This qualitative case study aims to examine the professional identity development of mentor teachers as school-based teacher educators in an urban teacher residency program. Specifically, the study explores how mentor teachers navigate their roles and relationships with pre-service teachers, focusing on the emotional geographies that shape their practices and identity formation as teacher educators.
Utilizing a qualitative case study design, this study focuses on three experienced mentor teachers within an urban teacher residency program. Data were collected through paired interviews, focus groups, vignettes, classroom observations and semi-structured individual interviews. Content analysis was used to explore how mentor teachers’ interactions and relationships with pre-service teachers influenced their professional identity development as school-based teacher educators.
The findings reveal that mentor teachers' professional identities evolve through complex relationships with pre-service teachers. The study identified three key themes: (1) building relationships grounded in shared social justice goals, (2) reenvisioning teaching and learning practices through collaborative proximity with residents and (3) navigating power dynamics in the classroom to share responsibilities and develop a deeper understanding of their dual roles as teachers and teacher educators.
This study expands the discourse on teacher education by emphasizing the under-recognized role of school-based mentor teachers in bridging the gap between theory and practice and offers insights into the relational and emotional aspects of teacher identity formation.
This research contributes to the growing field of teacher education by highlighting the importance of mentor teachers in advancing teacher preparation within collaborative urban residency programs.
Introduction
“Educating teachers in partnerships” (White and Swennen, 2021, p. 2) has become a common practice in the current era of teacher education. Internationally, collaboration in teacher education is being recognized as a critical element for fostering effective learning communities. Recognizing that school-based teacher educator collaboration is “boundary crossing” (Jakhelln and Postholm, 2022, p. 457), blurring lines between the K-12 and university settings, emphasizes the vital role that mentor teachers play in such partnership work to connect theoretical knowledge with practical application. The role of mentor teachers, “who take up the ‘dual role’ of being a teacher and a teacher educator without necessarily leaving their classroom duties” (White, 2019, p. 449), is therefore imperative in advancing teacher preparation and bridging gaps between academia and practice globally.
Although research on teacher educators is emerging, the majority of literature primarily addresses university-based teacher educators (Loughran, 2011; Russell and Flores, 2021; White and Forgasz, 2017). Considering the lack of acknowledgment and positioning of mentor teachers as (school-based) teacher educators, White and Forgasz (2017) argued that teacher education discourse needs to shift its notion of who is considered a teacher educator, particularly in the context of teacher education partnerships, to learn more about “the complex work of teacher education” (p. 283). Therefore, in this research, we engage with mentor teachers about their own processes of becoming teacher educators as they work and grow with teaching residents (preservice teachers) in an urban teacher residency program that partners with a university teacher education program. In this residency program, which focuses on preparing educators for areas of teacher shortage (e.g. special education, English as a Second Language, and science), preservice teachers are engaged in clinically rich field practice. As such, they are immersed in a partner K-12 classroom, “working alongside an experienced teacher or teachers over an entire school year prior to becoming teachers of record” (Goodwin et al., 2017, p. 63). Therefore, mentor teachers play a larger role in preservice teacher development than they might in a more traditional teacher preparation program.
In the process of mentoring preservice teachers, these mentor teachers navigate their roles, positioning, and professional identities. To inquire into this process of identity development, we build on Kolman et al.’s (2017) work on learner-centered mentoring in a clinically rich program. We do so by examining experienced mentor teachers and their identity development as school-based teacher educators within a federally funded urban teacher residency program (TRP) that partners with high-need schools. The purpose of this study was to explore mentors’ conceptualizations of their professional identities as school-based teacher educators as they consider who they are, what they do, and who they are becoming in their interactions and relationships with teaching residents. More specifically, we asked the following question(s):
How do mentor teachers’ various interactions and relationships with teaching residents inform their practice and school-based teacher educator identity?
In what ways do mentor teachers establish relationships with their residents?
How do these relationships influence the mentor teachers’ teaching practices?
How do interactions with their residents contribute to the development of mentor teachers' professional identities?
Literature review
School-based teacher educators’ professional identity development
Researchers (Bullough, 2005; Chu, 2019; McDonough and Brandenburg, 2012) have investigated professional identity development in mentor teachers, highlighting the lack of preparation many school-based teacher educators have (Czerniawski et al., 2024) to perform the balancing act of simultaneously supporting both K–12 students and preservice teachers (Uibu et al., 2023). To navigate this crisis of identity, often without formal support in doing so, school-based teacher educators must self-identify as such (Rakes et al., 2023); self-identification is important in recognizing and legitimizing the work they do in this role, particularly as it requires “an important shift in identity, practices, and pedagogical expertise” (Czerniawski et al., 2024, p. 1007) from that as a teacher of children. Parker et al. (2021) discuss the relationships that form between school-based teacher educators and teacher candidates as necessary to that identity development, but we argue that, on a more granular level, emotions are involved in the navigation of these relationships.
Emotions in education
Teaching and learning entail not only knowledge, cognition, and skill; they are also characterized as emotional practices that lie at the heart of the profession of teaching (Hargreaves, 1998). In addition to feeling and thinking inextricably complementing each other, the practice of teaching requires humans to work with other humans; therefore, teaching and learning are naturally emotional (Denzin, 1984; Nias, 1996; Salzberger-Wittenberg et al., 1983). Working within nested and overlapping communities such as classroom, school, sociocultural, and political communities triggers feelings which shape the actions of teachers. Educators express feelings—of joy, frustration, and more—in different ways and with different audiences (Hargreaves, 2001a). Researchers have used this emotional lens to study professional identity development among preservice teachers (Schutz et al., 2007; Sutton and Wheatley, 2003; Timoštšuk and Ugaste, 2010, 2012) and in-service teachers (Carlyle and Woods, 2002; Cross and Hong, 2009; Flores and Day, 2006), but there is a lack of scholarship on the emotional aspect of this identity development in mentor teachers.
Emotions and professional identity development
Therefore, we use the lens of emotion to look at the ways in which classroom teachers working with preservice teachers begin to develop identities as school-based teacher educators. Just as emotions cannot be separated from the act of teaching, emotions are inherent to the self (Zembylas, 2003) and therefore have a reciprocal relationship to professional identity development (Schutz et al., 2007; Schutz and Lee, 2014; Shapiro, 2010). Though often overlooked in educational research (Reio, 2005), “focusing on emotion offers a means by which to understand how teachers see themselves, their colleagues, their students, and the decisions that impact these groups” (Shapiro, 2010, p. 619). Teacher positioning and decision-making are impacted by emotions (Schutz and Lee, 2014) just as cultural practices (Ahmed, 2004) are informed by the personal goals, values, and beliefs that make up our identities. Put simply, “the emotions teachers experience affect their sense of professional identity” (Timoštšuk and Ugaste, 2012, p. 423).
Theoretical framework
Because emotions are “personal and idiosyncratic” (Yuan and Lee, 2015, p. 472), in this paper, we draw on their complexity through the framework of emotional geographies (Hargreaves, 2001a, b) in our examination of the participating mentor teachers’ professional identity development. This lens allows us to focus on the mentors’ interactions and relationships with the residents by grounding two central concepts: emotional understanding and emotional geographies. Hargreaves (2001a) suggested that emotional understanding, which is the “intersubjective process” (Denzin, 1984, p. 137) wherein one person is able to step into the metaphorical shoes of another, and misunderstanding (i.e. misinterpretation of others’ feelings) in teaching are caused by emotional geographies, a concept which entails the spatial and experiential elements of closeness and/or distance in human relationships. Successful teaching and mentoring rely on relationships and require a context in which teachers are able to emotionally understand students and colleagues (Hargreaves, 2001b). We can therefore use emotional geographies (Hargreaves, 2001a, b) to explore experienced mentor teachers’ professional identity development through their interactions and relationships and the “closeness and distance” (Hargreaves, 2001b, p. 504) in their mentoring practice with their residents.
We use six forms of emotional geographies (Hargreaves, 2001b). Personal geographies imply how people become close to or distant from each other personally. Cultural geographies delineate the distance between people as a result of differences in their identities (e.g. race, gender and culture) as well as different ways of experiencing and expressing emotion. Moral geographies occur when people share common goals and feel a sense of achievement together. Professional geographies refer to the separation of people or the creation of spaces for them to work together on professional issues based on norms of professionalism. Political geographies are observed when interpersonal communication is hindered by differences in power and status or when such differences lead to the empowerment of others. Physical geographies concern the times and spaces that bring people together over a long period of time to develop relationships or that result in intermittent experiences.
In the particular context of the TRP where the study is situated, mentoring is one of the core components of the program, which has a year-long daily impact on mentor teachers. We examined the mentors’ understanding of their growth over the years as school-based teacher educators based on how they welcomed their assigned residents into their classroom spaces; the ways in which they mentored, supervised, and assessed their residents; and how they formed relationships with them through teaching and learning. In this sense, emotional geographies offer an important theoretical lens to understand the development of mentors’ views on their professional identity as school-based teacher educators in relation to mentees in their complex emotional landscapes.
Method
Research design, context, and participants
To carry out an in-depth examination of experienced mentor teachers within the mentoring component of the TRP, this study was designed as a qualitative case study (Bogdan and Biklen, 2007; Yin, 2014). As Yin (2014) suggests, a case study is an in-depth examination of a specific case through multiple sources of data to generate a comprehensive understanding of the context or the case under investigation. Accordingly, this study employed a case study design to collect multiple sources of evidence and conduct an in-depth examination of the work and development of mentor teachers over time within the context of the TRP (the case) alongside its distinct characteristics.
The TRP is a clinically rich, graduate-level, university-based teacher education program designed to prepare new teachers for urban high-need schools in a northeastern state of the United States and is funded in part by the US Department of Education Teacher Quality Partnership Grant. The TRP deliberately seeks to build a cohort reflective of the K–12 students they will be teaching by recruiting candidates with diverse backgrounds in terms of race, ethnicity, academic background/preparation, etc. It is an intensive 18-month-long, full-time teacher preparation program that includes blending coursework with extensive fieldwork in schools. Engaging in a partnership with the local school district, the program invites carefully selected high-need schools to collaborate with the university. All residents are paired with mentors in the partnership schools and spend four full days a week in the classroom to work closely with their mentor teachers within a yearlong, enriched field placement. The program uses the term mentor teachers, rather than cooperating teachers, to highlight the expectation that these teachers will provide residents with intensive and intentional guidance beyond incidental feedback.
Mentor teachers are selected based on certification area, teaching experience (at least three years), strong teaching as identified by the program, and interest in mentoring. Moreover, all mentor teachers are licensed in the same certification area as their resident. Mentoring candidates are assessed for evidence of caring; student-centered classroom practices; commitment to teaching; alignment with program goals and philosophy that emphasize inquiry, curriculum, and social justice; and experience of professional collaboration with peers. Once selected, all mentor teachers are provided with multiple professional development opportunities with the residents and other mentor teachers to develop relationships and advance their own professional growth. Specifically, the mentor teachers are supported through an orientation before the start of the school year, mentor teacher professional learning community meetings, a full-day retreat each semester, on-site support by the partnership coordinator and residency supervisors, and a self-assessment to reflect on their growth and professional development as mentors. Collaboration, dialog, inquiry, reflective practice, social justice, and student-centeredness are the key elements that are strongly integrated into the mentor teachers’ yearlong professional development curriculum.
To select the participants for our study, two of this study’s coauthors, who have served as the partnership coordinator of the program, initially nominated six mentor teachers within the TRP. Following criterion sampling (Patton, 1990), we identified three mentor teachers (see Table 1) from the list who met the following criteria: (1) 3 or more years of mentoring, (2) complete program data sets, and (3) availability for a follow-up individual interview. While we included the mentor teachers who met these selection criteria, we acknowledge the number of participants as a limitation. Thus, we do not intend to generalize our findings or transfer them to a broader context, but we build on the strength of the case study to retain a holistic perspective and a nuanced meaning about the work and development of the experienced mentor teachers through contextualization.
Data collection instruments
The data sources included the program’s archival data sets such as paired interviews with residents and mentors, focus group interviews, vignettes, and observations. Additionally, we supplemented the data sets with individual, semi-structured interviews, which lasted 30 min to an hour each.
Data analysis
We employed an iterative content analysis approach (Bogdan and Biklen, 2007) based on a framework of the six forms of emotional geographies (Hargreaves, 2001b). Each author used inductive and then deductive coding to independently identify key codes and derive initial themes through several readings of a data subset transcribed verbatim. We met regularly to discuss our codings, patterns, and emerging themes, which resulted in coding alignment, and this code list informed a coding system that was used for the remaining data (see Table 2). In Figures 1–4, we map the frequency of each code in the data set for each participant. This mapping allowed us to visualize both the prominence of each emotional geography for Henry, Jennifer, and Serena and how the individual mappings overlapped such that we could more easily detect trends and themes in the coding.
The vertical scale ranges from 0 to 5 with increments of 1, shown as concentric circles. Around the chart, category labels are placed along each axis. Starting from the top and moving clockwise, the labels read: “Personal slash Professional”, “Cultural”, “Moral”, “Professional”, “Political”, “Moral slash Personal”, “Professional slash Physical”, and “Professional slash Political”. A polygon represents the values across these categories. The value at “Personal slash Professional” is 3. At “Cultural”, the value is 3. At “Moral”, the value is 4. At “Professional”, the value reaches 5. At “Political”, the value is 3. At “Moral slash Personal”, the value is 1. At “Professional slash Physical”, the value is 0. At “Professional slash Political”, the value is 2. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.Henry’s emotional geographies
The vertical scale ranges from 0 to 5 with increments of 1, shown as concentric circles. Around the chart, category labels are placed along each axis. Starting from the top and moving clockwise, the labels read: “Personal slash Professional”, “Cultural”, “Moral”, “Professional”, “Political”, “Moral slash Personal”, “Professional slash Physical”, and “Professional slash Political”. A polygon represents the values across these categories. The value at “Personal slash Professional” is 3. At “Cultural”, the value is 3. At “Moral”, the value is 4. At “Professional”, the value reaches 5. At “Political”, the value is 3. At “Moral slash Personal”, the value is 1. At “Professional slash Physical”, the value is 0. At “Professional slash Political”, the value is 2. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.Henry’s emotional geographies
The vertical scale ranges from 0 to 12 with increments of 2, shown as concentric circles labeled 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Around the chart, category labels are placed along each axis. Starting from the top and moving clockwise, the labels read: “Personal slash Professional”, “Cultural”, “Moral”, “Professional”, “Political”, “Moral slash Personal”, “Professional slash Physical”, and “Professional slash Political”. A polygon represents the values across these categories. The value at “Personal slash Professional” is 4. At “Cultural”, the value is 2. At “Moral”, the value is 6. At “Professional”, the value reaches 12. At “Political”, the value is 4. At “Moral slash Personal”, the value is 2. At “Professional slash Physical”, the value is 6. At “Professional slash Political”, the value is 2. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.Jennifer’s emotional geographies
The vertical scale ranges from 0 to 12 with increments of 2, shown as concentric circles labeled 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Around the chart, category labels are placed along each axis. Starting from the top and moving clockwise, the labels read: “Personal slash Professional”, “Cultural”, “Moral”, “Professional”, “Political”, “Moral slash Personal”, “Professional slash Physical”, and “Professional slash Political”. A polygon represents the values across these categories. The value at “Personal slash Professional” is 4. At “Cultural”, the value is 2. At “Moral”, the value is 6. At “Professional”, the value reaches 12. At “Political”, the value is 4. At “Moral slash Personal”, the value is 2. At “Professional slash Physical”, the value is 6. At “Professional slash Political”, the value is 2. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.Jennifer’s emotional geographies
The vertical scale ranges from 0 to 5 with increments of 1, shown as concentric circles. Around the chart, category labels are placed along each axis. Starting from the top and moving clockwise, the labels read: “Personal slash Professional”, “Cultural”, “Moral”, “Professional”, “Political”, “Moral slash Personal”, “Professional slash Physical”, and “Professional slash Political”. A polygon represents the values across these categories. The value at “Personal slash Professional” is 2. At “Cultural”, the value is 1. At “Moral”, the value is 2. At “Professional”, the value reaches 5. At “Political”, the value is 2. At “Moral slash Personal”, the value is 3. At “Professional slash Physical”, the value is 1. At “Professional slash Political”, the value is 1. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.Serena’s emotional geographies
The vertical scale ranges from 0 to 5 with increments of 1, shown as concentric circles. Around the chart, category labels are placed along each axis. Starting from the top and moving clockwise, the labels read: “Personal slash Professional”, “Cultural”, “Moral”, “Professional”, “Political”, “Moral slash Personal”, “Professional slash Physical”, and “Professional slash Political”. A polygon represents the values across these categories. The value at “Personal slash Professional” is 2. At “Cultural”, the value is 1. At “Moral”, the value is 2. At “Professional”, the value reaches 5. At “Political”, the value is 2. At “Moral slash Personal”, the value is 3. At “Professional slash Physical”, the value is 1. At “Professional slash Political”, the value is 1. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.Serena’s emotional geographies
The vertical scale ranges from 0 to 12 with increments of 2, shown as concentric circles labeled 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Around the chart, category labels are placed along each axis. Starting from the top and moving clockwise, the labels read: “Personal”, “Cultural”, “Moral”, “Professional”, “Political”, “Moral slash Personal”, “Professional slash Physical”, “Professional slash Political”, and “Personal slash Professional”. A legend at the top identifies three individuals: “Henry” shown in blue, “Jennifer” shown in red, and “Serena” shown in yellow. Three colored polygons represent their values across the categories. For Henry (blue): “Personal” is 2. “Cultural” is 2. “Moral” is 4. “Professional” is 4. “Political” is 2. “Moral slash Personal” is 0. “Professional slash Physical” is 2. “Professional slash Political” is 2. “Personal slash Professional” is 2. For Jennifer (red): “Personal” is 4. “Cultural” is 0. “Moral” is 6. “Professional” is 10. “Political” is 2. “Moral slash Personal” is 2. “Professional slash Physical” is 4. “Professional slash Political” is 0. “Personal slash Professional” is 0. For Serena (yellow): “Personal” is 2. “Cultural” is 0. “Moral” is 4. “Professional” is 4. “Political” is 2. “Moral slash Personal” is 2. “Professional slash Physical” is 2. “Professional slash Political” is 0. “Personal slash Professional” is 0. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.Overlapping emotional geographies
The vertical scale ranges from 0 to 12 with increments of 2, shown as concentric circles labeled 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Around the chart, category labels are placed along each axis. Starting from the top and moving clockwise, the labels read: “Personal”, “Cultural”, “Moral”, “Professional”, “Political”, “Moral slash Personal”, “Professional slash Physical”, “Professional slash Political”, and “Personal slash Professional”. A legend at the top identifies three individuals: “Henry” shown in blue, “Jennifer” shown in red, and “Serena” shown in yellow. Three colored polygons represent their values across the categories. For Henry (blue): “Personal” is 2. “Cultural” is 2. “Moral” is 4. “Professional” is 4. “Political” is 2. “Moral slash Personal” is 0. “Professional slash Physical” is 2. “Professional slash Political” is 2. “Personal slash Professional” is 2. For Jennifer (red): “Personal” is 4. “Cultural” is 0. “Moral” is 6. “Professional” is 10. “Political” is 2. “Moral slash Personal” is 2. “Professional slash Physical” is 4. “Professional slash Political” is 0. “Personal slash Professional” is 0. For Serena (yellow): “Personal” is 2. “Cultural” is 0. “Moral” is 4. “Professional” is 4. “Political” is 2. “Moral slash Personal” is 2. “Professional slash Physical” is 2. “Professional slash Political” is 0. “Personal slash Professional” is 0. Note: All numerical data values are approximated.Overlapping emotional geographies
Sample thematic coding
| Quote | Codes | Subtheme | Theme |
|---|---|---|---|
| I wanted to help [resident] to adopt the mindset that’s inclusive and that really looks at [immigrant] students as having rich resources that they’re bringing with them to school” (Jennifer, individual interview) | Professional/Moral Geographies | Achieving shared goals in teaching rooted in social justice | Building relationships rooted in social justice |
| It’s hard to teach. There are certain things that are much more difficult to teach such as, how do you teach presence, how do you teach enthusiasm?… But I have learned there’s no substitute for experience and that’s why [my resident] started teaching [on] day one … The more experience that you’re willing to give them, the better off that they’re going to be. (Henry, individual interview) | Professional/Political Geographies | Giving up control and sharing power | Sharing power and growing as a teacher educator |
Source(s): Table created by authors
Next, based on our two rounds of analysis, we organized our findings under three themes: (1) building relationships rooted in social justice, (2) reenvisioning teaching and learning relationships, and (3) sharing power and growing as a teacher educator. Within these themes, we identified specific ways that the mentors’ relationships with residents expanded their emotional geographies and how these geographies intersected and interacted, such that they began developing identities as school-based teacher educators.
Findings
Our analysis highlights the intricate interplay between emotions and relationships in professional environments, emphasizing their mutually reinforcing nature. Emotions both shape and are shaped by relational dynamics, creating a reciprocal process that is particularly relevant in mentorship and collaboration. In the following section, we share the ways in which the mentor teachers navigated emotional landscapes with their residents and negotiated their teacher educator identities within their mentoring practices. More specifically, we describe (1) how the mentor teachers developed relationships with residents through professional and moral goals rooted in social justice, (2) the ways in which the mentor teachers began to reenvision their teaching and learning practices through close proximity with residents, and (3) the mentor teachers’ reflections on and personal growth in their teacher educator identity development.
Building relationships rooted in social justice
The three mentors in this study have mentoring experiences of 3–8 years. Their commitment to the TRP and mentoring was expressed through their number of years of service and their solidarity with residents in working toward professional and moral goals aligned with social justice principles. Jennifer, in conversation with one of her residents, shared they had “the same commitments to social justice and to kids” and that “the reasons that [the resident] wants to go into teaching are similar to [why Jennifer] wanted to go into teaching” (Jennifer, paired interview). Situated in a community school with large numbers of new immigrant students, Jennifer is an experienced ESL teacher who has been successful in reaching students who are new to the country and the English language. Sharing the same commitment to students as her residents also meant sharing her passion with them.
I always knew I had so much passion for [teaching in urban settings] and this deep love of children and their families, and I wanted to be able to share that with other people, and share some of the things that have made me successful. (Jennifer, individual interview)
Jennifer particularly showed a strong interest in the TRP because of its unique aspects, including lengthy clinical practice and emphasis on social justice centered on cultural responsiveness, asset-based teaching practice, and advocating for students with marginalized backgrounds to work against inequities. When Jennifer first heard about it, she wanted to become involved in mentoring as soon as possible. She explained:
I knew how rich the experience was that would be provided to the residents in comparison to a more traditional teaching model, and so I wanted to participate in that and really work with somebody that was actually dedicated to teaching enough to go into an intensive program like that. I think that’s special… really powerful that somebody would want to do that, and so I wanted to get involved with it as soon as I possibly could. (Jennifer, individual interview)
The TRP is known for its intensity grounded in the principles of social justice. Being involved in the program as a mentor meant achieving emotional closeness toward their moral and professional goals with their residents who have similar aspirations.
Henry also stated his trust in the program and the residents who chose to be part of the community. He said:
I think most teachers become teachers because they believe in service. It’s important for them to believe in what they are doing; it’s not a financial pursuit. This is what they wanted to do. They like being around kids, they like helping people, they like pushing learning … this is a person who’s chosen to be part of a community that you believe in already. So you have to treat them with that respect. (Henry, individual interview)
From the very beginning of the year-long residency, mentors and mentees shared the same commitment to urban teaching and the same desire to work against the societal inequities manifested in students’ lives within school contexts; thus, the foundation of their relationship was their closeness in moral geographies rooted in social justice. The mentors saw their role as welcoming residents who had “chosen” to be part of the community “with respect” and as “push[ing] learning” together as a team.
The mentor teachers’ relationships with residents continued to develop as they shared their love for teaching. Serena noted she takes on residents year after year “because [she] felt that [she] could provide something valuable to the mentees who were interested in life science” (Serena, individual interview). For Serena, the main reason for her many years of mentoring was her love for the subject matter and her desire to share that passion with new teachers. For the others, it was their love for the teaching profession. Jennifer elaborated:
It’s not that I want somebody to be like a mini me. I think it’s more like I want to be able to share things because so many people in education, as soon as they start teaching, they can get down by some of the things that are happening in schools, and the way that teachers are talking, or the things that they’re hearing. And I wanted to bring somebody in and show them how beautiful it can be to be a teacher, and the things that you can do to sustain yourself. (Jennifer, individual interview)
Despite the issues related to bureaucracy and politics in the public school system that Jennifer hinted at in her interview, she emphasized showing the beauty of teaching. She wanted to share how one can teach against master narratives that focus on deficit perspectives of immigrant students: “I wanted to help [residents] to adopt the mindset that’s inclusive, and that really looks at students as having rich resources that they’re bringing with them to school” (Jennifer, individual interview). The mentors’ pursuit of emotional closeness in their professional and moral geographies was demonstrated in their practice of sharing their love for teaching in urban settings with residents, anchored by the common goal of achieving social justice. That common goal was what motivated them to become mentor teachers in the first place and to continue to mentor residents over the years.
Reenvisioning teaching and learning relationships through proximity
Mentoring was beneficial not only for residents to grow as social justice–oriented teachers but also for mentors to reenvision their own teaching and learning. Mentor teachers frequently mentioned how working with a resident offered opportunities to reflect on their pedagogical practices and engage in new approaches to planning and developing curriculum. Serena stated,
Most importantly it helped me to become more reflective and purposeful in my planning. … [The resident] would ask a lot of questions, and we discussed all aspects of our first two periods. Partway through the year, I realized how rarely we are asked about our planning decisions. Having these conversations with [the resident] allowed me to talk through my process with him, which allowed me to reflect on my decisions and practices. (Serena, vignette)
Henry echoed Serena’s statement on reflective practice: “It’s nice to be able to constantly reevaluate what you’re doing, seeing what works, what doesn’t work” (Henry, individual interview). Alluding to the diverse cultural and racial backgrounds that residents bring, Henry added that having a resident “with a different life experience” offered perspectives that differed from his own and helped him with planning, teaching, and evaluating his work:
Planning with residents has forced me to rethink, clarify, or adjust numerous lessons. Having a partner with an alternative perspective, different life experiences, varied learning styles/preferences, and different attributes has greatly increased the variety of lessons found in my classes … This has encouraged me to remain open-minded and to continue to experiment with new tactics or topics. (Henry, vignette)
Although distanced in cultural geographies, having firmly established closeness in shared moral and professional geographies and being close in physical geographies only added more opportunities for mentors and residents to see each other’s practice more critically.
Critically thinking about their own practices led to diverse ways of collaborating. Jennifer directly gained new ideas from her residents through “co-planning and co-teaching” (Jennifer, individual interview). Similarly, Serena was encouraged to try “new things” in her teaching because of her residents:
Teaching is best done with collaboration… I love curriculum planning with [my resident]. Trying out all the new lessons is still a part of teaching that I enjoy a lot, and I don’t mind changing my curriculum for someone who’s interested in trying new things. (Serena, individual interview)
The times and spaces that Jennifer and Serena shared with their residents for co-planning and co-teaching brought their physical geographies closer, which helped deepen their relationships, allowing them to learn from each other professionally and be more open to new ideas.
For Henry, who claimed to be “technology averse” (Henry, individual interview), learning from his residents about how to incorporate technology into his teaching enhanced student engagement. He noted:
One of my weaknesses in the classroom is a lack of familiarity and comfort with technology … However, my aversion to technology has been slowly eroding, in part, as a result of my interaction with various residents. Through collaboration during planning we have been able to incorporate the use of technology into numerous lessons. (Henry, vignette)
Henry then listed additional advantages he had gained from having a diverse set of residents over the years, which “allowed [him] to do more in the classroom” including “smaller group instruction, greater differentiation, station teaching, [and] more 1:1 support” (Henry, vignette).
The emotional closeness in their physical geographies—being together in the classroom, working together to improve student learning, having regular conversations through reflective practice, and co-planning and co-teaching—expanded their professional geographies. The mentor teachers learned to position themselves as co-learners who were continuing to grow as educators and collaborators. In the final theme below, we discuss how they navigated the power dynamics in their relationship with their residents to grow as mentors and develop their identity as teacher educators.
Sharing power and growing as a teacher educator
A critical theme that emerged was related to mentor teachers’ political geographies. Though initially distanced from residents during their early years of mentoring, they grew closer over time as the mentors gained more experience in mentoring residents and became more comfortable in their role as school-based teacher educators. Henry openly shared about the challenges he faced when sharing power in the classroom as a new mentor:
At first, I think it was easier for me to do [all the teaching] than it was to delegate. And it was hard for me to give up control, or allow for experimentation, because I wasn't confident enough in my own teaching ability. (Henry, individual interview)
Not only had he been new to mentoring, he had also been fairly new to teaching and was not confident in his own ability to teach. Jennifer shared a similar sentiment about the experience she had with one of her earliest residents:
This is only my second year hosting a resident, so it’s not natural to me to just let go of things. I [had] to make conscious decisions to make sure she has roles, but now we’re making sure to do that. (Jennifer, paired interview)
As the mentor teachers gained confidence in their own teaching and continued to mentor new residents in their classrooms, their perspectives and practices changed.
The longer they taught and engaged in mentoring new residents, the more compassion they began to have toward their own teacher-self, recognizing that teaching in urban settings is hard to do. This increased their comfortability with sharing power in the classroom. Henry stated,
It’s hard to teach. There are certain things that are much more difficult to teach, such as, how do you teach presence, how do you teach enthusiasm?… But I have learned there’s no substitute for experience, and that’s why [my resident] started teaching [on] day one. … The more experience that you’re willing to give them, the better off that they’re going to be. (Henry, individual interview)
The changes in the political geographies between the mentors and residents demonstrate the unique evolution in teacher educator identity development that is emotionally interconnected and relational. Understanding the challenges that come with urban teaching, the mentors began to show humility toward their residents, creating space for them to grow by meeting them where they were. It was “trying to remember where you were when you started, what were the supports that you would have needed, and really trusting them enough to give them opportunities in the classroom” (Henry, individual interview).
Serena mentioned one way to mentor with humility was to “teach what the resident feels capable of doing—split the tasks—[don’t] make them do something they’re not comfortable doing yet” (Serena, observation). She also gave the residents “space to be themselves, experiment, and even fail” (Serena, individual interview). Jennifer echoed the others:
[It is] allow[ing] that person to find their own voice for how they’re going to do [a task]… and then really providing a lot of opportunities for the resident to safely get their feet wet in teaching. (Jennifer, individual interview)
Their mentoring practices seemed to mature as they were able to balance the shortening and distancing of emotional connections in their political geographies with residents with purpose and flexibility. By “figuring out who [the resident] is as a teacher and what’s going to work for [them]” (Jennifer, paired interview), the mentors were able to share power and provide the necessary space for residents to grow as teachers and individuals.
Just as the residents grew into competent novice teachers, the mentors grew as novice teacher educators. Henry wrote:
On a personal note, I have felt like a learner myself and have been reminded of the feelings that come along with trying something new and unfamiliar… this experience of learning from a resident and allowing someone else to help me has made me more open to new experiences and new methods of teaching. (Henry, vignette)
As she reflected on her teaching and mentoring practice, Serena agreed that being a teacher educator meant becoming a learner again:
It’s been a good reminder to be more thoughtful and reflective… Managing adults is a new skill for me, and it’s not my strength since I’m used to managing kids all day. Through mentoring… I’ve learned to slow down and think about things that I don’t usually consider. (Serena, individual interview)
After serving as a mentor for nearly a decade, Henry summarized that being “a good mentor teacher” means making sure that his residents learn to experience the emotional aspects of teaching, “the joy of becoming a teacher” (Henry, individual interview). Imparting a love for teaching to their residents appeared to be at the core of their continuation of mentoring; in return, mentoring became a site of personal and professional growth.
Discussion and implications
Our findings emphasize that mentoring was a reciprocal process for the mentor teachers: interactions with residents prompted deep self-reflection and introduced innovative teaching methods. Insights from Henry, Serena, and Jennifer reveal that mentor teachers, to truly develop as teacher educators, need the space to stretch and grow while in relationship with their residents. The findings also stress the importance of understanding the emotional landscapes that educators navigate. The context of the individual school community, shared moral and professional goals, and a common vision play a defining role in how power dynamics unfold. For example, Jennifer elaborated on the mutual acknowledgment of a shared commitment to social equity and the well-being of newcomer immigrant students, highlighting the importance of shared goals. We also learned that for school-based teacher educators to flourish, there must be an alignment of goals and philosophies between schools and teacher education programs. This was linked to strong personal bonds between mentor teachers and residents because of their commitment to advancing social justice through education. Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize the distinct emotional journeys educators embark upon and provide opportunities for reflection and intentional professional development with an emphasis on mentorship. These emotional geographies highlight the importance of supporting new school-based teacher educators while valuing the individual context of each mentor. The intricacies of these emotional geographies in teacher education partnerships warrant deeper exploration.
The opportunity to develop a school-based teacher educator identity within the classroom setting is also important. To improve their status in the profession, teachers often move into school administration; instead, they need opportunities to lead from the classroom in efforts to continue their professional identity development. The Singaporean model, which offers teachers the option to continue their development (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2019), includes a provision by the Ministry of Education that entitles all teachers to 100 h of in-service training annually, fostering continuous professional growth (International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes, 2008). Additionally, the Education Service Professional Development and Career Plan (EduPac), established in 2001, offers a career structure with three tracks—teaching, leadership, and senior specialist—and initiatives like the Professional Development Leave (PDL) scheme, enabling teachers to pursue ongoing learning and development in professional practice (International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes, 2008). This model could inform ways in which teachers develop agency and ownership over their work, not just with K–12 students but also as school-based teacher educators. The opportunity to expand their status provides more latitude and goes a long way toward professionalizing the mentorship essential to preparing strong classroom teachers. Recognizing the distinct and context-dependent emotional journeys that individuals undertake as they progress into seasoned educators and mentors reinforces the importance of programs aimed at nurturing school-based teacher educators in a way that supports their individuality. Further research is needed to explore the complex geographies of teacher education partnerships to enhance the understanding and practice of all members.
Given the underrecognition and underestimation of school-based teacher educators, it is imperative to expand the discourse on teacher education to encompass all contributors (White and Forgasz, 2017). Future research can prioritize investigation of teacher educators and the developmental trajectories involved in becoming school-based teacher educators. This would address a gap in the literature, as most research in teacher education focuses on university-based teacher educators and the partnerships between universities and schools (Farrell, 2023). This widened perspective will illuminate the roles played by educators who straddle the domains of classroom and mentorship.
Conclusion
This study examined the relationship between emotions and the formation of professional teacher educator identity through the experienced mentor teachers’ mentoring practice with teaching residents. The key findings are: (1) the mentor teachers built relationships with residents through having the same professional and moral commitment rooted in social justice, (2) the mentor teachers reenvisioned their teaching and learning relationships through physical and professional proximity, and (3) the mentor teachers’ navigation of their political geographies by sharing power and responsibilities with residents in the classroom helped them grow as teacher educators. As shown in our findings, emotions play a substantial role in shaping one’s professional identity (Cross and Hong, 2009; Schutz and Lee, 2014), and examining this role would provide insights into how emotions impact interactions with preservice teachers and their links to teacher education programs. The concept of emotional geographies is instrumental in molding an educator’s professional identity (Schutz et al., 2007; Sutton and Wheatley, 2003; Timoštšuk and Ugaste, 2010, 2012). By engaging with these landscapes, educators can gain a clearer perspective on their roles and extend their professional capital within the broader educational community. This understanding can pave the way for a more democratic approach to teacher education, promoting genuine participation from school-based educators and ensuring inclusivity, diversity, and progression.
This study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, USA, April 13–16, 2023. We would like to thank our three participating mentor teachers for their tireless efforts to prepare preservice teachers for public school classrooms and for contributing their experiences and perspectives to this study. We would also like to thank the TR@TC research team, Dr Laura Vernikoff, Dr Sharon Chang and Han Gil Kim for their written comments on the earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Funding: The teacher residency program and this work were supported by the US Office of Innovation and Improvement: Teacher Quality Partnership (No: U336S190033). Any opinions expressed reflect the views of the authors alone. The second author would like to thank TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye - 2219 International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program) for their financial support during her post-doctoral studies at Teachers College, Columbia University, including this research.
Disclosure statement: The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest involved with this research.
