Assessing the Impact of a Mentor Training Program
Stacy Connors and William Warrick
George Mason University
Abstract
Mentoring has been identified as an alternative to traditional professional development models, yet the training of mentors has been largely unexplored. In this study, eight teachers participated in a course of study designed to train prospective mentors. A research methodology was designed to assess participants’ levels of concern, attitudes and beliefs related to mentoring as a result of this training program. Participants completed the SoCQ and qualitative questions before and after the mentor training. Results indicated that participants’ level of concern shifted after completion of the program. Participation in the program positively affected the participants’ attitudes towards mentoring and their feelings about their effectiveness as mentors. Developing mentor training programs has become a viable solution for transforming professional development.
Assessing the Impact of an Online Mentor Training Course
The unprecedented infusion of technology into our schools is in response to the widely held view that today’s students must be skilled users of technology in order to make sense of the information with which they will interact. This puts tremendous demands on teachers to provide opportunities for technology use and integration into the curriculum. In order for teachers to become fluent in the use of technology in the classroom, it is incumbent on school systems to provide technology training. Nearly all states now require that teachers receive training and become certified in the use of technology in the classroom. This mandate requires that strategies and models be explored for providing training in technology.Traditional models of staff development have proved inadequate for providing teachers with guidance and confidence in using technology tools. Time constraints and low teacher retention are barriers to successful technology integration (Polselli, 2002). To provide meaningful instruction in the use of technology, professional development must help teachers “move beyond ‘mechanical use’ of curriculum and technology to become facilitators of inquiry” (Grant, 1996, p. 1). The focus of staff development must move from learning ‘about’ the technology to learning to ‘use’ the technology to enhance student learning. Studies show that a critical component of staff development is the opportunity to discuss and collaborate with peers and instructors (Fulton, 1996; Grant, 1996; Wiburg, 1997; Yocam, 1996).
One innovative approach to providing staff development in technology integration is mentoring. A mentor is defined in the dictionary as one who counsels or advises someone - a protégé (McKenchnie, 1979). Conspicuously absent from the definition are references to ‘teaching’. The mentor-protégé relationship contrasts with that of a teacher-student relationship in that mentors are viewed as ‘guides’ to a protégé’s development. The most essential feature of mentoring, regardless of other details, is contact between mentor and mentee (Ganser, 2000). Mentors provide effective and comprehensive feedback to developing professionals (Giebelhaus, 2002). In the context of professional development programs, a mentor-protégé relationship is one where discussions occur related to scholarship and research, products (publications), and teaching strategies (Wilson, Pereira, & Valentine, 2002).
In the Fall of 2002, an 8-module, online professional development program was developed through a collaboration between George Mason University and a local school district. The modules were designed to teach effective instructional practices when implementing technology. Although each module focuses on a different technology tool, emphasis is placed on the integration of these tools into the curriculum. When students begin a module, they are paired with mentors of similar content knowledge to aid in the completion of the module. The protégé begins work on an activity and emails responses to their online mentor. The online mentor then reviews the assignment, makes comments and suggestions as needed, and engages the protégé in a discussion regarding the content of the assignment and its links to practice within the classroom. This email dialogue continues until the module is complete.
The purpose of this study is to assess a companion course designed to train prospective mentors (George Mason University, 2002). This course is divided into four modules. The modules are self-paced but designed to be completed within a five-week time frame. The participant completes each activity by emailing it to their online mentor. The online mentor reviews the assignment, makes comments and suggestions as needed, and begins a dialogue regarding the content of the assignment. The activities in the mentor course are designed as constructivist activities that will simulate what they will experiences as actual mentors. The design of this mentor course is based on the same conceptual framework as the certification course described above. The designers believe that because the relationship between the mentor and protégé is of the utmost importance (Ganser, 2000), the course should be designed in much the same way. Therefore, the mentor course uses the one-on-one training philosophy to pair mentors with protégés.
The researchers’ concern was whether or not a course of study in mentoring would sufficiently prepare mentor candidates in terms of attitudes, beliefs, and concerns towards mentoring. Therefore the problem of this study is to assess the impact of the mentor course on prospective mentors. Results are presented around the analysis and reporting of results related to 3 questions:
Mentoring has been shown to be a successful professional development practice in a number of areas. Mentoring really does not exist without regular, sustained contact between mentor and protégé for a variety of purposes, including clarifying procedural matters, providing support and encouragement, and promoting the development of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are associated with effective teaching and student achievement (Ganser, 2000).Role modeling, in particular, has been positively associated with skill development (Lankau & Scandura, 2002). The one-on-one aspect of mentoring provides the opportunity for the protégé to observe and imitate mentors as role models. Those who grow to admire mentors in this way are more likely to try behaviors that they observe (Lankau & Scandura, 2002).
In his 2002 study, Polselli designed a training program combining mentoring and web-based training. The results of the nine-month study showed that teachers were overwhelmingly positive about their experiences in a mentoring/online model of instruction. Teachers reported that the combination of online training and face-to-face mentoring was much preferable to either of the two models alone. Polselli ascribed this response to the fact that his model combined the self-pacing possible with web-based instruction with the human interaction of mentors. Thus, each method of instruction compensates for the weaknesses of the other.
In order to successfully implement a mentor-protégé program, mentors must be identified and trained. Studies have shown that simply assigning teachers to mentor their peers without prior instruction are not as successful as those who are provided with training. Guidelines for the selection of mentors need to be developed and ongoing clarification of the mentor’s role is helpful (Clinard & Ariav, 1997). Giebelhaus (2002) finds that those teachers who have been trained in the general principles and practices of mentoring were far more successful as cooperating teachers. He studied the effects of a mentor training protocol on the effectiveness of cooperating teachers. He compared the effectiveness of teachers who had been mentored by trained cooperating teachers with those who had been mentored by cooperating teachers who had not received the training. He found that those teachers who have been trained in the general principals and practices of mentoring were far more successful as mentors.
The development of mentors requires that attention be paid to modeling the behaviors associated with the mentoring experience (Lankau & Scandura, 2002). Indeed, mentors-in-training should experience the same interactive communication that they will expect when they are in the position of mentor. Mentors have to be able to talk about the experiences with others before it can be internalized (Clinary & Ariav, 2002).
The training program that the researchers have developed seeks to provide the necessary framework for prospective mentors to increase their ability to effectively mentor others. Through modeling and simulation of the types of interactions the prospective mentors can expect, our goal is to reduce concerns about mentoring and increase the confidence of prospective mentors. The researchers’ belief is that, as a result of this mentor training course, there will be a positive increase in the participants’ attitudes towards mentoring, beliefs about their own effectiveness as mentors, and that there will be a shift in their stages of concern. This study was framed by an investigation of the following questions:
1. Will there be a change in the participants’ level of concern after completion of the mentor training?
2. How will participants feelings about their effectiveness as mentors change as a result of taking this course?
3. Will participation in the mentor course effect the participants’ attitudes, beliefs and direction towards mentoring?
Methods
Participants
This study was conducted in a suburban public school district approximately 25 miles from Washington, D.C. The eight participants were teachers and technology leaders spanning the K-12 environment. There were 6 females and 2 males. The participants were selected on the basis of their interest in becoming a technology mentor in their county. A convenience sample was used as the participants were elicited through their interest in becoming a technology mentor. It is important to note that although the sample was not random, each participant had the technology expertise needed to successfully complete the mentor training course. The participants were selected by a district administrator based upon their previous work history and their positive involvement with the integration of technology in schools.
A Description of the Online Mentoring Course
Each of the eight participants completed an online mentor training course. The training course is divided into fourmodules. The modules are self-paced but designed to be completed within a five-week time frame. The participants completed each activity by emailing it to their online mentor. The online mentor reviewed the assignment, made comments, suggestions, and began a discussion regarding the content of the assignment. The activities in the mentor course were designed as constructivist activities that will simulate what they will experience as actual mentors.
In module one, the participant began by becoming acquainted with the design of the online environment. It continued by introducing the participant to the types of activities that they will be expected to mentor after the training and explores a site that is provided to support the mentor as needed. The participant completed the module by synthesizing all the information into a scripted Inspiration file and writing a short “Happy Hour” summary.
In module two, the participant learned about the rights and responsibilities of becoming a mentor, which concluded with the creation of an Online Mentor Oath. This module also discussed time management issues and asked the participant to create a management plan. Management issues include organizing email, tracking progress, and time management. Creating two “Top 10” lists summarizing and synthesizing all the information that is gathered complete the module.
In module three, the participant read six articles that are on the Internet about mentoring, mentoring practices, and online learning. Creating a “FAQ” list for people who are interested in becoming a mentor completed the module.
In module four, the participant engaged their online mentor in five scenarios by role playing dialogues. The participant read each scenario, reacted, wrote a response and emailed it to their online mentor. The mentor assumed the point of view of the mentee and created a response. The dialogue continued until each issue was resolved. The module and training was completed by creating a leadership portfolio modeling, describing, and reflecting upon their experience of a mentor in training and actually becoming an online mentor.
Measures
This study used three measures to assess participants’ attitudes, beliefs, and concerns about adopting the role of mentor for other teachers: a) personal data questionnaire, b) the SoCQ to assess stages of concern, and, c) an interview protocol.
Demographic data was collected during the second administration of the SoCQ at the end of the treatment period. Researchers collected information about age, gender, job position, years on the job, and whether the participants had past or present teaching experience.
Adopting a mentoring role is new for most teachers and, as such, is seen as an innovation. The participants in the study were each sent, via e-mail, a copy of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) developed by the Concerns Based Adoption Model Project (1974). The SoCQ consists of 35 questions each of which relates to one of the seven stages of concern. The participants responded to each question on an 8-point Likert scale.
The SoCQ is based upon the Concerns Based Adoption Model Project (Hall, Wallace, Dossett, 1973), which theorizes that teachers involved in the adoption or implementation of an innovation possess certain concerns at various points during the innovation. These concerns can be broken down into seven different categories, or stages. The stages measured in the SoCQ are:0 - Awareness: Little concern about the innovation
1 - Informational: General awareness of the innovation and interest in learning more
2 - Personal: Individual is uncertain about the demands of the innovation; his/her inadequacy to meet those demands and his/her role with the innovation
3 - Management: Attention is focused on the processes and tasks of using the innovation and the best use of the information and resources,
4 – Consequence: Attention focuses on impact of the innovation on students in his/her immediate sphere of influence,
5 – Collaboration: The focus is on coordination and cooperation with others regarding the use of the innovation, and,
6 - Refocusing: The focus is on exploration of more universal benefits from the Innovation.The authors of the SoCQ suggest that teachers involved in an innovation typically progress from one stage to another. The underlying assumption of the Concerns Based Adoption Model is that change is a process, not an event, and that it takes time for institutionalization of an innovation to take place. As concerns are resolved, teachers move through predictable stages. The stages of concern about an innovation move from unrelated, to self, to task, and ultimately to impact concerns. Early, lower level concerns must be addressed before teachers can move to higher level concerns (Hall, George, Rutherford, 1979). Example questions included in the SoCQ include: “I am concerned about the conflict between my interests and my responsibilities.” and “I am concerned about my inability to manage all that being an online mentor might require”.
The SoCQ consists of 35 questions each of which addresses one of the seven stages of concern. The participants respond to each question on an 8-point Likert scale. The Cronbach Alpha coefficients were computed on the basis of their responses and were all found to be between .64 and .83.
Interview Protocol
The second instrument, designed to elicit information from the participants about their attitudes and beliefs about their effectiveness as mentors, consisted of five open-ended questions included at the end of the SoCQ. These researcher-developed questions were constructed so as to prompt the participants to reflect and report on their attitudes and beliefs about mentoring. Questions on this part of the survey include: “Do you think you will be a good online mentor? Why or why not?” and “Do you feel that being an online mentor is a leadership activity? Explain.” Space was provided on the survey for the participants to write in their answers and explanations.
Questions were also included in order to gather data on the participants’ previous experiences with mentoring. The data collected from these questions were transcribed and evaluated independently by the researchers. The researchers categorized the information collected from the questions to develop a contextualized framework from which to interpret the SoCQ data.Procedures
The researchers’ faculty advisor sent each participant the Stages of Concern Questionnaire via email prior to the treatment. The advisor collected and numbered the surveys to protect participants’ anonymity. The participants were then given the treatment. Following the treatment, the participants were given the same survey. Again, the researchers’ faculty advisor administered the survey via email. After the post-course survey was completed, the faculty advisor numbered the surveys, and gave them to the researchers to analyze.
Design
This study is a quasi-experimental, mixed methods design combining the results of a survey given both prior to and immediately after participation in the mentor course; and qualitative data gathered from online interactions with researchers. There was neither a random assignment of participants nor a control group. A research methodology was designed to assess participants’ attitudes, beliefs, and levels of concern related to mentoring. Participants completed the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) and six qualitative questions prior to and immediately after completing the training.
Results
The goal of interpreting the SoC Questionnaire is the development of an overall perspective and description of the relative intensity of the different stages of concern about a particular innovation for the respondents (Hall, George, & Rutherford, 1979). Thus, the goal of interpreting the results is to develop a gestalt based on all the stages of concern scores.
The first question of this study was: Will there be a change in the participants’ level of concern after completion of the mentor training? In order to answer this question, student responses to the Stages of Concern Questionnaire were tallied. Using the table in the SoCQ manual, raw scores for each stage were converted to percentiles. The individual data were aggregated and means were computed for the group (n=8). Results of the analysis are presented in Figure 1. The results of the individual percentile scores are indicated in Table 1.
Table 1 - Individual Percentile Scores and Mean Scores as indicated by the SoCQ
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Subject
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
1
37
20
80
58
85
55
30
70
30
80
95
99
77
77
2
91
76
69
55
48
18
11
50
8
82
31
78
47
98
3
66
46
95
71
91
61
18
64
13
74
80
88
14
75
4
84
64
93
69
94
64
30
75
7
78
72
99
17
79
5
96
60
97
73
97
67
43
77
54
92
95
88
22
68
6
81
56
75
53
70
40
34
77
54
96
84
94
30
80
7
94
68
96
74
80
50
60
92
33
78
52
98
73
67
8
81
46
54
30
72
42
34
68
8
64
22
88
34
58
Examination of Figure 1 reveals that prior to the treatment, the stages of concern with the highest intensity were those at the ‘lower’ end. Stages 0 (79%), 1 (82%), and 2 (80%) had the highest relative intensity.
Figure 1. Group mean scores taken prior to treatment and immediately after treatment.
When interpreting the results of the SoCQ surveys, the group means generally reflect the dominant high and low Stages of Concern of the group. However, it is useful to analyze individual high and low scores and compare those with the group means to discover subgroups. Individual highs and lows for the group are shown in Table 1. The high or second high score fell within Stages 0, 1, or 2 for each of the participants on the pretest.
The same process was followed at the end of the treatment. Figure 1 shows the group means for the survey given after participation in the mentor course. Following the treatment, the peak stages of concern fall within stages 4 (80%), 5 (92%), and 6 (75%). Again, a review of individual high and second high scores for the post-treatment survey indicates that all are in one of these three stages.
The second question of this study was, how will participants feelings about their effectiveness as mentors change as a result of taking this course? To answer this question the researchers asked one Likert Scale question and one open-ended question. In order to answer the Likert Scale question, participants were asked to rate their confidence to mentor other teachers about the integration of technology in teaching and learning as either “Very Confident”, “Confident”, “Unconfident”, or “Very Unconfident”. The pretest survey reports that 5 out of 8 participants (62%) answered, “Very Confident” while 3 out of 8 (38%) answered, “Confident”, while the posttest survey reports that all 8 participants (100%) answered, “Very Confident”.
In response to the second open-ended question asking, do you think you will be a good online mentor, the pretest survey reports that 6 out of 8 participants (75%) replied yes, they thought they would be good online mentor, while the other 2 (25%) responded that they “hoped” so. In the posttest survey, all 8 participants (100%) responded yes, they thought they would be good online mentors.
The third question of this study was, will participation in the mentor course affect the participants’ attitudes, beliefs and understandings towards mentoring? To answer this question the researchers asked two open-ended questions. In response to the open-ended question asking, what do you know about mentoring, the pretest survey reported that two of the participants’ responses (50%) matched the researchers operational definition of mentoring, three participants (38%) did not match the definition and the final participant (12%) did not know what mentoring was. In the posttest survey, all eight participants (100%) matched the researchers operational definition of mentoring.
In response to the second open ended question asking, do you feel that being an online mentor is a leadership activity, the pretest survey reported that seven out of the eight participants (88%) responded, yes, they felt being an online mentor was indeed a leadership activity while the final participant (12%) did not know enough about mentor responsibilities to answer. The posttest survey reported that all 8 participants (100%) believed that being an online mentor was a leadership activity because they felt that being in a position to help facilitate change fell within leadership criteria.
Discussion
The authors of the Concerns Based Adoption model have found concerns about change to be an important dimension of the process. They state that there appears to be a predictable pattern to the movement of the intensity of concern across various identified types of concern. Thus, as early concerns regarding information and personal issues are resolved, latter concerns related to the consequences of the innovation and become paramount.
The data suggest that the first hypothesis, that there would be a shift in the concerns of the participants as a result of the treatment, was supported. The initial group and individual profiles of the participants in this study showed that, without exception, the highest level of concern was in stages 0, 1, and 2. This fits the typical nonuser profile according to the SoCQ manual. This profile stands out most clearly and consistently. The concerns of nonusers are typically highest on Stages 0, 1, and 2. This indicates an interest in the innovation and a desire to learn more from a positive, proactive perspective. This is not at all surprising given that many of the participants had little or no experience as mentors, and none of them had experience mentoring in an online environment.
Subsequent to the treatment, the group profile showed a marked shift away from the personal concerns of Stages 0, 1, and 2 and towards Stages 4, 5, and 6. These stages are indicative of concerns related to consequence, collaboration, and refocusing. This area of concern is marked by fewer personal concerns and more concern related to the consequences of the innovation for the teacher’s students within their sphere of influence. It can be concluded that, as a result of the treatment, many, if not all, of the personal concerns of the participants were addressed and that they have progressed, or moved towards concerns related to the innovation’s influence on students and teaching practice.
Research supports the second question stating that there will be a positive increase in the participants’ beliefs about their own effectiveness as mentors. After the treatment, all eight participants stated that they feel “Very Confident” in their new role as an online mentor as opposed to only five before the treatment. The positive change in the remaining three participants would suggest that the knowledge and understanding they gained while participating in the mentor training course affected their attitude towards mentoring. Secondly, the open-ended question pertaining to whether the participants felt as though they would be a good online mentor indicated that two of the participants, “hoped so”. In the post survey, those two participants changed their answers to, “yes”, indicating that the questions they had about the responsibilities of mentoring were answered and accepted as they completed the mentor training course. This supports Gansers’s notion that mentor training is critical in the development of mentor-protégé relationships and in the development of mentors’ beliefs about their own skills.
Research supports the third hypothesis stating that there will be a positive change in the participants’ attitudes, beliefs and direction towards mentoring. When asked about the overall knowledge the participants had about mentoring, only 50% could verbalize that they understood what mentoring was in the same context as the researchers. After the treatment, 100% shared the same knowledge and views about mentoring, thus suggesting that the expectations and definitions of mentoring were understood by all eight participants after receiving the treatment.
It should be noted that among the limitations of this study is the small sample. The sample was one of convenience in that the participants were those teachers who were chosen to become mentors and take the course. It can be assumed that the trends in movement from lower level concerns to higher concerns would be more pronounced with a larger sample.
The authors of the SoCQ reiterate that the most important limitation regarding the questionnaire relates to the intended use. It should be remembered that the stages of concern are value-neutral, that is to say that a person who’s peak score is at stage 4 is not somehow ‘better’ than a person who’s peak score is at stage 3. Attempts to rate or rank participants on the basis of their scores would be misguided. The SoCQ is used here to identify mean profiles before and after the treatment to develop and understanding of the effects of the mentoring course.
This study used the SoCQ only to develop profiles of individuals and of the sample. None of the demographic data was used to discern correlations between other variables and SoCQ scores. It would be interesting for future researchers to repeat the study to reinforce the findings and then correlate with other data. In doing so, it would be expected that variables might be identified as predictors, or influences on the shifting of concerns.
References
Clinard, L.M. & Ariav, T. (2002). What mentoring does for mentors: A cross-cultural perspective. A draft paper presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, March, 1997. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 422 294).
Fagenson-Eland, E.A. & Baugh, S.G. (2001). Personality predictors of protégé mentoring history. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2502-2517.
Ganser, T. (2000). Evaluating a university mentoring program for K-12 teachers: The University of Wisconsin whitewater beginning teacher assistance program. A paper presentation at the annual meeting at the International Mentoring Association, New Orleans, LA, March 31, 2000. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 443 790).
George Mason University Graduate School of Education. (2002). Teaching and learning with technology – a GMU/PWCS collaborative. http://it.gse.gmu.edu/onlineprograms/mentorcourse
Giebelhaus, C.R. & Bowman, C.L. (2002). Teaching mentors: Is it worth the effort? Journal of Educational Research, 95, 245-254.
Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. A. (1979). Measuring stages of concern about an innovation: A manual for the use of the SOC questionnaire. Austin, TX: The University of Texas.
Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. D., Jr., & Dossett, W. A. (1973) A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, the University of Texas.
Hollingsworth, M. A. & Fassinger, R. E. (2002). The role of faculty mentors in the research training of counseling psychology doctoral students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 324-330.
Lankau, M. J. and Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 779-790.
McKenchnie, J. L. (Ed.). (1979). Webster’s new universal unabridged dictionary. (2nd ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster
Riggs, I.M. (2000). The impact of training and induction activities upon mentors as indicated through measurement of mentor self-efficacy. San Bernardino, CA: California State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 442 639).
Polselli, R. (2002). Combining web-based training and mentorship. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 247-272.
Tenenbaum, H. R., Crosby, F. J., Gliner, M. D. (2001). Mentoring relationships in graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 326-341.
Vrasidas, C. (2002). A working typology of intentions driving face-to-face and online interaction in a graduate teacher education course. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 10, 273-296.
Author Note
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to either Stacy Connors or William Warrick, Graduate School of Education, MSN 5D6, George Mason University, VA 22030.
