the pacing of instruction. Nor do they empower mentors and mentees to develop

identities as instructional decision-makers whose expertise is considered valuable for designing

lessons and assessing student learning.

Finally, the Discourses that influenced the sociopolitical context were not all constructed

by federal and state governments and organizations. The Discourse of ProTeach, the teacher

education program in which all of the mentees were enrolled, intermingled with the other









Discourses that shaped the context at Allenton Elementary School. ProTeach espoused a

Discourse that valued inclusive teaching practices and the creation of leaming environments that

supported the learning of diverse populations of students (Ross, Lane, & McCallum, 2005). Pre-

service teachers were encouraged to work collaboratively with their mentor teachers and the

person with whom they had been partnered. Cooperative learning, alternative assessments, and

learning activities that embraced diversity were prominent aspects of this Discourse and

significantly contributed to the mentees' initial constructions of their teacher identities and

teaching practices.

However, many mentees experienced a profound disconnect between the Discourse of the

university and the Discourse(s) that operated within the real world classrooms in which they had

been placed. Some found that direct instruction was the predominant instructional strategy and

pull-out programs were the preferred way of accommodating students with special needs.

Additionally, assessments tended to take the form of paper and pencil multiple choice tests that

mimicked the FCAT, which students were expected to take in the spring. Although the mentors

often provided their mentees with sporadic opportunities to develop lessons that used cooperative

learning and hands-on learning activities, the mentees were often unable to construct the teacher

identities they had envisioned for themselves. The reality that awaited them in the classrooms of

Allenton Elementary created some consternation and apprehension about whether or not they

would be able to find a context in which they could become the teachers they were meant to be.

However, in their own situated Discourse(s) of mentoring that the mentors and mentees

constructed, they were able to consider how the larger sociopolitical context might influence

their future identities and practices and to question whether or not there were ways in which the

current practices of schooling might be changed and transformed.









Mentors constructed their identities nI ithrin the tensions created by competing Discourses

of mentoring -the historical Discourse(s) of mentoring and the emerging Discourse of educative

mentoring. Historical understandings of mentoring have been constructed, reconstructed,

discarded, and transformed many times since their mythological beginning in ancient Greek

poetry, and "as these understandings were transported across boundaries of use, they brought

with them relational remnants, fragments of meaning, and accompanying implications"

(McNamee & Gergen, 1999, p. 26). The historical understandings of mentoring have been

translated, in contemporary times, by the business world, which incorporated mentoring into

their cultural practices. Mentoring in a corporate setting was often characterized as a means of

providing a role model for younger associates in an effort to teach them the skills necessary for

career advancement, as well as socializing them into a professional community. This business

model of mentoring was transferred to the educational community and mentors who

implemented this model in an educational context often focused on the novice teacher' s

situational adjustment, as well as providing technical advice and emotional support (Feiman-

Nemser, 2001; Wang & Odell, 2002). Mentors who are situated in an historical Discourse of

mentoring develop identities as models, experts, and providers of corrective feedback. They

share their professional knowledge and provide their mentees with examples of best practices. In

other words, mentors, such as Barbara and James, enculturate pre-service teachers into the

current system and help novices fit into their new environments (Achinstein & Athanases, 2006).

While evidence has suggested that this traditional approach to mentoring does improve

teacher retention, job satisfaction, and teacher quality, which, in turn, positively influences

student learning and achievement (Odell & Ferraro, 1992; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004), some

scholars have begun to question this conception of mentoring and have suggested that mentors









encourage their mentees to critique and challenge the existing practices of schooling (Achinstein

& Athanases, 2006). Feiman-Nemser (2001) has named this new Discourse of mentoring,

educative mentoring. This emerging Discourse of mentoring encourages mentors and mentees to

engage in critical reflection about their current understandings and practices in an effort to foster

reform in schools, as well as their individual classrooms. Mentors, like Kenneth, who are

situated in an educative Discourse of mentoring, construct identities as facilitators and

collaborators. They engage their mentees in co-planning, co-teaching, and co-reflection. Their

mentoring relationship is a collegial one and both participants accept and explore other

perspectives and understandings that support constructive change and the transformation of their

practices and identities. Mentoring is no longer a means of knowledge transmission; instead it is

a means of knowledge transformation (Cochran-Smith & Paris, 1995). However, even mentors

who embrace an identity as an educative mentor often find that the nature of their situated

mentoring discourse melds aspects of the historical Discourses of mentoring and the emerging,

educative Discourse of mentoring, in order to meet the specific needs of their mentees.

Mentors and mentees identities were interdependent and influenced the nature of their

situated mentoring Discourse. The identities of the mentors and mentees were constructed

within their mentoring relationships, and these constructions of identities and relationships were

interdependent (McNamee & Gergen, 1999). In this way, the construction of the mentor' s

identity required a mentee and conversely, the construction of a mentee's identity required a

mentor. Additionally, the dialogues of the mentors and mentees were always affected by the

identity and positioning of the person with whom they are interacting (McNamee & Gergen,

1999).










Moreover, the mentees, as well as the mentors, determined the nature of their situated

mentoring Discourse through the identities they constructed and the fluid ways in which they

positioned each other, and each Discourse supported multiple identities (Gee, 2005). Sometimes

the mentors positioned themselves as models and experts and their mentees as novice colleagues,

who often felt obligated to adjust their understandings and practices so that they conformed with

those of their mentors. At other times, it was the mentees who positioned their mentors as

experts and models because they required specific direction or feedback in order to engage in the

practices of teaching. In both of these instances, the nature of their Discourse was situated in an

historical understanding of mentoring.

However, there were also instances in which the mentors constructed identities as

facilitators and collaborators and encouraged their mentees to critically question their own

practices and to construct identities as reflective practitioners, as was the case with Kenneth and

Susan. These identities located the mentors and mentees within an educative Discourse of

mentoring and created opportunities for engagement in reform-minded practices and the

transformation of teacher identities.

Mentors and mentees identities and the nature of the M~entoring discourse in which they

were situated shaped the ways in which the activities of mentoring were enacted. According to

Mc Namee and Gergen (1999), the actions of a mentor or mentee are always for each other, and

are shaped by the ways in which they position each other as they engage in the practices of

mentoring or teaching. Therefore, although the activities in which the mentors and mentees

engaged were remarkably similar, the ways in which those activities were enacted often

demonstrated considerable variation. Mentors who situated themselves in an historical

Discourse of mentoring, such as James and Barbara, tended to use dialogue that was declarative









in mood and their identities as models and providers of feedback were accomplished through

statements of fact and evaluations of their mentees' practices. The mentees were often expected

to adopt and then demonstrate their mentors' suggestions as they planned and taught lessons and

engaged their students in learning.

In contrast, mentors who situated themselves in an educative Discourse of mentoring

created an interrogative mood for their dialogic interactions. They constructed identities as

facilitators and collaborators and used questions to encourage their mentees to engage in

planning, teaching, and reflection, as well as to ask questions of their own regarding the current

practices and understandings of teaching. These mentors and mentees constructed identities and

practices that they continually questioned as they engaged with each other in mentoring and

teaching, as was the case with Kenneth and Susan.

M~entees negotiated their identities nI ithrin the tensions of the predominant Discourse(s) in

their teacher education program and the predominant Discourse (s) of their real world schools.

In addition to understanding and negotiating their identities and activities within the situated

Discourses of their mentoring relationships, the pre-service teachers had the added challenge of

navigating between the Discourse(s) of ProTeach and the situated Discourse(s) of Allenton

Elementary School. As discussed previously, the Discourse of ProTeach was one in which

collaboration, inclusive teaching practices, and differentiation was embraced. The mentees

arrived in their classrooms at Allenton with a desire to engage in these kinds of practices and to

develop the concomitant identities. They often found it difficult to implement these practices in

their real world classrooms and to realize their own identities. In fact, mentors who were

situated in an historical Discourse of mentoring tended to encourage their mentees to transform

their practices and identities in a way that was complementary to the mentors' understandings of









teaching and learning. Conversely, mentors who were situated in an educative Discourse of

mentoring, because they continually and critically reflected on their own practices, encouraged

their novice colleagues to construct their own practices and identities and to engage in a critically

reflective stance. As uncomfortable as negotiating and reconciling the tensions among these

Discourse(s) might have been, at times, for these mentees, in many ways, this experience

provided them with a more authentic understanding of teaching and the kinds of challenges they

would face as they enacted their own philosophies and identities and attempted to reform the

taken for granted practices of schooling. In fact, educative mentoring would promote these

productive tensions as a means of supporting teachers in reframing their thinking and

reconsidering their own practices and assumptions.

Situated Understandings of Mentoring and Their Implications for Teacher Education and
Mentoring

The findings of my study revealed the complexity, diversity, and situatedness. of the

mentoring relationships that developed among mentors and mentees, and a number of issues

emerged, which might be worthy of consideration as teacher education programs make decisions

about the opportunities they provide their pre-service teachers in real world classrooms. First, it

seems that both mentors and mentees need an elaborated understanding of mentoring and

mentoring relationships. Currently, two Discourses of mentoring are predominant in educational

contexts an historical Discourse of mentoring and an educative Discourse of mentoring. I

believe both are important in the development of pre-service teachers' identities and practices.

The pre-interns, who participated in my study, and who are at the beginning of their teaching

careers, clearly encountered situations in which they needed an experienced mentor, who was

able to provide information, resources, or direction regarding the specifics of any of the myriad

responsibilities that educators assume. I would suggest that are various stages in our









development as educators and relational partners, when we might all benefit from mentoring that

was more traditional in nature. However, there were also instances in which the mentors were

able to engage their mentees in a critical reflection of their practices and beliefs, and it is

important to move in this direction of problematizing our individual and collective practices and

transforming our knowledge of teaching and learning. Thus, I would suggest that mentors and

mentees need to develop an understanding of both mentoring Discourses and to border cross

between the Discourses when appropriate.

Additionally, effective mentoring relationships should be both congenial and collegial, and

it is important for mentors and mentees to develop a relationship that fosters collaboration.

Participants must have opportunities to share their relational histories and forge the connections

that will be necessary for the collegial work of mentoring. In fact, as they share their unique

perspectives and understandings, they might consider how their diversity will support and

challenge them as they develop a relationship that will benefit the growth and transformation of

both participants. However, collegial relationships often require uncomfortable conversations,

which might create dissonance and productive tensions that challenge each of the relational

partners to question their beliefs and assumptions and to consider new perspectives that broaden,

deepen, and renew their understandings of teaching and learning. In fact, mentors' and mentees'

orientation to difference seems to be a decisive and critical factor in the nature and effectiveness

of their relationships. Participants who are able to remain open and accepting of difference, who

are willing to explore, negotiate, and even resolve their differences, find that the diversity among

their perspectives benefits their learning and development as practitioners. Those who

accentuate or suppress their differences are unable to benefit from the productive tensions

created by the dissonance between their disparate beliefs and practices.









Mentors and mentees must also understand the ways in which they position themselves and

each other and how their positioning are often determined by the specifics of a situation. Both

mentors and mentees must realize that any positioning is fluid and situation specific, and mentors

and mentees must be able to shift their positions when necessary. An instance of this kind of

shift occurred when Kenneth began his post conference by positioning himself as a facilitator

and Susan as a reflective practitioner. However, later in their conversation Susan repositioned

Kenneth as an expert and relied on his assessment and understanding of some of the facets of her

lesson. Kenneth understood Susan's need to reposition him and he easily slid into this other

identity, which Susan "requested." Furthermore, mentors and mentees need the skills necessary

for negotiating power and positioning and for exploring their differences in an attempt to reach

new understandings and to create new realities. It seems that both mentors and mentees would

benefit from training or workshops or the opportunity to engage in communities of practice that

would provide a context, in which they could discuss and critique their understanding of

mentoring, as well as their mentoring practices and identities.

It might also prove beneficial to provide mentors and mentees with a more elaborate

understanding of how dialogue is employed to create a relationship and a context for learning.

Words matter and the ways in which they are used influence the development and transformation

of the teaching practices and identities of mentors, as well as mentees. It was also apparent that

the mentors and mentees are members of a number of Discourse communities and that some of

their discursive memberships are relatively invisible within the mentoring relationship that is,

until the relationship encounters a crisis. The mentoring relationship of James, Amy, and Jessica

revealed that a number of discourses were influencing their relationship in tacit and possibly

indirect ways. Some of these same invisible discourses could also have been influencing the









relationships of the mentors and mentees in other mentoring groups, albeit in unacknowledged

ways. Perhaps, aspects of our discursive natures are not revealed unless we encounter a

predicament that we are unable to resolve. It might be worth exploring how these silent,

seemingly invisible discourses that shape us, might be used to raise questions that would have

been left unvoiced and might promote a fuller understanding of who we are as teachers, as

relational partners, and as human beings.

Engaging in mentoring has the potential for supporting all teachers in making their

practices problematic and supporting them as they create alternative strategies and opportunities

for transformation and reform. Many times it is only the mentees' practices that are

problematized, but mentors' would benefit from problematizing their own practices as well.

Indeed, the dialogic nature of mentoring could provide an ideal context in which mentors and

mentees collaboratively use critical reflection to envision and enact teaching practices that

benefit student learning.

This research revealed some of the tensions inherent in constructing and negotiating a

mentoring relationship that benefits all participants and how our sociohistorical conceptions of

Discourse and education, as well as our understandings of the relational aspects of power and

positioning, might be used to encourage critical reflection and reform our educational practices

in ways that benefit teachers, students, and society. Mentoring involves a relationship that a

mentor and mentee co-construct, trouble, and transform as they engage in teaching, inquiry, and

critical reflection. The nature of specific relationships is influenced by the participants'

relational histories and prior experiences, as well as the visible and invisible Discourse

communities of which they are members. The implications for teacher education include

providing opportunities for mentors and mentees to better understand mentoring and the ways in









which it might be enacted, as well as the challenges it will present as a partnership is formed that

will influence its participants.

Concluding Thoughts

Although I will bring my research journey to a close in this section, it is hardly a Einal or

complete pronouncement on mentoring in general, or even my study in particular. I have sat

with my data for months, have returned to it again and again, and each time I have understood it

differently. The data I collected have provided me with snapshots of specific mentoring

relationships as they were constructed and transformed at particular points in time, and while I

was privileged to be exposed to the perspectives of these mentors and mentees, I have to agree

with Thayer-Bacon (2003) that I will never be able to gain a complete understanding. Therefore,

my findings and assertions are open to further interpretation and the construction of new

understandings.

Finally, it seems that mentoring is about relationship a dynamic, reciprocal, and personal

relationship. Mentoring is not something that is done to the mentee; rather it is something that

the mentor and mentee construct, negotiate, and do together. It is about taking risks that result in

learning and being open to the possibilities for transformation. Mentoring is complex and multi-

dimensional and affects our personal, as well as our professional identities and lives. Ultimately,

"mentoring is a mutuality that requires more than meeting the right mentor; the mentor must

meet the right mentee" (Palmer, 1998).









APPENDIX A
TIMELINE OF THE STUDY

Activity
Proposal Defense and Approval

IRB Submission and Approval

Solicitation of Participants

Data Collection

Transcription

Multiple readings of data; Open coding of data;
Decisions about final data analysis methods
made

Data Analysis

Writing

Revision of writing; Submission of dissertation
to committee members

Defense of dissertation; Final revisions


Date
October, 2006

November, 2006

December, 2006-January, 2007

February -April, 2007

May-June, 2007

July-August, 2007



September-October, 2007

November, 2007-February, 2008

March, 2008


April, 2008










APPENDIX B
DIALOGUE SESSIONS: ACTIVITIES/TOPICS


OF DISCUSSION

Activity/Topics Discussed
Parent conference took
precedence over our dialogue
session
Pre-conference for Kenneth's
observation of Susan
Co-planning a math lesson on
probability
School Holiday
Post-conference. Kenneth
observed Susan teach a
science lesson. Discussion of
the needs of some individual
students. Kenneth shared his
philosophy of mentoring.
Kenneth facilitated Susan's
planning of a reading lesson.
Co-planning a math lesson.
Discussed future social
studies' lessons. Discussion
of their communication.
University's Spring Break
Reflected on how their
relationship began and
developed in the first weeks.
Discussed individual students.
Discussed appropriate
instructional uses of
technology.
Kenneth was unable to stay
after school for our dialogue
session.
Allenton's Spring Break
Influence of FCAT on
teaching and mentoring.
Reflected on entirety of
relationship and how they had
been transformed by it.


Mentoring Group


Date


Mentoring Group 1: Kenneth
2/05/07
and Susan


2/12/07


2/19/07



2/26/07






3/5/07



3/12/07


3/19/07





3/26/07

4/2/07


4/9/07




























3/6/07






3/13/07
3/20/07


3/27/07





4/3/07
4/10/07


Mentoring Group


Date
2/6/07


Activity/Topics Discussed
Discussed previous
experiences with mentoring.
Recalled how their
relationship began and
developed in the early weeks.
Discussed what they had
already learned from each
other.
FCAT--No dialogue session
Elizabeth and Melissa
discussed a lesson they had
planned. Discussed influence
of FCAT on teaching.
Discussed strategies for
managing students'
behavior/feelings about
classroom management.
Discussed the learning needs
of individual students.
University's Spring Break
Elizabeth and Melissa shared a
math lesson they would be
teaching and Barbara provided
feedback. Discussed the
appropriateness of various
instructional strategies.
Discussed the importance of
constructive criticism for
mentees' learning and growth.
Discussed collaboration.
Barbara shared her philosophy
of mentoring. Discussed
importance of assessment for
teaching.
Allenton's Spring Break
Reflected on entirety of
relationship and how they had
been transformed by it.
Discussed benefits of
mentoring for the mentor and
mentees.


Mentoring Group 2: Barbara,
Elizabeth, and Melissa


2/13/07
2/20/07





2/22/07






2/29/07
3/8/07


3/15/07
3/22/07


Mentoring Group


Date
2/8/07


Activity/Topics Discussed
Post-conference. James had
observed Amy and Jessica teach
a math lesson. Discussed
implementing cooperative
learning. Discussed the
beginning of their relationship
and what they were learning from
each other.
Reflected on how their
relationship began and developed
in the first weeks. Discussed
issues of classroom management.
Discussed how this experience
was transforming their identities
as teachers. Discussed what they
were learning from each other.
Discussed needs of individual
students .
FCAT- No dialogue session
Discussed implementation of
cooperative leaming. Discussed
influence ofFCAT on teaching.
Discussed importance/use of
constructive criticism. Discussed
differences in their teaching
styles.
University's Spring Break
Discussed planning lessons that
made use of cooperative learning.
Discussed classroom
management/communication
with parents. Discussed
importance of cooperative
learning .
Discussed field trip to St.
Augustine
Allenton's Spring Break
Reflected on entirety of
relationship, how it had changed
and how they had been
transformed by it. Discussed
James's final evaluation oftheir
teaching .


Mentoring Group 3: James, Amy,
and Jessica


2/15/07


3/29/07

4/5/07
4/12/07









APPENDIX C
MEMBER CHECKING

Initial Interpretations of the Mentoring Relationships

Mentoring Group 1: Kenneth and Susan

* Kenneth and Susan became acquainted in a series of informal meetings (going to events,
playing games, going out to eat) before the semester begins.

* Kenneth and Susan established a personal connection through sharing personal information
and experiences.

* It is important to establish a personal connection before beginning the tasks of teaching
and mentoring.

* Knowing Susan enabled Kenneth to tailor the mentoring he provided to her specific needs.

* Kenneth and Susan used the phone, emails, and meetings before and after school, as well
as during lunch to strengthen their personal and professional connection.

* Kenneth and Susan co-planned and co-taught lessons.

* Kenneth facilitated Susan's reflection on her lessons through his use of open-ended and
probing questions.

* Kenneth often shared his expertise and experience to provide scaffolding for Susan.

* Susan also shared her expertise and experiences when they were relevant to the lesson or
discussion.

* Susan was often able to use what she had learned in her university coursework in this real-
world classroom.

* FCAT affected the time available for mentoring and the pacing of instruction.

* Kenneth believes his role as a mentor is to help his mentee become the teacher she
envisions--it is not to clone himself.

* Kenneth's feedback has helped Susan to clarify her beliefs about teaching and learning and
to refine her practice accordingly.










Mentoring Group 2: Barbara, Elizabeth, and Melissa

* Barbara, Elizabeth, and Melissa had a lot of time for talking and getting to know one
another the first week of the semester.

* They felt that it was important to establish a personal connection.

* Barbara also shared information about each of the students with Elizabeth and Melissa the
first week of school. This background knowledge made it easier for Melissa and Elizabeth
to provide support for individual students and to plan lessons that were appropriate for all
their students.

* Barbara also provided constructive criticism and feedback on Elizabeth's and Melissa' s
lesson plans, as well as their teaching. They felt that the establishment of their personal
relationship was an important first step in being able to do the work of mentoring.

* Melissa and Elizabeth felt very comfortable bringing new ideas to Barbara.

* They all shared their expertise and previous experiences with each other.

* They communicated before school and during their planning period every day.

* Barbara, Melissa, and Elizabeth discussed a number of classroom management issues and
strategies. Melissa and Elizabeth shared their feelings about classroom management.

* Barbara, Elizabeth, and Melissa felt that the FCAT affected their identity as teachers.
There was more direct instruction before the FCAT and more creative lessons after the
FCAT.

* Melissa and Elizabeth felt that Barbara' s role, as a mentor, was to help them become
teachers.

* Barbara believed that Melissa and Elizabeth had become colleagues and cooperative
teachers, who were sometimes better able to handle a specific situation than Barbara was.










Mentoring Group 3: James, Amy, and Jessica

* James, Amy, and Jessica did not begin to get to know each other until they met on the
second day of their placement.

* James shared his expectations (he expected them to always be involved) with Amy and
Jessica.

* James provided constructive criticism and feedback on Amy's and Jessica' s lesson plans,
as well as their teaching.

* James, Amy, and Jessica communicated before school and during their planning periods,
as well as by phone and through email and instant messaging.

* James, Amy and Jessica had different teaching styles. Amy and Jessica implemented
cooperative learning, but James was distracted by the noise during lessons.

* James believed that the FCAT affected the pacing of instruction.

* Amy and Jessica believed that some university assignments constrained their ability to be
actively involved in the classroom.

* Amy did not always see the connections between her university coursework and the real
world classroom.

* James, Amy, and Jessica disagreed over their chaperoning responsibilities for the St.
Augustine trip. Amy and Jessica believed that this disagreement negatively affected their
relationship. Neither felt as free to express their opinions as they had before.









APPENDIX D
RESEARCHER' S NOTEBOOK: REFLECTION AFTER DIALOGUE SESSION

Reflection after Dialogue Session 3/29/07: James, Amy, and Jessica

Today the entire dialogue session was devoted to a discussion of a disagreement they had over
the chaperoning responsibilities for their St. Augustine trip. Amy and Jessica dominated the
beginning of the conversation and presented their perspectives and reasons for their feelings--
they had not wanted to be responsible for only one student. Then James presented his
perspective. However, they did not seem to be listening to each other, as they tended to repeat
their stories and defend their positions, rather than to attempt to negotiate an agreement and
understanding. And at times I felt as if they were each trying to present their case so that I could
decide who was right and who was wrong. That was definitely a position I was not willing to
assume.

I'm wondering why James didn't sit down with Amy and Jessica to discuss the Hield trip and to
plan for it. It seems that such a discussion would be a part of the work of mentoring. James said
there had been no time for it that week--but it does seem that the lack of a discussion has had a
negative effect on their relationship.

Amy and Jessica believe that their relationship has changed. They seemed hurt that James hadn't
involved them in planning for the Hield trip. As they said--they had been involved in everything
else prior to this. Amy and Jessica also seemed to believe that James is trying to assert his power
over them. Amy's new perception of a mentor is one of a boss. They have moved from sharing
power to struggling over it.

This spat, as Amy called it, seemed to have come out of the blue. I'm wondering what might
have precipitated it. Are there other unresolved issues that have built up over the course of the
semester that were never resolved? I know that they have very different teaching styles and
could this have contributed to the diminishing of their rapport? Or did they never fully establish
the rapport they needed? It seems congeniality is a necessary foundation for collegiality. I
would also suggest that those involved in a relationship need some communication or relational
skills that enable them to disagree with each other and to negotiate a resolution. You can
disagree without being disagreeable.

James also suggested (several times) that this disagreement had something to do with gender. I
believe that attributing their differences to gender is too simplistic. I think it is due to a number
of factors--what they might be is not as clear--although gender could certainly be one of those
factors.

I asked them twice to consider what they had learned from this experience, but they reverted to
retelling their stories and restating their positions. How could I have facilitated a negotiation of
their differences? Are their some cases in which negotiation is impossible? And why is that?

It may be a good that Amy's and Jessica's placement is almost over, as I'm not sure how much
meaningful learning and mentoring will occur after this session. I will be interested in hearing
about their trip after it happens. And it is probably a good thing that Spring Break is next week.










Maybe it will give them all time to cool off and reconsider. I'm wondering what their
relationship will be like after they return to school. And will they be able to reflect on this
session, the field trip, and the consequences of their interactions in a way that recognizes and
values all perspectives. It was a very tense session--even though there was some laughter and
some attempts at humor.









APPENDIX E
EXPANDED FIELD NOTES

Mentoring Group 2: Barbara, Elizabeth, and Melissa
March 27, 2007

Before the first bell rang for the day, a mother walked into the classroom with her son and stayed
to help him organize his desk. Barbara told the mother that they had moved her son's desk back
by the interns so that they would be able to keep tabs on him and help him. This is a way in
which Barbara is making use of the pre-interns to benefit her third grade students. I wonder
what kind of conversations they have or have had about this student. Do they discuss what kinds
ofprompts/help to provide? At 7:30 the bell rang and students walked into the classroom,
emptied their bookbags, and sat at their desks. They worked on completing a worksheet of two-
digit addition problems that had been placed on their desks before they entered the classroom.
How does Barbara make decisions about the worksheet that is placed on the students' desks?
Do Elizabeth and Melissa takettttt~~~~~~~tttttt part in that decision? Students placed their homework in a
basket on the pre-interns' table. They also sharpened their pencils. Barbara called the names of
students who were following the classroom rules and the noise level in the room abated. I helped
one student, who was seated near me in the back of the room, with the worksheet. Elizabeth and
Melissa were discussing their upcoming summer and fall schedules in the back of the room.
Barbara sat on a stool at the front on the room. School wide announcements were made over the
PA at 7:45 am. At this time Barbara was sitting at her desk in the back of the room and Melissa
and Elizabeth were seated at their table in the back of the room.

At 8:00 am, Barbara dismissed the students to their reading classes. Students in the third grade
are grouped homogeneously for I Im I ing. so some students leave the classroom and have reading
aI ithr another third grade teacher. I 'm wondering if ~~~~~~~~~BBBBBBBBBBaraa Melissa, and Elizabeth have
problematized this practice. Some students entered the classroom and sat down at their assigned
desks. All students turned in their homework. Elizabeth was filing papers in the back of the
classroom. There was a writing prompt proj ected on the screen in the front of the classroom.
"Imagine you have a pen pal who lives far away. Think about how you could describe your
community for your friend. Now write a paragraph describing what your community is like for
someone who has never seen it." Another adult came into the room and sat on the couch to
observe. Barbara walked among the students as they worked. Some students got up to get a
sheet of notebook paper from the back of the room so that they could write a response to the
prompt. Elizabeth explained to one student what a pen pal was. She also connected the prompt
to the story that students were reading that week and discussed how the author had described the
setting and told the student to describe Allenton in those terms. Barbara was also prompting
students for the details they could use in describing their community. A student asked how to
spell "especially." Barbara spelled it for her. I'm wondering--what do these prompts tell them
about student learning? How do Barbara, Melissa, and Elizabeth make use of them when
planning instruction ?

At 8:15 Barbara tells the students to put away their pencils. Barbara gave a mini lesson on the
tenses of verbs. Students were already familiar with the present tense and Barbara asked them
what they would add to a regular verb to make it past tense. Barbara used an overhead to
provide students with some guided practice in identifying verbs in the present and past tense.









She asked students to read the sentences on the overhead, to identify the verb, and to tell her the
tense of the verb. Barbara underlined the verb in each sentence and pointed out the "ed" when it
was present. The next section on the overhead provided a verb in the present tense and students
were asked to change it to the past tense. The Einal section of the overhead asked students to use
the past tense of certain verbs (i.e., follow, skip) in a sentence. Melissa and Elizabeth were
grading homework at their table in the back of the room as Barbara conducted this lesson. I'm
wondering how they might co-teach during this lesson in order to better monitor student
understanding or how they might make this lesson more relevant for their students.

Barbara got out two fly swatters (One was red and the other was blue.) and called on two
students to come to the whiteboard at the front of the classroom. She gave each student a fly
swatter. On the front board were several insects made from construction paper. A vocabulary
word from the week' s story was written on each of the insects. Barbara pointed to each insect
and pronounced each vocabulary work. She then stated a definition. The students swatted the
insect on which they thought the vocabulary word Barbara had defined was written. Once these
two students had had a turn, she asked them to hand their swatters to two other students.
Barbara awarded points for each correct answer, based on the color of the fly swatter. Once all
the words had been defined, Barbara read a number of sentences with blanks in them and
students swatted the insect on which the word that belonged in the blank was written. During
this activity, Melissa was observing her inquiry student and recording instances of inappropriate
behavior. Elizabeth was writing a reflection for one of the lessons she had taught. This game
ended in a tie score. I'm wondering what the pre-interns are learning. Could they be more
involved in the lesson, in a way that would benefit student learning?

Barbara then told the students that they would be buddy reading the story and would be
answering a long list of questions. She called on students one at a time and asked them to pick
their partner for the buddy reading. Melissa and Elizabeth worked with some of the partnered
students. Barbara had a whispered conversation with the observer who had walked into the room
at the beginning of reading. I also worked with a student group. Many of the students did not
Einish the comprehension questions, so the worksheet was assigned as homework. Barbara
dismissed the students to their homerooms at 9:25 am.

Some of their homeroom students returned to class from their reading groups. Melissa passed
out a snack to each student. Elizabeth helped one student who had lost something look for it.
Barbara demonstrated how to write "Y, y and Z, z" in cursive. She used the overhead proj ector
for this demonstration. Students practiced writing these two letters on a worksheet.

At 9:40 students were called to line up and Melissa and Elizabeth walked them to their special.

Dialogue Session 9:40-10:25.

Barbara walked the students back from their special at 10:30. She conducted a lesson on
dividing by 1 and 0. Barbara wrote 3 + 1 = 3. She told the students that 1 can be a divisor, but
not a dividend. She then wrote 0 + 15 = and she asked how many would be in each of the 15
groups. A student answered, zero. Barbara told the students that 0 can be the dividend, but not
the divisor. She asked, "If you see 0 as the dividend, what will the answer be?" Students









answered chorally, "Zero." Barbara wrote 9,156 + 1 = and asked student what the answer would
be. They answered chorally. She told students that any number divided by 1 would be that
number. Melissa and Elizabeth sat in the back of the classroom as Barbara taught the lesson.
Barbara then passed out a worksheet for students to complete independently. Barbara, Elizabeth,
Melissa, and I walked around the room to monitor student work and provide help when
necessary. I'm wondering if they discuss this the next day. How do they make use of what they
learn from observing students and from providing help to individual students that is useful in
planning instruction or interventions for particular students.

At 11:05 Barbara asked the students to clear their desks and she called their names to line up to
go to lunch. We all left the classroom.









APPENDIX F
TRANSCRIPTION WITH NOTATIONS

Interviewer: Sharon Hayes
Interviewees: Kenneth, Susan
Date: February 26, 2007
Time: 2:20-3:00 pm
Location: Kenneth's classroom, Allenton Elementary
Topic: Post conference after mentor observed lesson

Kenneth: So I want to start by asking you how you thought your lesson went today.

Susan: ((laughs)) Sharon already asked me that.

Kenneth: I figure.

Susan: I think it could have gone a lot better.

Kenneth: What particular things are you thinking about? Cause like every time I am gonna be

coming back and giving () every time the teaching I know, and I noticed you did this throughout

your lesson, your thinking about, okay, what do I need to do next, what do I need to do next?

And so at the end when I'm done I always think about okay, if I did this again .. what would I

do? And ( ) tomorrow. So, that' s kind of what I'm asking you.

Susan: Yeah ( ). Um .it seems like no matter how prepared I am, like I told Sharon, I had note

cards up there. Things that I wanted to say. Do you think I said what I wanted to say off

((1ag) my note cards? No. I looked at 'em for two seconds and the .eh, there went that

idea. And I'm not, I don't know, I guess .. I'm normally .. I, I don't know, I don't think they

got it.

Kenneth: And what are you .. what do you think .. um will change in order, like, to help

that? What do you think's gonna happen to where you'll be able to focus on your note cards or

how much you've prepared? How'll you be able to change? Why do you think you didn't do it

in other words?

Susan (009): Um .. I don't know that I didn't do it.










Kenneth: Mm hmm

Susan: But I feel like .. hopefully, eventually I won't need note cards. Because it becomes

intrinsic and I won't have to, you know

Kenneth: Mm hmm .. Mm hmm

Susan: but .. I feel like, I write down the steps then...I say them, but then like I forget one or

something. You know what I mean? Like I talk to you, co-teaching, how I really liked it

because...it gave you a chance to fix ((snaps fingers)) everything the second time that you knew

you messed up on or you knew you needed to change. That' s

Kenneth: Right .. Right. The different stations and things

Susan: Yes

Kenneth: Yeah

Susan: ((laughs)) It's just like, oh, I, I wish I would of done that differently. So things like ..

um, transitions .. I'm not, I don't know, I can't seem ta .. get them to go the way I want them

to go.

Kenneth (015 : Well, to me, just from what I was, I mean, who am I? I'm just an observer. But

it looked to me like .. you had your plan. And you wanted to follow your plan. But at the

same time you were trying to respond to what the students were doing. So sometimes when you

do that, it kinda, it' s hard to go back to your plan when you've got so many other things going

on.

Susan: Right.

Kenneth: And I think the only way that' s gonna change is just with experience of doing more. I

don't think there' s anything that you can do right now...to change that, you know ((laughs))

















INSTRUCTIONS: Please check (d) rate the intern at the level best representing vour estimate of competence and
potential as compared to other interns. Use the following ratings as a guide: 1 Does not meet expectations; 2 -
Meets expectations at minimal level; 3 Meets expectations at satisfactory level; 4 Exceed expectations. This
information comes under Board of Regents student records policy. As such, access (beyond required handling) will
be limited to the intern and those designtdb him or her on a need to know basis.
Not
Rating Criteria Observed 1 2 3 4
1. Uses assessment strategies (traditional and alternative) to assist the continuous
develoment of learner. Collects and uses data from a variety of sources.
2. Uses effective communication techniques with students and all other stakeholders.
Recognizes the need for effective communication in the classroom. Appropriate use
of Enlssuitable voice qaiy
3. Engages in continuous professional improvement through lifelong learning, self-
reflection, work with colleagues and teammates, and meeting the goals of a
professional develomnt plan.
4. Uses appropriate techniques and strategies which promote and enhance critical,
creative, and evaluative thinking capabilities of students. Is building a repertoire of
realistic projects and problem-solving activities designed to assist students in
demonstrating their ability to think creatively
5. Uses teaching and learning strategies that reflect each student's culture, learning
styles, special needs, and socioeconomic background. Creates a climate of openness,
inquiry, and support by practicing strategies of acceptance, tolerance, resolution, and
mediation.
6. Adheres to the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the
Education Profession in Florida.
7. Uses an understanding of learning and human development to provide a positive
learning environment which supports the intellectual, personal, and social
development of all students. Students are actively engaged in learning, social
interaction, coprative leamnin and self-motivation.
8. Demonstrates a basic understanding of the subject field and is beginning to
understand that the subject is linked to other disciplines and can be applied in real-
world situations.
9. Plans, implements, and evaluates effective instruction.
10 Communicates and works effectively with families and colleagues to improve the
educational experiences at the school.
11. Uses appropriate technology in teaching and learning processes where available.
12. Creates positive and productive learning environment; is able to care for
students, motivate them, and show interest in them; adapts and changes instruction in
unpredictable, dynamic classrooms.
13. Designs and implements an effective behavior management policy.
14. Is punctual, uses mature judgment, provides accurate reports and records
(professional responsibility).
15. Demonstrates enthusiasm for teaching.
16. Demonstrates responsiveness to supervision (ability to accept constructive
criticism and incorporate suggestions into teaching performance).
17. Presents a professional appearance in dress, grooming, attitude, and demeanor.
18. Demonstrates initiative and self-reliance.
SUMMARY: Please add any additional information you consider pertinent to your professional eval nation of this
student.


APPENDIX G
FINAL EVALUATION FORM

TEACHER EDUCATION INTERN RATING SHEET










APPENDIX H
EDUCATOR ACCOMPLISHED PRACTICES


Accomplished Practice
AP 1: Assessment


Description
The pre-professional teacher collects and uses data gathered
from a variety of sources. These sources include both
traditional and alternate assessment strategies. Furthermore,
the teacher can identify and match the students' instructional
plans with their cognitive, social, linguistic, cultural,
emotional, and physical needs.
The pre-professional teacher recognizes the need for effective
communication in the classroom and is in the process of
acquiring techniques which she/he will use in the classroom.
The pre-professional teacher realizes that she/he is in the
initial stages of a lifelong learning process and that self-
reflection is one of the key components of that process.
While her/his concentration is, of necessity, inward and
personal, the role of colleagues and school-based
improvement activities increases as time passes. The
teacher' s continued professional improvement is
characterized by self-reflection, working with immediate
colleagues and teammates, and meeting the goals of a
personal professional development plan.
The pre-professional teacher is acquiring performance
assessment techniques and strategies that measure higher
order thinking skills in students and is building a repertoire of
realistic projects and problem-solving activities designed to
assist all students in demonstrating their ability to think
creatively.
The pre-professional teacher establishes a comfortable
environment which accepts and fosters diversity. The teacher
must demonstrate knowledge and awareness of varied
cultures and linguistic backgrounds. The teacher creates a
climate of openness, inquiry, and support by practicing
strategies such as acceptance, tolerance, resolution, and
mediation.
The pre-professional adheres to the Code of Ethics and
Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education
Profession in Florida
Drawing upon well established human development/leaming
theories and concepts and a variety of information about
students, the pre-professional teacher plans instructional
activities.
The pre-professional teacher has a basic understanding of the
subject field and is beginning to understand that the subject is
linked to other disciplines and can be applied to real-world
integrated settings. The teacher's repertoire of teaching skills
includes a variety of means to assist student acquisition of
new knowledge and skills using that knowledge.


AP2: Communication


AP3: Continuous Improvement










AP4: Critical Thinking






AP5: Diversity







AP6: Ethics


AP7: Human Development and Leamning



AP8: Knowledge of Subject Matter










Continued Appendix H
Accomplished Practice
AP9: Leamning Environments








AP10: Planning














AP11: Role of the Teacher



APl2: Technology


Description
The pre-professional teacher understands the
importance of setting up effective learning
environments and has techniques and strategies to
use to do so including some that provide
opportunities for student input into the processes.
The teacher understands that she/he will need a
variety of techniques and work to increase his/her
knowledge and skills.
Recognizing the importance of setting high
expectations for all students, the pre-professional
teacher works with other professionals to design
learning experiences that meet students' needs and
interest. The teacher candidate continually seeks
advice/information from appropriate resources
(including feedback), interprets the information,
and modifies his/her plans appropriately. Planned
instruction incorporates a creative environment and
utilizes varied and motivational strategies and
multiple resources for providing comprehensible
instruction for all students. Upon reflection, the
teacher continuously refines outcome assessment
and learning experiences.
The pre-professional teacher communicates and
works cooperatively with families and colleagues
to improve the educational experiences at the
school .
The pre-professional teacher uses technology as
available at the school site and as appropriate to the
learner. She/he provides students with
opportunities to actively use technology and
facilitates access to the use of electronic resources.
The teacher also uses technology to manage,
evaluate, and improve instruction.


Retri eved from: http://www.fldoe. org/dpe/publi cati ons/preprofes si onal4-99.pdf










LIST OF REFERENCES


Achinstein, B., & Athanases, S. Z. (2006). New visions for mentoring new teachers. In B.
Achinstein & S. Z. Athanases (Eds.), M~entors in the making: Developing new leaders for
new teachers (pp. 1-20). New York: Teachers College Press.

Achinstein, B., & Barrett, A. (2004). (Re)framing classroom contexts: How new teachers and
mentors view diverse learners and challenges of practice. Teachers College Record,
106(4). 716-746.

Achinstein, B., & Villar, A. (2004). A spectrum of mentoring relationships and new teacher
learning: Collaboration and complexity. Journal of Educational Change, 5(4), 311-344.

Anderson, E. M. & Shannon, A. L. (1988). Toward a conceptualization of mentoring. Journal of
Teacher Education, 39(1), 38-42.

Aubrey, R., & Cohen, P. M. (1995). Working wisdom: Timeless skills and vanguard strategies
for learning organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Awaya, A., McEwan, H., Heyler, D., Linsky, S., Lum, D., & Wakukawa, P. (2003). Mentoring
as a journey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 45-56.

Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools fr~om aI ithrin Teachers, parents, and principals can make
the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology ofknowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Blackburn, R. T., Chapman, D. W., & Cameron, S.M. (1981). Cloning in academe: Mentorship
and academic careers. Research in Higher Education, 15(4), 315-327.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bova, B. M. & Phillips, R. R. (1984). Mentoring as a learning experience for adults. Journal of
Teacher Education, 35(3), 16-20.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brophy, J. (2006). History of research on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S.
Weinstein (Eds.) Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and
contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown II, M. C., Davis, G. L., & McClendon, S. A. (1999). Mentoring graduate students of
color: Myths, models, and modes. Peabody Journal ofEducation, 74(2).










Burlew, L. D. (1 99 1). Multiple mentor model: A conceptual framework. Journal of Career
Development, 1 7(3), 213-221.

Cameron, D. (2001). Wo\iking nI ith spoken text. London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Carger, C. L. (1996). The two Bills: Reflecting on the gift of mentorship. Peabody Journal of
Education, 71(1), 22-29.

Carter, K. (1988). Using cases to frame mentor-novice conversations about teaching. Theory
into Practice, 27(3), 214-222.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. HarvardEducational Review,
61(3), 279-310.

Cochran-Smith M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teaching
learning in communities. Review ofResearch in Education, 24, 249-305.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Paris, C. L. (1995). Mentor and mentoring: Did Homer have it right? In
J. Smith (Ed.), Critical discourses on teacher development (pp. 181-202). London:
Cassell.

Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Copas, E. M. (1984). Critical requirements for cooperating teachers. Journal of Teacher
Education, 35(6), 49-54.

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: M~eaning and perspective in the research
process. London: Sage Publications.

Daloz, L. A. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformational power of
adult learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Daloz, L. A. (1999). Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

Davis, L. L., Little, M. S., & Thomnton, W. L. (1997). The art and angst of the mentoring
relationship. Academic Psychiatry, 21, 61-71.

DeJong, J. A., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Wubbels, T. (1998). Learning from practice in teacher
education: Processes and interventions. Teachers and Teachiling. 4(1), 47-64.










Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological M~ethods
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Enz, B. J., & Cook, S. I. (1992). Student teachers' and cooperating teachers' perspectives of
mentoring functions: Harmony or dissonance? Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualittive methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook ofresearch on teaching 3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.

Evertson, C., & Emmer, E. (1981). Organizing and managing the elementary school classroom.
Austin, TX: University of Austin.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York:
Routl edge.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Teachers as teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 21(1), 63-89

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach. Journal of Teacher Education,


Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987) When is student teaching teacher education?
Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 25 5-273.

Fish, S. 1990. How to recognize a poem when you see one. In D. Bartholomae & A. Petrosky
(Eds.) Ways of Reading: An Anthology for Writers (2nd ed., pp. 178-191). Boston:
Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press.

Fletcher, S. (2000). Mentoring in schools: A handbook of good practice. London: Kogan Page
Limited.

Foucalt, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977. New
York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1990). Politics, philosophy, culture: Interview and other writings 1977-1984. New
York: Routledge.

Ganzer, T. (1996). What do mentors say about mentoring? Journal ofStaffDevelopment, 1 7(3),
36-39.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London:
Routl edge.










Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review ofResearch in
Education (25), 99-125.

Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (211d ed.). New
York: Routledge.

Gehrke, N. (1988). Toward a definition of mentoring. Theory Into Practice, 27(3), 190-194.

Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social constructionism.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage Publications.

Gergen, K. J. (2001). Social construction in context. London: Sage Publications.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (211d ed.). New York:
Addison Wesley Longman.

Gonzalez-Rodriguez, Y. E. (1995). Mentoring to diversity: A multicultural approach. In M.W.
Galbraith & N. H. Cohen (Eds.). Mentoring: New strategies and challenges. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. London: Sage Publications.

Grimmett, P. P., & Ratzlaff, H. C. (1986). Expectations for the cooperating teacher role. Journal
of Teacher Education, 37(6), 41-50.

Gunter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Schwab, J. (1999). Instruction: A models approach (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Guyton, E., & McIntyre, D. J. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W. R.
Houston (Ed.), H~andbook ofResearch on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan.

Hardcastle, B. (1988). Spiritual connections: Proteges' reflections on significant mentorships.
Theory into Practice, 27(3), 201-208.

Harre, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harre & L. van
Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory (pp. 14-31). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Hawkey, K. (1997). Roles, responsibilities and relationships in mentoring: A literature review
and agenda for research. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 324-33 5.

Hayes, D. (1999). A matter of being willing? Mentors' expectations of student primary teachers.
Mentoring & Tutoring, 7(1), 67-79.










Healy, C. C., & Welchert, A. J. (1990). Mentoring relations: A definition to advance research
and practice. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 17-21.

Heinrich, K. T. (1995). Doctoral advisement relationships between women: On friendship and
betrayal. Journal of Higher Education, 66(4), 447-469.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow 's teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Holmes Group (1990). Tomorrow 's schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2003). Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns. In J.
A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns( 3-
30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Homer. (1952). The odyssey. (E. V. Rieu, Trans.). London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.

Huffman, G., & Leak, S. (1986). Beginning teachers' perceptions of mentors. Journal of Teacher
Education, 37(1), 22-25.

Jackson, A. Y. (2001). Multiple Annies: Feminist poststructural theory and the making of a
teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(5), 386-397.

Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations,
and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) H~andbook of qualitative
research (2nd ed., pp.379-399). London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Jardine, G. M. (2005). Foucault & education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Johnson, W. B., & Huwe, J. M. (2003). Getting mentored in graduate school. Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.

Jorgenson, D. L. (1989). Partici~PpantPPP~~~~~PPPPP observation: A methodology for human studies. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical constructivism. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Koerner, M., Rust, F. O., & Baumgartner, F. (2002). Exploring roles in student teaching
placements. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 35-58.

Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2008). A social constructionist framing of the research interview. In J. A.
Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), H~andbook of Constructionist Research (pp. 429-444).
New York: The Guilford Press.

Koster, B., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Wubbels, T. (1998). Is there anything left for us? Functions of
cooperating teachers and teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher Education,
21(1), 75-89.











Kram, K. E. (1986). Mentoring in the workplace. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Career development in
organizations (pp. 160-199). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage
Publications, Ltd.

Kvale, S. (2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquity, 12(3), 480-
500.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Lemma, P. (1993). The cooperating teacher as supervisor: A case study. Journal of Curricuhtna
and Supervision, 8(4), 329-342.

Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons ofa man 's hife. New York: Ballantine Books.

Levinson, D. J. (1996). The seasons of a woman 's hife. New York: Ballantine Books.

Lipschutz, S. S. (1993). Enhancing success in doctoral education: From policy to practice. In L.
L. Baird (Ed.), hzcreasing graduate student retention and degree attainment: New
directions for instructional research, No. 80 (pp. 69-80). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Lucas, K. F., (2001). The social construction of mentoring roles. Mentoring & Tutoring, 9(1),
23-47.

McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1999). Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable
dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Ma slow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley
Longman, Inc.

Meijer, P. C., Zanting, A., & Verloop, N. (2002). How can student teachers elicit experience
teachers' practical knowledge? Tools, suggestions, and significance. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(5), 406-419.

Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and proteges: A critical review of the literature. Adult Education
Quarterly, 33, 161-173.










Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1? Issues of validity and reliability in
qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong (lealrning. 4(1), 5 1-60.

Nolan Jr., J. & Hoover, L. A. (2005). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Odell, S. J., & Ferraro, D. P. (1992). Teacher mentoring and teacher retention. Journal of
Teacher Educaiton, 43(3), 200-204.

Odell, S. J., & Huling, L. (Eds.). (2000). Quality mentoring for novice teachers. Indianapolis, IN:
Kappa Delta Pi.

Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher 's hife. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Parkay, F. W. (1988). Reflections of a protege. Theory into Practice, 27(3), 195-200.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Peddy, S. (200 1). The art of mentoring: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Houston, TX:
Bullion Books.

Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social
construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Phillips-Jones, L. (2001). The new mentors & protdgds: How to succeed sI ithr the new mentoring
partnerships. Grass Valley, CA: Coalition of Counseling Centers/The Mentoring Group.

Portner, H. (2002). Being mentored: A guide for protdgds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.

Roberts, A. (1999). Androgyny and the mentoring role: An empirical study to examine
prominent mentor expectations. Mentoring & Tutoring, 7(2), 145-162.

Ross, D. D., Lane, H. B., & McCallum, C. (2005). Description of the Unified Elementary Special
Education Proteach program. In E. Bondy & D. D. Ross (Eds.). Preparing for inclusive
teaching: M~eeting the challenges of teacher education reform. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Schoin, D. A. (1987). Education the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.










Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism,
hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-213). London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Shapiro, E., Haseltine, G., & Rowe, M. (1978). Moving up: Role models, mentors, and the
"patron system." Sloan Management Review, 19(3), 51-58.

Silva, D. Y., & Tom, A. R. (2001). The moral basis of mentoring. Teacher Education Quarterly,
28(2), 39-52.

Smith, P. (1988). Discerning the subject. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on
beginning teacher turnover? American Education Research Journal, 41(3), 681-714.

Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2003). Relational "(elpistemologies. New York: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc.

VanZandt, C. E. (1990). Professionalism: A matter of personal initiative. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 68, 243-245.

Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for
reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26 (7), 13-22.

Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform:
A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 48 1-546.

Weinberg, D. (2008). The philosophical foundations of constructionist research. In J. A. Holstein
& J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of Constructionist Research (pp. 13-39). New York:
The Guilford Press.

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.

Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Yamamoto, K. (1988). To see life grow: The meaning of mentorship. Theory into Practice,
27(3), 183-189.

Yendol-Hoppey, D., & Dana, N. F. (2007). The reflective educator 's guide to mentoring:
.Soengthenl~ing practice e through knowledge, story, and metaphor. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.










Zachary, L. J. (2000). The mentor 's guide: Facilitating effective learning relationships. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zachary, L. J. (2002). The role of teacher as mentor. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 93, 27-38.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zey, M. G. (1984). The mentor connection. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwiin.

Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free
Press.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Sharon Hayes completed her undergraduate degree in English and elementary education at

the State University of New York College at Brockport. She raised two children and taught

elementary and middle school in Tennessee, Ohio, New Jersey and Alabama over the course of

the next twenty years. While teaching third grade in Spanish Fort, Alabama Sharon completed

her Master' s degree in elementary education at the University of South Alabama. She then

enrolled at the University of Florida and received her doctoral degree in 2008. Her focus was on

Curriculum and Instruction. Sharon's research interests include mentoring, discourse, the

relationships that are constructed between universities and schools. She has two grown children,

Megan and Matthew, and enj oys reading, cooking, and needlework in her spare time.





PAGE 1

1 THE DISCURSIVE NATURE OF MENTORING: HOW PARTICIPATION IN A MENTORING RELATIONSHIP TRANSFORMS THE IDENTITIES AND PRACTICES OF PROSPECTIVE AND PRACTICING TEACHERS By SHARON B. HAYES A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Sharon B. Hayes

PAGE 3

3 For Mom & Dad and Megan & Matthew Thanks for your unwavering love and belief in me.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS While it didnt take a village, it certainly required a committee, and I would like to thank each and every member of my doctoral committe e Nancy Dana, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Jeff Hurt, Colleen Swain, and Sondra Smith. Your c ounsel and support have only served to improve my work, and I sincerely apprecia te the time and effort you have devoted to my study and me. I want to extend a special thanks to Nancy, who agreed to chair my committee when I was already well into this research, and who always provided me with the just-in-time mentoring that I needed at so many junctures in this journey. I am looking forwar d to years of friendship and collaboration with you. I would also like to acknowledge Lee Mu llally, chair of my doctoral committee, until his retirement. I want to tha nk you for your warm welcome to the university, for sharing your insights and e xpertise over the years, and for providing me with the opportunity to become engaged in the work I want to do. And I offer a most heartfelt thanks to Mirka for so many reasons. I am in awe of your intellect, your skill as a research er, and your generosity of spirit. I have always been able to count on you for mentoring that has challenged me to read betw een and beyond the lines and has supported me in accomplishing my dreams. This is an ending of sorts, and I am taking many happy memories with me, but I believe it is al so another beginning for us. I cherish your friendship and feel so very blessed to have you in my life. I am also very grateful to my family, whos e enthusiastic and stead fast support has always ensured that I was able to find my way. I want to thank my parents, my brothers, Gordon and Timothy, my sister-in-law, Sharilyn, my children, Megan and Matthew, and my nephews and niece, Grant, Parker, and Sheridan for their belief in me, for always providing a soft place for me to land, and, most of all, for their love. Becau se of you, I have always known that the endless possibilities are, in deed, possible.

PAGE 5

5 I have also been blessed with many friends, but Donna Dewey, Shannon Shanely, and Carol Isaac deserve specia l thanks. Youve all endured this roller coaster ride on my way to a doctoral degree and have commiserated or celebr ated with me depending on the circumstance. Thank you for all of your advice, for reminding me to laugh, and most of all for assuring me that the light at the end of the tunnel was not an onc oming train. I am so very thankful for your friendship and encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank the men and wo men who volunteered to be a part of my study. It was a pleasure and a priv ilege to work with all of you. I have learned so much about mentoring, about teaching, about research, and ab out the human spirit. I can only hope that our paths will cross again someday. At this point, thank you seems so inade quate I can only hope you know that I am forever grateful to all of you.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........10 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................11 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14 Background.............................................................................................................................14 Origins of the Study................................................................................................................17 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....22 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....22 Significance of the Study........................................................................................................23 Summary.................................................................................................................................24 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................26 Definitions of Mentoring....................................................................................................... .26 The Mentoring Relationship...................................................................................................29 Mentor Characteristics and Roles...........................................................................................31 Mentee Characteristics and Roles...........................................................................................36 Benefits of Mentoring.............................................................................................................37 Mentoring Pre-Service Teachers............................................................................................ 37 Classroom Instruction and Mentoring............................................................................. 40 Classroom Management and Mentoring......................................................................... 41 Ethical Consideratio ns and Mentoring ............................................................................ 42 New Directions.......................................................................................................................44 Summary.................................................................................................................................46 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS........................................................................................... 48 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....48 Theoretical Perspective: Social Constructionism ...................................................................49 Constructionism and Relationships.................................................................................54 Constructionism and Discourse.......................................................................................55 Defining Discourse.................................................................................................................56 Discourse and the Positioning of Self..................................................................................... 57 Discourse and Power..............................................................................................................61 The Research Context.............................................................................................................63 Allenton...........................................................................................................................64 Allenton Elementary School............................................................................................64 ProTeach: A Teacher Preparation Program..................................................................... 65

PAGE 7

7 The Participants and Their Roles.................................................................................... 66 The Researcher and Her Roles........................................................................................ 67 Data Collection.......................................................................................................................72 Data Sources: Dialogue Sessions.................................................................................... 73 Data Sources: Partic ipant Observation ............................................................................76 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................77 Gees Discourse Analysis (Macro Analysis)...................................................................79 Activity building:.....................................................................................................80 Socioculturally-situated identity building: ...............................................................80 Faircloughs Critical Discourse An alysis (Micro Analysis) ........................................... 81 Trustworthiness.......................................................................................................................85 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........88 Subjectivities and Positionings of the Principal Researcher ........................................... 88 Quality/Authenticity of the Interactions between the Researcher and the Participants ...................................................................................................................89 The Challenges of Social Constructionist Research........................................................ 89 Limitations of the Da ta Collection Methods ................................................................... 91 Summary.................................................................................................................................92 Overview of Chapters 4, 5, and 6........................................................................................... 92 4 ASKING QUESTIONS TO PROMOTE MENT EE-CENTERED MENTORING AND COLLABORATION.............................................................................................................. 96 Mentoring Group 1: Kenneth and Susan................................................................................ 96 The Participants............................................................................................................... 96 The Context.....................................................................................................................97 Developing and Maintaining a Mentoring Relationship ........................................................99 Developing an Understanding of Ment oring: Mentor and Mentee as CoConstructors of Meaning..............................................................................................99 Establishing and Maintaining Rapport: Me ntor and Mentee as Partners/Friends ......... 102 Communication: Mentor a nd Mentee as Partners a nd Collaborative Problem Solvers........................................................................................................................106 Co-Constructing Knowledge of Teaching and Learning ...................................................... 108 Observation: Mentor as Model and Me ntee as Observer and Active Learner .............. 108 Co-Planning: Mentor as Facilitator, Mode l, and Instructional Designer and Mentee as Instructional Designer............................................................................................110 Planning: Mentor as Fa cilitator and Mentee as Instructional Designer ........................ 115 Providing Reflection and Feedb ack: Mentor as Critical Fr iend and Facilitator and Mentee as Reflective Practitioner .............................................................................. 118 Concluding Thoughts............................................................................................................ 123 5 USING DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS TO PROMOTE MENTEE-CENTERED MENTORI NG...................................................................................................................... 128 Mentoring Group 2: Barbara, Melissa, and Elizabeth .......................................................... 128 The Participants............................................................................................................. 128 The Context...................................................................................................................129

PAGE 8

8 Overview of Barbaras, Elizab eths, and Melissas Discourse ............................................. 130 Developing and Maintaining a Mentoring Relationship ......................................................131 Developing an Understanding of Mentoring: Mentor and Mentees as CoConstructors of Meaning............................................................................................131 Establishing and Maintaining Rapport: Me ntor and Mentees as Partners and Friends........................................................................................................................134 Communication: Mentor and Mentees as Colleagues ................................................... 136 Co-Constructing Knowledge of Teaching and Learning ...................................................... 140 Developing Background Knowledge: Mentor as Knowledgeable Facilitator and Mentees as Novice Colleagues .................................................................................. 140 Planning and Co-Planning: Mentor as Mode l, Provider of Feedback, and Co-Planner and Mentees as Instructional Designers and Co-Planners ................................................143 Providing Feedback: Mentor as Evaluator and F acilitator and Mentees as Novice Colleagues..................................................................................................................146 Behavior Management: Mentor as M odel and Collaborator and Mentees as Decision-Makers and C ollaborators.......................................................................... 147 Concluding Thoughts............................................................................................................ 152 6 USING DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS TO PROMOTE MENTOR-CENTERED MENTORI NG...................................................................................................................... 160 Mentoring Group 3: James, Amy and Jessica...................................................................... 160 The Participants............................................................................................................. 160 The Context...................................................................................................................161 Overview of Jamess, Amy s, and Jessicas Discourse ........................................................161 Developing and Maintaining a Mentoring Relationship ......................................................162 Developing an Understanding of Mentoring: Mentor and Mentees as CoConstructors of Meaning............................................................................................163 Establishing and Maintaining Rapport: Me ntor and Mentees as Partners and Opponents ..................................................................................................................165 Co-Constructing Knowledge of Teaching and Learning ...................................................... 175 Developing a Professional Knowledge Base: Mentor as Expert and Co-C onstructor and Mentees as Novice Coll eagues and Co-Constructors......................................... 176 Planning: Mentor as Provider of Feedback and Mentees as Instructional Designers ... 176 Providing Feedback: Mentor as Evaluato r and Mentees as Novice Colleagues ........... 178 Managing Behavior: Mentor as Model, Decision-Maker and Collaborator and Mentees as Decision-Make rs and C ollaborators........................................................ 180 Concluding Thoughts............................................................................................................ 181 7 DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................187 Discourse as a Context for the Construc tion and Negotiation of the Identities and Practices of Mentors and Mentees .................................................................................... 187 Situated Understandings of Mentoring and Their Im plications for Teacher Education and Mentoring...................................................................................................................196 Concluding Thoughts............................................................................................................ 200

PAGE 9

9 APPENDIX A TIMELINE OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................. 201 B DIALOGUE SESSIONS: ACTIVITIES/TOPICS OF DISCUSSION ................................. 202 C MEMBER CHECKING....................................................................................................... 205 D RESEARCHERS NOTEBOOK: REFLEC TION AFTER DIALOGUE SESSION ........... 208 E EXPANDED FIELD NOTES............................................................................................... 210 F TRANSCRIPTION WITH NOTATIONS........................................................................... 213 G FINAL EVALUTION FORM.............................................................................................. 215 H EDUCATOR ACCOMPLISHED PRACTICES.................................................................. 216 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................218 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................227

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Conversational interac tions and their notations .................................................................78 3-2 Participant Information.................................................................................................... ..94 3-3 The Reiterative Process of Data Analysis.......................................................................... 95 4-1 Mentoring Group 1: Identities and Activiti es within the Discourses of Mentoring, Instruction, and Cla ssroom Management........................................................................ 127 5-1 Mentoring Group 2: Identities and Activiti es within the Discourses of Mentoring, Instruction, and Cla ssroom Management........................................................................ 159 6-1 Mentoring Group 3: Identities and Activ ities Constructed within Discourses of Mentoring, Instruction, a nd Classroom Management......................................................186

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE DISCURSIVE NATURE OF MENTORING: HOW PARTICIPATION IN A MENTORING RELATIONSHIP TRANSFORMS THE IDENTITIES AND PRACTICES OF PROSPECTIVE AND PRACTICING TEACHERS By Sharon B. Hayes May 2008 Chair: Nancy Dana Cochair: Mirka Koro-Ljungberg Major: Curriculum and Instruction In the field of education, mentoring has become increasingly important for improving teacher retention, job sa tisfaction, and teacher quality. Howe ver, researchers have documented that mentoring within an educational context was often focu sed on situational adjustment, technical advice, and emotional support, whic h enculturated new teachers into the current systems rather than helping them to critique or challenge the existing pr actices of schooling. Consequently, a new understanding of mentor ing has emerged called educative mentoring, which encourages novices to cha llenge their thinking a nd practices and to engage in critical reflection that can be used to foster reform in schools, as well as in classrooms. My personal interests, as well as my beliefs that mentoring and the identities of mentor and mentee are socially construc ted through discourse, led me to design a study that investigated how mentors and mentees utilized discourse in negotiating their relations hip and what role the mentoring relationship played in their co-construction of knowledge about teaching and learning, as well as the transformation of their individual identi ties and practices. The following questions guided my research: (1) How does the relations hip among mentors and mentees, engaged in studying their practices, devel op and evolve? and (2) How do the relationship among mentors

PAGE 12

12 and mentees and the discourse(s) in which they are situated transform their identities and practices? This research was framed by social constr uctionism and employed audio-taped dialogue sessions, field notes from particip ant observations, and a researcher s journal to explore how the mentors and mentees negotiated their relations hips, co-constructed unde rstandings of teaching and learning, and transformed their identities an d practices. Aspects of Gees (2005) discourse analysis and Faircloughs (2003) critical discours e analysis served as a vehicle for illuminating the discursive aspects of the participants di alogue, as well as how they established and maintained rapport, planned and co-planned lessons and participated in reflective discussions about instruction and classroom management. Although the mentors and mentees engaged in many of the same mentoring activities, their ident ities as mentors, as mentees, and as teachers were influenced by the ways in which they nego tiated power, as well as the ways in which they positioned each other. Mentors and mentees who shared power and positioned each other as collaborative partners developed relationships th at shaped and transformed their practices and identities. Moreover, the nature of each mentor ing relationship was influenced by the discourses that constructed the sociopolitical context in wh ich the mentors and mentees were situated, and the interdependence between mentor s and mentees identities shaped not only the nature of their situated mentoring discourse, but also the wa ys in which the activities of mentoring were enacted. This research provided evidence of the comple xity of mentoring and the ways in which discourses are constructed and changed as they are employed to engage in the activities of mentoring and to transform the identities of the relational partners. These findings have important implications for teacher education, as well as for the mentoring practices of

PAGE 13

13 individuals. Teacher education programs might consider providing prospective mentors and mentees with a better understa nding of the philosophies and pr actices of educative mentoring and how the discourses in which they are situated, as well as the dialogues they co-construct, can be used to create a relationship and a context for learning and transformation.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Athena, in the guise of Mentes, sought out Telem achus and said, For you, I have some good advice, if only you will accept it . It a ll rests with you. Take my words to heart (Homer, trans. 1996, pp. 86-87), and so it seems that with these words, the phenomenon of mentoring was born. Indeed, it is this story that most scholars cite as a st arting point in their search for an understanding of this multi-facete d, multi-layered, enigmatic term. This original Mentor, rooted in Greek mythology, was an Ithacan noble in Homers epic tale, The Odyssey. Mentor was entrusted by Odysse us with the care and developmen t of his son, Telemachus, still an infant, when Odysseus went off to fight in th e Trojan War. Ten years after the war ended and The Odyssey began, Telemachus was a young man, helpless to stop the mob of suitors who were attempting to devour the estate of Odysseus and to court his mother, Penel ope. Athena pled her case to Zeus and was dispatched to provide Te lemachus with sage advice and guidance, to inspire his heart with co urage (Homer, trans. 1996, p. 80). She appears throughout The Odysse y, often in the guise of Mentes or Mentor, in order to explain the mysteries Telemachus confronted, to point the way and clear the obs tacles, as well as to provide him with encouragement. Thus, Mentor served as the em bodiment of wisdom, a parental archetype, with male and female, mortal and immortal qualities. For many of us, myself included, Homers epic tale, The Odyssey, served as our introduction to mentoring, and colored our initi al understandings of the phenomenon and what it meant to mentor, to be mentored. This mythologi cal character also seemed to serve as a divine benchmark against which we often measured the mentoring we received. Although our inspiration might come from divine sources, we remained mere mortals, fascinated by the stories

PAGE 15

15 of mentors and their protgs, often consumed by our attempts to understand what it meant to mentor within a particular human context. Th e intricacies of this co mplex relationship often confounded attempts to develop a mutually satisf ying relationship that effectively met the needs of both participants. Even so, we continued to seek out those who recognized, and perhaps even embraced our dreams, seeking their counsel as we began a transformational journey in which we searched for new perspectives, negotiated new m eanings, and possibly forged new identities. Faced with such a daunting task, both mentor and protg might wish for the wisdom of the gods as they engaged in what was often a sacred journey together. The relationship between Mentor and Telemachus, as well as the relationships between other historical examples of mentors and mentees (i.e., Socrates and Plato, Freud and Jung, Anne Sullivan and Helen Keller), set a benchmark for characterizing and setting expectations for our future mentoring relationships. This mythological legacy pr ovided us with a sense that mentoring was a powerful emotional interaction between an expert and a novice, a relationship in which the expert was trusted, loving, and experienced in the guidance of the novice (Merriam, 1983). Thus, the mentor helped to shape the grow th and development of the protg. Levinson (1978) concurred and described a mentor as one who assumed the roles of teacher, sponsor, counselor, developer of skills and intellect, hos t, guide, and exemplar. He believed that mentoring synthesized the characteristics of th e parent-child relations hip and peer support without being either and concluded that not having a mentor could be a great handicap to ones psychological, as well as caree r development (Levinson, 1978). Business adopted a different view of me ntoring and developed understandings of mentoring from the perspective of career deve lopment, rather than from a more general framework of adult development. The system of apprenticeship deve loped during the Middle

PAGE 16

16 Ages could be viewed as a specific case of just such mentoring. These apprenticeships involved a craft master, or mentor, who employed young people, or protgs, as inexpensive forms of labor in exchange for providing th e protg with formal training in a craft. Most apprentices during this era were young males (usually from fourteen to twenty-one years of age) and unmarried. They lived in the household of the master craftsman during their contract term, usually seven years, after which they spent time as a journeyman or acquired their own workshops as master craftsmen. Apprenticeships focused on the development of specific career skills, rather than any psychological or social benefits, although we might assume that the craft master also socialized the apprentice into a particular community of craftsmen. Modern business also focused on the benefits of mentoring fr om the perspective of a protgs career development. Mentoring was often characterize d as a means of providing a role model for younger associates in an effort to teach them the skills necessary for career advancement, as well as socializing them into a professional co mmunity. Shapiro, Haseltine, and Rowe (1978) arranged these advisory/support relationships, which facilitated access to positions of leadership and authority in professional fiel ds, along a continuum from peer pal (someone at your own level with whom you share information a nd strategies) to mentor (an in tense relationship in which an individual assumes the role of both teacher and advocate). Mentorships also occurred within academic settings in which the learning experiences were central to the mentor-protg relationship. The mentor was a sometimes older, definitely more experienced professional, who guided and cultivated the intellect of the usually younger, less experienced protg. Academic mentors were aware that their protgs needed to observe them as they engaged in the activities that were specific to a particular profession. They invited their protgs to participate with them in their professional work and allowed them to gradually

PAGE 17

17 assume greater responsibility and autonomy (Johnson & Huwe, 2003). They also hoped to instill within their protgs a se nse of pride in the profession and a commitment to behave in an ethical manner (Johnson & Huwe, 1990; VanZandt, 1990). Origins of the Study Much of m y life has been lived in a classroom as a student and/or a teacher and as an observer and/or participant. For me, and possibly for others, this life in the classroom has proved to be a relational one. The relationships I have encountered and participated in have occurred between and among the individuals within th e classroom, between those individuals and learning, as well as between the i ndividuals in the classroom and the larger community in which the classroom was situated. In my own experience, some of these relation ships developed easily and proved beneficial for all i nvolved, while other relationships were more troubled and seemed to stymie, even resist my efforts to meet my own needs and expectations as well those of my relational partners. Additiona lly, I developed relationships beyond the classroom walls with parents, colleagues, and administ rators, as well as with publishe d research, various universities, and state and federal departments of educati on. Although I still find myself spending a good deal of time in classrooms, my roles and respons ibilities within it have changed considerably. I am no longer responsible for any of the day-to-day interactions with elem entary school students; rather, I supervise pre-service teaching inte rns for a university, observing their teaching, providing feedback, and encouraging them to reflect on their practices and learning as they discover the teachers they are meant to be. My autobiography, with its stories of the relationships I have experienced as a student and teacher, has provided me with lenses that influence what I see and how I interpret what I ob serve in the classrooms I visit. While I must be aware of these lenses and subjectivities, as they may blind me and constrain my ability to reach other possible interpretations, they have also provided the im petus for this study.

PAGE 18

18 Given the complexity of learning how to t each, it was not surprising that in-service teachers almost always mentioned the primary impor tance of their student teaching or internship experience in the development of their teach ing practices (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). There was evidence that this mentoring relationship be tween the pre-service teaching intern and the inservice teacher was an important one, and so I was interested in how this relationship was constructed and negotiated and how it affected each of the participants. I would agree that my student teaching experience was important, alth ough possibly not in the ways my mentor teachers may have intended. While my relationships with both of the teachers with whom I was placed were cordial and congenial, these mentors did not fashion a relationship with me or provide a place in which I was encouraged to re flect and question and discuss. Indeed, these women were identified as my supervising teachers, and perhaps the semantics of this label determined the nature of the relationship that developed between us. My first supervising teacher was unable to provide me with specific feedback. Her usual comment after she observed my teaching was, The lesson was fine. Even when I persisted in asking what could be improved, she was unable or unwilling to provide me with specific s uggestions. Although I complained to my university supervisor, the situ ation remained unresolved, and I was at a loss as to how to initiate a conversation that would have enabled me to make my needs and expectations clear, so that she might have been motivated a nd able to provide the kind of guidance I needed. In contrast, my second supervising teacher took the time to present me with written feedback after every lesson. She specifically commented on what had gone well and what I should do the next time in order to improve my lesson and its presentation. However, there was never an in-depth or critical discussion of th e lesson, my teaching style, and whether or not student learning had occurre d; instead, she simply prescribed what I could do to improve future

PAGE 19

19 lessons. Indeed, much of the teaching I saw modeled was derived directly from a teachers manual, and so I spent many hours in the years th at followed searching for ideas and strategies that were more compatible with my personal philosophies of teaching and learning and the needs and abilities of my students. I did not encounter the woman I would consider my first real mentor until I had almost completed work on a Masters degree. She was the first person who was genuinely interested in what I had to say and seemed to see in me the teacher, even the person I was meant to be. She encouraged reflection and engaged me in lively discussion about ideas, challenged my thinking, and provided me with opportunities that encouraged me to make use of all I had learned. These discussions encouraged me to become confident in my abilities and to take the risks that would be necessary for my growth and transformation. However, it is my current work that has most directly influenced the focus of this study. For the past five years I have se rved as a university supervisor for groups of pre-service teaching interns as they completed a ni ne-month long internship. Although the interns have changed from year to year, many of the mentor teachers have remained the same. I have been able to observe these mentor teachers as they developed relationships with their intern s and have watched as these relationships have either flourished or floundered. Some of the mentors seemed capable of matching their mentoring style to the needs of the particular intern with whom they were currently partnered. Other mentors seem to have an unalterable mentorin g style and required the intern to adjust her needs accord ingly. Whether these other mentor s were unable or were simply refusing to furnish the scaffolding the novice teac her needed was questionable, but they often structured the mentoring relations hip in such a way that the inte rns ideas and questions were ignored or discounted. Thus, I have watched in terns, fresh from the university, brimming with

PAGE 20

20 ideas about the teaching strategies and learning activities they wished to implement in a realworld classroom, unable to find an acceptabl e way of questioning the practices they saw modeled and being constructively critical of their mentor teache rs traditional practices. Unfortunately, these mentoring relationships of ten devolved into adversarial confrontations, which silenced the interns voice, as she acquies ced to the mentors prescriptive expectations. For other interns, their mentoring relationships were purely social in nature due to the fact that they were mismatched with regard to their teac hing styles and educational philosophies, and so the mentors were unable to provide these intern s with models of teaching that they deemed credible. While some of these pairs maintained a friendship that went beyond the term of the internship, without a clear and co mpatible professional model, these interns often felt adrift as they attempted to develop identities as teachers. Additionally, during the course of my doctoral studies, I came across an article entitled, Multiple Annies: Feminist Poststructual Theory and the Making of a Teacher, which provided an illustration of some of what I had been observing in the field placements of my own interns. Annie was placed with two teachers (Candace and Sheila) during her internship and she described their very different mentoring st yles and how these mentors influenced the development of her teacher identity. Annie and Candace had similar teaching philosophies, and so, in Candaces classroom, Annie felt free to be the kind of teacher she had envisioned herself to be (Jackson, 2001). In contrast, Annie felt c ontrolled and dominated by Sheila whose rigid, teacher-centered pedagogy left Annie baffled as to how to engage the students and to develop an identity as a teacher. It seemed that the power relations between the part icipants, as well as the discourses in which they were situated produced a truth about what it meant to teach, which often had a powerful effect on the identity a mentee developed, as we ll as her ability to become a

PAGE 21

21 member of a community of practice. Moreover, this particular article provided me with two other relational aspects to c onsider: power and discourse. Thus, the following questions occurred to me: What can we legitimately exp ect from mentoring? How can participants make their needs known in a way th at is constructive to the development of a collaborative relationship? How does the disc ourse or dialogue affect the wa y in which a relationship is constructed? If we believe th at relationships are dynamic, ho w do participants continue to negotiate their roles and responsib ilities as the relationship develops? Is it possible for mentors and protgs with differing expectations and needs to construct a relationship that is effective for both? How does mentoring transform the particip ants? Is it possible that some people are incapable of mentoring, of bei ng mentored? These questions influenced the ways in which I continued to think about mentor s and mentees and their relations hips and consequently, proved crucial in my construction and framing of the research questions that guided this study. As I continued to read, I came across another study, this one by Sharon Feiman-Nemser (2001) entitled Helping Novices Lear n to Teach. In this article the mentor teacher stated, I want to be a co-thinker with them (the pre-servi ce teachers) so that I can help them to see new perspectives, new ways to solve the problems th ey have (p. 17). Feiman-Nemser (2001) labeled this mentor an educative mentor and described the work of the mentor as enabling a novice to learn in and from his or her practice by crea ting opportunities and condi tions that supported meaningful teacher learning in the service of student learning. Additionally, Feiman-Nemser (2001) suggested that educative mentoring promotes teacher development by cultivating a disposition of inquiry, focusing attention on st udent thinking and understanding, and fostering disciplined talk about problems of practice (p.14). It was equally obvious, given the nature of the data excerpts, that the roles of mentor and mentee, as well as the activities in which they

PAGE 22

22 engaged were influenced and enacted through the discourse(s) in which th e mentor and mentee were situated. However, while the mentor teacher, who was the subject of this article, eloquently described his mentoring practices, what was missi ng was a description and interpretation of the interactions between mentor and mentee. I want ed to explore the rela tional process of how mentors and mentees co-thought or co-constructed knowledge a nd how their interactions transformed their identities and practices. Purpose of the Study Thus, the purpose of m y study was to inve stigate how mentors a nd mentees utilized discourse in negotiating their rela tionship and what role this me ntoring relationship played in their co-construction of knowledge about teaching and learni ng. In addition, I was interested in understanding how this knowledge of practice might transform their individual identities and practices (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Research Questions I fram ed my study within a constructionist perspective because the knowledge, which is produced within this framework, is a product of so cial processes, in which all understandings and statements about what is true, are situated with in particular communities and are always subject to other interpretations (Gergen, 1994). In this way, constructionism was a means of democratizing the conversation about human prac tices and of submitting these practices to a continuous process of reflection (Gergen, 1994). Therefore, this perspective allowed me to open a space for reflection upon and reconsideration of the traditional meanings and understandings of mentoring and provided a foundation for considering new interpretations and constructing new, possibly more appropriate, situated meanings. Accordingly, the following questions guided my research:

PAGE 23

23 How do the relationships between mentors and mentees, engaged in studying their practices, develop and evolve? How do the relationships among mentors and me ntees and the discourse(s) in which they are situated transform thei r identities and practices? Significance of the Study Learning to teach and th e pre-service teaching in ternship seemed to be a kind of situated learning that was accomplished through a process of legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In this kind of l earning, individuals participated in a community of practitioners in which their mastery of knowledge and skills required novice teachers to move toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of th e education community. W ithin this perspective, the character of knowledge and learning was rela tional, meaning was negotiated so that the practitioners, the activities, and the social world in which they were situated continually shaped and defined each other (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Through participation, novice practitioners became members of a professional community, part icipating in and negotiating the meaning of the activities, the discourse, even the identities they assumed as members of that community. Thus, mentoring might play an im portant role in socializing and welcoming pre-service teachers into a community of educational practice. Many scholars have attempted to define mentorin g and to describe the roles of mentors and protgs (Kram, 1986, 1988; Levi nson, 1978). Others have descri bed the developmental nature of the relationship itse lf, enumerating stages through whic h the participants passed as the relationship proceeded over time (Kram, 1986, 1988). Moreover, there have been studies conducted that specifically descri bed the mentoring relationship fr om the perspective of the preservice teaching intern (Huffman & Leak, 1986), as well as the mentor teacher (Hayes, 1999). However, few studies explored the relationship as it was constr ucted and negotiated by the two participants. The goal of this study was to expl ore, and possibly to illuminate, how mentor and

PAGE 24

24 mentee engaged in dialogue in order to make th eir expectations known to each other and then to collaboratively design, negotiate, and construct a mentoring relationship that transformed their practices and identities. Summary My personal experiences, as well as my read ing of the m entoring research, provided the basis for my interest in pursuing this study. The phenomenon of mentoring, while based in Greek mythology, has been transferred to a numbe r of settings, redefine d by the contexts, and enacted in ways that were influenced by those w ho were involved in the relationship. It seemed that mentoring relationships were dynamic and that their shapes were constantly questioned; they were continually co-constructed, affecting the activitie s, identities, understa ndings, and practices of their participants (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Fl etcher, 2000; Lucas, 2001; Zachary, 2002). Thus, this study explored not only the nature of the relationship that devel oped between mentors and mentees, but also the way in which the relations hip was negotiated through discourse, as well as how this collaboration transformed the identities and practices of the individual participants. The chapters that follow illustrate how I studied and understood the discourses that were employed by mentors and mentees to co-constr uct their mentoring relationships and their knowledge about teaching and learning, as well as to transform their identities and practices. In Chapter 2, I present a review of the literature pertinent to mentoring, specifically the mentoring of pre-service teaching interns, which includes the ways in which mentoring has been defined, the roles and responsibilities of the mentors and mentees, the developmental phases of the relationship, and the professional, as well as personal benefits for the participants. In Chapter 3, I describe the methodology, includin g the theoretical framework of social constructionism, my data collection and data analysis methods, as well as the trustworthiness, and the limitations of my methodology. In Chapters 4, 5, and 6, I provide excerpts from my data that are relevant to

PAGE 25

25 my research question and illustrate the activities and identities co-constructed by the participants within each of the mentoring groups. In Chapter 7, I present my conclusions and the implications of my findings for teac her education, as well as mentoring.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this chapter is to present a re view of the research related to mentoring generally, and more specifically, to the mentoring of pre-service teachers. This chapter includes relevant professional literature that traces th e development of our unde rstanding of mentoring, describes the phases of mentoring, and identifies the characteristics and roles of mentors and mentees. In addition, this chapter will review research that describes some of the benefits derived from effective mentoring, as well as new perspectives for mentoring in teacher education. Definitions of Mentoring One of the consequences of a concepts app licability across contexts and disciplines was an increased susceptibility to variation in inte rpretation and meaning (B rookfield, 1995). Thus, the focus of many research studies has been to define this somewhat elusive term as it was experienced within specific contexts. Indeed, th is quest began with the Greeks, and since that time, many authors and researchers have offe red definitions of mentoring based on their understanding of the most compelling and salien t features of mentoring. Among these scholars was the oft-cited Levinson (1978), who conducted studies of mentoring relationships among men that were situated in the work place. He concl uded that the mentoring re lationship was one of the most complex and developmentally important rela tionships his participants experienced as young men. He defined this relati onship as one in which: He [the mentor] may act as a teacher (emphasis added) to enhance the young mans skills and intellectual development. Serving as a sponsor he may use his influence to facilitate the young mans entry and advancement. He may be a host and guide welcoming the initiate into a new occupational and social world and acquainting him with its values, customs, resources, and cast of characters. Through his own virtues, achievements, and way of living the mentor may be an exemplar that the protg can admire and seek to emulate. He may provide counsel and moral support in times of stress. (Levinson, 1978, p. 98)

PAGE 27

27 Zey (1984) also studied mentor ing from a corporate perspect ive, but unlike Levinson, who cast mentoring in terms of human growth and development, Zey believed that the roles of the mentor were tied to the politics and economics of business. He defined a mentor as a person who oversees the career and development of a nother person, usually a junior, through teaching, counseling, providing psychological support, protecting, and at times promoting or sponsoring (p. 7). Similarly, Parkay (1988) investigated the mentoring relati onships that occurred in the business world, and his understand ing of mentoring corroborated the definitions provided by other scholars. He characterized mentoring as an intensive, one-to-one form of teaching in which the wise and experienced mentor inducts the aspiring protg into a particular, usually professional way of life (p. 196). In the same vein, Kram (1988), who also studied mentoring in the context of organizational life, found that these relationships supported the career development of the individuals involved and en abled them to move through adulthood and an organizational career. She found that these rela tionships encouraged individuals to address concerns about self, career, and family and provided opportunities for the participants to gain knowledge, skills, and competence and attend to personal, as well as professional dilemmas (Kram, 1988). On the other hand, Daloz (1986) provided a perspective on mentori ng that occurred in educational settings. He believed that we ha d much to learn from the mythology of mentoring and suggested that, if mentors did not exist we would have to invent them (Daloz, 1986, p. 16). Through investigating his own me ntoring practices, he understood the mentor as someone who engenders trust, provides encouragement, and offers a vision for the journey (Daloz, 1986, p.30). For many mentees, the mentor served as a concrete manifesta tion of what they wished to become. Moreover, Johnson & Huwe (2003), w ho were interested in academic mentoring,

PAGE 28

28 developed the following definition as they attemp ted to describe the c ontours and boundaries of mentoring in an educational setting: Mentoring is a personal relationship in which a more experienced (u sually older) faculty member acts as a guide, role model, teacher, and sponsor of a less experienced (usually younger) student. A mentor provides the protg with knowledge, advice, challenge, counsel, and support in the protgs pursuit of becoming a full member of a particular profession (p. 6). Meanwhile, Zachary (2000) maintained th at learning was the primary purpose of any mentoring relationship. She suggested a learne r-centered mentoring paradigm to replace the more traditional authoritarian teacher-depende nt student-supplicant paradigm (Zachary, 2000, p. 3). In this kind of mentor ing, wisdom is not passed from an authoritarian teacher to a supplicant student, but is discovered in a learni ng relationship in which both stand to gain a greater understanding of the wo rkplace and the world (Aubrey & Cohen, 1995, p. 161). The mentor and mentee shared accountability and res ponsibility for achieving a mentees goals and the mentor nurtured and developed the mentees capacity for self-directio n over the course of their relationship (Zachary, 2000). Additionally, Achinstein and Athanases (2006) whose interests focused on the mentoring of pre-service and novice teachers, advocated educative mentoring, which provided more than emotional support, technical advi ce, and professional socializa tion. This kind of mentoring provided mentees with opportunities for learni ng and dialogue that ch allenged the mentees thinking and practice in order to inform, or even transform their practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Educative mentoring highli ghted the critical nature of a mentors focus on her mentees cognitive development. Educative mentors s upported novice and pre-serv ice teachers as they developed an inquiry stance, critically questioned and re-framed their thinking and beliefs about students, teaching, and learning, an d problematized their practices and assumptions (Achinstein & Barrett, 2004). Thus, educative mentoring sup ported and encouraged a critical constructivist

PAGE 29

29 perspective, furthering the efforts of new teachers as they posed problems, uncovered assumptions and reconstructed their practice (W ang & Odell, 2002). Moreover, this kind of mentoring moved from knowledge transmission to knowledge transformation as mentors and mentees co-constructed knowledge of practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) and questioned their taken for granted assumptions of educational systems and classrooms in an attempt to foster reform (Cochran-Smith & Paris, 1995). Finally, an understand ing of mentoring from a multicultural perspective had implications for any mentoring relationship, in which the diverse backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, and abilities of mentors and mentees added a layer of complexity to the already complicated world of human relationships. According to Gonzalez-R odriguez (1995) multicultural mentoring was: The mentoring of individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds, from traditionally underrepresented populations, and of many cogn itive perspectives.It creates spaces for differences and celebrates democracy by facilita ting inclusion and partic ipation. It allows learning to take place while guarding that no ones voice is silenced (p. 70). Hence, mentoring no longer scaffolded a reproduction of the status quo. Instead, institutions and individuals explored, challenged, and critiqued their cultural assumptions and philosophical stances, and mentoring became a vehicle for pluralism rather than assimilation (Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 1995). Educative mentors supported pre-service teac hers as they taught for social justice and equity (W ang & Odell, 2002) and these ment ors, along with their mentees, became agents of change as they engaged in critical reflection about their classrooms and schools. The Mentoring Relationship These understandings and definitions of mentor ing characterized it as a complex, diverse, and complicated phenomenon which encompassed a myriad of social and psychological interactions based within diverse organizational and personal settings which are often subjected

PAGE 30

30 to differing aims, objectives, and interpretations identified by the organization, the mentor, and even the mentee (Roberts, 1999, p. 145). Moreove r, Hardcastle (1988) understood the mentormentee relationship as mutual, comprehensive, informal, interactive, and enduring. Ultimately, it seemed the mentoring relationship was comprised of multiple and dynamic relational interactions that had definite, predictabl e patterns and cycles (Phillips-Jones, 2001). According to Daloz (1986), mentoring was a passionate relationship comprised of developmental stages. He acknowledged that the relationship most often began in a complementary mode in which the mentor was clearly dominant, but that the relationship became more symmetrical as the participants came to know each other more intimately. Kram (1986) also described four phase s through which a mentoring rela tionship progressed. The first stage was an initiation phase in which mentor and mentee met and set expectations. This was followed by a cultivation phase in which the opport unities for meaningful interactions increased and the emotional bonds between participants were strengthened. The third stage was a separation phase in which the nature of the rela tionship was altered by structural changes in the organizational context and/or by psychological changes w ithin one or both of the participants. Finally, a redefinition occurred in which the relationship either developed into a completely new form or was brought to a close. Zachary (2000) also identified four predic table phases of mentor ing relationships: (a) preparing, (b) negotiating, (c) enabling, and (d) coming to closure. These phases formed a developmental sequence, which varied in length from one relationship to another. During the preparing stage, both mentor and mentee prepared individually and in pa rtnership by assessing their motivations and readiness for mentoring. In this initial stage, expe ctations and roles were clarified. The negotiating phase was the busin ess phase of the relationship in which the

PAGE 31

31 mentoring partners defined their learning goals, as well as the content and process of their relationship. The next phase, the enabling phase was the implem entation phase of the mentoring relationship. This was the time in which the journey toward the mentees goals was accomplished. Finally, the relationship was bro ught to closure, which involved evaluating, acknowledging, and celebrating the achievements of the relationship. Furthermore, Phillips-Jones (2001) also identified five developmental stages in mentoring relationships, which corresponded to the developm ental models of other scholars and included: (a) mutual admiration, (b) development, (c) disi llusionment/realistic appraisal, (d) parting, and (e) transformation. Thus, the metaphorical associat ion of mentoring with a journey, or odyssey, seemed an apt one, as this relationship began wi th a voyage of discovery that most often ended with the mentees induction into a community of practice. Mentor Characteristics and Roles Phillips-Jones (2001) characterized mentors as experienced people who go out of their way to help a mentee clarify her vision and then he lp her build the skills to reach them (p. 21), who took on the roles of coach, learning broker, accountability partne r, cheerleader, and sounding board. Additionally, mentors have been described as guides, facilitators, gurus, friends, and mothers who provide support and ch allenge, explain and protect (Daloz, 1986). They were often expected, indeed, required to assume multiple roles that included coaching, exposure, challenging work, role modeling, and the encouragement of reflection (Anderson & Shannon, 1988; Hawkey, 1997; Koerner, Rust & Baumgartner, 2002; Kram, 1986, 1988; Levinson, 1978, 1996; Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992), although some research has suggested that mentees should seek and develop re lationships with multiple mentors in order to meet their specific needs and expectati ons (Burlew, 1991; Phillips-Jones, 2001).

PAGE 32

32 Moreover mentors were indi viduals who provided mentees with knowledge, advice, challenge, and support (Johnson & Huwe, 2003). Su ccessful mentors assumed specific roles or provided specific functions at various junctures in the mentor relationship. Kram (1986, 1988) summarized these functions that enhanced a mentees personal grow th and professional development into two broad categories: career functions and psychosocia l functions. Career functions were those aspects of the relationship that supported a mentee in learning the ropes and becoming a full-fledged member of the professional community. They included sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments and these functions were possible because of th e mentors experience and influence in the organizational context. On the other hand, psyc hosocial functions were those aspects of the relationship that enhanced a mentees sense of competence and clarity with regard to her professional identity. These functions includ ed role modeling, accep tance and confirmation, counseling, and friendship or mutuality. The psyc hosocial functions were possible because of an interpersonal relationship between mentor and me ntee that fostered mutual trust and intimacy. Together the career and psychosocial functions enabled a mentee to address the challenges of becoming a full-fledged member of a professional community (Kram, 1988). Daloz (1999) characterized an effective mentor as one who was able to provide support, challenge, and vision. He described suppor t as the activity of holding, providing a safe place where the student can contact her need for funda mental trust (p. 209); whereas, challenge was sometimes referred to as a creativ e tension that sought resolution. Thus, feedback was often an effective tool for assistin g students as they encounte red challenges (Zachary, 2002). Additionally, challenge provided th e means for mentors and mentees to engage in discussion, set up dichotomies, construct hypotheses, and set hi gh standards (Daloz, 1986). Finally, mentors

PAGE 33

33 were expected to provide vision in a variety of ways, such as role modeling specific behaviors and reminding the mentee of the journey and growth ahead (Zachary, 2002). Similarly, Hardcastle (1988) iden tified mentors as people with integrity, high expectations, a sense of humor, and the ability to act as a catalyst in the lives of the mentees (p. 206). They offered [the mentees] unique vi sions of themselves, motivated them to grow professionally, showed them new ways to be, and were spir itual supports (Hardcas tle, 1988, p. 207). Mentors have also been described as being guides to practical knowledge, sources of moral support, and creators of a context in which mentees coul d show their stuff (Awaya, McEwan, Heyler, Linsky, Lum, & Wakukawa, 2003). Other scholars such as Burlew (1991), Kram (1988), and Merriam (1983) have emphasized the importance of trust within the mentoring rela tionship and the supportive role of the mentor. A mentor not only taught the mentee what it mean t to be a professional (Bova & Phillips, 1984), but also served as a role model, teacher, sponsor, encourager, counselor, and friend, with the ultimate goal of promoting the mentees personal, as well as professional development (Brown, Davis, & McClendon, 1999). Thus, experienced mentors assisted mentees as they were socialized into a communitys practices and made those practices part of their subjective reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Parkay (1988) concurre d, stating that the pr otg learns from the mentor not only the objective, manifest content of professional knowledge and skills, but also a subjective, nondiscursive appreciation for how a nd when to employ these learnings in the arena of professional practice (p. 196). In other words, the mentor helped socialize the mentee into a profession over the course of their mentori ng relationship and during that time, the mentee selectively chose those attributes of the mentor or mentoring relationship that would contribute to his or her unique identity.

PAGE 34

34 Several authors have chosen to discuss the spiritual roles a mentor might fulfill within a mentoring relationship. Johnson and Huwe (2003) suggested that excellent mentors bless their protgs by calling forth their life and career aspi rations or what Levinson (1978) called the dream. In other words, the mentor nourishes a dream in the student and sets the students into creative flight, tempering idealism with the wi sdom of experience (Davis, Little, & Thornton, 1997, p. 61). Daloz (1986) agreed, believing that th e first business of a mentor was to listen to the dreams of the protg. He wrote that mentors were spiritual guides [who] lead us along the journey of our lives. We trust them because they have been there before. They embody our hopes, cast light on the way ahead, interpre t arcane signs, warn us of lurking dangers, and point out une xpected delights along the way (p. 17). In this way, the protg experienced a transf ormation and became an equal colleague and perhaps, trusted peer of the guide who was once his or her mentor. Yamamoto (1988) believed that mentors were transformers and that mentoring involved an experience of transcendence for the mentor and one of transformation for the ment ee. Mentors must (a) see a person yet to be born in their mentee, (b) anticipate and guide the mentee to see what is yet to be seen, and (c) see the world they themselves can only dream of through their faith a nd trust in the guide (Yamamoto, 1988). Thus, a mentor helps the person under his or her care to see beyond oneself and become more fully human (Yamamoto, 1988, p. 188). Additionally, according to Carger (1996), true mentoring was more than im parting information or training skills. It is a human process, in which one sees, re flected in a mentor, aspects of ones self, facets not clearly in focus, potentials not fully realized. True mentoring is an intimate process because it involves more than just m odeling; it requires self-discovery as well. There is a bond that forms when kindred spirits encounter one another and see beyond the surface to the substance (Carger, 1996, p. 27). Ultimately, mentoring was concerned with t ouching the life of another, sharing core values, and encouraging one another; thus, what transpired within a mentoring relationship affected the generations that followed (Carger, 1996). Moreove r, mentoring could be viewed

PAGE 35

35 as gift giving in which the mentor was a gift giver (Gehrke, 1988). Over time, the mentor created a gift of wisdom, a new way of seeing th ings that permeated all the mentor did with the mentee. The mentee underwent a transformati on, a realization of th e possibilities for his or her life, as a result of receiving the mentors gift. Out of gratitude, the mentee then made a commitment to further work, desiring to meet the mentors expectations and to be worthy of the mentors belief in him or her. Finally ther e was a passing of the gift to a new recipient when the mentee became a mentor (Gehrke, 1998). Lipschutz (1993) also viewed mentoring as a process that extended beyond the mere transmission of subject matter. For him, me ntoring was a valuing, transforming relationship in which the mentor was actively invested in and aware of the respons ibilities he or she assumed for shaping a mentees knowledge, pe rceptions, and behaviors. Along those lines, Peddy (2001) described a mentor as one who helped a mentee to develop the qualities she would need to attain her goals without a mentor. These qualities included wisdom, judgment, resilience and independence (Peddy, 2001). Developing wisdom meant learning the spoken and unspoken rules of the profession so that the mentee could become an integral part of the community. Judgment was charact erized by understanding the consequences of ones decisions and actions, as well as the l ong-term impact of ones choices. Resilience involved learning from ones mistakes and m oving forward with confidence, strength, and determination. Finally, independence occurr ed when the mentee was ready to accept increasing challenges and reasonable risks (Peddy, 2001). The mentee became a colleague and a bona fide member of the professional community. Healy and Welchert (1990) held a similar view of mentoring and defined it as a reciprocal association between superior a nd subordinate that effects their mutual

PAGE 36

36 transformations (p. 19). Oftentimes, mentees di d more than become proficient in a domain or job skills. They also acqui red risk-taking and political sk ills (Bova & Phillips, 1984). Hardcastle (1988) found that mentors gave ment ee unique insights into their potential while Zuckerman (1977) described how mentors of ten influenced the modes of thoughts and identities of their mentees. T hus, the imbalance between superi or and subordinate shifted to an affiliation between equals (Healy & Welc hert, 1990). Additionally, in the act of guiding and promoting others, mentors affected their own transformations (Healy & Welchert, 1990). In addition, Blackburn, Chapman, and Camer on (1981) observed that academic mentors derived gratification from collaborating with mentees to produce new knowledge, and Kram (1986) reported that successful mentoring prov ided the mentor with intrinsic satisfaction, added responsibilities, and leadership rec ognition. Thus, the ment oring relationship was often created and re-create d, thereby providing opportunitie s for collaboration between former mentors and their mentees, w ho were now colleagues and partners. Mentee Characteristics and Roles The mentoring relationship was not the sole responsibility of th e mentor; indeed, the mentee had equally important roles to play. Johnson and Huwe (2003) suggested that mentees should be emotionally stable, coachable, committed, and similar to their mentor with regard to interests and philosophy. Additionally Portner (2002) described mentees as those who were willing and able to participate, take re sponsibility, observe, ask, take informed risks, reflect, and give back. More specifically, mentors of student teachers expected their mentees to be willing to listen and lear n as a means of extending their professional development, to accept advice and act upon it, and to develop positive relationships with their students (Hayes, 1999).

PAGE 37

37 Benefits of Mentoring The benefits of mentoring often seemed more obvious for the mentee. According to Phillips-Jones (2001), mentees benefited from th eir mentors encouragement as they gained new or improved skills and knowledge, as well as being provided with an exemplary role model and opportunities to perform. The mentor reaped rewards from her relationship with a mentee through getting more work done, being rewarded for developing talent, achieving vicariously through his/her mentee, investing in the mentees futu re, repaying past debts, and enjoying a positive relationship (Phillips-Jones, 2001). Additionally, mentors feel a tremendous pleas ure that one could have shared so much in common with someone else and that one could be so privileged to think one is actually contributing to the real intellectual and full awakening of another human being (Daloz, 1986, p. 182). They also enjoyed the benefits of rich learning opportunities and their own growth was nurtured through thei r interactions with their me ntees and their reflections upon the experience (Zachary, 2000). Ideally, the mentoring rela tionship had a profound, deep, and enduring impact on both participants. Mentoring Pre-Service Teachers Traditionally, m entoring had been characte rized as the transmission of knowledge and skills. As previously discussed, Kram (1988) who studied and desc ribed mentoring in a business context, suggested that mentoring wa s a developmental relationship whose goal was to enhance the mentors and mentees career advancement, sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role. Thus, mentors taught, coached, counseled, and challenged their mentees. However, the ac tivities and identities of the mentoring relationships she described demonstrated a prope nsity to reproduce, rather than to transform the organizational context.

PAGE 38

38 This business model of mentoring was a ppropriated to educat ional contexts and classrooms where it has been reconceptualized a nd enacted in various ways. In fact, since the late 1980s, teacher education reformer s have promoted teacher mentoring as an important aspect in novi ces learning to teach (Hol mes Group, 1986, 1990), and most teachers, when they recalled their professional education, named their field experience or student teaching as the most important elemen t in their development as teachers (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). This experi ence of student teaching most often involved pre-service teachers assuming the responsibilities of teaching while establishing and developing relationships with one or more mentor teache rs and a university supe rvisor. They were surrounded not only by other adults who shared in certain power relationships, but also by students with whom they shared a different so rt of power relationshi p (Jackson, 2001). Thus, student teaching was a complicat ed emotional and interpersona l experience that was often critically important in the ma king of a teacher (Koerner, Rust, & Baumgartner, 2002). The cooperating or mentor teacher was a classroom teacher who had been asked by a teacher education program to work with pre-serv ice teachers in their classrooms. According to Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann (1987) coope rating teachers set the affective and intellectual tone and also shap e what student teachers learn by the way they conceive and carry out their roles as teacher educators (p. 256). So me cooperating teachers allowed preservice teachers into their classrooms as pa rticipant observers, while others viewed preservice teachers as colleagues in their ow n professional development (Koerner, Rust, & Baumgartner, 2002). Furthermore, these me ntor teachers were expected to possess and model instructional and management strengths and to be active listeners, who were sensitive to the views of others and who were able and wil ling to articulate the in tricacies of their craft

PAGE 39

39 and the subtleties of the school culture (Enz & Cook, 1992). In addition to these socializing functions, mentor teachers also served as e ducational colleagues who supported pre-service teachers as they reflected on their experien ces and gained insights that promoted the development of their teaching skills. Finally, those mentor teachers who acted as agents of change sought to break down barriers that prevented teachers from sharing, inquiring, and collaborating about their teaching (Enz & Cook, 1992). In these ways, the mentor teacher was still cast in the roles of expert an d director, albeit a caring and nurturing one. Pre-service teachers had rather broad conceptions of the role s of their mentor teachers and often relied on them to be models of good pedagogy and classroom management (Copas, 1984). Additionally they expected their mentor teachers to provide them with the basic information needed to adjust to their placem ent, to help them acquire materials and resources, to involve them in planning and evaluation, to hold conferences with them regularly, to observe them teach, and to provide feedback on their teaching (Copas, 1984; Grimmett & Ratzlaff, 1986). Moreover, the rela tionship that develope d between mentor and pre-service teacher often had a significant effect on the me ntor teachers own work and career (Ganser, 1996). Furthermore, a study by Wildman, Magliaro, Niles and Niles (1992) found that preservice teachers expected thei r mentors to encourage reflection, direction and support their actions and plans, to provide direct assistan ce in the development of a product, policy, or process, as well as to provide information or products for the pre-service teachers possible use or modification. In other words, mentor teachers were expected to encourage and support their mentees. This res earch also found that the person ality characteristics of the mentor affected the nature and effectivene ss of the relationship. The following mentor

PAGE 40

40 characteristics were deemed important by pre-se rvice teachers: (a) willingness to mentor, (b) sensitivity, (c) helpful, but not authoritarian, (d) diplomatic, (e ) able to anticipate problems, (f) enthusiastic about teaching, and (g) good role model at all times (Wildman et. al, 1992). Moreover, the prime trait that supported and ma intained the relationship was the willingness of the mentor teacher to mentor. However, th e personality characterist ics of the pre-service teacher sometimes undermined the mentoring rela tionship. The traits mentioned most often by mentors as having a negative impact on th e mentoring relationship included the preservice teachers inability to admit problem s and ask for and accept help, their unwillingness to reciprocate in the sharing pro cess, as well as their lack of professionalism with regard to attendance, punctuality, and dre ss code (Wildman et. al., 1992). Hence, mentors and mentees often entere d a mentoring relatio nship with specific expectations of each other. Perhaps none were more important than th e pre-service teachers expectations for encouragement and counsel wi th regard to their instructional decisionmaking and classroom management. These as pects of learning to teach and their implications for mentoring are disc ussed in the next two sections. Classroom Instruction and Mentoring Providing pre-service teachers with opportunities to beco m e involved in structuring classroom environments for learning and building a series of experi ences for students who have a wide range of abilities interests, and learning needs was an important aspect of mentoring novice teachers in the complexities of classroom instruction (Gunter, Estes, & Schwab, 1999). In these ways, mentors supported pre-service teachers as they began the process of constructing their iden tities as teachers, identities that would remain flexible and sensitive to social contexts (Danielewicz, 2001). Consequently, mentoring novice teachers as

PAGE 41

41 they planned and provided instruction was an im portant aspect of their learning to teach in real world classrooms. Current conceptions of teaching have cast teachers as instructional decision-makers who set goals and developed a rationale for instruction, defined objectives, constructed a means of evaluation, created units of study that will encompass the content, and designed lessons for instruction using a variety of instru ctional models (Gunter et. al., 1999, p. 1). In this way, teachers were responsible for assessing their students needs, abilities, and interests and providing instruction that wa s differentiated and culturally relevant. They also needed to be aware of the local, state, and federal manda tes that influenced what their students needed to accomplish and were expected to adapt th e curriculum and their individual lessons accordingly. It was through engaging in all of these instructional activities and soliciting feedback from their mentors that pre-service te achers constructed identities as educators and reflective practitioners, who created environments in wh ich their students developed understandings of content, as well as the hab its that would promote th eir engagement in lifelong learning. Classroom Management and Mentoring Pre-se rvice teachers also needed to develop their skills, strategies, and dispositions as classroom managers who were concerned with creating and maintaining environments that promoted and supported student s learning. According to Evertson and Emmer (1981), effective classroom management consisted of te acher behaviors that produced high levels of student involvement in classroom activities, minimal amounts of st udent behavior that interfered with the teachers or other students work, and efficient use of instructional time. Classroom management also included the rela ted functions of stude nt socialization and disciplinary interventions. Student socialization included artic ulation of ideals;

PAGE 42

42 communication of expectations; and modeli ng, teaching, and reinfo rcing of desirable personal attributes and behavior; as well as counseling, behavior modification, and other remediation work with students who show poor academic or social adjustment (Brophy, 2006, p. 17); while disciplinary inte rventions are actions taken to elicit or compel improved behavior from students who fail to confor m to expectations, especially when their misbehavior is salient or sustained enough to disrupt the classroom management system (Brophy, 2006, p. 17). Hence, teachers who were effective classroom managers planned rules and procedures carefully, systematically taught these to thei r students, organized instruction to maximize student task engagement and success, and co mmunicated directions and expectations to students. It was also critical for teachers to consider the developmental progress of theur students, as understanding child an d adolescent growth and development, as well as issues of students cognitive and cultural diversity was essential for laying the foundation of an effective and positive learning environment (B rophy, 2006). Thus, mentees expected their mentors to model effective management strategies and to engage them in dialogue about the consequences of their management decisions. Ethical Considerations and Mentoring Mentoring also involved som e ethical considerations. Research by Silva and Tom (2001) suggested that mentoring had a moral basi s, which consisted of three imperatives: (a) embracing a moral stance, (b) creating a moral c ontext, and (c) engaging in a pedagogy of the moral. These imperatives recognized the im portance of mentors cr eating spaces and caring contexts and engaging in moral pedagogies that moved pre-service teachers beyond competency (Lemma, 1993) and encouraged re flection and critical thought (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). The first imperative, embracing a moral stance was cen tral to a mentors

PAGE 43

43 acceptance of a mentoring role. According to Silva and Tom (2001), becoming a mentor meant assuming responsibility for a pre-service t eachers growth, which was either an end in itself or a means for furthering their students growth. In addition, three motives were ascribed to mentors who assumed responsibility for a pre-service teachers growth (Silva & Tom, 2001). First, many mentors engaged in mentoring because they believed that having an extra teacher in the classroom enabled them to more effectively meet the needs of a ll the students in their cl assrooms. Second, some mentors believed that they had a professiona l responsibility to edu cate tomorrows teachers so that these new teachers would be able to meet the demands and needs of tomorrows students and schools. Finally, many mentors felt obligated to engage in their own professional development as teachers and teache r educators. These motives for mentoring occurred singularly or in combination and were dependent on the individual mentors stance toward and philosophy of mentoring. The creation of a moral context provided a caring and supportive place in which preservice teachers could develop their skills and identities. Such contexts were accomplished through conversations between mentors and ment ees which encouraged pre-service teachers to take risks and to seize oppor tunities for developing their ow n ideas (Silva & Tom, 2001). Additionally, the imperative of engaging in a moral pedagogy suggested that mentors went beyond the transmission of knowledge and skills to intentionally s upporting pre-service teachers as they constructed their own pedagogical thinking through reflection and inquiry (Silva & Tom, 2001). Moral mentor s did not advocate a particular set of values or promote a specific view of good teaching. Instead, these me ntors acknowledged the individuality of the pre-service teacher and fostered his or her independence. Thus, these moral imperatives

PAGE 44

44 required mentors to act in ways that promoted and supported th e pre-service teachers growth and development (Silva & Tom, 2001). New Directions In their review of the literatu re, Wang and Odell (2002) found that learning to teach in a manner consistent with standards-based reform was (a) a process of active construction and reconstruction of beliefs, pedagogical c ontent knowledge, and pedagogical learner knowledge, and of the relationships among them, (b) situated in the practice of teaching in which the relationship between theory and practice could be explored and assumptions about teaching and learning examined, (c) an ongoing process that involved individual reflection on and collaborative inquiry about teaching practice, and (d) a process that required mentoring and coaching, resources and time. Mentors of pre-service teachers must be committed to teaching reform and to supporting pre-service te achers as they continually questioned their practices, beliefs, and the context in which they were situated. Recently, policymakers have attempted to define teacher mentoring policies and guidelines by aligning them with standards for professional teachi ng (Odell & Huling, 2000). They attempted to define what mentors must know in order to support novices and preservice teachers in learning to teach in a way that educationa l reformers expected. First, mentors must be able to work with pre-servi ce teachers as agents of change (Cochran-Smith, 1991). They needed to know how to support pr e-service teachers in problematizing their teaching practice, in uncovering the assumptions that supported their practices, and in constructing and reconstructing curriculum and practice in th eir unique contexts (Wang & Odell, 2002). Second, mentors needed to develo p a deeper understandi ng of subject matter, as well as how to engage pre-service teach ers in developing similar understandings of subjects, students, and their relationships (Wang & Odell, 2002). Third, mentors were

PAGE 45

45 expected to have a deep understanding of the relationship between knowledge and teaching practice and to support pre-service teachers in developing these unde rstandings (Carter, 1988). Finally, mentors were expected to inquir e systematically about and critically reflect on pre-service teachers practi ces and engage these novices in learning to teach through inquiry and reflection (Wang & Odell, 2002). They were e xpected to guide pre-service teachers discovery of learning to teach, rather than simply providing a repertoire of teaching strategies and techniqu es. Thus, mentors, alongside thei r mentees, were co-explorers of teaching practices, rather than evaluators of the positive and negative aspects of pre-service teachers observed teaching behaviors (Wang & Odell, 2002). Moreover, Achinstein and Athanases (2006) ha ve suggested that mentors are not born, but developed through conscious, deliberate, ong oing learning (p. 3), and this process of becoming a mentor involved reflecting on ones own practice, inquiri ng into teaching and learning, and engaging in communities of pr actice with other me ntors (Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2007). These mentors were problem pos ers who examined practice and sought to identify avenues for ongoing learning and growt h. Furthermore, they worked with novices and pre-service teachers to co-construct knowledge and learn from their mentoring relationships (Achinstein & V illar, 2004). Thus, this new conception of mentoring cast mentors as lifelong learners and, situated me ntoring in complex contexts where issues collide and compete (Achinst ein & Villar, 2004, p. 8). Mentors were viewed as cothinkers who engaged in productive consul tations with their mentees (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 22). In this way the act of mentor ing moved from knowledge transmission to knowledge transformation as mentors collaborate d with novice and pre-service teachers to challenge classrooms and schools in order to fo ster reform (Cochran-Smith & Paris, 1995).

PAGE 46

46 Summary Mentoring has crossed disciplines and undergone a num ber of instantiations. Currently, mentoring seems to be understood as co-constructed by the mentor and mentee within the confines of a situated relationship that must be continually negotiated. The work of mentoring no longer signifies the passing of knowledge to a less experienced mentee. Instead, mentor and mentee work together to problematize, inquire into, and understand, not only their own individual and situated practices, but also the larger institutional and political arenas in which education is en acted. Peddy (2001) suggests that mentoring is often more art than science. Sometimes the mentor must be a storyteller; at othe r times, an empathetic listener. Thus, the art [of mentoring] is not merely knowing what to say, but how to say it and when (Peddy, 2001, p. 25). Because time, experien ce together, and the perceptions and interpretations of each participan t continually define the roles of the mentor and mentee, the mentoring relationships itself is a dynamic and interpersona l process (Lucas, 2001). Through the relational process: The partners come to recogni ze their similarities and di fferences, are challenged to reassess their commitment to the relationship, respond to the reactions of their partners, cope with their own feelings of connection or discomfort, are affected by the limits of the social and physical context of their mee ting place, explore the effect of engaging in different types of activities, and grow in th eir affection or lack of affection for one another over time (Lucas, 2001, p. 46). Given all the research devoted to understanding the rela tionship between mentor and mentee, it seems that mentoring has most often been described and interpreted based on the experiences or the memories of one of the pa rticipants or conceptualized by scholars who have reviewed the literature. There are studies that descri be the roles that mentors and mentees assume, as well as the developmental st ages of the relationship itself. Moreover, the mentoring relationship has been characterized as being beneficial to bo th participants with

PAGE 47

47 the mentee gaining the knowledge, skills, and di spositions necessary for membership within a profession, and the mentor feeling valued fo r promoting the professional development of a future colleague. The relationship even has the potential of becoming a vehicle for change as mentoring moves from knowledge transmissi on to knowledge transformation (CochranSmith & Paris, 1995). However, what seems to be missing is a window through which to view the lived experiences of classroom teachers (mentors) and pre-service teachers (mentees), as they engage in the dialogue and activities that may influence their understanding and practice of teaching. How is the relationship enacted and negotiated? In what ways does mentoring enable and encourag e transformation? C onsequently, this study will investigate how mentors and mentees utili ze discourse in negotiating their relationship, what role this mentoring re lationship plays in their co-c onstruction of knowledge about teaching and learning, and how this knowledge of practice might tran sform their individual identities and practices (C ochran-Smith & Lytle, 2001)

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS Qualitative inquiry was a natural choice fo r m y study because it is concerned with understanding and interpreting what other human beings are doing and saying (Schwandt, 2000). Thus, this type of inquiry provi ded me with methods that enab led me to focus specifically on what in-service teachers and pre-service teach ing interns were doing and saying as they constructed and negotiated their mentoring relati onships. Additionally, a qualitative design was suited to studying the mentoring relationships as they were co nstructed and enacted within sociopolitical systems and cultures. It also ac commodated a description of the role of the researcher, as well as a description of my own biases and ideological preferences. Finally, because qualitative design requires an ongoing analys is of the data, I was able to construct a more authentic and compelling narrative of what occurred in the study and within the stories of the participants (Janesick, 2000). Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to describe the qualitative methodology that I employed as I conducted this study. This incl udes the purpose of my study and my research questions, the theoretical framework in whic h I situated my study, a description of the participants and context, as well as the data collection and data analysis methods that I utilized. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the trustworthiness of my research and the possible limitations of my research design and methods. Purpose of the Study My personal interests, as well as m y beliefs that mentoring and the identities of mentor and mentee are socially construc ted through discourse, led me to design a study that investigated how mentors and mentees utilized discourse in negotiating their relations hip and what role the mentoring relationship played in their co-construction of knowledge about teaching and learning,

PAGE 49

49 as well as the transformation of their individual iden tities and practices. The co-construction and negotiation of this relationship was studied through data collect ed as the mentors and mentees engaged in interactions (teaching, reflecting, and inquiry), which provided snapshots of their situated relationship at particular moments in time. The participants also reflected upon the development and evolution of the relationship, as well as how the relati onship served as a catalyst in the transformation of their identiti es and practices. The following questions guided my research: How do the relationships between mentors and mentees, engaged in studying their practices, develop and evolve? How do the relationships among mentors and me ntees and the discourse(s) in which they are situated inform/transform their identities and practices? Theoretical Perspective: Social Constructionism Because I w as interested in studying the re lationship between mentors and mentees and investigating the de velopment and evolution of their relational responsibilities, as well as how the participants perceived and understood thei r mentoring relationships (Bodgan & Biklen, 1998), I framed my study within the epistemol ogy of constructionism and the theoretical perspective of social constructionism. A constr uctionist epistemology reje cts the idea that there is an objective truth waiting to be discovered. Truth, or meaning, is a result of our engagement with the world (Crotty, 1998). In fact, differe nt people might construct different meanings regarding the same phenomenon; thus subject and object emerge as partners in the generation of meaning, albeit, influenced by the culture in which they are situated (Crotty, 1998; Gergen, 1999, 2001). In this way, the mind, which can only see what its existing cognitive structures allow, creates rather than refl ects, and the nature of this creation cannot be separated from the surrounding social world (Kinch eloe, 2005, p. 42). In addition, this meaning making is always an ongoing accomplishment (Crotty, 1998); our co-cons tructions of knowledge and relationships

PAGE 50

50 are constantly in flux, negotiated through the diverse perspectives of those participating in the production of knowledge. Thus, any meaning we ma ke is always partial and incomplete. As humans, we have always attempted to make sense of the reality in which we are situated. Consequently, construc tionism recognizes the unique experience of each one of us and suggests that each individuals unde rstanding is valid and worthy of respect in the construction of meaning. According to Gergen (1999), this stance has led to th e characterization of constructionist views as relativist. As it is said, constructionism has no values; it seems to tolerate everything and stand for nothing. Worse, it discourages commitment to any set of values or ideals; all are just cons tructions (Gergen, 1999, p. 230). However, Gergen (1999) maintains that constructionism doe s not espouse relativism. Instead, he maintains that there is no position of relativism that is a transcendent viewpoint from which one could make decisions about the merits of various positions. Indeed, every viewpoint espouses some political and moral values. Constructionism simply invites us to enga ge in a process of cons tructing and possibly reconstructing our understandings and positions. As Gergen (1999) suggests: All evaluations, deliberations, or comparisons of competing positions will necessarily carry with them presumptions of the real and the good. To be inte lligible at all is to render support to some view of the world and what constitutes proper action within it. Constructionism may invite a posture of continuing reflection, but each moment of reflection will inevitably by value-saturated. (p. 231). Therefore, because constructionism does not value one ideal over another, it invites deliberation about these positions or perspectives and provides us with the opportunity to create new, possibly more appropriate constructions. Because constructionism does not privilege one tradition or position over another, and because we all participate in th e cultural generation of meaning, constructionism provides all of us with an opportunity to engage in a dialogue that challenges the truth and the facts of the dominant orde r (Gergen, 1999, p. 231) and to

PAGE 51

51 participate in the construction of our social worlds. All inte rpretations and understandings are subject to question as we create situated knowledge and ways of being in the world. Furthermore, defining or arguing for an objective truth is never the goal of constructionism. Constructionism does not ask to be accepted becau se it is true. Rather, constructionism invites collaboration among people in giving sense and significance to the world and pressing on toward more inclusive futures t ogether. Alternate tru ths are not thereby abolished; they are invited as particip ants in the dialogue (Gergen, 1999, p. 228). This collaboration with others enables us to make sense of our realit ies, the intersubjective worlds we share with other, and to construct meanings for our realities that are continually understood and negotiated individuall y, or through interactions a nd communications with others (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). However, our knowle dge of what others are doing and saying is always contingent upon some background knowledge or context that was defined through shared meanings, beliefs, values, and practices (Schwand t, 2000). In this way, although the others in this common reality might not share our pers pectives, there is often an ongoing correspondence between the meanings of the self and the meanings of the other; therefore, ones self and the other are able to share a common sense about their reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). This common understanding is necessary, even paramount, to the success of our interactions with others, for without it, communicatio n and relationships would be difficult, if not impossible. Moreover, social constructivism emphasizes the importance of cultu re and context in understanding what occurs in society and cons tructing knowledge based on that understanding. Therefore, moving from one culture to another, or from one discourse community to another, often provides strikingly di verse interpretations and unde rstandings about reality and phenomena. What constructionism drives home is that there is no true or valid interpretation; there are useful interpretations andthere are liberat ing forms of interpretation (Crotty, 1998,

PAGE 52

52 p. 47). Accordingly, constructionist research requires that the re searcher not remain blinded by the conventional meanings she has been taught to associate with th e object; instead, the constructionist researcher is invi ted to approach the object in a radical spirit of openness to [the phenomenons potential] for new or richer meani ng. It is an invitati on to reinterpretation (Crotty, 1998, p. 51). Gergen (2001) concurs and characterizes a cons tructionist intelligibility as one that opens a space for reflection, reconsider ation and possible recons truction as we explore the possibilities of new meanings and new futures. Thus, constructionism is a means of broadening and democratizing the conversation about human practices and of submitting these practices to a continuous proce ss of reflection (Gergen, 1994). In this spirit, my role as a constructionist researcher compelled me to enga ge in an ongoing analysis of my data and to search for possible interpretations always recognizing that my understandings must be subjected to continued scrutiny and challenge. Additionally, constructio nism focuses on the collective generation and transmission of meaning (Crotty, 1998). In the same vein, Gergen (1994) argued that knowledge is the product of social processes and that al l statements of the true, the ra tional, and the good are products of particular communities of interpreters. Thus, terms and actions acquire their meaning within the particular traditions of a relati onship or community (Gergen, 2001). Furthermore, the taken for granted world of today is also influenced by the meaning making of previous generations (Gergen, 1999). Culture directs our behavior and organizes our experience and is best seen as the source, rather than the resu lt, of human thought and behavior (Crotty, 1998). We are born into a world of meaning, inheriting a cultural lens through which we view reality. Our culture brings certain phenom ena into view for us and endows them with meaning, while, at the same time, predisposes us to ignore other phenomena or meanings

PAGE 53

53 (Crotty, 1998). Phenomena come to be reified, a nd we believe that the sense we make of things is the way things actually are. In addition, layers of interpre tation are placed on top of one another and our sedimented cultural meanings serve as a barrier between the culture in which we reside and the cultures of others (Crotty, 1998). Gergen (1999) suggested that our explorations of other understandings draw us into questions of similarity and difference that might aid us as we evaluate our inherited interpretations and consider their sustainability. We might come to realize that every evaluation of the other is not so much a re flection of the real; instead it is a reflection of our own modes of being and how it is that we constructed the worl d and with what end in mind (Gergen, 1999). A social constructionist sensibility recognizes that t he way things are is simply just the sense we make of them (Crotty, 1998). The researcher views her understandings as historically and culturally effected interpretations rather than et ernal truths of some kind (Crotty, 1998, p. 64). Different cultures in different eras have given birth to very diverg ent interpretations of the same phenomenon. The social constructionist researcher understands that when she describes or interprets something, she is reporting how so mething is seen and r eacted to, and thereby meaningfully constructed, within a given community (Crotty, 1998, p. 64). In this way, social constructionism served as a meaningful framework for understanding and interpreting mentoring. The mentoring rela tionships in this study were fluid, ongoing, and situated constructions that we re shaped by the interactions between a mentor and his/her mentee(s) and their individual relational histories provided th e lenses through which they understood and interpreted their relationship. The individual unde rstandings that mentors and mentees brought with them to a new mentoring re lationship were influenced by the cultures or

PAGE 54

54 discourse communities in which they were situated and the sociohistorical interpretations that their particular communities acknowledged and valued. However, in order for a mentoring relations hip to be effective, mentor and mentees, despite their differing perspectives, created so me shared understandings of mentoring that provided a foundation for their work together. In this way, mentoring was always understood within the boundaries of a particular mentoring relati onship, although these situated understandings might have transferability to other relationships and contexts. Consequently, mentoring has been transformed in the process of being transferred from one profession or community to another, and while the sense that educators make of mentoring was influenced by the ways in which they understood their community of practice, as well as their motivation and rationale for engaging in mentoring relationships, the dialogue a bout the meaning and value of mentoring continues to refine and modify our understanding of this phenomenon. Constructionism and Relationships A constructionist perspective, specifically socia l constructivism, was well suited to a study of the relationships that developed and evolved between me ntors and mentees because the process by which their relationships developed, as well as the l earning that was constructed by the participants was often idiosyncratic and unpredictable. Due to this variability in the nature of individual relationships, McNam ee and Gergen (1999) suggest that we develop an appreciation of the contingent, indeterminate, historical, a nd relational aspects of our modes of constructing reality (p. 20) when we reflect upon how our rela tionships are constructed and maintained, as well as the ways in which the relationships and the participants are transformed. Thus, each mentoring relationship created a unique constructi on of reality that was shaped by the relational histories and distinctive perspectives of the participants.

PAGE 55

55 Constructionists also suggest th at individuals be viewed as the manifestations of multiple relationships and that their relati onships are enacted as particular ized constructions of the world that are influenced by the participants unique relational histories. Therefore, any single description or narration of ment oring can no longer be consider ed the only representation of reality (Crotty, 1998). At different times, in di fferent places, and between different people there have been very divergent interpretations of th e same phenomena. Indeed, different people may well inhabit different worlds and these worlds constitute for them diverse ways of knowing (Crotty, 1998). The mentoring relationship itself as well as our understa nding of it, is locally and socially constructed in our relationships and our interpretations [of mentoring] are not constructed in isolation but agai nst a backdrop of shared understa ndings, practices, language, and so forth (Schwandt, 2000 p.197). In this way, our cultural understa ndings influence the development of the mentoring relationship, but, at the same time, the divergent perceptions and interpretations of mentor and me ntee actively influence the mentoring as it occurs, redefining the identities of the mentor and me ntee and the activities of mentor ing (Lucas, 2001). It was this relational evolution and its transformational effect on mentors and mentees that was explored in this study. Constructionism and Discourse Constructionism also places primary emphasis on discourse as a means through which self and realities are articulate d, as well as the ways in which such discourses function within social relationships (Gergen, 1999). In fact, th e construction of the re lationship itself is a dialogic process that has two transformative functions: (a) transforming the participants understanding of the action in question and (b) altering the relations among the participants themselves (McNamee & Gergen, 1999).

PAGE 56

56 Moreover, because mentoring is often described as a social relationship that uses language in order to construct the identities, activ ities, beliefs, and attitudes of its participants, this study considered the questions posed by Ge rgen (1999): What are the repercussions of these ways of talking? Who gains? Who is hurt? Who is silenced? What traditions are sustained? Which are undermined? How do I judge the future we are creating? (p. 62) Additionally, because mentor and mentee are often immersed in many discourse communities, they must assume responsibility for developing an awareness of the connections between these diverse discourse communities. Furthermore, they must reflect upon the influence these communities exert on the construction of their rela tionships and identities, so that ultimately, mentor and mentee are able to reconstruct the world in a less adversarial way, which is better suited to their needs as they engage in a re lationship (Gergen, 1999). Hence, mentors and mentees might choose to ask: How are we invol ved? How can we work together to create change? (McNamee & Gergen, 1999). These ques tions seemed especially appropriate for mentors and mentees who embraced an understandi ng of mentoring that was educative and who constructed identities as agents of reform in their classrooms and beyond. Defining Discourse The m entors and mentees in this study used Disc ourse to enact specific social and cultural perspectives, activities, and identities. For Gee (2005), their language-in-use (discourse with a little d) often commingled with non-language aspects of communication thereby creating big D Discourses. Thus, while discourse is specific ally associated with th e language participants used, Discourse is understood as ways of acti ng, interacting, feeli ng, believing, valuing, and using various sorts of objects, symbols, tool s, and technologies to recognize yourself and others as meaning and meaningful in certain ways (Gee, 2005, p. 7). As mentors and mentees interacted with each other they were producing, reproducing, sustaining, and transforming a

PAGE 57

57 given form of life or Discourse (Gee, 2005). In this way, all lif e [or relationships] for all of us is just a patchwork of thoughts, words, objects, events, actions, and interactions in Discourses (Gee, 2005, p. 7). The dialogic interacti ons in which the mentors and mentees engaged over the course of this study revealed that they moved in and among se veral Discourses. The sociohistorical and political foundations and interp retations of these Discourse s which have been enacted, interpreted, and transformed by often disparate co mmunities of practice, as well as a number of scholars situated in various disciplines, are desc ribed in Chapter 2. Furthermore, because these Discourses recognized situated ways of interacting, the behaviors of those engaged in discursive relationships involved the positioni ng of ones self and ones rela tional partnerships, as well as the distribution and negotiation of power. Soci al constructionism would suggest that these positionings and the distribution of power woul d be fluid, co-constructed by the relational partners, and subjected to a pro cess of continual reflection and tr ansformation as the participants collaboratively constructed their own social world and their practices and id entities within this world. Discourse and the Positioning of Self Scholars have suggested a num ber of understand ings of identity and self. Some view identity as a relatively stable self that remains more or less uniform across contexts. Others believe that identities are multiple and in a constant state of flux. For Gee (2001) identity is the kind of person one is recognized as being, at a given time a nd place, [which] can change from moment to moment in the interaction, can change from context to context, and of course, can be ambiguous or unstable (p. 99). He describes four ways of viewing identity: (a) nature identity, (b) institution identity, (c ) discourse identity, and (d) affinity identity.

PAGE 58

58 According to Gee (2001) nature identity is a state developed from forces in nature, such as being an identical twin. These identities arise through forces over which we have no control. However, they can only become identities when they are recognized as meaningful by us and others. In contrast, an institution identity is a position authorized by authorities within institutions, such as being a classroom teacher or a student. This is not an identity provided by nature, nor can it by accomplished wi thout the authority of an instit ution. In contrast, a discourse identity is an individual trait recognized in the discourse of or with rational individuals. An example of this would be someone who is recogni zed as an accomplished teacher. This identity depends on the recognition of others, as it is only because people treat, talk about, and interact with this teacher as an accomplis hed teacher that she is, indeed, one. Finally, an affinity identity is an experience shared in the practice of affi nity groups, such as Trekkies or professional learning communities. People in an affinity group share allegiance to, access to, and participation in specific pr actices (Gee, 2001, p. 105) that pr ovides each member with the experiences necessary for partic ipation in the group. The process through which an affinity identity is constructed is accomplished through participation in and sharing among members of a particular community. Danielewicz (2001), who wrote about teache rs selves, defines identity as our understanding of who we are and of who we think other people are (p. 10). These identities are not fixed and they are always in flux, always multiple, and continually under construction. Every person is composed of multiple, often conf licting identities, which ex ist in volatile states of construction or reconstruction, reformation or erosion, addition or expansion (Danielewicz, 2001). Ultimately, no matter what the context, we are continuously engaged in becoming something or someone (Smith, 1988). Individuals are constituted by and their identities are

PAGE 59

59 produced through Discourse (Danielewicz, 2001; Gee 2006, 1999). Because all of us are members of a variety of Discourse communities, we possess the agency to determine and transform our identities, but, at the same time, the Discourse affects the construction of our individual identities. It is this interplay of in ternal and external forces in the midst of social interaction that enables the construction of speci fic and situated identi ties (Danielewicz, 2001). In this study, the iden tities of the mentors and mentees tended to be created through their experiences with instituti ons or discursive partners and practices. The university identified the individual participants as mentors and mentees. However, it was within their situated relationships that the individual mentors and mentees co-constructed and transformed their identities as teachers, as well as mentors and mentees, and they accomplished this through engaging each other in dialogue that was situated within a pa rticular Discourse community. Positioning can influence the construction of id entity and is understood as the discursive construction of personal stories that make a persons actions intelligible and relatively determinate as social acts and within which the members of the conve rsation have specific locations (Harr & van Langenhove, 1999, p.16). Flui d positions, rather than fixed roles, are used by people to make sense of and cope with the situations in which they find themselves. These positions are relational and emerge natura lly out of their conver sations and contexts. However, there are times when an individual se izes a dominant position within a conversation and forces other speakers into positions they would not occupy voluntarily. Additionally, initial positionings may be challenged and speak ers are sometimes repositioned. There are several forms in which positioning occu rs as a discursive practice. First order positionings refer to the way people locate themse lves and others within an ongoing and lived storyline. Within a conversation each pa rticipant always positions the other while

PAGE 60

60 simultaneously positioning him or herself. Thus, first order positionings include the discursive practices in which people position themselves position others, and are positioned by them. Second order positionings occur when the first order positioning is quest ioned and has to be negotiated. These second order positionings can be questioned within th e original conversation or within another conver sation about that first co nversation. In this way the discursive practices that result in these second order posit ionings become a topic or target. The rights for self-positioning and other-pos itioning are unequally distributed, creating four forms of intentional positioning: (a) situations of deliberate se lf-positioning, (b) situations of forced self-positioning, (c) situat ions of deliberate positioning of others, and (d) situations of forced positioning of others (Harr & van Langenhove, 1999). Deliberate self positioning expresses a personal identity and references a un ique point of view, or an event in ones biography. This kind of positioning assumes the speaker has a goal in mind, and the stories people tell about themselves vary according to ho w they wish to present themselves. Forced self-positioning differs from deliberate self-posit ioning in that the initiative for the positioning is with someone or something else (i.e., an institution), rather than the person involved. The deliberate, as well as the forced positioning of others can be accomplished in the presence or absence of the person being posit ioned. The deliberate positioning and forced positioning of others when the person is present creates a space in the speakers storyline which may or may not be taken up by the person being positioned. People also differ in their capacity to position themselves and others, in their power to achieve positioning acts, as well as in their willingness or intention to position and be positioned. However, all conversations involve some sort of positioning.

PAGE 61

61 Therefore, although all the classroom teacher s in this study have been identified as mentors, they used dialogue to position th emselves in various ways depending on their understandings of mentor ing, their particular situations, a nd the needs of their individual mentees. In this way, mentors might choose to position themselves as facilitators, thereby positioning their mentees as teachers or prac titioners in one instance, and in another circumstance they might position themselves as mode ls that the mentee was expected to emulate. Discourse and Power Power is an om nipresent and tightly intertwi ned aspect of the ways in which we, as relational beings, relate to each other and our systems of knowledge or truth (Foucault, 1980). Indeed, power is often sought, envied, and feared as it controls, subjugates, represses, and can provide a catalyst for resistance. What ma kes power hold good, what makes it accepted, is simply the fact that it doesnt only weight on us a fo rce that says no, but that it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse (Foucault, 1980, p. 119). In this way, power produces most of our id eas about what we should do and be in order to locate, supervise, and control individuals. Foucault focused on the forms of knowledge and techniques of power that serve to discipline and train human beings, thereby turning them into the sorts of objects society needs. This disciplining occurs through the exercise of classification, surveillance, normalization, reward, and punishment, and these disciplining forces that aff ect us individually include the beliefs, expectations, values, practices (e.g., of Discourses) which not on ly dictate what we should say, but reward or punish us when we fail to comply with the standards built into them (Jardine, 2005, p. 25). Thus, thes e discursive and nondiscursive ideas, expectations, values, and practices leave us with the sense of being c ontinually monitored, compared, classified, and judged in relation to disciplin ary categories of the normal and the abnormal. Once we are

PAGE 62

62 acculturated, we then experience the world through a set of discursive practices. To the extent that this disciplining power is successful we became, willingly or not, complicit in its continuance and maintenance. Jardine (2005) reminds us that Foucault insisted we be continually vigilant about the effect of everythi ng in which we participate in order to undo the objectifying, controlling effects exerted by the operation of knowledge and acts of power in modernist, Western normalizing, disciplining soci eties (p. 26). Finally, Foucault (1990) believed that critique is a crucially important asp ect of life and that where power is exerted there is always resistance: A critique is not a matter of sayi ng that things are not right as they are. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practice that we accept rests. Cri ticism is a matter of flushing out that thought a nd trying to change it: to show that things are not as self-evident as one believed, to see that what is accepted as self-evident will no longer be accepted as such. Practicing criticism is a matter of ma king facile gestures difficult (Foucault, 1990, pp. 154-155). Heinrich (1995) also investigated the ways in which power is manifested and used in relationships. Her participants described tw o types of power: personal power and legitimate power. Personal power was the pow er within a person and both mentors and mentees have this power simply through the virtue of being human Legitimate power was power bestowed by an institution. For instance, only the classroom teach ers in this study have le gitimate power vested in them by the university and the school district. Heinrich (1995) also noted three ways in which power was manifested within relationships: (a) power with relationships, (b) power over relati onship, and (c) power disabused relationships. In power with relationships, power was defined as strength and it was shared. Power with mentors owned their legitimate power, shared their power with their mentees, and negotiated any conflict openly and directly. They bala nced the task and interpersonal dimensions of their mentoring relationships. They also protected their mentees,

PAGE 63

63 when necessary, within the bureaucratic system In power over relationships, mentees relinquished their personal power and found themselves in relationships in which control, authority, domination, concern for being objective a nd fair, and strength in the form of force were central issues. Power over mentors owned their legitimate power, established relationship with mentees that we re hierarchical and task orient ed, and handled conflict through direct confrontation. Finally, in power disowned relationships, the mentor abdicated her legitimate power in order to focus on inte rpersonal harmony to the detriment of task accomplishment. These mentors were kind and empa thetic as long as the situation did not call for advocacy or direct confrontation. All relationships involve the negotiation of power, and the mentoring relationship was no exception. In these relationships, power was mani fested in the discursive practices of the participants and often served to control and mana ge them within the contexts of their situated classrooms. However, as Foucault (1990) has su ggested, this power also provided an impetus for resistance, and those mentors and mentees w ho engaged in educative mentoring called into question the disciplinary nature of our taken for granted und erstandings of schooling and challenged their previously unquestioned assumptions about their own teaching practices and identities. The Research Context In qualitative inquiry, context is critical to understanding (Patton, 2002). Patton (2002) cited portraitist Sara LawrenceLightfoots (1997) understanding of context as crucial for the docum entation of human experience and I f ound her insights relevant for my study: By context, I [Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot] mean the settingphysical, geographic, temporal, historical, cultural, aestheticwithin which action take place. Context becomes the framework, the reference point, the map, the ecol ogical sphere; it is us ed to place people and action in time and space and as a resource for understanding what they say and do. The context is rich in clues for interpreting th e experience of the act ors in the setting. We

PAGE 64

64 have no idea how to decipher or decode an action, a gesture, a conversation, or an exclamation unless we see it embedded in context (p. 41). Thus, the context in which the mentors and me ntees constructed their relationships, their practices, and their identities influenced their constructions of mentoring and their discursive interactions in multiple and sometimes unexpected ways. The next sections describe a number of aspects of the research c ontext including the city and school in which the research was conducted, the universitys teacher preparation program in which al l of the pre-service teachers were situated, as well as a description of the participants and the researcher and the roles they assumed within the research setting. Allenton This study took place in Allenton, a rural, sout heastern city, which was located fourteen miles from the states largest and oldest uni versity. Allenton had a population of 17,420, with a median age of 28.8. Seventy-seven percent of the population was Caucasian, 20% black, 1% Asian, 5% Hispanic, and 3% ot her. There were 6,752 households with a median income of $46,863. It was located along a major interstate corridor and supported industry that ranged from agricultural to manufacturing. Allenton Elementary School Allenton Elem entary School, located in Allenton, and one of the oldest continuously operating schools in the United States provided the specific site in which this study was situated. The school served nearly 500 students in grades three, four, and five. Sixty-four percent of the students were Caucasian, 29% black, 4% Hispanic 2% multiracial and less than 1% American Indian or Asian. Its mission was excellence th rough initiative, innovation and involvement. Moreover, Allenton was a Title I school and 57% of its student population was eligible for the free or reduced lunch program. The student t eacher ratio was 15:1 and 61% of teachers at the

PAGE 65

65 school held an advanced degree. Additionally, A llenton received a grade of A from the states department of education for the 2006-2007 academic year. Three classrooms within Allenton Elementary served as the settings for the dialogue sessions and observations. The demographics of each of the classrooms were representative of the demographics of the school. These classrooms will be described in more detail in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. ProTeach: A Teacher Preparation Program The teacher education program from which all the pre-service teachers were selected, was designed to prepare teachers with a dual emphasis in elementary education and mild disabilities. All graduates were prepared to work with stude nts who are English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). The curriculum of this teacher educ ation program incorporated information about effective teachers knowledge, skills, and dispos itions, as well as current developments in instructional approaches and new technologies. Teachers who completed this program would be capable of: (a) creating and ma intaining supportive and produc tive classrooms for diverse student populations and (b) working collaborati vely with school personnel, families, and members of the community to develop alternativ e ways of educating ch ildren, including those who have traditionally been labeled hard-to-teach and hard -to-manage (Ross, Lane, & McCallum, 2005). The pre-service teachers in this program were organized into cohorts of 25-35 during each semester of the program and cohort groups changed at the end of each semester, so that they had a chance to interact with a vari ety of their peers across the program. Moreover, all of the preservice teachers were in volved in early and continuous field experiences. During their freshman and sophomore years, students engaged in several observation and participation activities in elementary school classrooms during prerequisite coursework. Beginning in their junior year,

PAGE 66

66 students had required field work each semester of the program. During their junior year, the students completed a pre-intern ship which involved spending 16 hours a week in a classroom over the course of the semester. ProTeach stude nts also completed an internship during their senior year and this involved fulltime attendance in a classroom. The pre-service teachers who participated in my study were in the second semester of their junior years and were beginning th eir pre-internship placements. Two pre-service teachers were partnered in an elementary school classroom and were expected to design lessons and to plan, implement, and evaluate accommodations for struggli ng learners, as well as to engage in various models of co-teaching. Every effort was made to place these students in schools with inclusive classrooms in which the teachers modeled best practices (Ross, Lane, & McCallum, 2005). The Participants and Their Roles Criterion sampling (Patton, 2002) was used to se lect three groups of participants from the ProTeach pre-interns and their cla ssroom mentors. For this study all of the pre-service teaching interns were registered in the ProTeach teach er education program and completing their preinternship during spring, 2007. All of the in-servi ce mentor teachers: (a) were over 21 years of age, (b) identified by their principal as exemplary teachers, and (c ) had at least three years of teaching experience (d) were teaching at a profes sional development school (PDS). Professional development schools were chosen as the site fo r this research becaus e these schools supported the development of teachers as leaders and inquirer s into their own practice, and I believed that teachers who have adopted an inquiry stance might be more amenable to becoming members of a study that was designed to explore their practices Table 3-1 provides a brief summary of the participants biographical information, and their bi ographies will be described in more detail in chapters 4, 5, and 6.

PAGE 67

67 All of the participants enga ged in a number of roles ove r the course of this study. Sometimes they taught lessons in the classroom. Other times th ey observed and then worked with individual students as th ey independently completed assignm ents and learning activities. Sometimes, the mentor and mentees engaged eac h other in conversation during our dialogue sessions and answered the questions I posed; at other times they participated in specific mentoring activities, such as preand post conferences. Finally, they reflected on their learning and the transformation of their identities and pr actices and took part in member checking my interpretations of their mentoring relationships and their co-c onstruction of knowledge about teaching and learning. The Researcher and Her Roles Subjectivity has always been a part of research (G lesne, 1999) and in this section I explore aspects of my relational history and past experiences that might influence my perceptions and interpretations of the data in th is study. I have spent most of my life in educational contexts. There were times when I was positioned as a student, and there were other times when I was positioned as a teacher. I have come to believ e that these two identiti es, student and teacher, exist for me in a fluid, interactive, and ever ch anging relationship. One identity influences and informs the other, and there are instances in which they operate in tandem. Even now, my identities as a teacher and a student are not fu lly formed, and I will continue to use my lifes experiences to make sense of who I am as a teacher and student. Student teaching is usually a requirement fo r becoming a certified teacher. Thus, the mentees, their mentors, and I have all had an expe rience of being placed in a classroom with an in-service teacher in order to begin to constr uct our teaching practices and our identities as teachers. As a pre-service teacher, I was placed in the classrooms of two in-service teachers who were responsible for supe rvising my practicum experi ences. I remember friendly

PAGE 68

68 relationships with both of my cooperating teacher s, and they provided me with the technical assistance I needed, as well as the evaluations required by my program. While my relationships with them did influence my understanding of teachi ng, I would not have described either of them as a mentor. They provided me with feedback re garding my teaching, but we did not engage in a critical reflection of our practices and the larger educational cont ext. More recently, during my Masters and doctoral studies, I have encountered several professors whom I consider mentors. These professors were often not the advisors that the university assigned me. Instead, we found each other and made a mutual decision to devel op a relationship. They have provided a critical friendship that has proved benefici al to my growth as a researcher and scholar. However, as I write this, Im reminded of a quote from Fish (1990) that, all objects are made and not found and they are made by the interpretive strategies we set in motion (p. 191). So while we had to physically find one another, my understanding of mentoring has been constructed in relationship with these men and women. My identity as a mentee has developed and is understood in relation to the experiences I have had with my mentors in the particular c ontexts in which we are located. As Lucas (2001) suggests, Defining what a mentor or a mentee is presen ts a perfectly arranged, still-life painting. Although this image is beautiful and inspirational, it is a l ovely fantasy of recollected impact. I propose that taking on the role of a mentor or mentee in a planned mentoring relationship is a dynamic, in terpersonal process (p. 46). For me, mentoring is continually constructed and reconstructed, and my identity as a mentee, and the identity of my mentor ar e the objects of constant assessm ent and negotiation as we share experiences within the context of our particular relationship. I have also had the opportunity to work as a supervisor of pre-service teachers for the university and have supported inte rns and pre-interns as they began to develop identities as teachers. Positioned as a supervisor, I believed my main responsibility to be one of facilitating

PAGE 69

69 the interns critical reflection on their own practices, as well as th e educational contexts in which they were situated. However, I found that, once ag ain, my identity as a s upervisor and the roles I fulfilled were constructed in relationship with interns and mentors. Some interns needed more guidance when developing lesson plans; others had very specific ideas about the teaching behaviors they wished me to sc rutinize, which influenced my observations of their specific lessons and the ways in which I engaged them in reflection. I also developed relationships with the classroom mentor teachers and sometimes s upported mentors and interns as they negotiated particularly troublesome times within their relationship. Because our perceptions of any experience are influenced by our relational histories, it is important to disclose that my history includes previous relationships with all of the mentor teachers who volunteered to partic ipate in this study. I was Jame ss university supervisor during his internship in 2002-2003. Both Barbara and Ja mes mentored some of the pre-interns whom I supervised during fall, 2006, and I had numerous conversations with Kenneth in the faculty room of Allenton Elementary. As I conducted my analysis and shared my findings, I noted instances when I believe my subjectivity might have influenced my interpretations. All of these experiences, as well as extens ive reading of the literature devoted to mentoring, piqued my interest and provoked a passi on to study the relationships of mentors and mentees. Because many of the same classroom t eachers volunteer to be mentors each year, I had witnessed the different ways in which the inte rns and classroom teachers co-constructed their mentoring relationships and iden tities as mentors and mentees. Some of the mentors and mentees were closely aligned personally and prof essionally and this alignment seemed to benefit the learning of both. Others found that the disparity between their professional beliefs constrained their relationship. Sometimes these differences were negotia ted, other times, ignored,

PAGE 70

70 often with consequences that went beyond the partic ular situation. My experiences as an insider and an outsider have led me to believe that, b ecause relationships and id entities are constructed through discourse, there is something to be di scovered in the dialogue and silences of a mentoring relationship. It is these beliefs that shaped my study. My roles within this study were multiple and th is multiplicity created a number of tensions that furthered complicated the decisions I made about how to position myself at particular instances over the course of this research. My initial role and positioning as the principal researcher was reinforced by the universitys IRB re quirements, as well as by the expectations of the men and women who volunteered to participate in th is study. In our fi rst dialogue session, I told my participants that I wished to position th em as co-researchers and that I wanted them to engage each other as we discussed mentoring and to suggest meaningful topics and issues we could explore together. Although there were instances when one or more of my co-researchers would begin our dialogue sessions w ith a pressing concern or observation, I found that they often looked to me for specific questions to guide thei r discussion. In additi on, my participants had not been involved in the design of the study and were not necessarily as interested in or as passionate about studying situated mentoring relationships. I was also conflicted about the consequences of engaging with the mentors and mentees in the co-cons truction of knowledge about mentoring. What were the parameters of my being a participant in the dialogue sessions? I found that not only did I sometimes have to ask the questions that provided an impetus and direction for our dialogues, but I also realized that sometimes when I commented on what I had heard, my words often normalized and ended that particular discussion. Even when I attempted to probe further, the discussion was shor t lived and generated no new meanings or understandings.

PAGE 71

71 Moreover, although my educational background provided me with some inside knowledge of the context and the various discourses, I felt, for the most part, like an outsider, especially with regard to the particulars of the mentoring relationships that were being developed between these mentors and their mentees. For the most pa rt I observed them as they used dialogue to negotiate their positionings and to define their id entities. I was unsure of my place in their coconstruction of knowledge about ment oring and did not wish for my participation in any of their discussions to be viewed as interference or, ev en worse, harmful. Consequently, I was often silent and simply listened to their dialogue and obse rved their interactions. Even so I influenced their co-construction of mentori ng because I provided them with a space in which to discuss the issues that concerned them a nd to reflect on previous experi ences that were shaping their identities and practices a space th ey might not have created otherw ise. In fact, one of my coresearchers commented that their relationship was even better because of their discussions during our dialogue sessions. While I was always positioned as an observer of the interactions within the classroom, I also actively participated in those same cla ssrooms and worked with individual students who needed assistance with assignments. In these instances, I focused on th e task at hand and may have missed other interactions in the classroom that might have been pertinent to my study. However, I did gain a more elaborate understa nding of the context a nd the students, which enriched my understanding of the dialogue, especial ly when I was reduced to relying only on the transcripts. In summary, my roles within this study varied between those expected of a more traditional researcher and those emerging from a social constructionist perspective of coresearchers. Thus, I asked questions and liste ned to responses, all th e while encouraging the

PAGE 72

72 mentors and mentees to suggest topics for disc ussion and to co-construc t the dialogue sessions with me. I was an observer and a participant in the classroom. I interpreted the data, shared my understandings, and returned to the data again. My varied roles within this research context have transformed the ways in which I think about research and I will discuss my shifting understandings and perceptions in the trustworthiness se ction of this chapter. Data Collection There were a num ber of gatekeepers from whom I had to obtain permission before I was granted access to a context for my study. Initiall y, I applied to the universitys IRB and gained consent to conduct my study in November, 2006. I then applied for permission to conduct research from the school boards department of research, assessment, and student information. In their application I described the purposes of my study and the kinds of data I would be collecting, as well as the responsib ilities of the participants. I was also required to name the specific schools to which I hoped to gain access. I applied to nine different elementary schools and ultimately one principal agreed to grant me access. On January 25, 2007 I attended a meeting of all the mentors in that school and so licited volunteers for my study. I described the purpose of my study, the parameters of their participation in it, as well as the potential benefits of this research for me and for them. Three ment ors, Kenneth, Barbara, and James volunteered to participate. I then scheduled and conducted meetings with their pre-interns and explained the study and the ways in which they might participat e in it. All of the pre-interns agreed to participate. At this point I as ked all the mentors and pre-interns to sign an informed consent. A complete timeline of the study can be found in Appendix A. Data were collected from the three mentor ing groups through the use of interviews (or dialogue sessions) and participant observations. Interviews were chosen because they made use of the discourse in which the participants were situated and could be used to understand the

PAGE 73

73 world from the participants points of view, to unfold the meaning of their experience, and to uncover their lived worlds (Kvale, 1996, p. 1). However, there are limitations to what can be learned through what people say, so participant observation was used to el aborate the complexity of the relationship as demonstr ated through the mentors and mentees behavior and other nonverbal aspects of their discourse. The data collected through these two methods complemented each other and were used to reveal and illuminate the realities that were being co-constructed by the participants as they engaged in the social world and practice of teaching. Data Sources: Dialogue Sessions Traditionally, interview s have b een conceptualized as interactional situations in which the researcher coordinates a conve rsation designed to elicit cert ain desired knowledge and the participants are limited to a relatively passive role of providing information from his or her personal experiences (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003). Interviewing has also been understood as a means of enabling the researcher to understand the world from the participants point of view, to unfold the meaning of peoples experiences, to un cover their lived worlds prior to scientific explanations (Kvale, 1996; Rubin & Rubin, 1995). However, the interview itself is a cons truction site of knowledge and the knowledge generated is related to the conve rsation, the narrative, the language, the context, as well as the interrelational nature of knowledge, and here is an alte rnation between the knowers and the known, between the constructors of knowledge and the knowledge constructed (Kvale, 1996, p.15). According to Holstein and Gubrium (2003), the interview is more than a simple information-gathering operation; its a site of and occasion for, producing knowledge itself (p 4). Thus, meaning is actively and socially constructed in the interview itself and the value of the interview data lies not only in their meanings, but in how those meanings are constructed (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003).

PAGE 74

74 These new understandings of interviewing were well suited to the study I had designed, but I felt that the term interview might carry the remnants of its traditional meanings into my research context, and so I deci ded to name my data collection methods dialogue sessions. These sessions encouraged all participants to be actively engaged in and responsible for the coconstruction of knowledge, and Koro-Ljungbergs (2008) understanding of a constructionist interview provided a framework for these sessions: Constructionist interviews are dialogical pe rformances, social meaning-making acts, and cofacilitated knowledge exchanges. In orde r for researchers to understand the meaningmaking activities that take place during an interview, they must focus on the actions of individuals that influence the immediate social process and co ntext of the interview, as well as those actions that have been influences by other sociopolictical contexts or discourses (p. 430). Finally, the qualitative research er is, herself, a research in strument and is not neutral, distant, or emotionally uninvolved (Kvale, 1996). In fact, neutrality is not a legitimate goal; rather the researcher attempts to achieve balan ce, listening for multiple sides of a story (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). However, a qualitative researcher mu st be sensitive to her own biases and to the social and intellectual baggage she brings to the interview (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 14) and consider how these subjectivities influence the knowledge that is co-c onstructed within the interview, as well as the interpretations she arri ves at during analysis. For these reasons I have provided a subjectivity statement and continually consid ered how my subject ivities might have influenced the research process. I spent one day a week in the classroom of each mentoring group. Mondays were spent with Kenneth and Susan, Tuesdays with Barbar a, Elizabeth, and Melissa, and Thursdays with James, Amy, and Jessica. The dialogue session s with Kenneth and Susan were scheduled for after school, while the dialogue sessions fo r the other two groups took place during their planning periods. I conducted five dialogue sessions with Kenne ths group and seven sessions

PAGE 75

75 with each of the other two groups. The discrepancy in the number of sessions conducted was due to a federal holiday that occurred on a M onday and personal obligations of some of the participants. Sometimes the dialogue sessions included a discussion of a felt difficulty or concern of one of the participants. Other discus sions focused on what had occurred that day in the classroom. Still other dialogues sessions capture d the interactions of the mentor and mentees as they engaged in one of the activities of mentoring or teachi ng (e.g., planning a lesson, conducting a post conference). See Appendix B fo r a summary of the dates and topics of the dialogue sessions for each of the mentoring groups. Each dialogue session was audio-taped and transcribed verbatim, within a weeks time when my schedule permitted. In order to prepare for each weeks dialogue session, I listened to the previous weeks tape, noting points within the discussion that I wished to revisit or noting additional topics that might make for fruitful discussions. Although the topics of our interview discussions, as well as the roles we assumed within these dial ogue sessions were negotiated by the mentors, the pre-interns and me, I also prepar ed a list of questions that might be used to initiate a discussion. At the beginning of each session, mentors and mentees were encouraged to share any thoughts they had on previous dialogu e sessions or on any in teractions that had occurred during the past week. If the mentors and pre-interns ha d nothing pressing to discuss, I used the questions I had prepared to begin th e dialogue session. The participants, including myself, determined the breath and depth of each discussion, re flecting and elaborating on our own statements, as well as questioning each other. Before the final dialogue session, I listened to the tapes of all the sessions for each group and noted salient points (see Appendix C), which I shared with the participants of each group in or der to member check my initial interpretations (Creswell, 1998). I encouraged them to extend or el aborate their understandi ngs of any of these

PAGE 76

76 points and to propose additional topics that would fu rther illustrate or illuminate their mentoring relationship and individual tran sformations. The comments I received during this member check most often included the participan ts amazement as to the elaborat e nature and influence of their mentoring relationships. In addition to these dialogue sessions, I ke pt a researchers note book in which I recorded my personal feelings about and reactions to th e discussions, as well as reflections about the meaning and significance of what was said (P atton, 2002). I describe d the setting and the demeanor of all participants during the dialogue session. More over, I used the notebook to record my insights, interpretati ons, and beginning analyses of what was happening in the setting and what it meant (Patton, 2002) (See Appendix. D) Data Sources: Participant Observation Although my primary source of data collection was the dialogue sessions, I also wanted to study our relationship in action, as the activities in which we engaged in the classroom were part of the discourse in which we were situated and reflected the knowledge we were coconstructing or our own individual transformations in non-verbal ways. Participant observation enabled the study of our relations hips and activities, as well as the immediate sociocultural contexts in which these relationships unfolde d (Jorgenson, 1989). Thus, I noted the language, behaviors, and interactions am ong us, as well as between any one of the co-researchers and the students in the classroom. However, this obse rvation data was a secondary data source and was not subjected to extensive analysis. Instead it was used to elaborate a nd understand the social context in which we were situated and to locate my study within that context. My observations took the form of written field notes in whic h I noted my own actions, as well as those of the mentors and mentees. Thes e notes were expanded the evening after each session. The expanded field notes also containe d information similar to that found in the

PAGE 77

77 researchers notebook in which I reflected upon my dialogue sessions wi th the pre-service teachers and mentors (i.e., my thoughts, feelings, initial interpretations, additional questions). I shared my expanded field notes and reflections with my participants and asked for their interpretations and reflections, which, if there were any, I then record ed these in my notebook (see Appendix E). Data Analysis According to Phillips and Hardy (2002), s ocial reality is produced and made real through discourses and social inte ractions and cannot be fully understood without reference to the discourses that give them mean ing (p. 3). Therefore, I decided to use discourse analysis to analyze the interactions that occurred between me ntors, mentees, and a university researcher as we engaged in the study of thei r mentoring and teaching practi ces. Because their discourses were embodied and enacted in a variety of texts, and these texts took a vari ety of forms including spoken words, symbols, pictures, and artifact s (Fairclough, 2003; Gee, 1999; Phillips & Hardy, 2002), discourse analysis was a useful method of an alysis due to its strong constructionist view and the way in which it explored the relationships between text, discourse, and context (Phillips & Hardy, 2002). Ultimately, discourse analysis examined how language constructed phenomena and assumed that the world cannot be known sepa rately from discourse (Fairclough, 2003; Gee, 1999; Phillips & Hardy, 2002). Because mentori ng relationships were most often constructed and negotiated through dialogue, I fe lt that discourse analysis w ould prove useful in uncovering the meanings that are often veiled by our take n for granted assumptions about language-in-use. To this end, I employed two aspects from two co mplementary forms of discourse analysis: the method developed by James P. Gee, as well as the critical discourse analysis described by Norman Fairclough.

PAGE 78

78 Table 3-3, found at the end of the chapter, provides a summary of the data analysis I describe in this section. My analysis began as I transcribed the interviews. The dialogue sessions were transcribed verbatim and certain dialogical interactions were notated, those interactions being pauses, words or phrases that were emphasized, overlapping speech, and descriptions of events such as coughs or laughter. Appendix F provides an abbreviated example of my transcription and Table 3-1 lists the conversational interactions that were identified and the ways those interactions we re notated (Grbich, 2007). Table 3-1. Conversational interactions and their notations Conversation Interaction Notation Just noticeable pause Longer pause Word Underlined sounds or words were emphasized ( ) Unidentifiable speech [ [ Successive brackets on two lines with utterances from different speakers indicate the start of overlapping speech. ] ] A right bracket bridging two lines indicates that overlapping or simultaneous utterances at this point have stopped. (( )) Description of events, e.g., ((coughs)) or ((laughs)) After the tapes were transcribed, I printed each transcript and read through the entire set of each groups dialogue sessions. I read through the data a second time, making notes next to excerpts that seemed to apply to one or both of my research questions. I used open coding during a third read of the data in order to reduce and organize it. Once I had a list of open codes, I grouped similar codes together and used these groups to identify the di scourses in which the codes and accompanying data excerpts were lo cated. After the discour ses were identified, I employed two aspects of both Gees and Fairclo ughs discourse analyses in order to further interpret and understand the data. Gees discourse analysis was used to conduct a macro analysis

PAGE 79

79 of the data, identifying the activities and identities of mentoring. Fairclou ghs discourse analysis was used to conduct a micro anal ysis of the same excerpts in order to understand how language was used to construct the activit ies and identities of mentoring. The analytic process was an iterative, not a linear one and each step in my anal ysis caused me to return to previous steps and interpretations, and even now, I do not feel that my analysis is de finitive or final. The sections that follow describe the two analysis methods I employed, as well as the wa ys in which I utilized them. Gees Discourse Analysis (Macro Analysis) According to Gee (1999, 2005) discourse is language used in tandem with action, interactions, non-linguistic symbol systems, objects, tools, technologies, a nd distinctive ways of thinking valuing, feeling, and believing (p. 11). Because discourse plays an important role in the construction of mentoring re lationships, this anal ysis method can be used to discern the meaning and value of aspects of the material world, activities, identities and relationships, politics, connections, and semiotics that occur between mentors and mentees (Gee, 1999, 2005). Moreover, Gee (2005) suggests that we use language to build seven areas of reality and I focused on two of them: activities and identities, as I be lieved that these building tasks provided me with analytic methods that would enable me to answer my research questions. Therefore, I asked the following two questions of the identified data excerpts that exemplified language in use: What activity or activities is th is piece of language being used to enact (i.e., get others to recognize as going on)? What identity or identities is this piece of language being used to enact (i.e., get others to recognize as operative)? The activities were sometimes described by th e participants in statements or longer narratives (e.g., I emailed my mentor teacher for a dvice). At other times the participants were actively engaged in the task (i.e., teaching a le sson, reflecting on a lesson) and the activity (i.e.,

PAGE 80

80 asking for feedback) became apparent based on the language they used as they interacted with one another (e.g., I wondered how I could have managed that situation differently?). The identities being enacted in the excerpts were eith er stated directly in I statement (e.g., I am a special education teacher) or were implied by th e language used in their statements. For instance, in a discussion about how to teach vocabulary, Melissa cited course readings and research and assumed an identity of expert in this particular discussion as she was the one providing the information. According to Gee (1999, 2005), an ideal disc ourse analysis involves asking questions about how language, at a given time and place, is used to construe the aspects of a situation network as realized at that time and place and how the aspects of the situation network simultaneously give meaning to that language (p 92). Recognizing that no discourse analysis could be ideal, I still made use of the following que stions that he suggested were relevant for an analysis of how language is used to construct activities and identities: Activity building: W hat is the larger or main activity (or set of activities) going on in the situation? What sub-activities compose this activity (or these activities)? What actions (down to the level of things like requests for reasons) compose these subactivities and activities? Socioculturally-situated identity building: W hat identities (roles, positions), with their concomitant persona, social, and cultural knowledge and beliefs (cognition), f eelings (affect), and values seem to be relevant to the situation? How are these identities stabilized or transformed in the situation? In terms of identities and activities, what Di scourses are relevant (a nd irrelevant) in the situation? How are they made relevant (and irrelevant), and in what ways?

PAGE 81

81 While Gees discourse analysis was used for a macro analysis of the data, I also thought it was important to analyze the distinctive grammar of the soci al language(s) employed, as well as the ways in which the grammatical units were used to create patterns that influenced the situated identities of the participants and the sp ecific activities in which they engaged. The whos and whats are not really discrete and separable. You are wh o you are partly through what you are doing and what you are doing is partly recognized for what it is by who is doing it (Gee, 2005, p. 23). Thus, I utilized two aspects of Faircloughs critical discourse analysis to illuminate how language was used to construct and was c onstructed by the particip ants identities and activities within a specific context, and how th ese situated meanings and identities were negotiated by the participants enga ged in communicative interactions. Faircloughs Critical Discours e An alysis (Micro Analysis) Faircloughs (2003) approach to discourse an alysis is based upon the assumption that language is an irreducible part of social life, dialetic ally interconnected with other elements of social life, so that social analys is and research always have to take account of language (p. 2). The main emphasis of this discourse analysis is a grammatical and semantic one; although he acknowledges that texts, or language in use, contribute to transformation in people, actions, social relations, and the material world. He believes that texts n eed to be analyzed in order to clarify their contribution to pr ocesses of meaning making and hi s analysis methods are designed to uncover the ways in which social agents cons truct texts by setting up relations between the elements within a text. Fairclough (2003) further cautions that no analysis of a text can reveal everything there is to be said about it. The analysis of any text is always biased by the subjectivity of the analyst and remains pr ovisional and open to other interpretations. I decided to use two aspects of Faircloughs cr itical discourse analys is: (a) difference, and (b) exchanges, speech functions, and grammatical mood. Each of the mentoring relationships

PAGE 82

82 that I explored was composed of people with disp arate relational histories, previous experiences, and perceptions, and according to Fairclough (20 03), the production of any interaction as meaningful entails active and cont inual negotiation of differences of meaning (p. 41). Therefore, it seemed that the participants would us e their dialogical interactions to negotiate their differences; therefore, analyzing their orientati on to difference might uncover the ways in which their perceptions, understandings, and identities we re transformed. Additionally, because Gees theory of discourse is one of language in use, I wanted to investigate how the participants used words and sentences to co-construct knowledge and id entities as they engage d in the activities of mentoring. Fairclough (2003) identified five scenarios related to differen ce that I employed to analyze the dialogue: An openness to, acceptance of, reco gnition of difference; an explor ation of difference, as in dialogue in the riches t sense of the term An accentuation of difference, conflict, pol emic, a struggle over meaning, norms, power An attempt to resolve or overcome difference A bracketing of difference, a focus on commonality, solidarity Consensus, a normalization and acceptance of differences of power which brackets or suppresses difference of meaning and norms Finally, social events, such as the activities of mentoring are enacted in dialogue, which, according to Fairclough (2003), consists of two pr imary types of exchanges, a number of speech functions, as well as the gramma tical mood, or the way in which meanings are realized through sentence type. Questions that were asked of the data included: What are the predominant types of exchange (activity exchange or knowledge exchange) and speech functions (statement, question, demand, offer)? What types of statements are there? (realis st atements, [i.e., statements of fact], irrealis statements, [i.e,. predictions a nd hypotheticals], and evaluations)?

PAGE 83

83 Are there metaphorical relations between ex changes, speech functions, or types of statements (e.g., demands which appear as stat ements, evaluations which appear as factual statements)? What is the predominant grammatical mood (declarative, interrogative, imperative)? An exchange is a sequence of two or more conversational turns or m oves with alternating speakers, where the occurrence of move 1 leads to the expectation of move 2 and so forth, with the proviso that what is expected does not always occur (Cameron, 2001). Exchanges are oriented toward knowledge or activity. A knowledge ex change is a speech act that is oriented to providing information. It might be initiated by the person with the information (e.g., I am twenty-two years old.) or by the person who wants the knowledge (e.g., How old are you?). On the other hand, activity exchanges are often or iented to non-textual actions, such as doing things, or getting things done, rath er than just saying things. However, Answer the question! is an activity exchange that is oriented to a text ual action, that of providing the information in the form of an answer. Activity exchanges might also be initiated by the one who will perform the action (e.g., Do you want a coke?) or another desiring a specif ic action (e g., May I please have a coke?). Speech functions include demands, offers, ques tions, and statements. Statements are of three types. Realis statements are statements of fact about what is, was, or has been the case (e.g., I met Violeta yesterday evening.). Irrea lis statements include pr edictions (e.g., I will meet Violeta tomorrow.) and hypothetical statements (e.g., I might meet Violeta [if she comes to England]). Evaluations might be phrased as statements or exclamations (e.g., Violet is a fine person or What a fine person!) Demands include ordering, requesting, and begging; while offers included promising, threatening, promising, and thanking. Speech function and the distinction between main sentence types (declarative, interrogative, and imperative) are related to grammatical mood, but th e relationship is not

PAGE 84

84 necessarily a straightforward one. The stronge st link is between d eclarative clauses and statements. Questions are usually interrogative, but there were also declarative questions (e.g., How old are you? and Youre ove r eighteen?) Offers could be interrogative (Do you want a coke?), imperative (Have a c oke.), or declarative (Heres a coke.). Demands are most often imperative (Give me a coke.), but they could also be interroga tive in the case of question-requests (May I have a coke?), or declarative (I want a coke.). Determining the speech function of a clause often requires taking acc ount of social contextual factors. Then the mood of a text is differentiated by the distribut ion of speech functions among the participants and the ways in which the speech functions are real ized (e.g., as declarative questions rather than interrogatives. Fairclough (2003) also recognizes the metaphor ical relationships among exchanges and speech functions. One such metaphorical relationsh ip is a hortatory report in which texts are apparently oriented to knowledge exchange but were actually oriented (also) to activity exchange. Factual statements were to a significant degree eval uations (Fairclough, 2003, p. 112). For instance, the website of a university, while providing information about its location and academic culture may, at the same time, be promoting itself as the best of all possible educational worlds. Thus, I used Faircloughs critical discourse an alysis in order to unc over how discourse was used to make meaning of a social practice (men toring), how discourses we re used to represent the practice of mentoring, as well as how discour ses were used to negotiate the practice of mentoring. This analysis was useful in that it supported the notion of a constructed reality and provided analytical tools that en abled a micro-analysis of the in teraction between participants. Furthermore, the analysis of the participants orientation to difference uncovered the multiple

PAGE 85

85 and diverse voices that were crea ted or constructed as a means of collaboration or resistance. According to Fairclough (2003), discourses are in herently positioned and the ways in which the participants in this study util ized discourse to make meaning, as well as to negotiate their differences provided insight in to the ways in which they understood and transformed their practices and identities. Trustworthiness In this sectio n, I begin by discussing the more traditional understandings of validity as they apply to qualitative research. I then consider Gees understandings of validity and use them to assess the trustworthin ess of my study. The chapter co ncludes with a summary and an introduction to the findings chapters. Because research is designed to understand and improve practice, researchers want to feel confident when incorporating research findings into practice, for what we do affects the lives of real people (Merriam, 1995). Es tablishing the internal validity of a study is a way of doing this and by attending to how congruent ones findings are with reality. The following strategies were employed to strengthen the internal validit y of my study: (a) tr iangulation, (b) member checks, (c) peer review, (d) statement of the re searchers experiences, assumptions, biases, and (e) submersion/engagement in the research situ ation. Triangulation, as described by Denzin (1978) is of four types: (a) data triangulation, (b) investig ator triangulation, (c) theory triangulation, and (d) methodological triangulation. For the purposes of this study, I engaged in data triangulation, using data collected from di alogue sessions and observa tions. I also employed two complementary discourse analysis methods (methodological triangulatio n) when interpreting the data. Member checking involved returni ng to my participants with my data and interpretations and seeking their f eedback as to the credibility of my representations of their lived relationships (Creswell, 1998). Before each dialogue session, I shared my understanding of the

PAGE 86

86 previous dialogue session with th e participants and asked for their comments and feedback. At the beginning of our final dial ogue session I shared my interpre tations of the activities and identities that had been construc ted by the mentors and mentees and solicited their feedback as to the validity of my interpretations. At that time, the participants did not dispute my interpretations and several commented that they had not been aware of how much had occurred within and as a result of their mentoring relationships. Peer review (Creswell, 1998) involved soliciting the commen ts of peers and colleagues, and I have asked Dr. Nancy Dana and Dr. Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, as well as other members of my committee, for their feedback regarding the rigor of my met hods and the trustworthiness of my interpretations. I made clear my biases a nd assumptions in a subjectivity statement that enabled the reader to understand the influences a nd lenses that shaped my interpretations. My researchers notebook and reitera tive process of data analysis provided me with an ongoing means of assessing the influence of my subjectivities. Finally, I engaged these participants over the course of nine weeks, in a series of complex interactions, and I used data obtained during previous interactions to make deci sions about subsequent interactions. Additionally, I have provided my readers with an audit tr ail, a precise and detailed accounting of data collection a nd analysis and a description of how decisions were made throughout the research process (Creswell, 1998) My audit trail included my audiotaped interviews, as well as the written transcripts of the interviews, my reflections on the interviews, my observation notes and expanded field notes, as well as my rese archers notebook that served as a record of my activities and reflections about the data and the research process. External validity is concerned with the exte nt to which the findings of one study can be applied to a new situation, and th is is not usually the goal of qu alitative inquiry (Wolcott, 1994).

PAGE 87

87 Qualitative researchers realize that their findings are situated and they leave the speculation of how their findings can be transferre d to new situations to the reader s of their research. However, there are several strategies th at might enable a reader to make judgments regarding the transferability of the re sults of this study, among them thick description. Due to the detailed accounts of my methods, my data, a nd my interpretations, re aders of my research will be able to determine whether or not their specific situation matches the one found in my study and whether or not the transferability of my interpretations to their context is appropriate. Gee (2005) argues that validity is never o nce and for all (p. 113) and that some discourse analyses are more valid than others. However, he suggests that validity for discourse analysis can be based on four elements: (a) convergence, (b) ag reement, (c) coverage, and (d) linguistic details. For Gee (2005) convergence is concerned with the ways in which the answers to the building task questions c onverge in the way they support the analysis. The two building tasks that I chose for the analysis were comple mentary, and I was able to answer all of the questions for Gees (2005) activity building and socioculturally si tuated identity building tasks for the excerpts that I chose to analyze. Indee d, the answers that I uncov ered to these questions converged in a way that provide d a relatively detailed and s ituated interpretation of the participants activitie s and identities. Agreement considers the answer s to the building task questions as more convincing when other discourse analysts or othe r kinds of researchers support our conclusions. Dr. Danas and Dr. Koro-Ljungbergs peer review supported the conclusions I drew from my analysis, and provided agreement for my findings. On the othe r hand, coverage provides a measure of validity through questioning whether or not an analysis can be applied to related sorts of data. My interpretations uncovered some si milarities across the th ree mentoring groups, with regard to the

PAGE 88

88 kinds of activities that the mentors and mentees constructed, providing co verage. All of the mentoring groups engaged in developing rapport, in communicating, in planning lessons, and in providing feedback. However, the ways in whic h they engaged in these activities was also dissimilar based on the specific identities the mentors and mentees constructed. For example, when providing feedback, Kenneth constructed an id entity as a facilitator of reflection; whereas James and Barbara constructed identities as expert s and providers of constructive criticism. These differences in coverage were due to the me ntors situated understand ings of mentoring and the nature of the mentoring relationships in whic h they were engaged. Additionally, my analysis of the speech exchanges and the participants orientation to difference provided a means of linking their dialogue to the comm unicative functions they were enacting and the activities and identities they were constructi ng, thereby providing validity th rough my analysis of linguistic details or the linguistic structur e of the dialogue. However, as Gee (2006) suggests, validity is social, not individual, and is never finished. Therefore, although I can argue for the validity of my study, it will always be subject to further di scussion and dispute as the field evolves. Limitations While research is conducted in order to br oaden and deepen our understanding of human beings and other phenom ena, it is also limited or constrained by its design and the ways in which the data are collected an d interpreted. Limitations of my study included: (a) subjectivities and positionings of the principal researcher, (b) qualit y/authenticity of the interactions between the researcher and the participants, (c) limitations of social constructio nist research, and (d) limitations of the data collection methods. Subjectivities and Positionings of the Principal Researcher Because I co -constructed the context, as we ll as many of the inte ractions with my participants, my subjectivities and biases influe nced the data collection and data analysis. I

PAGE 89

89 wrote a subjectivity statement in which I made my relevant experiences beliefs, biases, and affiliations transparent. As I reflected on my data collection and analysis, I attempted to remain aware of how my subjectivity was influencing th e context and processes of data collection and analysis, as well as the interpretation and conclu sions I drew from my findings. I have used member checking and peer review as a means of overcoming this limitation. Quality/Authenticity of the Interactions betw een the Researcher and the Participants Furthermore, even though I attempted to position the mentors and mentees as coresearchers, there may still have been instances when they felt as if they were research subjects, and so I considered the impact of this perception on the nature of our inte ractions, as well as the candor of their responses. I worked hard to establish a rapport a nd friendship with my participants, and I used member checking in an a ttempt to allow my participants to clarify any misunderstandings or misinterpretations that may have occurred during the data collection and data analysis process. The Challenges of Social Constructionist Research According to W einberg (2008) soc ial constructionist studies are those that seek, at least in part, to replace fixed, universalis tic, and sociohistorically invarian t conceptions of things with more fluid, particularistic, and sociohistorically embedded conceptions of them (p. 14). My research, in which I chose to inve stigate the very partic ular and evolving rela tionships of mentors and mentees, who were situated in a specific co ntext and within specific Discourse(s) that influenced the construction of their knowledge, identities, and practices seemed suited to a social constructionist study. However, I was inte rested in more than si mply designing a social constructionist study. I also want ed to conduct it in a social constructionist, more participatory, way.

PAGE 90

90 Social constructionist research does not rec ognize the authority of one participant over the other. Ideally, all participants are involved in every part of the research process. However, certain aspects of my particular study made this ideal situation im possible. First, I was required to design the study in order to attain IRB approva l and was unable to engage the participants in designing the research and choosi ng the research questions. Mo reover, even though I attempted to position the mentors and pre-interns as collabor ative researchers, they tended to resist this positioning and although they did become comfortable suggesting topics for discussion in our dialogue sessions, they never fully reconstructed their posi tioning of me as a principal researcher. Their understanding of the research process was aligned with more traditional understandings of the in terview situation in which the rese archer dominates the interaction within the interview sess ion and controls the data and its interpretations (Kvale, 2006). As KoroLjungberg (2008) has suggested in social constructionist re search, The knowing subjects negotiate the research design, in terview agenda and topics a nd analysis methods, analytic insights, and preferred representati on of the data (pp. 442-443). This is what my co-researchers and I must learn to do together. Additionally, the ways in which the knowers participate within a study are affected by their prior knowledge and commitment to the project (Koro-Ljungberg, 2008), and our roles in the research process, as well as the knowledge we are constructing, will be subject to continuous critical reflection and negotiation. As Wagner (1 997) has suggested the research process should be one of reflexive, systematic inquiry th at is stimulated by ongoing collegial communication between researchers and practitioners. C onsequently, an openness to difference and a willingness to explore those differences in an effort to create new worlds (Gergen, 1999), as well as an ability to collaborat e and negotiate with others who may or may not agree with our

PAGE 91

91 perspective (Koro-Ljungberg, 2008) are essential characteristics of a social constructionist researcher. Unfortunately, from my point of view, teacher s (the most likely population of my future studies) have tended to regard themselves as re search subjects (Wagner, 1997) and I will have to consider ways in which to negotiate and reconstruct this perception wi th those who wish to engage with me in studying our practices. Alt hough I have long since re linquished any notion of a researcher as a person in a wh ite coat sitting behind a one-way mirror observing subjects in a sterile, laboratory setting, I have found that I am still affected by residual aspects of my previous conceptions of research and the Discourses in whic h I have been situated. I will continue to read and to seek opportunities to engage with others in this kind of research and to engage in the construction and transformation of the soci al constructionist research process. Limitations of the Data Collection Methods Each data collection method has its own strengths and limitations. Interview data is sometimes limited by distorted responses due to pe rsonal bias, anger, anxiety, politics or simple lack of awareness (Patton, 2002). In addition, the interview data may also be distorted when interviewees resort to self-serving responses. As researcher s, we must be aware of our relationships with those being in terviewed and take care not to reduce them to objects. These were issues that I considered as I anal yzed and interpreted the dialogue sessions. A limitation of observation data is that it onl y focuses on external behaviors and is often constrained by the limited sample of activities th at are actually occurring during the timeframe of the observation (Patton, 2002). Again, because the participants were aware of being observed, their engagement with others in the setting mi ght have been less authentic and intended to promote an identity that they believed was self-serving or desired by the researcher.

PAGE 92

92 Triangulating my data collection methods might se rve to overcome the li mitations inherent in using any one of these methods alone. Summary In summ ary, my research study was framed w ithin a social construc tivist perspective in order to investigate how me ntors and mentees utilized discourse in understanding and negotiating their relationship and what role th is mentoring relationship played in their construction of knowledge about teaching and lear ning, as well as the transformation of their individual identities and practices. Data, in the form of dialogue sessions and observations was collected from three mentoring groups. Each grou p was composed of an in-service teacher, two pre-interns, who were enrolled in the ProTeach teacher education program at a local university, and me. Data were analyzed using two of the building tasks from Gees discourse analysis (activities and sociocultural ident ities), as well as two aspects of Faircloughs critical discourse analysis (orientation to difference and speech exchanges, speech functions, and grammatical moods). My interpretations underwent member ch ecking and peer review in order to enhance their validity. Ultimately, I atte mpted to share a rich description of the research process, the multi-layered voices of the mentors, mentees, and myself, as well as the questions I asked of the data so that a reader of this re search could make his or her own decision about its validity, ethical rigor, and transferability. Overview of Chapters 4, 5, and 6 The purpose of the next three chap ters is to present my findings, filtered through the lenses provided by my research questions. In each ch apter, I shall first provide a biographical description of the participants in the mentoring group, as well as the context in which they were situated. Next, I utilize a table, which is locate d at the end of each ch apter, to summarize how the participants used dialogue, which was situat ed in and among three discourses (i.e., discourse

PAGE 93

93 of mentoring, discourse of instruction, and discourse of classr oom management), to transform the activities and practices of mentoring and t eaching, as well as the identities they coconstructed and enacted over the course of their relationship. In addition, the table also summarizes the textual analysis that was performe d throughout each chapter. Evidence of this textual analysis included the types of exchanges and speech functions that were used to enact each of the activities and identities as well as the participants or ientation to difference as they negotiated and constructed their iden tities and interactions within each of the activities. Next I use relevant and compelling excerpts from my da ta to illustrate how the mentor and mentee(s) used discourse to develop and maintain thei r mentoring relationships and to co-construct knowledge about teaching and learning. Each chap ter will conclude with a consideration of how the mentor and mentee(s) co-constructed their individual practices and identitie

PAGE 94

94 Table 3-2. Participant Information Mentoring Group Participant Biographical Information Kenneth Age: Thirties Race: Caucasian Role: Fourth grade teacher and mentor Teaching Experience: 9 years in ESE, third, and fourth grades Most Advanced Degree: Ed.S Mentoring Experience: 5-6 years Mentoring Group 1 Susan Age: 22 Race: Caucasian Future Plans: To teach in a Title 1 school Barbara Age: Fifties Race: Caucasian Role: Third grade teacher and mentor Teaching Experience: 23 years in junior college, second and third grades Most Advanced Degree: Masters degree Mentoring Experience: 7-8 years Elizabeth Age: 22 Race: Caucasian Future Plans: To teach special education Mentoring Group 2 Melissa Age: 21 Race: Caucasian Future Plans: To teach 2nd or 3rd grade in a school like Allenton James Age: Twenties Race: Caucasian Role: Fourth grade teacher and mentor Teaching Experience: Fours years in fourth grade. Most Advanced Degree: Ed.S Mentoring Experience: 3 years Amy Age: 22 Race: Caucasian Future Plans: To coach gymnastics Mentoring Group 3 Jessica Age: 21 Race: African-American Future Plans: To teach third, fourth, or fifth grade in Miami

PAGE 95

95 Table 3-3. The Reiterative Process of Data Analysis Analytic Step Description of Process Approximate Timeframe Transcription Audio-tapes were transcribed verbatim and notated. 1 month First reading of the data The transcriptions were divided by mentoring group and each set of transcripts was read in its entirety. 1 week Second reading of the data Each set of transcripts was read in its entirety. I noted excerpts that applied to one or both of my research questions. 1 week Third reading of the data: Open coding. Each set of transcripts was read in it entirety. I used open coding to reduce and group the data. 2 weeks Identification of the Discourses I used the open codes to identify the Discourse that were being employed in the data. 1 week Consideration of Gees and Faircloughs Discourse Analysis I re-read the books by Gee and Fairclough and consulted with Mirka Koro-Ljungberg to make decisions about which aspects of these analytic methods would be most useful for my study. 1-2 week Fourth reading of the data: Identification of the Discourses Each set of the transcripts was read in its entirety. This time I noted which Discourse(s) were evident in each of the excerpts related to my research questions. 2 weeks Fifth reading of the data: Gees analysis The identified excerpts were analyzed using Gees activity-building questions. 2 weeks Sixth reading of the data: Gees analysis The identified excerpts were analyzed using Gees socioculturally-situated identity building questions. 2 weeks Seventh reading of the data: Faircloughss analysis The identified excerpts were analyzed using Faircloughs Critical Discourse Analysis. The types of exchanges, speech functions, and grammatical mood were identified. 2 weeks Eighth reading of the data: Faircloughs analysis The identified excerpts were analyzed using Faircloughs Critical Discourse Analysis. The participants orientation to difference was identified. 2 weeks Construction of narrative for each mentoring group I used the excerpts I had analyzed to construct narratives that illustrate how each of the mentoring groups devel oped and maintained their mentoring relationship and how they coconstructed knowledge of teaching and learning, and how their identities and practices were transformed 2 months

PAGE 96

96 CHAPTER 4 ASKING QUESTIONS TO PROMOTE MENT EE-CENTERED MENTORING AND COLLABORATION Mentoring Group 1: Kenneth and Susan This m entoring group was situated in a fourth grade classroom at Allenton Elementary School. Originally the group was composed of a classroom teacher, Kenneth, and two preservice teaching interns, Susan and Karen. Howe ver, shortly after the semester began, Karen withdrew from this placement for personal reason s. She was not present when my study began; however, she did return for a vi sit and participated in one of the dialogue sessions. I spent Mondays with this group and most of our dialogue sessions occurred at the end of the school day. The Participants Susan was a twentytwo year old Caucasian female who will graduate with a Masters in elementary education. She has always wished to pursue a career in education because she believed it to be a rewarding profession. In fact, she has wanted to become a teacher ever since she attended kindergarten. Currently, she would pr efer to teach students in the primary grades, preferably here in the Allenton area, or she w ould consider moving north. Susan has chosen an interdisciplinary focus for her degree because sh e did not want to limit herself to teaching a specific content area, and she would prefer teaching in a Title 1 school. Kenneth was a Caucasian male in his thirties He was a national board certified teacher and held a specialist degree. He had nine years of experience teaching, all of it in Allenton Elementary. His first job after graduation was in an ESE classroom. The following year he was placed in a third grade classroom at Allenton, but he has been teaching fourth grade for the past eight years. In addition, he has mentored pre-interns and interns for the past five or six years. While he has enjoyed and benefited from mentor ing pre-service teachers, Kenneth originally

PAGE 97

97 requested that no one be placed with him in the fall of 2006. He believed that in order to become a better mentor he needed some time to rede fine himself as a teacher. However, due to a shortage of mentors, he agreed to take an intern during fall, 2006 and pre-interns during spring, 2007. Kenneth has also taught methods courses for the university, and next year he will be the site coordinator for Allenton Elementary and wi ll work part time for the university as field advisor for the pre-interns and part time for the school district as a gift ed educator at Allenton Elementary. Kenneth believed that this new ro le, as site coordinator, would strengthen and improve the connection between his school and the universitys teacher education program. The Context Susan and Kenneth were responsible for 24 four th grade students and their class reflected the dem ographic makeup of the school. Students desks were arranged in groups of four. There was a blackboard on one wall, a screen on anothe r and bulletin boards an d several computers on a third wall. The teachers desk was located at the back of the classroom. There was also a classroom library in the back of the room w ith several beanbags for student seating. Susans class schedule affected the amount of time she was able to spend with Kenneth in their fourth grade classroom. On Mondays sh e was able to spend the entire school day at Allenton Elementary School. However, on Tuesda ys Susan was only able to spend three hours in the morning and on Thursdays and Fridays Susa n spent four hours in the morning at school. Because Kenneths planning period occurred in th e afternoon, he and Susan only had one day in which an extended amount of time could be de voted to discussion, planning, and mentoring. They frequently engaged in abbreviated conversations in the morning before the students entered the classroom and in whispered asides when necessary throughout the day. Kenneth and Susan also made use of email and the phone in or der to communicate after hours and on weekends.

PAGE 98

98 Overview of Kenneths and Susans Discourse The purpose of this chapter was to investigat e how Kenneth and Susan utilized discourse to negotiate their relationship and what role their mentoring relationshi p played in their coconstruction of knowledge of teaching and learning. Hence, I sorted Kenneths and Susans discourse into two categories relative to the purposes of my study: relationship development and co-construction of knowledge. Table 4-1, which can be found at the end of this chapter, utilizes these two categories to summarize the ways I made use of aspects of Gees and Faircloughs discourse analysis to understand Kenneths and Su sans co-construction of their mentoring activities, as well as their id entities as mentor and mentee. As I analyzed the data in each of these categories, a number of distinctive activities emerged that characterized the nature of Kenneth s and Susans discourse. These activities included developing an understand ing of mentoring, es tablishing and maintaining rapport, communicating, observing, co-planning, providing f eedback, and reflecting (See Column Two). Each activity resulted in the c onstruction of specific identities, such as mentor and mentee as partners/friends; as facilitator and model, and as facilitator and reflective practitioner (See Column Three). Table 4-1 also reflects the ways that these ac tivities and subsequent identity formations were situated within three distinct discourses as discussed in Chapter 2: (a) the discourse of mentoring, (b) the discourse of cl assroom management, and (c) the discourse of instruction (See Column 4). Finally, the table indicates the ways in which these activities and subsequent identity formations emerged through a textual analysis and consideration of how Kenneth and Susan used dialogue to negotiate their differences as described in Chapter 3 (See Column 5). In the remainder of this chapter, I u tilize excerpts from the data to illustrate how each

PAGE 99

99 activity and identity summarized in Table 4-1 co ntributed to Kenneths and Susans relationship development and co-construction of knowledge. Developing and Maintaining a Mentoring Relationship According to McNam ee and Gergen (1999), per sons represent the intersection of multiple relationships (p. 22); therefore, anyone who begins a new relationship brings with him or her unique and specific relational histor ies that affect the ways in which future relationships are coconstructed and enacted. In this way, the relationships developed by each of the mentors and mentees were the result of their broader rela tional engagements [which] intermingle [and] are created and transformed (McNamee & Gergen, 1999). These previous relationships often resulted in the development of habits and exp ectations and it was th rough dialogue that the participants created possibilities for new and unique configurati ons, which were always in flux, and reshaped or recreated by the particul arities of a specific interactive moment. Developing an Understanding of Mentoring: Mentor and Mentee as Co-Constructors of Meaning Susans and Kenneths prior knowledge of a nd experience with m entoring were vastly different. In fact, Susans previous experi ence with mentoring was limited, and the only relationship she discussed had occurred during he r practicum with a classroom teacher in a different school. She revealed that while sh e had learned a lot about teaching and classroom management through her observation of this te achers practices and methods, there had been little time for questions and reflect ion and their conversations most often concerned the specific assignments required by her university coursework or a discussion of thei r personal lives. In a knowledge exchange, which included a number of evaluations, not only of her personal feelings about this teacher, but also of the relevance of the learning that occurred, Susan summarized her experience with this teacher and said:

PAGE 100

100 I mean she was awesome and we really enjoyed it and we learned a lot from her but it wasnt us sitting down and talking to her about how she does certain things I dont really think that we had much of a mentor experience before. It was more like observing and sitting there just watching you know, not getting a chance to interact. While the relationship Susan developed with th is classroom teacher seemed to have met some of the psychosocial functions of mentori ng (i.e., role modeling and friendship), it did not provide Susan with any of the career functions (i.e., coaching and challenging assignments) that would have supported Susans development as a t eacher and reflective prac titioner. Obviously, Susan recognized that a mentoring relationshi p encompassed more than she had previously experienced. Consequently, Susan entered this new relationship with few preconceptions about mentoring and was open to the understandings she and Kenneth would constr uct about their roles as mentor and mentee, and the ways in which they would interact and rela te. Her perceptions of mentoring underwent rapid and considerable tran sformation. In our firs t dialogue session she shared her changing impressions of mentoring in a series of realis statements that described her perceptions of how Kenneth provid ed mentoring. She said, whe reas now its [mentoring] constant back and forth. What you could do. What youre doing good. You know? Things like that. In the mentoring relati onship she developed with Kenneth, Susan was positioned as a partner or collaborator; although it al so appeared that she, at least some of the time, positioned Kenneth as a coach or expert and depended on his feedback and counsel. Unlike Susan, Kenneth had several years of experience as a mentor and described his concept of mentoring using the metaphor of a jigsaw puzzle enthusiast (Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2007). For him, the mentoring re lationship was a jigsaw puzzle a nd the many intricate pieces must come together to attain a cohesive, coll aborative learning relationship (Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2007, p. 45). Kenneth believed that one of his first tasks was to become acquainted with

PAGE 101

101 the mentee personally, as well as professionally. In a succinct evaluation that was framed as a statement of fact, he shared one of the underlying tenets of his mentoring philosophy, Everybody is different and you have to get to know them to be able to be a mentor. For Kenneth, knowledge of and about his mentee was an important relational precursor if he was going to be able to be responsive to the needs of his mentee. In concert with these beliefs, he espoused a learner-centered mentoring paradigm (Zachary, 2000) in which mentoring was characterized a nd performed as a learning partnership. For instance, he had learned that Susa n liked to have things very n eatly organized and in a certain order. She wants to know exactly whats expecte d. Thus, every week Kenneth made sure to preview his instructional plans w ith Susan and to discuss her speci fic responsibilities. He also felt a responsibility to support his mentee in negotiating her goal s as a teacher and her tasks as a university student. In this instance, he positi oned himself as an advocate for Susan, who would guide her through this process, pointing out obsta cles and facilitating her discovery of multiple interpretations and perspectives regarding her teaching practices. Ultimately, Kenneth believed that his mentoring should support and scaffold his mentees learning, teaching, and reflection, ensuring that a mentees actions fit the teachers [mentees] platform, adhere to research-based practices, and suit th e current teaching context (Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2007, p. 46). However, there were also times when Kenneth expressed his thoughts and provided explicit feedback regardi ng a specific situation. This was il lustrated in an evaluation of his student-centered stance toward mentoring and hi s prediction of how his stance might affect future mentee behavior: What I think isnt as important as what they think and hopefully what will happen eventually is theyll be able to put what they think into action. For Kenneth, a mentoring relationship involved collaboration and transformati on. His philosophical stance

PAGE 102

102 toward mentoring, inferred from the previous excerpts, seemed to indicate that he believed in sharing power with his mentee and in negotiating the nature of the relationship, as well as his own identity as a mentor as the relationship developed and evolved. Establishing and Maintaining Rapport: Mentor and Mentee as Partners/Friends In acco rdance with the research of many sc holars, Susan and Kenneth agreed that establishing rapport and developing a personal connection was importa nt to the effectiveness and quality of their mentoring relationship. Susan shared that she and Karen met Kenneth through a mutual friend early in the semester before th eir pre-internship. During the fall semester, 2006 Susan and Karen spent some informal time t ogether with Kenneth and their mutual friend, attending the universitys homecoming parade, playing games, and eating. Susan shared that there was a lot of playing games that I didnt know how to play and there was much laughter about a shoe game that each of them had trouble understanding. According to Kenneth, this suffering together helped them to form a rappor t based on a shared experience of getting to know one another in an unofficial, informal, a nd more personal way. Susan and Karen also contacted Kenneth and asked if they could spe nd a day observing in his classroom before the Christmas break. He agreed, beginning the pr ocess of welcoming Susan and Karen into a particular community of practice. Furthermore, when Susan and Karen applied for placement as pre-interns, they requested Kenneth, even though we might not have been supposed to, and Kenneth, in an evaluative statement that assessed the effect of their actions, said, Well I asked, too . and that helped. Their applications were approved and the university formally accorded Kevin the legitimate power of mentor a nd positioned Susan and Karen as his mentees. Finally, Susan, Karen, and Kenneth met at a rest aurant for the formal meeting suggested by the university in their placement letters. The in terrogative mood of this conversation was created by the questions they asked each other about their pers onal, as well as their pr ofessional lives. In

PAGE 103

103 this way they continued the process of becoming acquainted with one another. Some of the questions Kenneth posed included, How many brot hers and sisters do you have? and Where do you live? Additionally, because Kenneth had al so completed the teacher education program at the university Susan was attending, their conversation in cluded a series of knowledge exchanges about the particularities of their indi vidual experiences at the university and ended with an activity exchange in which their futu re interactions as mentor and mentee were discussed. Kenneth described this interaction and said that they had shared, funny stories that we both .you know, [had] been through and then at the very end we talked about what we would be doing while we were interning ((laughs )). For Kenneth, this personal connection was paramount to the development of a successful me ntoring relationship. He believed that the rapport and trust they developed provided a ne cessary foundation for the work of teaching and mentoring. Kenneths and Susans orientation to di fference was one of searching for the commonalities within their experiences and unde rstandings, as well as recognizing and accepting the differences that contributed to their uniqu e relational histories and would enrich their relationship. In knowledge exchanges, composed of evaluative statemen ts, they shared their interpretations and emphasized the value of establishing rappor t for the development of their relationship and the effectivene ss and relevance of the mentor ing. Susan accentuated this difference, when she contrasted it with he r previous mentoring experience and stated: I think it helps because you know we know something about one another it was kind of intimidating when we walked into Ms. Hawthornes class, thats who we, our mentor teacher was last year and we didnt know her. And had never met her before and shes like, Hi. Who are you? Kenneth accepted this difference and then focused on the commonality of their understandings, providing further elaboration of Susans evaluation when he said:

PAGE 104

104 Its much easier to communicate with some one that you have trust with or you feel comfortable around . Our pe rsonal lives, you know really are the rest of our day and this is part of it so we have to make sure that we take into account all of it. And I think a lot of times that doesnt happe n just for a variety of reasons. Like you said lack of time or lack of preparation. While they both agreed that trust was a n ecessary aspect of an effective mentoring relationship, Kenneth acknowledged th at there were often barriers, such as lack of time, which sometimes made it difficult to establish and ma intain such a connection. However, it also appeared that Kenneth believed finding creative solutions for ov ercoming those barriers was an important part of his role as a mentor. More over, the level of trust they developed was of considerable significance in Susa ns development as an educator. She shared how their rapport created an environment in which she felt va lued, respected and comfortable applying and reflecting on a variety of teaching practices that w ould inform her nascent id entity as a teacher. In a realis statement, which evaluated the climat e that had been created by the rapport she had developed with Kenneth, Susan said, Because yo u feel more comfortable, youre feeling like youre, you can be yourself. You don t feel like youre uptight and have to act a certain way. Thus, Kenneths recognition, even cel ebration of the differences between them encouraged Susan to enact her philosophical stance and to become the teacher she envisioned. In the knowledge exchanges that follow, Kenneth described and evaluate d his philosophy of mentoring that was informed by an openness to a nd exploration of the differences between him and his mentees: Kenneth: [I know] that everybody is different and you have to get to know them to be able to be a mentor . because youre not gonna do the same thing for each person. What was good is I got to know them [his mentees] a little bit before they came, you know. And then I could know like, Oh you know, they make good cookies, you know. Little things like that. Sharon: Mm hmm Karen: ((laughs))

PAGE 105

105 Kenneth: So, I, I think that that s important to kind of be responsive to whatever you know that the persons personality is like and wh at you know about them. Like I know that, um, Susan likes to have things very neatly organi zed in a certain order. And she wants to know exactly whats expected and all those kinds of things. Not that Karens any different but, just using that as an example. Kenneth accepted these differences and used them to tailor his interactions with Susan. He did not feel a need to resolve or overcome them. Instead, he used their differences to guide his interactions and dialogues with Susan. For instance, he always arranged to spend some time on Mondays reviewing the instructional plans fo r the week and discus sing their individual responsibilities and roles within each lesson. Because his mentoring style was a learner-centered one, Kenneth believed that getting to know Susan en abled him to become an effective mentor for her. Kenneth positioned her as an authority on her needs and preferences and an irreplaceable contributor to the co-construc tion of their relationship. His mentoring stance accounted for the fact that his identity as a mentor was continually transformed by the relationships he developed with each of his mentees. For Kenneth, being a mentor was an ongoing process of transformation and becoming that was shaped by his openness to the nuances of each particular relationship. Moreover, establishing and maintaining this rapport and connection with each other had implications for the professional work they accomp lished. In an evaluative statement, Kenneth expressed their common perspectiv e, it was really important to have a building block for a relationship first before you do the tasks second. Susan described how many of her peers had not had the opportunity to devel op a relationship before beginning their pre-internships and how this had negatively affected not only their relati onships, but also the nature of their teaching experiences in the classroom. According to Su san, some pre-interns were expected to design lessons and teach in a way that mirrored their ment or teachers styles, rather than experimenting with and evaluating the practices that were mo re suited to their own philosophies and teaching

PAGE 106

106 practices; others were simply sitting in the back of the cl assroom grading papers. This recognition of the differences betw een her own experiences, as compared with those of her peers, provided Susan with additional confirmation of th e efficacy of their mentoring relationship for her professional deve lopment and growth. Communication: Mentor and Mentee as Partners and Collaborative Problem-Solvers While Kenneth and Susan continually acknowledg e the im portance of ra pport and trust for engaging in the work of mentoring and learning to teach, in a subsequent knowledge exchange, Kenneth shared that maintaining their personal connection was not always easy. During the week of the state test, he descri bed their routine in the following realis statement, which revealed the starkness of their interacti ons that week, I didnt even ha ve a chance to say hello pretty much. Come in in the morning, going hello. Here go get your tests. Furthermore, the only day that Susan was available for any extended dial ogue and mentoring was Monday. Kenneth, who had embraced his positioning by the university as a mentor and was committed to developing a relationship that supported Susan as she became a teacher, summarized their dilemma in a knowledge exchange, which included his evalua tion of the constraints imposed by their individual schedules on the time they c ould devote to mentoring. He said: It is hard When she gets here, its like fifteen, twenty minutes in the morning . And we do that. And we try to, we talk at lunch (p ause) a lot . But with the exception of Monday its difficult. Itd be much more successful I think for both of us if we had more planning time. In order to solve their predicament, Kenneth and Susan used a number of alternative means of communication including a dialogue journal, email, and phone calls in order to remain connected and to maintain their rapport. They also made good use of any time they had together throughout the day. For instance, when Susan arri ved in the morning, she and Kenneth discussed any questions she had about the days instruction in the fifteen minutes before students entered

PAGE 107

107 the classroom. When necessary, Kenneth had sh ort, whispered conversations with Susan, while students were working independently, about what he had observed during the lesson that would be important for Susan to know as she worked with individual students. They also used their lunches for conferring about their students and instructional decisions, as well as sharing aspects of their personal lives. Both agreed that because Susan was ra rely at school during Kenneths planning period, these lunchtime conversations were important to the success of their professional and personal relationship. The followi ng exchange began with their evaluations of these lunchtime conversations and ended with realis statements that descri bed the nature of their discourse: Susan: I mean just eating l unch together I think helps Kenneth: Yeah. Our lunches are great though. I wish we had more lunches. Susan: Yeah. Kenneth: We talk about like, you know, this we ekend, whatd you do? And all that stuff. And then we also talk about, so what are we gonna do with so and so? Or did you notice that so and so on his test did X? You know? Susan: Mm hmm. However, while they did their best to make op timal use of whatever time they had together for mentoring, Kenneth, in another evaluative statement ruefully admitted, Itd be more successful I think for both of us if we had more planning time. Ultimately, external factors constrained the amount of time available for ment oring, but Kenneths and Susans perseverance and flexibility with regard to their lack of sh ared planning time in all likelihood contributed to the successful development of th eir personal and professional rela tionship. They felt a shared commitment to maintaining a connection, and th eir positioning as pa rtners within this relationship supported an openness that only enhan ced the quality of the limited time they had for mentoring, professional de velopment, and reflection.

PAGE 108

108 Co-Constructing Knowledge of Teaching and Learning Co-constructing knowledge of teach ing and le arning, as well as enacting and evaluating that knowledge was an important aspect of the mentoring relationship that developed between Susan and Kenneth. During this process, Susan wa s absorbed in developing her identity as a teacher and classroom manager, often positioni ng herself as a novice, who welcomed, even depended upon the guidance and su pport of her mentor, Kenneth. On the other hand, Kenneth, who already had a well-developed, yet flexible iden tity as a teacher, usually chose to engage Susan as a collaborator and partne r as they co-planned and co-taught lessons. However, he never fully relinquished his positioning as a mentor in a ny of his interactions with Susan. He always seemed to be aware of his mentoring responsib ilities, which included questioning, scaffolding, and modeling or providing expertise and specific direction when necessary. Thus, the mentoring discourse intermingled with the discourses of instruction and classroom management as Kenneths and Susans interactions and di alogues moved her from legitimate peripheral participant to full-fledged colleague. Observation: Mentor as Model and Mentee as Observer and Active Learner Susans pre-internship began in January; th erefore, Kenneth had already established and taught the ro utines for his classroom and had also invested time in getting to know his students. Consequently, Susan positioned herself as an observer and Kenneth as an expert and model and relied on him as a source of the information she w ould need in order to be an effective classroom manager and teacher. Kenneth accepted this pos itioning, realizing that Susan needed to become familiar with the everyday routines he used w ith students to manage classroom activities and instruction. Kenneth acknowledged his positioning and described thei r early relationship in this knowledge exchange:

PAGE 109

109 As time went on I would do things and they [K aren and Susan] would have no idea so they had to ask me questions because I you know, I cant remember what Ive said to whom or whatever so, like, theyd be like, What is that ? Whats the point? He expected Susan to be an active participant in her learning, questioning him about what she had observed and engaging him in a discussi on that focused not only on what she had noticed, but also on the rationa le for the behaviors, strate gies, and techniques Kenneth demonstrated. Thus, mood of thei r initial relationship was primarily an interrogative one, as Susan had questions about the students and everyt hing she was observing in the classroom. In a realis statement she recounted that Kenneth had described what kind of students we had, kind of getting to know our diverseness of our cla ssroom. Kenneths take on co-teaching. What coteaching models he felt would work in certain types of lessons. Even though Susan completed a classroom profile, which identified th e characteristics and dem ographics of the class as a whole, she depended on Kenneth to provide fu rther elaboration about each of the students in their classroom. Susan recognized that she needed specific and detailed information about the learning needs of each of the students if she wa s going to be effective in providing instruction that encouraged and sup ported student learning. Additionally, Susan was expected to co-teach, and although she had been introduced to the various models, she had not yet developed a comp rehensive understanding that would enable her to choose an appropriate co-teaching model fo r a specific lesson. Ther efore, she positioned Kenneth as a teacher educator and relied on hi s experience and expertise to extend her limited knowledge and understanding of co-teaching, so that she would be able to make instructional decisions that would be suited to the content and would best s upport student learning. Kenneth was another resource for Susan to consult as she continued to make sense of the complex nature of teaching.

PAGE 110

110 Co-Planning: Mentor as Facilitator, Model, and Instructional Designer and Mentee as Instructional Designer Kenneth and Susan planned their instructi onal week on Mondays. Som etimes they coplanned lessons they would co-teach. In these instances, they positioned each other as collaborative partners, who brought their own unique expertise, perspectiv es, and skills to the task. Other times, due to university require ments, Susan was positioned as a designer of instruction for a lesson she would present by hers elf. In these instances, Kenneth provided support and positioned himself as a facilitator, us ing a combination of think-alouds and questions to scaffold her decision-making and consideration of alternative strategies for student learning. An instance of co-planning occurred during our first dialogue session as Kenneth and Susan planned a math lesson that would introduce pr obability and the fracti ons used to represent probabilities. They had decided to develop two math stations, and Kenneth provided Susan with a choice as to which concept she would feel mo st comfortable teaching, creating the opportunity for her to be successful in planning and presenti ng instruction. Kenneth posed questions that positioned Susan as a designer of instruction and encouraged her to examine the knowledge base she was developing about te aching and learning: Kenneth: We need to talk about our stations for tomorrow with math. Susan: Yes. Kenneth: Which one did you wanna do? Did you wanna do the certain, unlikely, impossible, likely or the fraction? Susan: Um, it doesnt matter to me. I mean, I feel comfortable with both. I I dont know. I can do the fraction one. Kenneth: Okay. So do you have, have you thought about what you wanna do? Like what materials you wanna use? Susan: You know, its funny because, you know, I was saying, I said that, I said, do you always use the spinner? The example that they gave in the book. And he said, No, you

PAGE 111

111 can use this or that or that. And we actually years ago, when I was at home at community college, we had to do a lesson for technology. Kenneth: Right. Susan: And I did M&Ms Sharon: Oh Susan: on a spreadsheet. Kenneth: Oh yeah Susan: But it was like, it was on probability ((laughs)). Even though Kenneth positioned Susan as a collaborator in planning this lesson, he was, once again, always aware of his responsibilities as a mentor and his questions provided a space in which Susan was able to make instructional deci sions and to develop her identity as a teacher. In this instance, her choice of a learning activit y revealed her belief that instruction should actively engage the students in the learning. The activity she describe d required students to count how many of each color M&M was in thei r individual bags and then calculate the probabilities for pulling a particul ar color M&M from their bags. This learning activity also made it possible for students to collect data for their group or even the entire class and recalculate the probability of pulling a specific color from this larger set of M&M data. Kenneths questions also made transparent the ways in which teachers think as they plan lessons, and encouraged Susan to position herself as an ex pert. Susans choice of a learning activity led to a number of activity exchanges on Kenne ths part, requesting and modeling certain expectations for teacher behaviors during the lesson: Susan: I can do the fractions with the M&Ms. Kenneth: You can try And you can do other things, too. I would do more than one thing. Susan: Right. Like different examples.

PAGE 112

112 Kenneth: So I would do like, you could do a two co lor counter cause that s just one or two. Susan: Right Kenneth: You know, as long as they, the basic thing they have to know by the end is, of course, the top number is you know Susan: The out, the number of whatever. Kenneth: The actual outcome. And they have to use certain terms. And you want to use those. Susan: Right. Kenneth began this discussion with a very general, open-ended question (e.g., Which one do you want to do?) and then proceeded to as k more specific, probing questions as Susan identified the learning activitie s she would plan for this lesso n. His requests directed her attention to specific aspects of planning a le sson and reminded Susan that the objective for student learning influenced her choice of learning activities and determined the instructional vocabulary that would be used. Kenneth also addressed one of the practical issues involved and asked, What kind of M&Ms are you gonna get? Are you gonna get like li ttle bags? Susan de cided that the little bags would make the learning activity manageable and would also ensure that each student would actively participate. As Susan continued to participate in actively planning this lesson, she had questions of her own to pose, and she positioned Kenneth as a knowledgeable and experienced colleague. The mood of the dialogue that ensued was a declarative one composed of realis statements and evaluations. In this way Kenneth and Susan made decisions about the lesson and then questioned their decisions in order to finalize the format of the lesson they would co-teach: Susan: Now would you, for the M&Ms woul d you have them like, with their own little sheet, fill out like their own personal bag of M&Ms with their have you seen that before? Where they have the sheetis that how you would do it or?

PAGE 113

113 Kenneth: I would as long as I modeled it for them first. Susan: Right Kenneth: And then say, Heres my bag of M&Ms and watch what I do. Susan: This is how many red ones I have, green ones I have Kenneth: And ask em questions as you go and then say, okay, here are your M&Ms. And make sure that, of course, you do little simple things like you dont wanna eat them til youre done because youre not g onna have accurate results, you know? Susan: ((laughs)). Kenneth: What if I ate, you need to ask them something like that, wh at if I ate one blue one? Then what will I have? Susan: Okay. Kenneth: But no, I think thats great so, I would do, you know if you just wanna do like the coin counter just at the very beginning. Just so they have multiple ways of getting to the same thing. Susan: Okay. Kenneth. I think theyre gonna love that. And thats good In the above series of activity exchanges, Kenneth provided some specific modeling of how Susan might introduce and conduct the activ ities at her station. Based on his teaching experience, Kenneth was able to present some scen arios for Susan to consider as she created her plan at home that evening. Susan also questioned whether or not she should design a worksheet, which the fourth graders could use to record thei r data, of if they should develo p their own chart. This time, instead of responding directly to her question, Kenneth encouraged Susan to draw on her knowledge of teaching and learning in order to discover her own answer: Susan: Do I need to come up with some type of worksheet for the M&Ms or should we just have them rip a piece of paper and do it? Kenneth: Whatever works best for you

PAGE 114

114 Susan: Itd probably be quicker to go ahead and have a worksheet. Kenneth: Right. Susan: Just that way they dont have to draw the table Kenneth: Right. Susan: Especially if you have some of em in your group Kenneth: Right Susan: and then youll spend twenty minutes getting ready to count M&Ms (laughs). Kenneth: And our goal isnt to have em learn to make a chart for this thing. As a planner of instruction, Susan was beginning to identify the multitude of decisions that determine whether or not a lesson is effective. She understood that due to limited time in their daily schedule, it was more appropriate for her to design a worksheet for students to use, rather than asking students to construc t their own table for recording data. Kenneth provided some additional elaboration for her rationale, reminding Susan that the goal of this lesson was not to teach students how to make a chart; rather it was to teach students how to calculate probabilities. Susan learned that every aspect of the lesson n eeded to be planned and refined according to the needs of her students. Their dialogue continued, and Kenneth orally sh ared the instructional plans for his math station in a series of activity exchanges: Kenneth: And then Ill do the certain and unlikely. Ill use, thats really handy for spinners. So Ill use spinners for one thing. And maybe, oooh I like to use dice because . we can talk about like craps ((laughs)). Susan: ((laughs)). Kenneth: Or Yahtzee. You know, but you can talk about like which, how, you know, which ones the most common. Seven. Why is seven considered lucky seven? Well, if you roll these dice, youre gonna hit seven more than you hit anything else, you know? Thatll be good. Then well do th at. But well have some sort of rec, record sheet, to so they can get experience with that. Susan: Okay.

PAGE 115

115 In this exchange, Kenneth made his planning practices transparent, sharing how he would connect his learning activities to the objective (learning how to calculate probabilities), to Susans station (students would also be recording their data), a nd to the fourth graders realworld experiences (playing Yahztee). His ela boration of the thought processes he employed when making decisions about a sp ecific lesson provided Susan with an authentic and meaningful experience of co-planning a lesson. Additi onally, Kenneths and Susans openness to and exploration of their differences resulted in the differentiation of instruction and provided their students with alternate ways of accessing and unders tanding the content. They were co-teachers, whose individual roles in planning for student lear ning, were valuable, indeed necessary. In fact, their differing instructional approaches were esse ntial for the design of a meaningful lesson that would result in students master ing the learning objectives. Through dialogue that encouraged collaboration, Kenneth and Susan co-constructed the professional knowledge necessary for designing a lesson that would meet the diverse needs of the students in their classroom. Kenneth posed qu estions that encouraged Susan to consider the practical, as well as the educational aspects of planning a lesson. Using a think-aloud technique, he modeled practitioner thinking, which provided Susan with feedback and scaffolded her development as a designer of instruction. A dditionally, the interrogative mood, characterized by the questions Kenneth posed and indicative of his mentoring style, supported the development of Susans identity as a teacher w ho differentiated instruction. Planning: Mentor as Facilitator and Mentee as Instructional Designer In another instance, Susan was responsible for planning a reading lesson that would be observed by her university superviso r, and Kenne th embraced his role of supporting Susan in accomplishing this requirement of her teacher edu cation program. Their fourth grade students were going to begin reading a chapter book and Kenneth suggested Susan spend that evening

PAGE 116

116 becoming familiar with the book and considering the kinds of learning activities she might use to teach vocabulary and comprehension. Through requests and questions, as well as realis statements, which described the nature of the chapter book and his previo us experience with teaching it, Kenneth shared his perspective rega rding the pacing of instruction and the complex nature of making instructional decisions. As a mentor, he made decisions about how much scaffolding he needed to provide Susan. Ultimately, he decided to foster her instructional decision-making skills through pr oviding a brief glimpse into his previous experience and professional knowledge, which encouraged her to discover how to enact her teaching beliefs in ways that supported students learning: Kenneth: So I guess, um, well talk about tomo rrow. And then by tomorrow give kind of have a general idea about what kind of things you want to do. I saw you looking at the book today. What are the things you d like to do with them? . Susan: So are you planning do you know, are you doing like a chapter a day? Kenneth: Well, probably not a chapter a day . cause theyre longer and theyre meatier. And I have to its hard for me to tell you. I want to see what they [the fourth graders] do with it first. Susan: Okay. Because Kenneths teaching stance was a studentcentered one, his pacing of these reading lessons would be determined by his students. Ho wever, Kenneth was also aware of his role as Susans mentor and of her need for more specific expectations. Thus, he continued this dialogue and provided Susan with some specific suggesti ons to consider as she previewed the chapter book. In these knowledge exchanges, Kenneth expressed his openness to difference, encouraging Susan to develop her own plans ba sed on her own assessment of the materials and their fourth grad e students: Kenneth: Um, were gonna do a lot with sequenc ing with the book becaus e theres a lot of, like the whole thing is struct ured around six oclock, seven oclock, eight oclock, nine oclock

PAGE 117

117 Susan: Like a time line. Okay. Kenneth: Right. So, I mean, well do that . Um so its up to you, what you feel like you want to do with it. Th eres a lot of skills that are embedded and if you want to, I mean, tonight just look it over and see what you think. Susan: Okay. Kenneth: Like what I, what Ill do is Ill try to fi gure out naturally what skills fall into that book. Susan: Okay . Kenneth: Its just like increasing the level of difficulty . so the higher level of Blooms, you know. Susan: Okay. Because Kenneth provided Susan with an example of one of the reading skills she could teach, Susan was more comfortable tackling th is challenging assignment. Kenneth positioned Susan as a competent designer of instruction and welcomed the instructio nal decisions she would make when planning her lesson. However, Susans abbreviated responses dur ing their previous interaction may have prompted Kenneth to provide additional knowledge and support to Susan. Their conversation about planning this lesson continued, and Kenneth provided Susan with a possible framework for the structure of her reading lesson. Because he suggested some specific strategies without being prescriptive, he created room for Susans ideas, as well as any additi onal questions she might have: Kenneth: Like tomorrow, well do vocabul ary for the chapter and, you know, read it in a certain way. Have them respond to it somehow . I want to preview it again and make sure I know what he [the main character] does. I mean I know what he does, but I want to read it again. Susan: So are you gonna have em Are you going to show them a timeline and have them fill out a timeline throughout the book? Like were you gonna have an add on each day? Kenneth: Well, kind of. Were gonna have like a sequence of events.

PAGE 118

118 Susan: Okay. Kenneth: Like one of the things I want them to do is look at how well the author describes things in here. And get them to develop image, talk about imagery. Susan: Okay. Kenneth: And theyre going to, cause these kids who, pretty much really enjoy drawing . so they get a lot out of it [drawing], so Ill have them draw things, of what they see. In sequential order basically, so, I mean sequencing by using a timeline. Susan: Okay. Kenneth responded to Susans questions and de scribed how he modified a learning activity based on the interests and needs of his students. Therefore, this dialogue provided Susan with a number of issues to consider as she familiarized herself with the story and made decisions about how she would engage the student s in reading and understanding one of the chapters in this book. Providing Reflection and Fee dback: Mentor as Critical Fr iend and Facilitator and Mentee as Reflec tive Practitioner In addition to using their time together fo r planning lessons, Kenneth and Susan also engaged in reflecting on the lessons that Susan presented. Kenneth chose to temper his role as an evaluator and positioned himself as a critical fr iend, engaging Susan in co-reflection through the use of questions and evaluations, as well as sharing his own prior experience. The post conference I observed and audiotaped during our second dialogue session began with Kenneth posing an open-ended question that was followe d by probing questions designed to elicit more specific answers from Susan: Kenneth: So I want to start by asking you how you thought your lesson went today. Susan: I think it could have gone a lot better. Kenneth: What particular things are you thi nking about? Every time Im teaching I know, and I noticed you did this throughout your lesson, youre thinking about, okay, what do I need to do next? What do I need to do next? And so at the end when Im done I

PAGE 119

119 always think about, okay, if I did this again what would I do? So thats kind of what Im asking you. Susan: Um . it seems like no matter how prepared I am, like I to ld Sharon, I had note cards up there. Things I wanted to say. Do you think I said what I wanted to say off ((laughs)) my note cards? No. I looked at em for two seconds and the eh, there went that idea . I dont know. I don t think they [the students] got it [the learning objective]. Kenneth: And what are you what do you think um, will change in order, like, to help that? What do you thinks gonna happe n to where youll be able to focus on your note cards or how much youve prepared? Howll you be ab le to change? Why do you think you didnt in other words? Susan: I feel like hopefully, eventually I wont need note cards. Because it becomes intrinsic and I wont have to, you know Kenneth: Mm hmm Mm hmm Susan: But I feel like, I write down the steps then I say them, but then like I forget one or something. You know what I mean? Like I talk to you, co-teaching, how I really liked it because it gave you a chance to fi x ((snaps fingers)) everything the second time that you knew you messed up on or you knew you needed to change. In this interaction, Kenneth encouraged Su sans reflection by addressing her specific concerns with the lesson. Th e interrogative mood of their di alogue, created through Kenneths questions, helped Susan clarify the nature of her concerns and prompted her to consider how she would modify her teaching in the future. Kenneth then offered his perspective in the following series of realis statements, which cast him in the role of an observer who described Susans teaching practices during the lesson, and evalua tions, which provided his insights regarding the behaviors of certain students: Kenneth: Well, to me just from what I was, I mean, who am I ? Im just an observer. But it looked to me like you had your plan. And you wanted to follow your plan. But at the same time you were trying to respond to what the students were doing. So sometimes when you do that, its kind, its hard to go b ack to your plan when youve got so many other things going on. Susan: Right. Kenneth: And I think the only way thats gonna change is with the experience of doing more. I dont think theres anything that you can do right now to change that, you know? ((laughs)).

PAGE 120

120 Kenneth reassured Susan that it was evident sh e had planned and that, with experience, she would gain expertise in implementing her plan while at the same time, remaining attentive to the needs of her students. However, effective inst ruction also depended on motivating students and managing any inappropriate behavior. Thus, Ke nneth asked Susan to consider a specific situation he had witnessed during her lesson. He first employed realis statements to describe what had occurred during the lesson. Then he used questions and requests to encourage Susans reflection on a the situation, which, in turn, facilitated her search for strategies that would address the perceived problems: Kenneth: But I wanna ask you a couple questions. One of th e things that I saw and that I heard, two kids particularly, Ha rry and Jacob. Um, Harry left his desk like this ((Kenneth used his two hands shoved himself a nd his chair back from the desk)). Susan: I saw im. Kenneth. There was a reason for it though. And I figured out what the reason was. And I want you to figure out what it could be. Do you have any idea what might of caused him to respond in that way? Why did he do that? Susan: Harry probably cause he di dnt have a clear role ((stri kes the desk with her hand)) you know what I mean? Kenneth: Mm hmm. Susan: Like I dont think, I know I wasnt clear with their roles. I know that. So I think Harrys problem was, is he felt like he wasnt able to do the whole thing. He wants to be hands in all the time. Kenneth: Mm hmm. Susan: And he wasnt. And that group is just a mess to begin with ((laughs)). Kenneth: Well, right. That group has a hard time working together . Susan: What was the cause ? Kenneth: Well I will just tell you, I dont know. But a lot of the kids asked this question. They said am I gonna get a turn? Susan: Yeah. I know I was not clear on the roles. I should have stated

PAGE 121

121 Kenneth: Right Susan: once I finished doing it with them. The first object, seat number one will do. The second object, seat number two will do. Third object, seat number three will do. Kenneth: Right . Even if you just said, it could just be, everyones gonna get a turn. I mean it didnt even have to be that clear. Kenneth recognized the difference in an attempt to direct Susans attention to the discrepancies so that she might discover how to resolve them. He positioned her as a knowledgeable and competent classroom manager, and Susan clearly specified the way in which she would eliminate this management problem in subsequent lessons. However, while Kenneths questions served to provide the challenge that would encourage Susans growing competence as an educator, he was also keenly aware of his need to provide empathy and perspective so that Susan did not judge herself too harshly. The following realis statements evaluated the totality of the activities that occurred in the days lesson. Kenneth stated: Its so hard when you have so many things to think about though because here you had to explain you had to connect, obviously, activate their prior knowledge, which you did with those questions. You had to explain th em handing out the materials and then putting up the materials. You had the chart to expl ain. You had the whole procedure of making sure you watch me and then make sure you do it and whatever. You know and that was a lot. There was a lot to do ..thats just any lesson. Any lesson. Theres always gonna be ten things that you wanna do differently, so. Thus, teaching is a complex activity and learni ng to teach is a lifelong endeavor. Kenneth aligned himself alongside Susan, revealing that there were always as pects of his lessons that he would choose to redesign or present differently if given the opportunity to do the lesson again. Feiman-Nemser (1998) has suggested that mentors, who wish to help pre-service teachers who are learning to teach, must have clear ideas a bout the kinds of teaching they want novices to learn and what that teaching enta ils. Kenneths feedback revealed his understandin g of effective teaching and provided a basis for the knowledge th at he and Susan co-constructed. In an evaluative statement Kenneth told Susan that the graphic organizer she designed made it easy for

PAGE 122

122 the students to organize their information and thin king, and in a series of realis statements and evaluations Kenneth commended Susan for her attentiveness to the needs of her students, providing her with specific feedb ack as to the effectiveness of her teaching practices. He said: The thing that I noticed that was r eally neat for me was just how well you were monitoring what they were doing. Because you always, you realized, you know, when they needed somebody to come over there and kinda re direct them. You rea lized the three times that we needed to come back to as a whole group to like have our new direction or have maybe something you wanted to say that you didnt get a chance to or something you wanted to reiterate because, you know, it didnt sink in or whatever reason. According to Kenneth, this monitoring of stude nts attention and learning was far more important than following what she had written on her note cards. Finally, Kenneth questioned Susan as to how she would assess students learning. Susan admitted ignorance and positioned Kenneth as an expert, a role he willingly assumed in an effort to provide Susan with some viable alternatives for the future. Susan: I dont know how Ill know [that the students had learned] ((laughs)). Kenneth: So we can look at what they did today. Susan: Mmm Kenneth: When we get that turned in. And then look at different things that they do in the future maybe? Susan: Yeah. Kenneth: Like when we do were gonna have to do a lesson on buoyancy and theyre gonna have to find out the density. So theyr e gonna have to figure the mass. Theyre gonna have to figure out the volume. And theyre gonna have to divide them to figure out what the density of the object is, so Susan: Yeah so I guess time will tell ((laughs)). Kenneth connected Susans lesson with future le ssons and provided her with an example of how she might encourage her students to apply ne w learning to solve problems. In modeling the many questions a teacher asks about any lesson, Ke nneth encouraged Susan to develop the habits

PAGE 123

123 of an effective educator. She was receptive to his questions and evaluations and willingly positioned herself as a reflective practitioner. Concluding Thoughts The analysis of Kenneths and Susans discourse, as reported in this ch apter, revealed that their m entoring was a relational process and as su ch, the nature of their relationship provided the foundation upon which learning, negotiation, and tr ansformation occurred. Kenneth and Susan developed a relationship in which they viewed ea ch other as collaborato rs and partners whose perspectives and expertise benef ited the learning of their students as well as their own personal growth and transformation. The mood of their relationship was primarily an interrogative one, providing a context in which thei r differences were accepted and explored and created discourses that were critical and creative. Both Kenne th and Susan asked ques tions and thought aloud as they discovered answers, evaluated their choices a nd modified their decisions. Susan shared that she co-constructed knowledge about teaching an d learning with Kenneth through the dialogues in which they engaged as they co-planned less ons and then reflected on these lessons. She evaluated these experiences and believed that her interactions w ith Kenneth were influencing her identity as a teacher: Talking to him helps . I guess kind of ingrain in my mind, like those are th e things that I need to be thinking of as I write a lesson, as I pl an a lesson as I teach a lesson I try to remember those, those things he mentioned that, you know, it might work better this way, you know. I take his advice with an ope n mind and I want to, to try you know what he has because he, hes obviously been a successful teacher for many years. However, Kenneth purposefully provided choice and opportunities for Susan to problematize the situation and discover multiple solutions. He clearly eschewed the role of providing a template of teaching practices for Susan to emulate. Cloning himself was not Kenneths goal. In fact, his own words eloque ntly expressed the nature of the mentoring relationship that he and Su san negotiated and nurtured:

PAGE 124

124 I dont want to direct someone elses teaching because their philosophy may be different from mine. And I dont want to like push my philosophy onto them. So I figure if I question and you know kind of solic it input from whoever Im talking to then its gonna be much more meaningful for them and its going to really help me know more about them so I can help them decide ((clears throat)) where they want to go next or what they want to do cause my job is not to have them become me, its to have them become themselves. Kenneths stance toward mentoring encouraged Susan to develop he r own unique identity as a teacher; however, the relationship that developed between them, as well as Susans observation of Kenneths teaching practices influe nced her beliefs about teaching and the teacher identity she was constructing. In the realis statement and evaluations that follow, Susan described and assessed some of th e strategies and practices that were becoming a part of her identity: Susan: I think Kenneth has great classroom management. Um and I, I think thats a, a necessity in a class . Going over and constantly reinforcing procedures is important. And following those procedures you rself. Kenneth always models it. Sharon: Mm hmm Susan: I mean, you know, how you want your students to act, you should act . I like cooperative learning because Ive, weve read a lot about it, but actua lly seeing it in the classroom. I really, really, re ally, really like and you know teachers say they try it and then they just kind of give up on it because it s too much work, but its constantly going in here, you know . its the classroom community and I think thats, thats a key and I think those classroom building activities th at he does where they have to write about one another in their journals and um you know to earn team points and just, just simple things like that I think helps w ith .like learning as a whole Observing Kenneth as he engaged in specifi c teaching practices was crucial for Susans understanding of specific strategies and techniques. She has real ized the importance of modeling behaviors for her students, and she has also reco gnized that building community in the classroom was an important first step in creating an envi ronment that supported st udent learning. While this internship experience was challenging, Susan had gained confid ence in her abil ities to plan

PAGE 125

125 and present instruction and she was also able to make connections between her university coursework and its applicati on in a real-world classroom. In addition, the positioning of Kenneth as a ment or had implications for his own identity as a teacher. In a knowledge exchange he describe d and evaluated the influences of mentoring on his teaching practices and identity: I think maybe Im getting better at conne cting my own platform and philosophy with what I do Because by constantly rethinking about what Im doing so that I know what . I know how to show this to someone. Or I know how to explain this to someone or whatever. That Im better at it because you know, without Susan or some other inquisitive person here, I wouldnt have um really thought things through as much. Thus, Kenneth problematized his own practic es and became more aw are not only of how he enacted his teaching and mentor ing philosophies, but also of th eir implications for Susan and his fourth grade students. The interrogative m ood of their relationship, which was created, in part, by Susans questions, provided Kenneth with an opportunity for crit ical reflection and a more elaborated understanding of his practices a nd philosophy of teaching, as well as mentoring. Finally, even though there was a certain synchr onicity in Kenneths and Susans teaching practices, it was their acceptanc e and exploration of their di fferences that more profoundly influenced and transformed thei r identities and practices. Th e following knowledge exchange occurred during our last dialogue session and provided a final eval uation of the lasting influence of their mentoring relationship: Kenneth: Its really neat because Susan does a lot of things the way I would do them. Sharon: Mm hmm. Kenneth: Its neat though because were not the same person so I do get to see her ideas about doing some things. Sharon: Right. Kenneth: How she, how she looks at things with a similar idea but puts them into practice differently. I get a different perspective, um, and then being better at connecting my

PAGE 126

126 practice and my platform. Being better at not leading someone to deciding what to do in their own practice, so they can, make their own decisions. Susan: Yeah, I think thats helped me, too. When he when he does ask me, well what do you want to do in this lesson? Well what do you you know, what do you have planned? And why are you doing this? That he lps me I guess I have it somewhere in my head, but it helps me verbalize it . It helps me rethink it and make sure thats exactly how I wanna do it and um kind of like a reassuring almost, you know? Sharon: Mm hmm Susan: Oh, thats why we have objectives ((laughs )). You know what I mean? Kenneth clearly differentiated his mentoring pr actices based on the needs of his mentee. This enabled him to create an environment and e ngage Susan in the kinds of activities and tasks that would support her development as a teacher, mo re specifically, as the teacher she envisioned herself to be. At the same time, he criti cally examined his own teaching and mentoring practices, which only served to support his own l earning and the elaboration of his identities as a mentor and teacher. The reciprocity in their relationship benefited both of them and encouraged them to critically question their practices and pos ition themselves as refl ective practitioners, who embraced differences as an opportunity for transformation and growth, which ultimately benefited their students learning.

PAGE 127

127 Table 4-1. Mentoring Group 1: Id entities and Activities within the Discourses of Mentoring, Instruction, and Classroom Management Category Activity Identity Discourse Textual analysis and orientation to difference Developing an understanding of mentoring Mentor and Mentee as co-constructors of meaning Mentoring Knowledge exchanges, evaluations. Focus on commonality. Establishing and maintaining rapport. Mentor and Mentee as partners/friends Mentoring Knowledge exchanges, questions. Acceptance of difference and focus on commonality. Developing and Maintaining a Relationship Communication Mentor and Mentee as partners and collaborative problem-solvers. Instruction, Classroom Management, Mentoring Knowledge exchanges, evaluations. Acceptance of difference. Observation Mentor as model; Mentee as observer Instruction, Classroom Management Knowledge exchanges, evaluations. Recognition of difference. Co-planning Mentor as facilitator and model; mentor and mentee as instructional designers Instruction; Mentoring Knowledge and activity exchanges. Acceptance and exploration of difference. Planning Mentor as facilitator and model; mentee as instructional designer Instruction; Mentoring Knowledge and activity exchanges; questions and realis statements. Interrogative Mood. Providing feedback Mentor as observer and critical friend; mentee as novice colleague Mentoring; Instruction Knowledge exchanges, realis statements, evaluations. Acceptance of difference. CoConstructing Knowledge of Teaching and Learning Reflection Mentor as facilitator; Mentee as reflective practitioner Mentoring; Instruction; Classroom Management Questions, realis statements. Acceptance and exploration of difference. Interrogative Mood.

PAGE 128

128 CHAPTER 5 USING DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS TO PROMOTE MENTEE-CENTERED MENTORI NG Mentoring Group 2: Barbara, Melissa, and Elizabeth This m entoring group was situated in a thir d grade classroom at Allenton Elementary School and was composed of Barbara, the mentor teacher and two pre-interns, Melissa and Elizabeth. I met with this group on Tuesdays, and our dialogue sessions were conducted during their daily planning period, wh ich occurred in the morning. The Participants Elizabeth was a 22 year old Caucasian fem ale whose motivation to become a teacher stemmed from her experiences teaching math, working at a su mmer camp for mentally and physically handicapped adults, and working as a teach ers aide in a special education class at her high school. Elizabeth considered this special educati on teacher to be a mentor who sparked my desire to do special ed. She would like to teach out of state and mentioned Chicago as a place where she would like to live and begin her career. Elizabeth will receive a Bachelors degree in elementary education and a Masters in special education. Melissa was a 21 year old Caucasian female who grew up in New Jersey and always wanted to attend an out-of-state college. To this end, she applied for and received a scholarship that would fund her out-of-state education as long as she agreed to teach in New Jersey for at least three years upon her graduatio n; otherwise she will have to repay the loan. She had some experience babysitting when she was growing up a nd she said, I dont know what else I would want to do, so why not? Her philosophy was, if I dont like it, its not like I have to be a teacher for the rest of my life. But now [after her experiences in classrooms] I like it so Melissa would like to teach either second or third grade and felt she would be most comfortable in a school like Allenton or in a private school. She also mentioned a preference for staying in

PAGE 129

129 this state or returning to New Jersey, and at this point, did not see hers elf leaving the profession cause I dont want to have to go back to school ((laughs)). Melissa wi ll receive a Bachelors degree in elementary education and a Masters in special education. Barbara was a Caucasian female in her fifties. She held a Masters degree in education and had twenty-three years of experience as a teacher She began her career in education teaching second and third grades in a private elementary school for six years. She then taught at the junior college level for three years, as well as Ti tle 1 and gifted classes before settling into her third grade position at Allenton. Barbara chose teach ing as a career because I wanted to be able to raise a family and work. She has been mentoring interns and pre-interns for at least seven or eight years. Because one of her favorite j obs was teaching at the junior college level she thought, mentoring would be the same thing. Barb ara also shared that she has always enjoyed and benefited from discussing teaching and student learning with the pre-service teachers she has mentored. The Context Elizabe th, Melissa and Barbara taught in a thir d grade classroom of 23 students. The desks were arranged in groups of two or three, and these groups of desks were arranged horizontally and faced the front of the room. A chalkboard a nd screen were on the front wall. There were bookshelves on both of the side walls, as well as a writing center and couc h for students to sit on during independent or partner read ing. The teachers desk and com puters were also at the back of the room, along with cupboards, a sink, and a ta ble that served as a desk for Elizabeth and Melissa. Elizabeth and Melissa negotiate d their scheduled time at school with Barbara. Because weekly tests in reading and spelling were administ ered in the mornings ev ery Friday, Barbara did not feel that Fridays would provi de the pre-interns with the kind s of experiences they wished.

PAGE 130

130 Thus, Melissa and Elizabeth chose to spend the entire day at school on Mondays and Thursdays, and four hours in the morning on Tuesdays. Overview of Barbaras, Elizabeths, and Melissas Discourse The purpose of this chapter was to investigate how Barbara, Elizabeth, and Melissa utilized discourse to negotiate their rela tionship and what role their re lationship played in their coconstruction of knowledge of teaching and learning. Hence, I sorted their discourse into two categories relative to the purpos es of my study: relatio