Learning to Mentor: Assessing an Online
Mentor Education Course
William Warrick, Stacy Connors, Priscilla Norton
Graduate School of Education
George Mason University
United States
wwarrick@gmu.edu
sconnors@gmu.edu
pnorton@gmu.edu
Abstract: Although the literature reflects
the need for teacher collaboration in order to support technology
integration, it is often difficult for these kinds of activities
to occur on a regular basis. One strategy identified as effective
in facilitating these kinds of interactions is mentoring. The
authors developed an 8-module, online professional development
program in collaboration with a local school district designed
to teach effective instructional practices for integrating technology.
The model linked teacher learners with district mentor teachers
identified for their expertise in technology integration. Concurrent
with the development of the online program, the researchers
designed a companion course to prepare perspective mentors.
Given the newness of this university/school collaborative and
its dependence on quality mentoring, it was appropriate to study
the impact of the mentor course. This paper/presentation will
present results of that research.
Introduction
The unprecedented
infusion of technology into 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 opportunities for teachers to learn how to integrate
technology
into classroom practice. This mandate requires that strategies and
models be explored for providing education related to technology
use.
Traditional
models of staff development have proved inadequate for providing
teachers with guidance and confidence in
using technology tools. Time constraints, the lack of teacher retention,
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. Teachers must have ample opportunity to discuss
and collaborate with their peers and instructors (Fulton, 1996; Grant,
1996; Wiburg, 1997; Yocam, 1996).
Even though
the literature reflects the need for and power of teacher collaboration
and discussion, it is often difficult,
for these kinds of activities to occur on a regular basis. One strategy
identified as effective in facilitating these kinds of interactions
is mentoring. The one-on-one aspect of mentoring provides the opportunity
for novices to observe and imitate mentors as role models. Role
modeling
has been positively associated with skill development (Lankau &
Scandura, 2002). Those who grow to admire mentors are likely to try
behaviors that they observe (Lankau & Scandura, 2002). Polselli
(2002) found that an educational model incorporating mentoring serves
a variety of needs including teacher motivation, clarity of expectations,
and human contact that is necessary for bridging the learning differences
inherent with varying levels of technology proficiency.
In order
to successfully implement a mentor program, mentors must be identified
and educated. Giebelhaus and Boman (2002)
found that those teachers who have been prepared in the general principals
and practices of mentoring were far more successful as cooperating
teachers than those who received no preparation. Perspective mentors
need opportunities to experience the same interactive communication
and they need opportunities to talk about their experiences with
others
and to discuss and role play mentoring activities before they are
able to internalize these practices (Clinard & Ariav).
In the Spring
of 2002, the researchers developed an online professional development
program in collaboration with a local
school district. The modules were designed to teach effective instructional
practices for integrating technology. The model was designed to
link
teacher learners, hereafter referred to as protégés,
with district teachers identified for their expertise in technology
integration, hereafter referred to as mentors. Thus, when protégés
begin a module, they are paired with a mentor of similar content and
grade level experience. Protégés access online learning
modules, complete readings, tutorials, activities, and lesson design
challenges and then email completed assignments, questions, and curricular
ideas to their online mentor. Online mentors review submissions, make
comments and suggestions, and engage protégés in a
discussion regarding the content of the assignment and its links
to practice
within the classroom.
Concurrent with the development of the online program, the researchers
were faced with the necessity of developing a companion course to
prepare perspective mentors. A four module course was developed. The
modules were self-paced but designed to be completed within a five-week
time frame. Prospective mentors were assigned an online mentor. Prospective
mentors completed each activity and emailed it to their mentor. The
mentors reviewed each assignment, made comments and suggestions, and
initiated a dialogue regarding the content of the assignment as it
related to effective mentoring. The activities in the mentor course
were designed as constructivist activities that mimicked mentoring
activities and roles that would be assumed by prospective mentors.
Prior to
beginning the online course for perspective mentors, the researchers
formulated a research design to assess the
impact of the mentor course. For those identified to be in the first
cadre of mentors, the idea of mentoring in an online learning environment
was unfamiliar. Because of the newness of the model, it was appropriate
to study the process from its inception. Therefore, the problem
of
this study was to assess the impact of the mentor course on prospective
mentors. Thus, perspective mentors were asked to complete the Stages
of Concern Questionnaire (Hall, George, & Rutherford, 1979)
and six qualitative questions prior to and immediately after participating
in the mentoring course. Follow up email questions completed the
data
collection phase of the research.Results
The goal of interpreting the SoC Questionnaire is the development
of an overall perspective of the relative intensity of the 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.
Figure 1. Group mean scores taken prior to treatment and immediately
after treatment.
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 (86%), 1 (77%), and 2 (73%) had the highest relative intensity.
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 shift towards the stages with stage 5 (65%), and 6 (61%).
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. and 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)
Fulton, K. (1996). Moving from boxes and wires to 21st
century teaching. T.H.E Journal. 24 (4), 76-82
Giebelhaus, C.R. and Bowman, C.L. (2002). Teaching mentors:
Is it worth the effort? Journal of Educational Research, 95, 245-254
Grant, C. M. (1996). Professional development in a technological
age: New definitions, old challenges, new resources. TERC (On-line).
Available: http://ra.terc.edu/alliance_resources_services/reform/tech-infusion/prof_dev/.
Hall, G.
E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L.
(1979). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual
for the use of the SOC questionnaire. Austin, TX: The University
of
Texas.
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
Polselli, R. (2002). Combining web-based training and
mentorship. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 247-272
Wiburg, K. (1997). The dance of change: Integrating
technology in classrooms. In D. LaMont Johnson, C.D. Maddus, L. Liu
(Eds.), Using technology in the classroom. (p. 171-184). New York:
The Haworth Press, Inc.
Yocam, K. (1996). Teacher-centered staff development
for integrating technology into classrooms. T.H.E. Journal, 24 (4),
88-91.
