An Intentionally Inviting Clinical Mentoring Protocol for the Teacher Candidate Supervisory Triad

Often clinical student teachers are assigned to work with small groups comprised of the least proficient or most behaviorally challenged classroom students.  Given this, it is crucial for university supervisors of teacher preparation programs to utilize an intentionally inviting approach (Purkey, Novak, & Fretz, 2000; Anderson 2021) to encourage cooperating teachers to mentor for best practices that utilize universal design for learning approaches rather than an immersion approach to class management. For teacher preparation programs, it is important to reframe its clinical placement experience from ‘the student teacher learns to manage difficult groups’ to ‘the teacher candidate and the cooperating teacher learns to design conditions in which those students can successfully participate.’

That shift in perspective fits particularly well with Invitational Education (IE) because the university supervisor's role becomes one of intentionally inviting the cooperating teacher into a different way of seeing both the students and the clinical teacher candidate. Invitational Education describes an intentionally inviting stance through intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (I-CORT) and applies that mindset not only to people but also to places, policies, programs, and processes (5Ps). Universal Design for Learning  UDL principles similarly begin with the premise that learner variability is predictable and intentionally inclusive educators should proactively reduce barriers through multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression, rather than waiting for students to fail and then being reactive.

The following protocol is designed for use as a cooperating-teacher mentoring tool during clinical teacher candidate practice. It integrates the I-CORT assumptions of Invitational Education) with UDL and proactive classroom management.  Utilization of this protocol can ideally help intentionally mentor clinical teacher candidates toward inclusive, proactive, and evidence-based teaching. When clinical teacher candidates work with small groups of students who have experienced academic difficulty or behavioral challenges, the goal is not simply provide an opportunity for the teacher candidates to experience how to manage the most diverse learners. The goal is to help teacher candidates learn to identify barriers, design accessible learning experiences, build relationships, and use data-based evidence to improve instruction.

This suggested protocol and any of the provided forms herein can be usable during an actual pre-conference/post-conference, rather than simply turning the previous protocol into a checklist. The three column approach can clarify what each member of the clinical partnership is responsible for doing. Explicitly connecting the form to InTASC Standards 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 is important because they collectively capture learner variability, learning environment, assessment, planning, instructional strategies, reflection, and collaboration. The UDL component reflects the current CAST UDL Guidelines 3.0, which emphasizes learner agency, belonging, anticipating barriers, multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression.

An Intentionally Inviting Clinical Mentoring Protocol

A Guide for Cooperating Teachers for Developing Day One Ready Teacher Candidates

Purpose:
Use this protocol to intentionally mentor clinical teacher candidates toward inclusive, proactive, and evidence-based teaching. When clinical candidates work with small groups of students who have experienced academic difficulty or behavioral challenges, the goal is not simply for the teacher candidate to manage these students. The goal is to help teacher candidates learn to identify barriers, design accessible learning experiences, build relationships, and use evidence to improve instruction.

Using the INVITE Cycle:

I — Investigate the Learner

Invite with CARE

Before identifying a problem, help the teacher candidate understand the learner.

Ask:

• What are this student's strengths, interests, prior knowledge, and successful experiences?
• What conditions help this student engage and learn?
• What relationships or experiences might influence participation?

Mentor’s intention: Model language that describes students by their strengths and learning needs rather than by deficits or labels.

 

N — Name the Barrier

Invite with RESPECT

Move from “What's wrong with the student?” to “What barrier is interfering with learning?”

Ask:

• Is the barrier related to the task, directions, materials, environment, pacing, relationships, or expectations?
• What evidence do we have?
• Is the student unable to do the task—or unable to access the way the task is currently designed?

Mentor’s intention: Help the teacher candidate distinguish between student behavior and student access to learning.

 

V — Vary the Design

Invite with INTENTIONALITY

Encourage the teacher candidate to proactively apply Universal Design for Learning principles.

Consider Multiple Means of:

• Engagement: How can we increase relevance, choice, collaboration, or motivation?
• Representation: How can information be presented in multiple accessible ways?
• Action & Expression: How can students demonstrate understanding in different ways?
• Environment: What can we change about routines, space, time, materials, or transitions?

Mentor’s intention: Ask the teacher candidate, “What can we change in the design before we change the expectation?”

 

I — Invite Participation

Invite with TRUST

Create opportunities for ALL learners to experience competence, agency, belonging, and responsibility.

Ask:

• What meaningful choice can the student make?
• How can each student contribute to the group?
• How can we communicate that we believe each student can succeed?
• What support can we gradually remove as independence increases?

Mentor’s intention: Model for the teacher candidate high expectations with appropriate supports rather than lowering expectations because a learner has previously struggled.

 

T — Track Evidence

Invite with OPTIMISM

Help the teacher candidate determine whether the instructional change made a difference.

Look for data-based evidence of:

• increased engagement;
• time on task;
• participation;
• understanding;
• independence;
• quality of student work;
• improved interactions.

Ask:

“What did the student do differently when we changed the learning design?”

Mentor’s intention: Celebrate evidence of growth with the teacher candidate AND learners.  Use unsuccessful attempts as information for the next instructional decision.

 

E — Evaluate & Refine

Invite with INTENTIONALITY

After the lesson, engage in a brief reflective conversation. Ask:

What worked?
What did the evidence tell us?
What barrier(s) remain?
What will we intentionally change next?

Use the Action Research cycle:

Observe → Hypothesize → Design → Implement → Collect Evidence → Reflect → Revise

 

Cooperating Teacher Commitments

As a cooperating teacher, I will:

☐ Model care, respect, trust, optimism, and intentionality in my interactions with students and the clinical teacher.

☐ Avoid defining students primarily by academic or behavioral deficits.

☐ Mentor the clinical teacher to design for learner variability before relying on corrective management strategies.

☐ Make my instructional decision-making visible through think-alouds and reflective conversations.

☐ Provide the clinical teacher opportunities to plan, implement, assess, and revise UDL-informed instruction.

☐ Treat challenging teaching situations as professional learning opportunities, not simply problems to be controlled.

☐ Use evidence of student learning and engagement to guide feedback.

 

The Key Mentoring Question: What can we intentionally design through relationships, instruction, environment, and assessment to invite this learner into successful participation?

Clinical Goal: From managing the ‘difficult group’ to designing conditions whereby every learner can participate, belong, and succeed.

 

TRIAD: Cooperating Teacher > Clinical Teacher > University Supervisor

Preparing Day One Ready Teachers Through Invitational Education and UDL Principles

Purpose: To intentionally develop clinical teacher candidates who respond to learner variability by designing inclusive learning environments, anticipating barriers, using evidence, and building relationships characterized by Intentionality, Care, Optimism, Respect, and Trust (-ICORT).

Clinical Focus or Student Group: ___________________________________________

Date: _______________ Lesson/Content: ________________________________

THE INVITE CYCLE

COOPERATING TEACHER	CLINICAL TEACHER CANDIDATE	UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR
I — INVESTIGATE THE LEARNER (CARE) Share strengths, interests, prior knowledge, successful experiences, and conditions that support engagement. Avoid deficit labels. InTASC 1, 2, 3	Identify learner strengths and variability before planning. Ask: What does this learner already know, do, value, and need? Day One Ready: Knows learners and builds relationships.	Ask: What evidence demonstrates that the candidate understands the learner beyond academic/behavioral labels? Look for: asset-based language, knowledge of learner variability, relationship building.
N — NAME THE BARRIER (RESPECT) Help distinguish a learner difficulty from a barrier created by the task, environment, materials, pacing, directions, or interaction. InTASC 2, 3	Analyze the learning barrier before assuming noncompliance. Ask: What might be getting in the way of access, engagement, or participation? Day One Ready: Anticipates learner needs.	Coach the candidate to examine the instructional/environmental context before defaulting to behavior correction. Look for: evidence-based problem identification.
V — VARY THE DESIGN (INTENTIONALITY) Model proactive UDL planning rather than relying first on remediation or immersion in behavior management. InTASC 2, 3, 7, 8	Design multiple means of Engagement, Representation, and Action & Expression while maintaining meaningful learning goals. Day One Ready: Plans accessible, differentiated instruction.	Ask: What barrier can we remove through instructional design? Look for: choice, scaffolds, multiple representations, flexible response options, appropriate challenge/support.
I — INVITE PARTICIPATION (TRUST) Create opportunities for students to experience competence, belonging, agency, and responsibility. InTASC 3, 8	Establish clear expectations while providing meaningful opportunities for student voice, choice, collaboration, and successful participation. Day One Ready: Creates a positive learning environment.	Observe whether management preserves student dignity and access to learning. Look for: proactive routines, positive interactions, engagement, student agency—not simply compliance.
T — TRACK EVIDENCE (OPTIMISM) Help identify observable evidence of engagement, learning, independence, and progress. InTASC 6	Collect formative evidence: What did students do, say, produce, or demonstrate? Use evidence to determine whether the design worked. Day One Ready: Uses formative assessment to adjust instruction.	Ask: What evidence supports your conclusion? Distinguish perception from observable evidence. Look for: purposeful formative assessment and responsive decision-making.
E — EVALUATE & REFINE (INTENTIONALITY) Engage the candidate in reflective problem solving rather than simply providing corrective advice. InTASC 6, 7, 9, 10	Reflect: What worked? What barrier remains? What will I change next? Why? Day One Ready: Reflects, responds to evidence, and seeks improvement.	Facilitate a reflective coaching conversation. Identify one evidence-based next step and connect it to professional standards. Look for: reflection, responsiveness, collaboration, professional growth.

 UDL Principles and Invitational Education LOOK-FORS:

Before correcting behavior, ask:

☐ Engagement: Is the learner interested, connected, appropriately challenged, and supported?

☐ Representation: Does the learner have an accessible way to understand the information and expectations?

☐ Action & Expression: Does the learner have an appropriate way to participate and demonstrate understanding?

☐ Environment: Are routines, transitions, materials, time, and expectations predictable?

☐ Relationships: Does the learner experience care, trust, respect, and optimism?

☐ Evidence: What observable student behavior or learning tells us whether the instructional change worked?

CAST describes UDL as proactively addressing predictable learner variability through engagement, representation, and action/expression; UDL 3.0 also emphasizes belonging, agency, anticipating challenges, and challenging exclusionary practices.

 

‘DAY ONE READY’ CLINICAL INDICATORS

The ‘Day One Ready’ clinical teacher candidate proficiently…

KNOWS by identifying learner strengths, needs, interests, and variability.
DESIGNS by anticipating barriers and plan accessible, appropriately challenging instruction.
INVITES by establishing relationships and environments characterized by care, respect, trust, and optimism.
ENGAGES through proactive strategies that increase meaningful student participation.
ASSESSES by gathering formative evidence of learning and engagement.
RESPONDS by adjusting instruction based on evidence rather than relying primarily on reactive management.
REFLECTS by explaining instructional decisions and identifying specific next steps.
COLLABORATES by seeking, receiving, and applying feedback from cooperating teachers and supervisors.

InTASC Alignment: 1 Learner Development • 2 Learning Differences • 3 Learning Environments • 6 Assessment • 7 Planning for Instruction • 8 Instructional Strategies • 9 Professional Learning & Ethical Practice • 10 Leadership & Collaboration.

CLINICAL PARTNERSHIP REFLECTION ACTIVITY:

Evidence of student growth/engagement:

Barrier identified:

UDL/invitational strategy attempted:

What did the evidence tell us?

Next intentional instructional step:

 

Clinical Teacher: ________________________
Cooperating Teacher: ____________________
University Supervisor: ____________________

A Guiding Question:
“What can we intentionally design through relationships, instruction, environment, and assessment to invite this learner into successful participation?”

The intent is to encourage an essential shift in one's inclusive mindset and pedagogical approach. Every university supervisor is invited to explicitly mentor cooperating teachers toward this progression:

Traditional/Immersion Approach	Intentionally Inviting + UDL Approach
“These are my lowest students.”	“These learners bring variability that we need to understand.”
“They need more behavior management.”	“What barriers are producing disengagement?”
“Keep them quiet and on task.”	“Design meaningful ways for them to engage and participate.”
“Give them easier work.”	“Maintain the learning goal while varying access and support.”
“The student teacher needs to learn classroom control.”	“The student teacher needs to learn proactive instructional design.”
“Pull them aside when they misbehave.”	“Anticipate barriers before behavior escalates.”
“Manage the group.”	“Design the environment, instruction, and relationships.”

 

The important distinction is that UDL principles are neither permissiveness nor are they a substitute for effective classroom management. Rather, planning with UDL principles and 3.0 guidelines move some of the management problem upstream by asking:

What can we change in the design of the learning experience so that fewer students encounter unnecessary barriers to engagement?

CAST's current UDL 3.0 framework explicitly includes anticipating challenges, optimizing challenge and support, fostering belonging and collaboration, and providing action-oriented feedback.

Use the university supervisor>cooperating teacher conference as an “invitation”

Rather than starting a supervisory conversation with: “How are you going to get these students to behave?…”  the supervisor might instead intentionally invite the cooperating teacher to examine the situation differently:

“What might these students be telling us about the design of the learning environment?”

That is a very different university supervisory stance. Continuing, the supervisor could use five questions corresponding to IE’s I-CORT stance:

Intentionality: “What are we deliberately designing differently tomorrow?” This converts the conversation from philosophy into an instructional experiment.

Care: “What do we know about these students as learners, not simply as behavior problems?” Ask the cooperating teacher and student teacher to identify:

• interests and strengths;
• prior knowledge;
• successful learning experiences;
• relationships and peer connections;
• conditions under which the student participates successfully.

This prevents the clinical teacher candidate from beginning with a deficit description.

Optimism: “What evidence suggests these students can be successful?” The goal is to prevent the clinical teacher candidate from internalizing the belief that “This is the group nobody can teach.” Instead, the cooperating teacher models the professional belief that instructional success is possible and therefore worth designing, planning, and implementing.

Respect: “Are we interpreting student behavior as communication or simply as noncompliance?” This is particularly important when students are routinely placed in a separate small group because they are perceived as the “least proficient” or “most challenging.” A respectful interpretation asks: What is the student trying to accomplish, avoid, communicate, or access? That question can lead directly to UDL planning.

Trust: “What responsibility can we give the student teacher for designing and trying an instructional response?” Rather than telling the teacher candidate exactly how to control the group, the cooperating teacher becomes a mentor who essentially conveys: “I trust you to study this problem, design an intervention, try it, and learn from the results.” That creates a much more authentic clinical-learning experience.

Make UDL 3.0 Guidelines the mentoring language for classroom management

A particularly powerful move for teacher preparation programs would be to connect UDL principles and 3.0 guidelines directly to the program's expectations for classroom management, rather than treating them as separate competencies.

For example:

Before responding to a behavior problem, the teacher candidate learns to ask about:

1. Engagement: Was the learner interested, connected, appropriately challenged, and supported?
2. Representation: Did the learner have an accessible way to understand what was expected?
3. Action & Expression: Did the learner have an appropriate way to participate or demonstrate understanding?
4. Environment: Were transitions, materials, space, time, and routines predictable?
5. Relationship: Did the learner experience the teacher as caring, respectful, and trustworthy?

This is particularly consistent with UDL 3.0 guidelines, which includes optimizing challenge and support, fostering belonging and community, anticipating challenges, and enhancing learners' capacity to monitor progress.

The result reinforces a useful clinical principle: Behavior management should begin with instructional design, not end with behavioral correction.

Invite the cooperating teacher to model ‘design before discipline’

The cooperating teacher could deliberately model a three-step process for the clinical teacher candidate:

Step 1, Identify the barrier: Rather than: “Marcus won't participate.” Model asking:

“What is preventing Marcus from accessing this learning experience?”

Step 2, Change the design:  For example:

• provide visual directions;
• chunk the task;
• provide a model;
• activate prior knowledge;
• offer choice;
• allow verbal, written, visual, or technological responses;
• use peer collaboration;
• adjust the amount of practice without lowering the learning goal;
• provide graduated support.

Step 3, Examine the response:  Invites the teacher candidate to respond to the question, “What changed when we changed the design?”  This makes the student teacher an instructional problem solver, rather than a behavior technician.

Use the small group for inclusive practices rather than as potential remediation

This may be the most important programmatic change. If the clinical teacher candidate is routinely assigned the students with the greatest needs, the supervisor should explicitly establish that the assignment is not an apprenticeship in deficit teaching. Instead, the small group becomes a clinical laboratory for learning how universally designed instruction can increase access, engagement, independence, and academic participation. For example:

Learning objective: Students will identify the main idea and supporting details.

Rather than giving the struggling group a substantially easier assignment, the clinical teacher might maintain the same essential goal while providing:

• an audio version of the text;
• vocabulary supports;
• visual representation of the concept;
• highlighted critical information;
• teacher modeling;
• partner discussion;
• graphic organization;
• choice of oral, written, or visual response.

That is consistent with UDL's emphasis on maintaining meaningful, challenging learning opportunities while reducing barriers to participation.

Provide cooperating teachers the “intentionally inviting mentoring protocol”

A teacher preparation program could formalize this into a short protocol to be used during the TRIAD conferences.

An INVITE Protocol

I — Investigate the learner: What strengths, interests, knowledge, relationships, and successful experiences does the learner bring?

N — Name the barrier: What specifically is preventing access, engagement, or participation?

V — Vary the design: What can we change in engagement, representation, action/expression, environment, or support?

I — Invite participation: How can the teacher provide meaningful choice, agency, responsibility, and belonging?

T — Track evidence: What observable evidence will tell us whether the instructional change worked?

E — Evaluate and refine: What should the clinical teacher keep, change, or try next?

This protocol provides the cooperating teacher (CT) something concrete to do relative to Invitational Education rather than simply expecting the teacher candidate and the CT to ‘be more inviting.

Change the expectations for what university supervisors observe

There is an important implication for the clinical observation instrument. The clinical teacher candidate receives a powerful implicit message that Good teaching = Controlling students whenever the university supervisor primarily scores an observation based upon:

• student compliance,
• transitions,
• teacher authority,
• noise level,
• redirection,
• pacing,

Instead, supervisory observation should also capture proactive instructional design, which is especially compatible with UDL 3.0’s explicit emphasis on learner agency, meaningful goals, anticipating challenges, and challenging exclusionary practices.  For example:

Supervisory Look-Fors	Evidence
Invitational stance	Teacher communicates care, respect, trust, optimism
Engagement	Students have meaningful purpose, relevance, choice, or collaboration
Representation	Important information is accessible in multiple ways
Action/Expression	Students have meaningful ways to participate and demonstrate learning
Anticipation	Teacher identifies and addresses likely barriers before escalation
Agency	Students increasingly monitor, choose, and regulate aspects of their learning
Responsive management	Teacher responds to behavior while preserving dignity and instructional access
Reflection	Teacher uses student evidence to modify instruction

 

In summary, a ‘Day One Ready’ teacher candidate does not merely respond effectively to student behavior. Rather, the highly proficient the teacher candidate is capable of anticipating learner variability and intentionally designing instruction based on diverse relationships, routines, and environments that optimize learners' opportunities to engage and succeed. Therefore, that ideal brings together: Invitational Education + UDL + formative assessment + proactive classroom management.

The ideal also prevents the false dichotomy between “management” and “inclusive instruction.” The best classroom managers are often doing considerable management through instructional design. While Invitational Education provides the relational and ethical stance while UDL provides the instructional design framework, formative assessment provides the evidence, and classroom management provides the responsive structures necessary to maintain a productive learning environment.

That combination would allow a university supervisor to say to the cooperating teacher, ‘We aren't asking you to give the clinical teacher candidate an easier group to manage. We're asking you to mentor the clinical teacher candidate in how to design learning so that students who have historically experienced failure, exclusion, or disengagement have greater access to success.’ That is a considerably more ambitious and defensible purpose for the clinical placement.

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (August 31 2026). An intentionally inviting clinical mentoring protocol for the teacher candidate supervisory triad. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References:

Anderson, C. J. (2021). Developing your students' emotional intelligence and philosophical  perspective begins with I-CORT. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 27, 36-50.

CAST. (2024). CAST Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. CAST UDL Guidelines 3.0

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2015). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed) International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from: Fundamental of Invitational Education | IAIE

 Purkey, W.W., Novak, J.M., & Fretz, J.R. (2020). Developing inviting schools: A beneficial framework for teaching. Teachers College Press.