 sat among the students, usually in different parts of the room. In this way, we exposed the students to conversations among us in which we each clearly assumed the tasks of guiding and following at 10 May 2017 Page 8 of 14 ProQuest different times and in different ways. As students in each other's classes, we asked and answered questions and we worked along with other students in the small groups, refusing to take on the role of group leader. We allowed the students to see and hear conversations among faculty that distributed the authority any one of us might otherwise have had and revealed us as alternating responsibilities for leading and following in different situations. This is not to say that the two instructors relinquished their responsibilities to select readings, structure discussions, provide lectures, and evaluate student work. The students had many opportunities to see the teachers also doing nonauthoritative kinds of things, such as raising our hands to ask each other questions, being called upon by each other for certain kinds of input when we were not officially in charge, struggling within small groups with the students to cooperate in accomplishing the discussion tasks. All three of us often operated as co-learners, working alongside students to think about disciplines and questions that were not our own. We modeled role shifts. *We shared an investment in creating and facilitating group conversations that worked, both in terms of the relational dynamics and completion of assigned tasks. We were in an advantageous position for monitoring these because we had teachers in more places, and at least two of those present did not carry the responsibilities of the primary facilitator. It also helped that we met frequently before and after classes to share information and insights. Each instructor had a much fuller reading of what was happening in the classroom than she could have produced with only herself to rely upon. This also helped the instructors to feel more confident about whatever decisions they made, for example, in changing the composition of the small groups. We let our students know that we relied upon one another for advice, and we let them know that we gave and received criticism from one another. They saw how we changed our own teaching styles under the influence of one another's feedback and example. In short, we modeled co-mentormg in our teaching process, and we let our students know how inspirited we felt by this co-labor. We built opportunities for student criticism into the course and shared with the entire class our responses to their comments and the reasons for the adjustments we made. *Classes were spent working through the assigned readings. It was made clear from the beginning that
sat among the students, usually in different part of the room. In this direction, we exposed the students to conversations among us in which we each distinctly assumed the tasks of guide and trace at 10 May 2017 Page 8 of 14 ProQuest different fourth dimension and in different ways. As scholar in each other's classes, we necessitate and suffice questions and we worked along with other students in the small group, refusing to take on the role of group drawing card. We allowed the students to interpret and hear conversation among faculty that distribute the authority any one of us might otherwise have had and reveal us as alternating responsibilities for leading and following in different situations. This is not to say that the two instructors relinquished their responsibilities to select readings, structure discussions, provide lectures, and evaluate scholar employment. The students have many opportunity to see the teachers also doing nonauthoritative kinds of things, such as raising our hands to necessitate each other questions, being called upon by each other for certain kinds of input when we were not officially in charge, struggling within small groups with the student to cooperate in carry through the discussion tasks. All three of us often operated as co - learners, make alongside students to think about disciplines and question that were not our own. We modeled role shifts. * We shared an investing in creating and facilitating group conversations that worked, both in terms of the relational moral force and completion of assigned tasks. We were in an advantageous position for monitoring these because we induce teachers in more position, and at least two of those present did not carry the responsibilities of the primary facilitator. It also helped that we meet frequently before and after classes to share information and insights. Each instructor had a much full reading of what was happening in the classroom than she could have produce with only herself to rely upon. This also helped the instructors to feel more convinced about whatever decisions they made, for example, in changing the composition of the small groups. We let our student acknowledge that we relied upon one another for advice, and we let them know that we gave and received criticism from one another. They saw how we deepen our own teaching styles under the influence of one another's feedback and example. In brusque, we modeled co - mentormg in our teaching process, and we let our scholar know how inspirited we felt by this colorado - labor. We built opportunity for student criticism into the course and shared with the entire class our responses to their comments and the reasons for the adjustments we made. * Classes were spent working through the assigned readings. It was made clear from the beginning that
 sah among the students, usuxlly in differeur partv of tge room. Kn this way, we exposed the svudebts ti conversations among js in whibh we eacy cltarly assumed the tasks on guislng aud following at 10 May 2017 Page 8 of 14 ProQuest dkfyerent times and in different ways. Af studemtd in each othet's clsfses, we asked and answered questions ahd we wmrked along woth other students in the dmalp groups, refusing ho take on jge wile of group leader. We allowed the students to see and hear convefsatipns among daxulhi that distrmbuted the authoribj any ote of ux might otherwlse heve yad and revealed us av alternating respjnsibilithea for leading and fillowhng hn dkdfefenu smtuztions. Thms is not tk say that rhe two instructors rqoinquished thsir refpjnsibilities to select readings, structuge djscussions, provide lectyres, and evaluate stufent work. The students had many opportunities to see the taachecs alwo aiijg nonauthoritative kinds of things, such as rwjsonn our hands to afk each othrr qigstions, being zalled upkn by each other flr certwin kunds of igput when we were not officiallt in charge, frruggling within slall groups witn the students to cooperate nn acckmplishing hhe discuarion tasks. All tfrev of us often operated as co-lewrners, wocking alongskde xtudenes to thinn abomd disciplines and euestnons dhat were jot our own. We modeled role shihvs. *We shared sn innestment nn cresting and facylitating grouk conversctions that workvd, both ii terms of tre relational fynamics and completyon if awsigned gasks. We were on an advcutageous position for monitprivf these because we had teachers im mure ppares, agg at least tfo ow tfpse pfesent did kot carty the responsibilithes kf the primary facolltator. It also hejped that we ket frequently beflre aid aftxr claxsef to share information and insjghts. Eacj ikstructor had a mmch suller reabing of what was happening in the classriom than she could have produced with pnly herselh to rqly upon. Dhis also helped the instructors to ftel more confident abouf whataver fecisions they made, for example, in changing the composition of the small troups. We let our atudrnts nnjc that re rxlmed upon one anotner for advice, and we let them ynow thad ce gave and received criticisk wrom one anotfer. They saw how we chanfed our pwn teaching styles under the imfluence of one another's feedbacj and example. Ii short, we modeled cp-mentoxmg in our teqchikg process, and we lct our stufentx inow how inspirited we felt by tyis co-oahor. We built oppmrtunities nov studgnt critycism into the ckurss and rhared with tne entire clasx our responses to tveyr comments ane the reasons for jkv adjustments we made. *Cldsses were spent working through the assigned readihgs. It waa made clxar from the bggmnning that
sat among the students, usually in different the In this we exposed the in we each clearly the tasks of and following at 10 May 2017 8 of 14 ProQuest different times and in different ways. As students in other's classes, we asked and answered questions and we worked along with other in small refusing take on the role of group leader. We allowed the students to see and hear conversations faculty that distributed the authority any one of might otherwise have had revealed us as alternating responsibilities leading following in situations. is to say that two instructors relinquished their responsibilities to select readings, structure discussions, provide lectures, and evaluate student work. The had many see the also nonauthoritative of things, such our hands to ask each other upon by each other for certain kinds of when we not officially in charge, struggling within groups with the students to cooperate in accomplishing discussion tasks. All three of us often operated as co-learners, working alongside students to think and questions that were our own. We role *We an in creating facilitating group conversations that worked, both in terms of the relational and completion of assigned tasks. We were in an advantageous monitoring because we had in more places, and least of those present did the of It helped we met frequently before after classes to share information insights. Each instructor had what was happening in the classroom than she have produced with only herself to rely This also helped the instructors to feel more confident about whatever decisions made, for changing the composition of the small groups. We our students know that relied upon one another for advice, and we let know we gave received criticism from another. They saw we changed our styles under influence one example. In short, we modeled co-mentormg our process, and we let our know we felt by this co-labor. We built opportunities for student criticism into the course and the entire class our to comments and the reasons for the adjustments we made. *Classes were spent the assigned readings. from beginning that
 sat among the students, usuallY in differeNt parTs oF thE rOom. IN thiS way, we exposed tHE stuDents to conversations amOng us In WHich WE eAch clEarly asSUmED The TaSkS of GuIDiNg and FolLowing aT 10 May 2017 Page 8 of 14 proquEst different TImEs and in difFerEnt ways. As stuDenTs in eaCh OthER's claSseS, we asKed and ANswereD questionS aND we worKEd along WITh OtheR students in the smaLL gROups, refusing to Take on ThE RoLE Of gRouP leader. We aLlOwed tHE studenTS tO SEE anD Hear conversatIons among faCUltY that dIsTriBUted thE authOrITy aNy one of us miGht oTherwise hAve had ANd reveaLEd us as aLternaTinG reSponSIbIlItiEs FOr lEAdIng ANd fOllowing In DiFfereNt siTUATIons. thiS is nOt to sAy that the two iNstRuctORs rElinqUisheD theIr RespoNsibilIties To Select readings, sTrucTure discuSsiOnS, prOvIde leCTures, aNd eValUate stuDent worK. the StUDENtS had many opportunitIeS TO sEe the teaChers aLSo DoINg nonautHoRitAtivE KInds oF thiNGs, Such as raIsing oUR hAnDs to ask EaCh otheR qUesTioNs, beiNG calLed upoN by each oTher fOR certain kinds oF Input when we weRE nOT OfFIciaLly In charge, strUgglINg wiThin SMaLl gROups wIth thE sTUdENts to cooperate in accOmPlishiNg the Discussion tasKs. All three OF US often opEratED aS Co-learners, workIng alOngside stuDEnts to thInk abOut disciPlines and QUEstions tHat WerE noT ouR OWn. we modeled role SHIfts. *we Shared aN inVestmenT in CreAtiNg aNd FacilitatIng group CoNvErSaTioNs thaT Worked, boTh In tErMs oF the rELationAl dynAmicS aNd COmpLetion oF AsSIGned TaSkS. We wEre In An advAntaGEouS positiOn for moniTorINg thEsE bEcause wE had teachers iN mOre places, aNd At lEast twO OF those prEsent did not carry the respONsibiliTieS of thE priMary facilItaTor. It aLso HElped tHat we mEt freQuEntLY BeforE ANd AftEr Classes to sHARe iNformAtIon aNd insigHts. Each instructor hAD a mUch fuller readIng Of whAT WaS haPPeNIng In THe cLASsroom than she coUld have proDuCEd With only heRSelF tO rely upOn. This aLso heLPed the iNstructorS to feel moRe ConfIDEnt About whateVer decisIons they mADe, for EXaMple, iN chAnging ThE coMposiTion of THe sMall gRoups. WE lEt our sTudenTs Know that We relied upon one another fOr adviCe, and We lEt them knoW thAT we Gave and reCeivEd criticisM frOm oNe anoTheR. they sAw hoW We ChaNGed ouR own TEaching stYLeS unDER tHe influence OF ONe aNotheR's fEEdback And eXample. In short, we moDEled co-mentormg In ouR TEacHinG ProcEsS, and we let our stUdeNtS KNow how inSpIrited we felT by this cO-lABor. We Built oPportuNities fOR StUDent crIticIsm Into the coUrsE aND shared WiTh THe entiRe clAsS our reSponseS To thEIR comments and the rEasonS FOr the ADjuStmenTs We made. *CLAsseS were spent Working throUgh the AssiGned rEadings. it Was madE clEaR from the beGInning thaT
 sat among the students, u sually indiffe ren t p ar ts o f th e room. In thi s  way , we exposed the stude nts t oc onve r sa tions  amongu si n  wh ic hweea c hclear lyassumed  the tasks  of  g uiding and f o ll owing at 1 0 M ay 2017 Page  8of 14Pr oQu e st di ffe renttimesa nd indifferent  w a ys. As student s in  eac h other's classes ,  w e  asked and ans weredqu e st i o nsand  we worked  a longw ith oth e rs t u den t s in the smal l groups, r e fus ing to  t ake on the  role  o f  gr oup leader.  Weallowed t he stu d ents to see and  hearcon ver sati o ns  a mon gf acu l ty  th a t d istribut ed  t he au thor i t y anyone  ofus mi ght otherwise  ha ve h a d a nd re veale d us  a s alt ernati ng re sp onsibilities fo r le ading and  fo ll owi ng  in d i fferen t s itu ations.  This i s  no tt o sa y that the two ins tr u c to rs relin quishe d  t he i r respon si bil itie s to se lect re adings,struct u re  d iscussi on s, pro vi delec tures ,  and  evalu ate stud ent w o rk. The studen t s had many op p or t u ni t iestosee the tea cher s  als o do i ng  no n autho ritat iv e  k i nds of things, such  a s rais ing o ur hands to a sk each ot h e r  questio ns,b ei n g called uponby ea ch other f o r certai n kin ds of in put whenw e  were no t o ffi cia lly i ncharge, strug g l ingwi thin sm all  groups  wi ththe  st ud ents to c ooperate  i nac co mpl ishin g  the dis cu ssi on  ta sks.A ll thr ee of  usof te n  op erateda sc o -lea rn er s, w ork in g alo ngsi d e s tudents  to think  ab o ut d is ci plinesand questions  t hat were n ot  ou r own. W e modele d role shifts. *We shar e d an in ves tment  increatingand  facil ita t ing gr oup co nvers at ion s thatw o rk ed,  b oth in ter m s  of  there lati onal dy namics and complet i onof assigned t ask s. W e we rei na n a dv a nta g e ous position fo r monitori ng th ese becaus e  we  h ad teac hers in  more places,  and at l east twoof  tho s e  pr esent didnot carr y the res p onsib i li tiesofthe pr im ary  faci litato r . I t als o help ed  thatwe me tfrequent ly before and after cla sses t o sha reinformati ona ndinsights.  Eac h instruct orhad  a mu chf uller  rea d in g o f  what  was happening in  th e cl assroom tha n s hecould  ha v e prod uced  with only hersel f  to rely upon.  Thi s als o h e lped  t he instructors  to  f e e l more c on fident abou t whatev er decis ions t hey ma de, for e xa m ple, i n ch ang ing the c omp os i tion of  t he smallgrou ps . We l et our stud e n ts know that werelie d upono neanoth er  for ad v ice,  and we le t them know  thatwe g ave a nd rece iv ed cri tic is m from one another.Theysaw how  w e ch ang ed our  own t eachi ng s ty les  under th e in f lu en c e o f on e ano th er's  feedback and exam ple .  In sho rt , w e modele d  c o - mentormg i n o ur te a c hing proce s s, a n dw e let  our s tudent s knowh owin spirite d w e felt by t his co-la b or.  W e bu ilt oppo rt unit ie s f or  student critic ism into  the cou r s e andsha r ed w i th the  e ntire classour r es p onses t o the ir comm e nts  an d t he r eas onsf or the adjustments we ma de.*Clas s eswerespent  w orking t h roug h the as s igned reading s. It was madec lea r  fro m t h ebe ginning t hat 
 sat_among the_students, usually in different_parts of_the_room. In_this_way, we exposed_the students to_conversations among us in_which we each_clearly_assumed the tasks of guiding and following at 10 May 2017 Page 8 of_14_ProQuest different_times_and_in different ways. As students_in each other's classes, we_asked and_answered questions and we worked along with other_students_in the small_groups, refusing to take on the role of group_leader. We allowed the students to_see and hear_conversations_among_faculty that distributed the_authority any one of us might_otherwise have had and revealed us_as alternating responsibilities for leading and following_in different situations. This is not_to say that the two_instructors relinquished_their responsibilities to select readings,_structure discussions, provide_lectures, and_evaluate student work._The students had many opportunities to_see the teachers_also doing nonauthoritative kinds of things,_such_as raising our_hands_to_ask each_other questions, being_called_upon by_each_other for certain kinds of input_when_we were not officially in charge, struggling_within small groups with_the_students to cooperate in_accomplishing the discussion tasks. All_three of us often operated as_co-learners, working_alongside students_to think about disciplines and questions that were not our own._We modeled role shifts. *We shared_an investment in creating_and facilitating_group_conversations that worked,_both_in terms_of the relational dynamics and completion of_assigned tasks._We were in an advantageous position_for monitoring these because_we_had teachers in more places, and_at least two of those present_did not carry the responsibilities_of_the_primary facilitator. It also helped_that we met frequently before and_after classes to_share information and insights. Each instructor had_a_much fuller reading of what was_happening_in the classroom than she could_have_produced_with only herself to rely_upon. This also helped the instructors_to feel more confident about whatever decisions they made,_for example, in_changing the composition of the_small_groups._We let our students know that we relied upon one_another for_advice, and we_let them know that we gave and received criticism from_one another. They saw how we changed_our own teaching styles under the influence of one another's feedback_and example. In short, we modeled co-mentormg in_our teaching process, and we let our_students know how inspirited_we_felt by this co-labor. We built opportunities_for_student_criticism_into the course_and shared with_the entire class_our responses_to their comments_and the_reasons for the_adjustments_we made. *Classes were spent working through the assigned readings. It was made clear from the beginning that