UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I LIBRARY
FACULTY MENTORING PROGRAM TO INCORPORATE NEW TECHNOLOGY
INTO COLLEGE COURSES: STATEWIDE FINDINGS
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DMSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAW AI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUllffiMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
EDUCATION
August 2008
By Rachel A. Boulay
Dissertation Committee: Catherine Fulford, Chairperson Rhonda Black Robert Gibson CurtisHo Shuqiang Zhang ii
We certify that we have read this dissertation and that, in our opinion, it is satisfactory in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the multiple institutions that participated in this study. Without the cooperation, hard work, and sharing attitudes of their faculty, this work would not have been possible. Further, a special Kiwi spent countless hours of effort on this project, and major thanks are long overdue. I would also like to honor my "mentors" whose sage advise guided me through this project and greatly enhanced my overall career development. I want my family to know how much I am blessed by their unwavering love and support. Their adoration of me and my efforts inspired me many a time. I also want to offer a special thanks to my colleague and dissertation partner, whose weekly support at the end propelled me to the finish line. 1'm looking forward to our exciting careers as they unfold before us. Saving the best for last, an important acknowledgement goes to my husband, who deserves an honorary PbD in patience, caring, and understanding for his unwavering support throughout the entire process. iv
ABSTRACf
This qualitative study explored 78 faculty who participated in a statewide initiative to incorporate technology into college courses. Participants taught at seven different institutions of higher education in the state of Hawaii. Participants were paired
with a mentor who worked with them for one or two semesters to learn new technologies
and integrate those technologies into their curricula. This study triangulated data from
multiple methods and sources: 1) course products and instructional materials, 2) written
narratives describing faculty's familiarity and use of technology in courses, and 3) site visits to institutions and discussions with participants. Further, the course products
served as a measure of the participants' use of technology and were used to determine
their level of technology use, based on the Concerns Based Adoption Model continuum
(Hall & Hord, 1987). Fmdings suggest that a strong technology mentoring program
(Chuang, Thompson, & Schmidt, 2(03) promoted substantial progress among study
participants to model technology for students. Additionally, a strong proportion of
faculty quickly incorporated technologies into courses and promoted student use of
technology, in a short period of time, with the support of a technology mentor. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..••....•...... _...... IV
LIST OF TABLES ...... vm
LIST OF FIGURES ...... •. _...... _...... •..... X
CIlAPI'ER I: INTRODUCTION ....•...... _ ...... •...... • 1
PROBLEM ...... 1
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM ...... 2
REsEARCII QuESTIONS ...... 3
DEFiNITION OF TERMS ...... 4
ORGANIZATION OF DISSERTATION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9
CIlAPI'ER ll: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 11
INCREMENTAL STAGES IDENTIFIED IN MODELS FOR INNOVATION AooPTION ••••••••••••••• 11
MENTORING: A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGy ...... 22
MENTORING IN HAwAll: TEcHNOLOGY MENTORING PROGRAM OVERVIEW ••••••••••••••••••• 38
SUMMARY ...... 46
CHAFI'ER m: METHOD ...... _...... 47
PARTICIPANTS ...... 47
PROCEDURES ...... 49
CONTEXTS FOR MENTORING & CAMPUS DESCRIPTIONS ...... 51
LEARNING COMMUNITY OF TECHNOLOGY MENTORS ...... 68 vi
DATA COLLECTION ...... 70
DATA ANALYSIS ...... 74
SUMMARY ...... 82
CllAP'fER IV: RESUL TS ...... 83
QUESTION 1 RESULTS ...... 83
QUESTIoN 2 RESULTS ...... 89
QUESTION 3 RESULTS ...... 99
QUESTION 4 RESULTS ...... 107
SUMMARY ...... 111
CIIAPfER V: DISCUSSION ...... _ ...... 113
DISCUSSION QUESTION 1 RESULTS - INiTIAL TEcHNOLOGY LEVEL ...... 113
DISCUSSION QUESTION 2 RESULTS - GENERAL GROWTH ...... 117
DISCUSSION QUESTION 3 RESULTS - STUDENTS USE OF TEcHNOLOGy ...... 123
DISCUSSION QUESTION 4 RESULTS - TEcHNOLOGY STANDARDS ...... 127
0TIiER REsEARCH FINDINGS ...... 132
IMPUCATIONS FOR PROGRAMMATIC IMPLEMENTATION ...... 137
RECOMMENDED TIPS FOR NEW PROGRAMS ...... 142
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ...... 146
FuRTIIER METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 148
FuTuRE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ...... 150
SUMMARy ...... 153 vii
CHAFfER. VI: CONCLUSION ...... 155
SUMMARY OF FiNDINGS ...... 157
SUMMARY ...... 158
REFERENCES ...... 160
APPENDIX A...... 172
APPENDIX B ...... •...... •...••.•...... 176
APPENDIX C ...... 184
APPENDIX D ...... 1811
APPENDIX. E ...... 194 viii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Models of Change ...... •.•...... •...... •..•...... •...•..• 13
2. Faculty mentored by subject taught ...... ••.••.•...... 47
3. Technology faculty elected to learn .....•.•....•.•...... 49
4. Mentoring details for participants from CC 1 ...... •.•..•.•..•.•....•. 53
5. Mentoring details for participants from CC2 ...... •..•.•...... •...... 55
6. Mentoring details for participants from CC3 ...... •.....•...... 57
7. Mentoring details for participants from CC4 •.•.•...•...... 59
8. Mentoring details for participants from CC5 ...... 61
9. Mentoring details for participants from CC6 ...... 64 to. Mentoring details for participants from CC7 ...... 67
11. Number of technology projects prior to mentoring by rated level of technology use and campus ...... 84
12. Number of faculty projects at technology use levels before and after mentoring .... 90
13. Breakdown of 47 faculty incorporating technology into courses requiring student use or more advanced levels of technology use by campus and level of technology use ...... 99
14. The Technology Intensive standards identified by faculty participants ...... 107 ix
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Depiction of different stages targeted in selected change models ...... 20
2. Subjects taught by faculty participants ...... 48
3. Increase in faculty's tecbnology skills ...... 91 Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology I
CHAPTER!
INTRODUCTION
Problem
The United States federa! government passed legislation in 1994 establishing national standards for the ose of technology by stodents ages five through eighteen and their teachers (US Congress OTA, 1995). This legislation presented an enormous challenge to both public schools and colleges of education to incorporate technology skills and pedagogy when preparing current and future teachers.
The Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) program was established in 1999 as a subsidiary program of the United States Department of
Education (US DOE). Through this one program, the US DOE invested a tora! of nearly
$400 million into the capacity-building of teacher education programs to instruct preservice teachers on how to use technology effectively to enhance student learning.
This technology integration aim was approached through over 400 programs between
1999-2003; each selecting their own project focus, activities, and plans. A common theme among many projects was the goal of offering professional development to higher education faculty teaching in preservice teacher education programs. Despite the abundance of professional development activities for faculty and the requirement of dedicated budget funds to program evaluation, few projects have published articles reporting concrete data on their project successes in relation to the increase of faculty members' technology skills. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 2
With dwindling public funds for higher education, administrators are forced to examine professional development programs for faculty with more scrutiny. However, little is understood about the qnalitative differences in faculty's courses and their own skill sets after professional development The cost effectiveness of such programs is important to consider, but cannot be considered in a vacuum without developing a better understanding of the actna1 results of such programs.
Significance of the Problem
Numerous professional development programs exist to help faculty members learn technology; many using unique structures (Pr3, 2002). For example, some programs use courses, seminars, or workshops to train small group or large groups of faculty members. For example, the Northero lllinois University PT3 project developed a three-credit university course in which College of Education faculty enrolled. This course focused on exposing university faculty to K-12 best practices of incorporating technology. Other programs use various forms of mentoring by students, technology experts, or colleagues (PT3, 2(02). For example, Iowa University developed a course that student mentors enrolled in and mentored a faculty member as their course project
(Chuang, 2004). A variation on this approach is the use of "design teams" that use combinations of inservice teachers, preservice teachers, College of Education faculty, and potentially Technology or Content area Specialists (see explanation of Michigan State
University in PT3, 2(02). Various rewards or incentives are offered to faculty. Examples include mini grants, technology equipment gifts, stipends, or release time offered to faculty. There is no clarity, however, in how these programs compare, which is better Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 3 suited to a particular type of institution, or which produces stronger results. The unanswered question remains, "How can professional development programs for faculty to learn technology be best structured to maximize the desired results in a cost-effective and practical manner?" While a decisive answer is not currently within grasp,
"mentoring" has been proposed to be a promising strategy. Mentoring means to facilitate, guide, and encourage continuous innovation, learning, and growth to prepare for the future (Johnson 1997, p.13). Many manifestations of "mentoring" have been incorporated in academic disciplines and industry. While the incorporation of
"mentoring" into professional development strategies for higher education faculty may be a natural progression, our understanding of the uuique qualities of mentoring programs aimed at fostering technology integration in higher education settings and their effectiveness is not sufficient. The purpose of this study is to provide one step towards more rigorous investigation of the outcomes of professional development programs that utilize mentoring to encourage faculty to incorporate technology into curricula.
Research Questions
This study will address the following research questions:
Research question # 1: What is the initial technology level of Community College faculty who are non-technology experts and who seek to improve their technology skills through participation in a technology initiative that provides a mentoring component? Research question #2: What level of technology use do these faculty reach after participation in a technology initiative that includes a mentoring approach? Research question #3: For the participating faculty who immediately encouraged student use of technology in their Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 4 courses, how did the technology manifest itself in the instruction? Research question #4:
How does faculty's technology use relate to technology content standards?
Definition of Terms
Applications: Application software is a subclass of computer software that uses the capabilities of a computer to accomplish a task that the user wishes to perform. This should be contrasted with system software, which is involved in integrating a computer's various capabilities, but typically does not directly apply them in the performance of tasks that benefit the user. In this study the term application refers to both the application software and its implementation.
Artifacts: Artifacts are the objects or products designed and used by people to meet needs or to solve problems. An example of a common artifact is a document. In this study, artifact will refer to products, such as instructional materials, used by a faculty in a college course.
Educational Technology: Educational technology "is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources" (Richey, 2008). The term educational technology is often associated with, and encompasses, instructional theory and learning theory. While instructional technology covers the processes and systems of learning and instruction, educational technology includes other systems used in the process of developing human capability. In this study the term educational technology will refer to the field of interest of academicians who investigate educational technology and instructional technology. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 5
Faculty: a collective noun for the academic staff of a university: senior teachers, lecturers, and/or researchers. The term generally includes professors of various rank:
Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, and (Full) Professors, usually tenured or tenure-track in nature. In this study faculty will refer to individuals who teach in community colleges. No distinction is made among rank, tenure-status, and may include instructors.
Hardware: is a general term that refers to the physical components of technology.
Especially in the electronics and computer industries, computer hardware specifically means the physical or tangible parts of the equipment, such as circuit boards, keyboards, or monitors. Hardware is contrasted with non-physical software running on the computer or other device. In this study the term hardware refers to physical equipment pieces of technology that the participants will learn rather than a software application program; for example, a scanner, digital camera, or microscope.
Technology: a broad concept dealing with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment
However, the term is commouly used to imply a specific field of technology, or to refer to high technology, rather than technology as a whole. High technology is technology that is at the cutting edge, state-of-the-art, or the most advanced technology currently available. There is no specific class of technology that is high tech as the definition shifts over time. Products hyped as high tech in the 1960s would now be considered, if not exactly low tech, then at least somewhat primitive. In this study, technology will refer predominantly to computer technology, including communication technologies, and will Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 6 include computer software applications and hardware nsed to create instructional materials and learning experiences. In this study the distinction between low technology or high technology will be minimal, but advanced technologies will refer to higher technology at the time of the study.
Technology integration: a term used by educators to describe effective uses of technology by teachers and students in K-12 and university classrooms to promote learning. Teachers use technology to support instruction in language arts, social studies, science, math, or other content areas.
Technology initiative: refers to organized activities of a group, institution, or partnership that have a well-defined objective and focus on technology integration.
Mentee: the student of a mentor; other common terms include prot6g6 or mentoree. In this study, mentee will refer to a faculty member learning technology from a mentor.
Mentor: In this study, mentor will refer to an individual instructing another person on technologies and pedagogical uses of those technologies through a formal, developed relationship.
Mentoring: Mentorship usually refers to a developmental relationship between a more experienced mentor and a less experienced partner, such as a prot6g6-a person guided and protected by a more prominent person. There are two types of mentoring relationships: formal and informal. Informal relationships develop on their own between partners. Formal mentoring, on the other hand, refers to assigned relationships, often
associated with organizational mentoring programs designed to promote desired Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 7 developments in groups of individuals. In well-designed formal mentoring programs, there are program goals, schedules, training (for mentors and mentees), and evaluation.
Mentors inspire their mentee to accomplish their goals. In this study, mentoring or technology mentoring will refer to the formal mentoring relationships between an individual teaching technologies (mentor) to another individual (mentee).
Model technology use: The word model has two meanings throughout this dissertation. Model, as an adjective or noun, represents ideal technology use or an exemplary display of technology. Model. used as a verb, refers to demonstrating technology use, without a qualifier about the quality of that demonstration.
Online course management: Online course management will refer to a software
system designed to manage and support teaching and learning in an educational setting,
Online course management will normally work over the Internet and provide a collection
of tools such as those for assessment, communication, uploading of content, return of
students work, peer assessment, administration of student groups, collecting and
organizing student grades, questionnaires, tracking tools, and similar. New features in
these systems include woos, blogs, or instant messaging systems. While originally
created for distance education, ouline course management software is often used to
supplement the traditional, face-to-face classroom, commonly known as Blended
Learning.
Portfolio: An electronic portfolio, also known as an e-portfolio or digital
portfolio, is a collectinn of electronic evidence assembled and managed by a user, usually
on the Web (also called Webfolio). Such electronic evidence may include inputted text, Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 8 electronic ftles such as Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF ftles, images, multimedia, blog entries, and hyperlinks. E-portfolios are both demonstrations of the user's abilities and platforms for self-expression, and, if they are online, they can be maintained dynamically over time.
Products: intellectual property created, produced, or reproduced for instructional purposes in courses. Products constitute a variety of artifacts, such as, syllabi, videos, student activities or assigmnents, ouline course environments, webpages, or presentations. In this study. course artifacts and products are used interchangeably.
Professional development: often refers to skills required for maintaining a specific career path or general skills offered through continuing education, including personal development It can be seen as training to keep current with changing technology and practices in a profession or in the concept of lifelong learning. In this study, professional development refers to organized activities offered to continue professional learning related to technology.
Software: Computer software describes a collection of computer programs that perform some tasks on a computer system. The tenn includes application software, such as word processors which perform productive tasks for users, system software such as operating systems, which interface with hardware to provide the necessary services for application software, and middleware which controls and coordinates distributed systems.
Standards (content or performance): Education reform in the United States since the late 1980s has been largely driven by the setting of academic standards for what students should know and be able to do. These standards can then be used to guide all Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 9 other system components. The standards-based reform movement calls for clear, measurable standards for all school students. Rather than norm-referenced rankings, a standards-based system measures each student against the concrete standard, instead of measuring how well the student performed compared to others. Curriculum, assessments, and professional development are aligned to the standards. The standards referred to in this study, are technology content standards (Fulford, 1997; Fulford & Hines, 1997).
Systematic: refers to a particular conceptual framework that promotes a process of deliberate design. The term is borrowed from the theoretical domain of instructional design.
Web design: a process of conceptualization, planning, modeling, and execution of electronic media content delivery via the Internet The intent of web design is to create a web site that presents content to the end user in the form of web pages.
~g~onof~~on
In an effort to address the research questions, this dissertation is organized into the following five chapters: Literature Review, Method, Results, Discussion, and
Conclusion. Chapter two examines three areas from the literature. First, educational change models are explored as the theoretical framework for understanding any attempt to create systemic change in educational institutions. Second, the literature on mentoring is synthesized, ending with a description of mentoring programs specifically targeting technology integration. Finally, information about the technology menturing program in
Hawaii is described in order that this program can be compared to other technology mentoring initiatives and examined in light of recently advocated essential elements of Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 10
strong mentoring programs. Chapter three describes the methods used in this study. The study draws upon data from the 78 faculty members who participated, in a technology mentoring program, during a two-year period. Using course artifacts and narrative
descriptions, ratings of technology use before and after mentoring were compared across
the sample of participants from seven different institutions. Chapter three is divided into
six main sections: participants, procedures, description of the mentoring contexts and
campus descriptions, learning community of the technology mentors, data collection, and
data analysis. Chapter four will present the results of the study. A discussion and
interpretation of those results follows in chapter five, with concluding remarks in chapter
six. Proposing, implementing, and examining changes in education should be a careful
endeavor; this dissertation reports the fmdings of implementing a technology-focused
mentoring program for faculty. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 11
CHAPrERII
LITERATURE REVIEW
Proposing changes in teacher education programs is a formidable task and one that educational researchers would demand to be approached in an appropriate. systematic. and informed manner. This chapter develops a conceptual framework for this study by drawing upon three areas of research. First of all. paradigms on the diffusion of innovation and educational change process will be discussed. A synthesis of various models will present common stages that have been identified as individuals learn. choose. and refine their use of an innovation. While several professional development strategies are available that aim to assist individuals or schools with innovation adoption, mentoring will be selected from among the available professional development strategies and explored in the next section. The definition of "mentoring" will be discussed from a historical and multi-discipIinary perspective, followed by research on current understanding of mentoring relationships and programs. Finally, this chapter will highlight the recent studies on mentoring, as a professional development strategy, to encourage the integration of technology into curricula. Examining previous research on
(a) innovation adoption and educatioual change, (b) mentoring, and (c) technology integration as a result of mentoring, will provide a broad foundation to inform programs aimed at fostering technology integration into higher education.
Incremental Stages Identified in Models for Innovation Adoption
Previously, researchers have found it useful to discuss the integration of technology within Diffusion of Innovation or Educatioual Change frameworks. A Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 12 common thread amongst such frameworks (pullan, 200 1; Fullan, Stiegelbauer, & Fullan,
1991; Hall & Hord, 1987,2001, & 2006; Rogers, 1995,2003) is that change is presented as a process. Widmayer concludes, " ... models for technology adoption share a sense that change is a process, and it can be a long process" (2004, p.35). Routinely, one might discuss each framework individually and then highlight similarities or discrepancies, such as other studies have chosen to do (Widmayer, 2004). However, this section will take a novel approach to this task. An exploration of the stages identified by several models seems the most useful in furthering our understanding of current research investigating faculty's process in learning to better integrate technology into their courses. What follows is a discussion of the different "stages" that various paradigms have identified, with a careful discussion about various models' different foci or conceptual deviations.
This section will draw upon stages described in several models from multiple disciplines, specifically, drawing specifically upon (a) a general model (Rogers, 1995, 2(03), (b) educational change models (pullan, 200 1; Fullan et al., 1991; Hall & Hord, 1987, 200 I,
& 2(06), and (c) educational technology models (Marcinkiewicz, 1993; Sherry, 1998;
Sherry, Billig, Tavalin, & Gibson, 2000; Sherry & Gibson, 2002) to present the current understanding of stages that individuals go through in learning to adopt a new technology. Table 1 on the next page displays each model and the stages identified.
Non-use. This stage is self-evident; the user does not use an innovation. An individual may be unaware of an innovation, may have determined the innovation is not appropriate or adequate for their needs, or may wish to use an innovation but not have sufficient resources to embark on a patb of action to begin to use this innovation. While Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 13
Table 1
Models of Change
Theorist Rogers CBAM Fullan Sherry & Marcinkiewicz Gibson Type of General Theory Education Education Technology Technology in Theory in education education
S!!!l!es of liSe .. '~'. ,. Non-use Non-use Non-use lnformation- Knowledge Orientation Initiation Teacher as gathering Learner Persuasion Pre[!aration Initial use Knowledge Decision Mechanical Implementation Teacher as Utilization of Tools & Implementation Use Adopter Implementation Features Independence Routine & Use Confidence Integration & Confirmation Refinement Continuation Teacher as Reorientation Student Use co-learner & co- eXElorer Leadership & Integration Guidance Innovation Renewal Outcome Teacher as Evolution Reaffirmer or Rejector *Table adopted from Widmayer (2004). the reason may be very different, the action "non-use" is the same and observable. The
Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) suggests three different axes to describe the stage at which an individual is in regards to using an innovation (Hall & Hord 1987,
2001, & 2006). The axis that deals with behavior is Levels of Use. Non-use is the fIrSt identified level. Marcinkiewicz's (1993) educational technology paradigm also identifies a non-use stage. Mentoring Paculty to Use Technology 14
Infonnation gathering. An individual in this stage is characteristically seeking infonnation about an innovation. In relation to technology, it would be a stage where an individual has heard about a technology or seen a friend use a technology, but does not actively use the technology yet. The second stage of the CBAM's level of use is
Orientation, where an individual is gathering infonnation about an innovation (Hall &
Hord, 1987,2001, & 2(06). Rogers (1995 & 2003) describes two relevant stages:
Knowledge and Persuasion. Knowledge is the stage when individuals first learn of an innovation and begin to conceptualize how this innovation relates to them and their purposes. Persuasion is characterized by the fonnation of an opinion, positive or negative, concerning an innovation. The focus of Rogers' model is to try to describe the phenomenon of whether individuals do or do not adopt an innovation and at what rate groups of people adopt a new innovation. The third stage of the CBAM's level of use is
Preparation; this is the learning stage when a user is gaining knowledge about an innovation in preparation for its first use (Hall & Hord, 1987,2001, & 2006). Pullan's
(1991 & 2001) diffusion of education innovations model begins with an Initiation stage, which covers everything up to and including the decision to use an innovation.
The Gathering Infonnation stage might be quite lengthy, and some individuals may be more or less prone to move quickly out of this stage. Rogers (1995) defines a
Decision stage, which is the transition from Infonnation Gathering to Initial Use. An important distinction between the Infonnation Gathering and the next stage is that in this stage no or minimal action has been taken to begin to use an innovation. Mentoring Paculty to Use Technology 15
Initial use. There seems to be two interpretations of this "stage." The central distinction between various models is the portrayal of the "intention" of the user, while not actually described as such by any model. In one sense, a person has "gathered" the necessary information and has now decided to use the technology. At this stage, the individual is embarking on using or learning to use the technology. Another categorization of this stage, is that the individual is "trying out" a certain innovation. In this sense, the description is not a firm decision to use a technology but rather a ''trial'' period, which may last even years. In other words, the intention of the user and a later outcome, such as advancement to the next stage - regular uselintegration or a future decision to reject or not adopt the innovation, predicts how this stage is characterized.
Rogers' (1995) second category arguably collapses this stage and the next (regular use) into one broad stage termed, Implementation. This stage is described as gradual, often moving from a trial to full-fledged use. Pullan's (1991; 2(01) second stage is termed
"Implementation." In this stage, individuals are experimenting with a given innovation for the first time. According to Pullan, this stage can be years in length. Sherry and
Gibson (2002) suggest that first teachers go through a Stage 1 Teacher as Learner in which they are gathering information and learning the skills and knowledge for using technology to accomplish instructional tasks. In this sense, Sherry and Gibson collapse information gathering and initial use into one stage. According to Sherry and Gibson, next teachers become "adopters," stage 2, in which they are try out a technology in their classroom, with a heavy emphasis on using technology for persoual and task management Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 16 purposes. Arguably their explanation of this stage blends the definitions of initial use and regular use.
This initial use stage seems more amorphous than other stages and the transition from this stage to the next "regular use" does not seem well agreed upon. Clearly there is a point where an individual begins to use a technology, when this action reflects more skilled use is not clear. Also, when "regular use" begins and "initial use" ends is fuzzy at best Intrigningly, the transition from initial to regular may be fruitful to examine in more depth. The distinct portrayals of different individuals' intentions at this critical stage may more directly explain future adoption or rejection of an innovation. However, the stage Initial Use takes action by the individual; a user is doing something to begin to use the technology. At some unclear point, that use becomes more stable, regular, and better described by the next identified stage by several models.
Regular use. CBAM's subsequent level is Mechanical use. In this stage, an individual demonstrates use of the innovation, while their use may still include learning more about the innovation and/or may be in a routine way or lack deep reflection on how the innovation is being used. CBAM's following stage is the Routine stage; the use of the innovation has become commonplace and the individual is no longer "struggling" to learn or use the innovation. There is a stablization of use. Marcinkiewicz (1993) based on a study of 170 elementary teachers, describes a Utilization stage in which technology is used as a classroom supplement Fullan' s Continuation stage is when the innovation is more permanently incorporated and becomes an intrinsic part of the instruction. Fullan also highlights the discontinuation of an innovation. In other words, after a teacher learns Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 17 how to really use something and is very comfortable using it, will they continue to use it?
If they never really integrated in the fIrst place, they never even reached this level to determinedly choose to stop using it. As was the case of the transition from initial to
regular use, qualitative differences seem to be embedded with the different depictions of
a regular use stage from the different models, but the differences seem vague. Previous
research describes two different categories within a broad "regular use" label. The fIrst,
there is a stage in which the participants are moving beyond initial use and demonstrating
increases in knowledge of tools and features of the innovation. The use is beyond just
initial attempts to use the innovation but may lack deep reflective use or instead focus on
using the innovation for more personal or task management-related uses. Gradually this
stage evolves into a more sophisticated, artful, and reflective use of the innovation. The
user is no longer struggling to use the innovation and feels confIdent to be able to use the
innovation. Instead the use of the innovation becomes more of an exploration into more
skillful and elaborate ways to capitaIize on the innovation. The technology use would not
be limited to personal or task management and instead expand to other uses, such as,
course content delivery or student communication. This later stage is better described by
a label, such as, Independence and ConfIdence, in which a user is no longer just
knowledgeable about an innovation and its use but able to confIdently use it for a variety
of purposes in different contexts. While stages of "Knowledge of Tools and Features"
and "Independence and ConfIdence" describe the process an individual takes in learning
and using a new technology innovation, these stages do not represent the expanded use of
that innovation by a new user's students. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 18
lnt!;gration. CBAM's Refinement stage is when an individual reflects on the innovation and its use and begins to tailor it to increase the impact for their stodents.
Instructors are trying out new ways of maximizing the innovation to better its effects for their students. Continuing with CBAM's framework. next users would continue to experiment with the innovation in their own teaching, but would also work collaboratively with others to increase the impact of the innovation on their students.
CBAM terms this the Integration stage. Sherry and Gibson (2002) describe the third stage of their model as Teachers as co-learners/co-explorers with their students in the classroom. According to Marcinkiewcz (1993) the Integration stage is when the innovation is a critical element of the teaching and classroom practice. Common amongst the models is the identification of a stage in which use of an innovation in education directly targets and improves the impact on students.
Many models do not continue to identify subsequent stages past this Integration stage. Alternatively, some instead describe a "stage" which better explained as a general principal in that technology use is static, for example, once a new user has reached
"integration" their use is stagnant. Instead, several models describe a more cyclical process or introduce the idea that individuals revisit or reexamine the use of a technology.
Rogers' (1995) Confirmation stage is when an individual seeks reinforcement of the decision made to accept or reject a new technology. Sherry and Gibson (2002) defme the foorth stage of their model as when teachers make a reaffirmation/rejection decision.
Fullan (1991; 2001) describes a similar Outcome stage. Marcinkiewicz (1993) describe this process eloquently as evolution, recoguizing that the use will evolve. A possible Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 19 reason that subsequent levels or stages of use have not been identified may reflect when such work was conducted and the prevalence of technology. In Marcinkiewicz' s study, only 8% of the 170 participants were found to be at the integration level (1993).
Looking beyond this Integration stage has not been as heavily studied as the initial stages of learning, but beginning work is suggestive.
Leadership & guidance. Hooper and Reiber (1995) expanded on
Marcinkiewicz's original model (1993) and identified the "next stage" as Reorientation.
In this stage, teachers re-conceptualize their classrooms and teaching practices and use technology to aid them in achieving these new strategies or classroom transformations.
This stage seems to recognize a user becoming an expert in the given technology. He or she is able to coach students toward individualized, creative, and exploratory uses of technology to maximize learning or enhance class projects. The use might also reflect a shift in teaching philosophy or classroom methodology.
Innovation. In CBAM's Renewal stage, users reevaluate the quality of use and reinvent new modifications of the innovation to increase the impact on their students.
CBAM's describe how users change the innovation and force it to serve their needs. In this stage, a user integrates the given technology in an inventive way. He or she pushes the limits of the technology, and, invents new instructional and student uses in order to make the technology serve his or her technology needs. Users at this stage demonstrate a creativity in using the innovation that may not be used by other users of the technology in other contexts. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 20
In examining the above models, each model targets slightly different aspects of the Innovation process. Rogers' diffusion of innovation research more closely examines the earlier stages of adoption of an innovation, categorizing stages leading towards a decision to implement an innovation. Whereas, Fullan's model collapses these into
Initiation, and then places equal emphasis on Implementation and Continuation. The
CBAM model, expands Fullan' s Implementation and Continuation stages, categorizing several incremental stages: Mechanical Use, Routine Use, Refmement, Integration, &
Renewal. The CBAM model, unlike Rogers' which targets the initial stages of deciding to adopt, targets the incremental steps a teacher follows in moving closer to thoroughly
adopting and using an innovation effectively in creative new ways. The figure below
Non-Use - Initial- Knowledge - Confidence - Student Use - Leadership - Innovation
Rogersl~ ______F_u_ll_an ______~ ______-. . CBAM
Figure 1. Depiction of different stages targeted in selected change models.
demonstrates how different models target or focus on specific portions of the process
continuum to learn to use an innovation described by all the models. This researcher
strongly encourages readers interested in anyone particular model to further explore
these models directly. This abbreviated summary does not adequately address the
nuances of any particular model. In particular, elements of several models were omitted
in the discussion thus far to ease readability and simplify the comparisons among various
models, such as, Fullan's description of the Outcome stage or the axes, Innovation Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 21
Configurations or Stages of Concern about an Innovation from the CBAM framework.
This was a deliberate choice, as the purpose was not to thoroughly summarize each model in turn, but ruther to extmpolate from multiple models the common elements or stages. which should inform future research interested in stages of progress in using a new technology.
Drawing from the above discussion of models of diffusion of innovation and educational change, the following seven broad stages emerge: (a) no use, (b) initial use,
(c) knowledge of tools and features, (d) independence and confidence, (e) integmtion and stodent use, (t) leadership and guidance, and (g) innovation. Following CBAM's model with incremental stages - mechanical use and routine use, it appears that there is an
"initial use" stage, chamcterized by using a technology for the fIrSt time. Then, a stage chamcterized by users increasing their knowledge of tools and featores of a technology followed by a stage in which use is more routine and struggle free, chamcterized by individuals demonstrating increased independence and confidence. The tmnsition from initial to regular use seems to be a large tmnsition and these two stages are better sub divided. In this study they were chamcterized as initial use, knowledge of tools and features, and independence and confidence. The seven stages described in this section have been identified across different disciplines and emerge from different fields as common stages through which individuals progress in their pursuit towards integmting a new technology. Each model focuses on the use of an "innovation or technology,"
Noting that seveml of these models were not developed specifically for the area of technology adoption, the models described do not address the simultaneous adoption of Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 22 multiple innovations or technologies and the interaction of multiple innovations on the adoption process. Common sense would suggest that learning to use one type of technology may impact a user's ease, attitude, or likelihood to learn and adopt a new technology. However, models do not discuss these interactions sufficiently, address them in their models, or design their studies to begin to track these interactions. However, previous research poignantly indicates some consensus about these stages. Any study aiming to investigate an individual's growth in learning and experimenting with new strategies that integrate technology into their teaching should not ignore these previously identified stages. In fact, professional development strategies are often advanced that claim to promote an individual's more expeditious progress through these stages.
Mentoring: A professioual development strategy
Professional development programs are tasked with trying to speed individuals through various stages of progress, as quickly as possible, while preserving the quality of instruction and the long-term adoption of a technology. Different strategies have been proposed and utilized in professional development Arguably, certain strategies may be more effective at certain stages of development or for certain groups or types of individuals. However, despite the proliferation of technology-introducing strategies offered for faculty at universities throughout the world, there is not a clear understanding of such programs and their success in comparison to altemative professional development strategies. One of the challenges in investigating professional development is the abundance of terminology that has emerged. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 23
The first part of this section provides a cursory overview of mentoring first providing the background to mentoring, and then discussing mentoring from three unique fields: basic science and medicine, business, and education. The transporting of mentoring into each of these areas caused evolutious in the thinking and understanding of mentoring. The second part of this section will extend the discussion on mentoring, drawing upon literature from multiple domains, to discuss what the literature recommends for mentoring programs, and specifically mentoring programs tailored to technology adoption.
Four common categories are frequently used interchangeably in discussing professional development: training, tutoring, coaching, and mentoring. For example, the new shorter Oxford dictionary defines mentor as "an experienced and trusted adviser or guide; a teacher, a tutor." Noting the use of "tutur" to define "mentor," reinforces discussions about the similar connotations of "tutoring" and "mentoring" and their interchangeable usage (Hawkridge, 2(03). The confusion related to terminology is only exacerbated when one attempts to compare different pedagogical approaches or implementation strategies of various professional development programs.
Background to mentoring. The concept of a mentor originates in Homer's
Odyssey when Odysseus leaves for Troy and places the charge of his son in his friend
Mentor. Acting as a teacher and guardian of Odysseus' son, Mentor provides one of the first portrayals of what it means to "mentor" another. Described as 'the wise and trusted counselor,' this original mentor presents an image of a mentor that has been carried forwarded in a variety of manners (National Academy of Sciences, 1997). Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 24
The original work of Levinson (1978) was as a foundational study in advancing the understanding of mentoring. Through an extensive study of 40 men, Levinson describes the concept of a mentor as a teacher, adviser, sponsor, host, guide, exemplar and counselor, but also suggests that the character and functions of the mentoring relationship were more important to further our understanding of mentoring than the formal role or label given to the relationship. In a historical summary of mentoring,
Gibson (2004) further describes Levinson's work:
The mentor was conceptualized as a transitional figure helping the young man shift from 'being a child in relation to parental adults to being an adult in a peer relation with other adults' (Levinson, 1978, p. 99). Most importantly, a mentor's role was to 'support and facilitate the realization of the Dream,' the kind of life each man envisions for himself as an adult (p. 98). In Levinson's description, mentoring was seen as crucial to the overall development of the young adult
Levinson's early characterization of mentoring to include personal development continues to be advanced some 20 years later. Crow and Matthews (1998) claim that a mentor is not only a teacher or coach who focnses primarily on the task and the results, but mentors also focns on individuals and their development They act as confidants willing to play part of an adversary if needed, to listen and to question so prot6g6s can broaden their own view (p. 27). This depiction of mentoring is now understood as
"classical mentoring."
Traditionally, mentoring involved a wise, experienced, mentor guiding a less- experienced prot6g6. In general, research literature defines mentoring as an extended process of personal and professional growth. According to Johnson (1997), "mentoring means to facilitate, guide, and encourage continuons innovation, learning, and growth to prepare for the future" (p. 13). Johnson's definition informs this study, and "mentoring" Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 25
and "mentor" will be used throughout this dissertation for consistency, while the author acknowledges earlier debates concerning terminology.
Amongst the literature, the concept of mentoring has evolved from solely hierarchical mentor-mentee relationships to shared collaboration amongst peers or
inverted hierarchial relationships, such as, students mentoring teachers. Likewise,
mentoring has been reworked to fit nearly every discipline, such as the basic sciences and
medicine, business, and education.
Mentoring in the basic sciences aod medicine. The classical mentoring paradigm
dominates the mentoring found in the domains of medicine and the basic sciences.
Typically, specialized experts oversee the scientific career development of their proteges.
most often in the form of internships or postdoctoral positions. In the United States,
national research programs have been funded to encourage more systematic,
programmatic mentorship of early career professionals in advancing competitive research
studies and leading to stronger career development Programs, such as, the National
Institutes of Health's Institutional Award Program (IDeA) and the National Science
Foundation's Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST) or
Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER), advocate the pairing of each early career
investigator with a respected, senior scientist who will oversee their development These
programs are most strongly advocated for institutions serving large proportions of
minority researchers. Significant financial investment by the U.S. federal government
into "mentoring" as an effective strategy in career and research development
demonstrates the growth of understanding and respect for mentoring as a professional Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 26 development strategy. The United States is not the ouly country to notice the effectiveness of mentoring.
In medicine, lengthy residency or internship programs exist, where informal mentoring is ingrained in the preparation of medical students. The United Kingdom's
Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical Education in England (SCOPME) determined that mentoring was sufficiently important to warrant an investigation.
SCOPEME dermed mentoring as
"a voluntary relationship, typically between two individuals, in which: the mentor is usually an experienced, highly regarded, empathetic individual, often working in the same organisation, or field, as the mentee; the mentor, by listening and talking with the mentee in private and in confidence guides the mentee in the development of his or her own ideas, learning, and personal and professional development" (Bligh, 1999, p. 2).
While the classical approach to mentoring of the wise, gifted mentor and the less- experienced prot6ge is the most salient, Bulstrode and Hunt, suggest, the concept of mentor has "moved from patronage and career gnidance, through tutor and role model, to friend and support back to its original classical meaning" (2000, p. 1788). Bulstrode and
Hunt's exploration of mentoring in medicine suggest that "mentor" is not a static concept.
However, as Appalasamy (1995) points out, insufficient consideration has been given to peer or student mentoring in medical studies. Complementary approaches to the classical mentor are more evident in other disciplines, such as business or education.
Mentoring in business. The use of mentoring in business is diverse; it has been used in numerous ways for unique purposes. A key line of research focuses on developing human resources in organizations, such as Gilley, Eggland, and Gilley, 2002;
Rothwell and Kazanas, 2003. Another major line of research discusses mentoring in light Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 27 of career success (Aryee, Wyatt, & Stone, 1996; Chao, 1997; Corzine, Buntzman, &
Busch, 1994; Wallace, 2001). The literature also recommends mentoring for enhancing social networks, especially for female and minority employees (Dreher & Dougherty,
1997; Noe, 1988; Thomas, 2001). Other research investigates mentoring from a more organizational stance, suggesting mentoring as an avenue to improve organizational effectiveness and commitment (Donaldson, Ensher, & Grant-Vallone, 2000; Eby, 1997;
Russell & Adams, 1997). Managerial mentoring explores different leadership styles and the development of emotional competencies (Bunker, Kram, & Ting, 2002). The business domain contributes many publications and studies on mentoring that broaden
and enhance the overall understanding of mentoring; however, introduction of new terms
such as "training" also populate the literature and new questions about the differences
between a supervisor and a mentor are raised. In a detailed exploration of the literature
on mentoring, Gibson (2004), concludes, ..... a historical review of the mentoring
literature in business and industry finds no consistent definition of mentoring or
description of mentoring roles or functions." While not consistent, in her extensive
review of the lack of common defmitions of mentoring, Gibson identifies the literature in
business as discussing mentoring mostly according to the role or function that the
relationship serves, as Levinson (1978) first did; these roles are more diverse than
mentoring in medicine and the basic sciences.
From the angle of the functions of mentoring, a number of researchers of
mentoring in business and industry contexts (Fagenson, 1992; Noe, 1988; Olian, Carroll,
Giannantonio, & Ferren, 1988; Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1992) cite Kathy Kram's Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 28 work. Kram (1985, 1988) posits a continuum of functions and roles. On one end of the continuum is the classical notion of mentoring that monopolizes the mentoring examples reviewed in the science and medicine disciplines. Within the domain of business, these relationships are described with a personal dimension, emphasizing the longevity and personal connection fonnd within these, often exclusive relationships (Chao, Walz, &
Gardner, 1992; Noe, 1988; Ollan et al., 1988; Russell & Adams, 1997). These relationships focus primarily on career success and psycho-social areas (Kram, 1985).
Similarly, the work of Merriam (1983) explored the different roles of mentoring and also found that they ranged along a continuum. On one end, the relationships mostly provided advice and endorsement; on the other end of the continuum the relationships were intense and developmental. Focusing on the functional aspects of mentoring relationships,
Merriam (1983) identified career and psychosocial aspects as the primary functions that mentoring relationships served. Describing Kram's work, Gibson (2004) summarizes
"Career functions include sponsorship, coaching, protection, exposure and visibility, and challenging work assignments through which the prottSg6 learns about the organization and becomes prepared for career advancement. Psychosocial functions include role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counseling and friendship, which serve to enhance the prottSg6's feelings of competence, clarity of identity and managerial effectiveness."
The careful examination of different tasks, within these two broad functions of career and psychosocial, suggests the important nuances of each unique mentoring relationship that is formed. Although Kram and Merriam's research enhanced understanding of the functions of mentoring relationships, Gibson (2004) points out that mentoring has not remained neatly within these classifications and highlights the considerable discussion about expanding the concept of mentoring to include peer-to-peer mentoring, group Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 29 mentoring (one senior individual meets with a number ofless experienced proteg6s), and even 'telementoring' (Digh. 1999; Eby, 1997; Kaye & Jacobson, 1995; Stokes, 2001;
Vincent, 1999). These options represent an exciting expansion of the mentoring literature and the proliferation of concepts under the label of mentoring.
Through the incorporation of mentoring into business, the conceptualization of mentoring was reclassified. In fact, in addition to the different roles and functions described above, another type of mentoring relationship emerged (Turban & Dougherty,
1994; 'ley, 1984); one in which the relationship is characterized as shorter, less personal and exclusive. In fact, individuals may have multiple mentoring relationships that are more specialized and progress-oriented (Whitely et al., 1992, p. 142). These types of
"mentoring" relationships were not previously found in the literatures on mentoring from the disciplines of science and medicine.
The traditional definition of mentoring, which is heavily embedded in the disciplines of science and medicine, has been explored from a different perspective in the business literatures. Given the greater diversity of institntional organizations, mentoring has been explored in terms of the functions and roles that the mentoring relationships serve. The functions of the mentoring relationships were originally identified as career and psychosocial in natnre; however, there is some discussion about the new evolving natnres and "mentoring" constructions that question the original thinking of the purposes of mentoring relationships. While more commonplace mentoring relationships in business mirror those chronicled in science and medicine of hierarchical relationships, alternative mentoring configurations are also found, such as group mentoring, peer Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 30 mentoring, telementoring, etc. Importantly, a new type of "mentoring" relationship is described; one that is characterized as a skilled, progress-focused, short-term relationship, such as the mentoring relationships in this stody, versus the long-term, personal, career development relationship traditionally connected with the term "mentor." As
"mentoring" is practically applied in new disciplines for professional development, its definition expands and evolves. Similarly, the understanding of "mentoring" includes new additional nuances. Multiple defInitions, roles, and concepts of mentoring, explored previously, persist within the literatures found in educational research.
Mentoring in education. The perpetuity of using mentors in the field of education is rooted in common practice in the preparation of new teachers. Mentor teachers, who support and guide new teacher candidates, schooling them on instructional techniques, pedagogical approaches, classroom management strategies, curriculum selections and simultaneously encouraging and providing emotional support for them, have been used in teacher preparation programs across the United States and abroad. While the traditional or classical mentor concept is found in education, as well as science, medicine, and business, the description typically de-emphasizes the expertise of the mentor and places more emphasis on their role as facilitator for the increased knowledge, skills, and independence of the prot6g6. Daloz (1986) described the role of the mentor as dynamic, changing in response to the needs of the mentee. Initially, the mentor fIlls the role of a teacher. As the mentee's confidence and skills develop, the role of the mentor evolves and is better classified as a guide or facilitator, and eventually a peer and friend. While this type of "mentoring" in education arguably is critical in the formation of good Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 31 teachers, mentoring as a term is not restricted to only this purpose.
Structured mentoring programs have sprouted up, given the problems with attrition and retention of teachers. These formalized programs typically pair a new teacher with a more seasoned teacher. Programs vary in the level and type of mentoring provided. Researchers have found that induction programs assist with retention of beginning teachers and aid their instructional success (Gold, 1996; Huling-Austin, 1990,
1992; Loughran, 1994; Luft, Roehrig, & Patterson, 2003; Slater & Simmons, 2(01).
Several researchers have demonstrated the value of mentoring for early-career teachers
(Odell, 1990; Odell & Ferraro, 1992; Stupiansky & Wolfe, 1992). Teachers appreciate peer support and interaction (Appleton & Kindt, 2003) and consistently identify their peers as 'the most important and reliable source' of professional growth (peters & March,
1999, p. 9). Mentoring is clearly used as a form of professional development in educational settings. Mentoring can range from a structured mentoring program to less formal peer coaching paradigms.
Whereas mentoring programs often target new teachers, mentoring programs that focus on peer collaboration involve pairs of teachers observing one another's teaching.
They share reflectious, observations, and feedback and engage in a reciprocal relationship to improve their instructional practices, experiment with new strategies, or find solutions to common problems. Joyce and Showers (1980) first proposed this type of mentoring as a method of professional development. Since, this form of peer collaboration has become widely used in the form of 'technical coaching, 'collegial coaching,' 'challenge coaching,' 'team coaching,' 'cognitive coaching' and 'peer coaching' (Garmston, 1987). Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 32
The benefits of such professional development approaches are well documented in the literature. Peer coaching has been found to provide teachers with support and camaraderie as well as professional feedback (Joyce & Showers, 1982; Manouchehri,
2001; Rauch & Whittaker, 1999). The mutual benefits of peer coaching encourage communication and trust and have been shown to alleviate isolation and burnout, common problems within the education profession (Anastos & Ancowitz, 1987; Britton et al., 2001; Slater & Sinunons, 2001).
Thus far, the mentoring described in education has targeted professional development, while simultaneously providing social support. The types of mentoring relationships found within the literature in education are vast. The mentoring relationships range from personalized mentor-new teacher protege personal relationships, to structured mentoring programs designed to support students or new teachers. Also mentoring is advocated for as a form of professional development, utilizing peers to provide feedback and reflection on teaching practices in the form of peer coaching.
In this study, the mentoring relationships, while characterized as a skilled, progress-focused, short-term relationship, borrowing from mentoring literatures in business, are further described and understood from studies on mentoring in education.
The participants of this study will participate in formal mentoring relationships resulting from a structured mentoring program. However, these relationships will retain characteristics of personalized relationships. Mentors act like facilitators aiming to increase the knowledge, skills, and independence of their mentees to learn and use technologies. The roles of mentors will change to respond to the needs of the mentee Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 33
(Daloz, 1986). Mentor-mentee pairs with shared instructional duties are likely to share reflections, observations, and feedback. As peer colleagues, these pairs will share their instructional practices, experiment with new strategies, or find solutions to common problems (Joyce & Showers, 1982). The mentoring relationships in this study, by definition, gain from drawing on the understanding of menturing across a range of disciplines and studies on effective mentoring. Further what emerges, among the literature in education on mentoring, is a transition from an emphasis on describing the types of relationships or detailing the functions of the relationship to investigating the quality of the relationships formed. The mentoring relationships in this study will be informed by previons work on effective mentoring.
Effective ment:oriJ)g relationships. Effective mentoring relationships require a level of trust, respect, ethics and communication (Hay, 1995; Johnson, 1997; Kiltz,
Danzig, and Szecsy, 2004; Shea, 1994). The participants must respect opinions and experiences that each brings to the mentoring relationship. Without this mutual respect, individual growth may not occur as a result of the dialogue and mentoring.
Emerging research on mentoring models. suggests developmental stages in effective mentoring relationships (Bess, 2000; Daresh, 2001; Zachary, 2002). The first stage identified is preparation and initiation of the participants. The focns is on relationship-building between the mentor and the mentored. Developing trust, communication and understanding among the participants lead to positive and productive relationships. The hope is for relationships that surpass typical roles, such as student teacher, assistant-supervisor, or mentor-mentored, and to see a true mutual friendship Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 34 develop. Research literature recommends training for mentors that allows them to see that being a good mentor is more than being an expert on a given task or in a given area
(Bess, 2000; Daresh, 200 1; Zachary, 2(02). Recognizing differences among mentoring programs, such as mandatory or voluntary participation, the literature reveals that training is important if the program is to be successful (Johnson & Sullivan, 1995; Stott &
Walker, 1992). Mentors should be instructed of both the overall goals of the mentoring program and the techniques of mentoring (Zey, 1993).
After solid relationships are in place for mentoring, the next phase involves negotiation between the mentor and the mentored. This second phase focuses on defining the experience, expectations, and the mentoring process (Bess, 2000; Zachary, 2002).
Kiltz et al. (2004) suggest that both the mentors and the mentored need to layout expectations for the experience, come to a consensus about the actual experience and set realistic expectations that both sides will be able to honor. This includes setting a realistic meeting schedule to which both make a commitment.
The third phase is the growth and learning within the mentoring experience (Bess,
2000; Daresh, 200 1; Zachary, 2002). The mentor assists the mentee by working the individual through problems, conflicts, or challenges. This is the stage where the mentor and mentee are mutually engaged in advancing the skills of the mentored individnal.
Kiltz et al. (2004) highlight the situations where the mentor does not have the knowledge or expertise as opportunities for both parties to learn as they seek resources to resolve challenges. "It is through these experiences that both the mentor and the mentee have the greatest opportunity to experience personal and professional growth" (Kiltz et al., 2004, Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 35 p.7). FinaJJy, Bess (2000) and Zachary (2002) posit a last stage characterized by closure and redefinition. Collectively, the mentor and the mentee reflect on the learning and celebrate the growth and success, and hopefully, feel emotional renewal and pride.
The literature on mentoring is clear that mentoring relationships should be systematic and planned (Daresh, 2001; Hay, 1995; Johnson, 1997). Training and support for mentors to learn to be "effective mentors" is recommended. More effective relationships seem to be reciprocal in nature, where both the mentee and mentor gain from the experience. Finally, the understanding of mentoring relationships thus far suggest relationships develop in a stage-like process, following four phases:
Relationship-building, Goal and expectation formation, Teaching and learning, and
Reflecting and redefining roles. Programs that aim at promoting mentoring as a form of professional development should consider these recommendations in their design and implementation, as this study did.
Interest in mentoring has increased exponentially. Mentoring has been spread into nearly every discipline. It has metamorphosed the power roles of classical mentoring to embody new peer collaboration. Given the popularity of mentoring as a professional development strategy in many disciplines, it is not surprising to see mentoring programs advocated and launched to encourage and support the integration of technology into higher education.
Mentoring for technology integration in higher education. Recent work examines the "mentoring" that has occnrred in some technology mentoring programs for faculty. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 36
Chuang, Thompson, and Schmidt (2003) summarize major trends in the literature on faculty technology mentoring programs, describing programs using graduate students as mentors (earning either course credit or hired), undergraduate students as mentors, and K-
12 pupils as technology support for inservice teachers. No peer colleague mentoring programs were described. A significant contribution of their review is their suggested common themes of essential elements of strong mentoring programs.
"Despite the variety of technology mentoring models, effective programs include common elements ..• These elements include providing visions for the use of tecbnology in teaching and learning, individualizing technology support (personal fit), breaking down hierarchical structure, establishing open dialogue and collaborative relationships, providing mutual benefits for mentors and mentees, and establishing learning communities" (Chuang et al., 2(03).
Building on this growing understanding of technology mentoring programs, recent research extends the field's understanding of the complexities related to technology mentoring. George Mason University's program paired university faculty members with a K-12 teacher noted for his/her technology use; Widmayer (2004) details three pairs over 12 to 18 months. Widmayer's case study approach provides insights into what these faculty members were working on and the evolution of their progress; however, there may be some question as to whether the mentoring of this study meets the recommended criteria put forth by Chuang et aI. (2003) for strong mentoring programs.
Research conducted at Iowa University is providing the most direction in current investigation of faculty mentoring. Iowa's early research was critiqued because it relies on case study protocols, that is, student products created as part of their university course in which they mentored a faculty member as a course assigument However, Chuang
(2004) explores a faculty member she mentored over an eight-year period through a Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 37 reflective case study approach. These initial attempts should be commended for their ground -breaking work and their honesty in chronicling what does happen when faculty are mentored to use technology. These attempts further encourage the field to delve into this relatively under-explored area To date, these accounts predominantly rely on seIf reported or mentor-reported accounts of technology integration. Further, the focus is often on faculty's attitudes in relation to technology. Data is typicaIIy in the form of surveys or interviews with faculty or mentees. In other words, faculty members or the mentees reflect on what the faculty perceive they have gained from mentoring, for example, more confidence. A study is needed that extends this line of research to include evidenced-based data; what can one see is actuaIIy changing in courses and teaching practices while participants are in a mentoring program? Studies are needed that target the faculty member's technology skills versus ouly their attitudes, while recognizing that these are to some degree intertwined. While the research on mentoring has come a long way in the last couple of decades, the understanding of the outcomes of technology mentoring programs is still fledgling at best. A compounding challenge is the insufficient descriptions of mentoring programs discussed within the context of what has been shown to be effective mentoring from other disciplines.
Menturing programs have sprouted up to provide faculty professional development to incorporate newer technologies into their teaching. However, the contexts within which these programs work are very diverse. The structure, incentives, and management are similarly unique. Mentoring also rarely operates in a vacuum without other resources and opportunities provided to faculty members wishing to learn Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 38 and incorporate new technologies into their practices. Comprehensive studies that systematically compare various mentoring program structures are needed. To begin to develop an understanding of mentoring programs, their effectiveness and complexity, detailed descriptions of the programs studied, such as has been provided in recent work
(Widmayer, 2004; Chuang, 2004), must be provided first Describing mentoring programs is an important first step in developing an understanding of what faculty actually learn while participating in these programs.
Mentoring in Hawaii: Technology mentoring program overview and summary
Mentoring has a long history in many cultures, and the local culture in Hawaii is no exception. In Hawaii, a traditionally oral culture, mentoring is imbedded in the local culture and heritage and includes the passing of the ancestor's knowledge, values, attitudes and ethics to the successive generation. In local culture, mentoring is viewed as a process of learning in which the reward is not only in teaching one's goals but also in the very process of guiding and growing together. Both mentor and the mentored mutually benefit from this dynamic interaction as ideas, support and the joy of success are exchanged and shared (see Lueng Mee-Lee & Bush, 2003, for a similar description of mentoring from a Taoist perspective). The College of Education (COE) at the University of Hawaii (UH) capitalized on the local appeal of mentoring as it attempted to respond to changing educational pressures related to technology.
The Department of Educational Technology (ETEC) led the COE in responding to the national concerns related to integrating technology into preservice teacher education. Fulford and Ho (2002) developed a model of institutional change for Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 39 technology integration based on faculty mentoring. The Technology Intensive (TI)
Courses Model used graduate students as "technology mentors" to assist COE faculty with technology integration (Fulford & Eichelberger, 20(2). The approach was based on the philosophy that teachers will teach the way they are taught. Therefore, in order to teach preservice teachers to effectively use technology, COE faculty needed to model effective technology use in their own teaching and require their students to use technology in their academic work and research. The goal was to create teacher education faculty who were technology role models and technology-savvy new teachers.
The 11 model used a systematic approach for faculty recruitment, course redesign, and evaluation to assess the integration technology into courses. Through two United States
Department of Education Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Teach (Pf3) grants, UH's
COE used the 11 Courses Model over six years to promote the use of technology in teacher education. As part of an institutionalization initiative, the COE founded the
Office of Technology and Distance Education. This office and its Director continue to support the vision for technology integration and provide many services previously grant funded, including the hiring of graduate students to mentor faculty. The mentoring program was vital in assisting the College launch its first ouline cohort offered statewide in 2003. Mentoring was woven into the COE's institutional paradigm of how to achieve improved technology integration into its teacher education programs.
The 11 Model cousists of two phases. The fIrst phase of the model uses a number of strategies to recruit faculty to the technology mentoring program. The second phase, Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 40 involves student technology mentors assisting faculty one-on-one in the redesign of their courses to integrate technology.
TI Model phase one - facultr recruitment. In order to recruit faculty to participate in the technology mentoring program various methods were used. The perceiVed success of the project generated positive word of mouth among the faculty. as well as administrative support. Faculty participants and administrators both encouraged colleagues to join the project. While these methods of recruitment were external to the technology mentoring program. the initiative itself also actively recruited faculty. The first recruitment method was a well-advertised and professionally produced website
(www.hawaiLeduleteclyr/yideo.htm) with digital videos showcasing innovative teaching practices using technology (Fulford. Eichelberger, Theal. & Rivers, 2003). The videos were accompanied by digital resources and materials meant to assist instructors with implementing similar practices in their own teaching.
The second method of faculty recruitment was hands-on technology workshops.
Educational Technology graduate students trained in instructional design conducted the workshops as part of a graduate seminar course offered each Fall semester. The students used a workshop model providing hands-on practice combined with relevant modeling of technology use by colleagues (Fulford & Eichelberger, 2002). Workshops covered topics such as visual design, WebCf. web page design. multi-media and video production, electronic presentations and portfolios, technology ethics and copyright, assessment of technology projects, and ouJine collaboration. The workshops were consistently popular with the COE faculty and provided an opportune time to recruit those enthusiastic about Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 41 technology integration to the technology mentoring program. Recruited faculty worked with ETEC graduate student mentors to create professional development plans that helped organize their individualized support. Faculty who participated in the technology mentoring program were provided with ongoing professional development to effectively integrate technology into their courses.
TI Model phase two course redesign. To meet the challenge of reluctant faculty, Fulford and Ho (2002) developed a three-tiered approach to redesigning courses to incorporate technology. The fIrSt and most introductory level is Technology Enhanced
Courses. In these courses, the faculty member demonstrates and uses technology in the presentation of course content and communicates with students electronically. This level strives to be the least threatening to faculty who are just starting to use technology in the classroom. The second level is Technology Applied Courses. These courses add the use of technology to the current course structure encouraging students to use technology resources in their research, communication, and presentations. The faculty member demonstrates and uses technology in the presentation of course content and communicates with students electronically. The third level is Technology Intensive
Courses. These courses follow the Technology Intensive Standards and Guidelines to improve technology literacy while continuing to emphasize course content (Fulford &
Ho, 2002). Students have a high level of involvement using technology, while faculty meet standards as exemplary role models using technology.
The three levels allowed faculty to become involved with the project and move at their own pace with technology integration. The levels also allowed for faculty to decide Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 42 the appropriate level of technology integration for specific courses, as some courses may not be apptoptiate for the Technology Intensive designation. Allowing for flexibility and a range of technology usages was perceived to be key in making the Technology
Intensive Courses model work for many faculty members in a variety of subject areas.
One-on-one mentoring. In order to redesign their courses to any of the 11 levels, faculty needed assistance revising course objectives, creating new strategies and activities, rethinking student projects, locating and creating new media, and developing alternative assessments. Faculty who exptessed interest in integrating technology into their courses were offered one-on-one mentoring assistance to facilitate this process.
Participating faculty were paired with graduate student mentors from the
Educational Technology or Communication and Information Sciences Departments.
Typically, the pairs met on a weekly basis over a semester. Many faculty continued mentoring past one semester, often with the same, but sometimes different, mentor. The mentoring sessions usually lasted about an hour and took place in the faculty member's office.
In order for the students to be able to effectively mentor the faculty toward using technology in their teaching, an instructional design apptoach was used to: (a) set goals for the professional development; (b) provide expertise in creating a revised curriculum especially with regard to the technology-intensive standards; and (c) assist in improving technical skills to help faculty members reach their technology integration goals.
In the mentoring process, the mentor first assessed the technology needs and levels of confidence of their mentee via a technology skills survey. The pairs then Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 43 discussed the course content and goals the faculty member had for redesigning the course to integrate technology. The student mentor had to be tactful with the faculty member to be encouraging and yet realistic as to what could be accomplished in one semester. The pairs discussed their respective time schedules and the amount of time the faculty member had to dedicate to the redesign process. A contract was signed between the student mentor and faculty mentee to encourage dialogue about the role of the mentor and mentee (see Appendix A).
Technology mentors. Student mentors needed to be thoroughly trained in order to provide both the technology skills and instructional design knowledge to help the faculty member plan and organize the course to be redesigned. The mentors were trained to assist faculty members to become independent, self-sufficient users of technology. To achieve this goal, students often needed to know how to handle difficult situations.
Examples of difficult situations included faculty members expecting the mentor to do the technology work for them, faculty members not completing work they have agreed to do in order for the sessious to proceed, chronic appointment cancellations, and faculty who were continually distracted by new media and strayed off topic every week.
In order to conduct one-on-one mentoring sessions and handle these situations, new technology mentors participated in a series of training sessions led by a supervising faculty member and graduate students who had mentoring experience. Training topics included the Technology Intensive Standards and Guidelines (Fulford & Hines, 1997), customer service, specific hardware and software, and perhaps most importantly, "how to conduct one-on-ones," a training session in which students and trainers role-played and Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 44 discussed solutions for a variety of difficult situations. Sessions further introduced new mentors to the materials created to assist the mentoring and course redesign process.
These "cross-training" sessions organized by experienced mentors were offered at least once a year, and often specialized sessions were held during the year as needed.
The experience developed by mentors during their participation in the technology mentoring program was also important to the caliber of mentoring provided. Once hired. mentors typically worked with the project consecutively for two years. Students worked with three to four faculty members on average during any given semester. Some mentors continued with the project longer than two years. In fact. two mentors served the College in this capacity for nearly four years. They continued their education either pursing an additional masters or doctoral degree enabling their continued participation with the project This continuity retained mentors groomed to provide support and, further, developed strategies, examples, and products directly for the same context The collegial environment in which they worked was important as well. Mentors had a communal room, with multiple workstations side by side. This arrangement encouraged continual sharing. Also, faculty mentees could come to this room with multiple workstations in order to work side-by-side with their mentee or use specialized equipment for a specific project This provided further opportunities for learning and modeling of mentoring in informal ways for other mentors, especially those less experienced. Mentors often had common courses, worked collaboratively on a regular basis, and ate lunch together nearly everyday. Ohana, the Hawaiian word for family, describes the important mentoring community built within the technology mentoring program. A full-time grant faculty Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 45 member was hired as the Mentoring Coordinator. In this capacity, she promoted this atmosphere amongst mentors, facilitated the learning and development of new mentors, and supervised the relationships of faculty mentees and their student mentors. While the technology mentors and one-on-one mentoring program is central to the TI model and its implementation in the COE, there were other technology resources that enabled the activities and led to success.
Technology Learning Center. In order to support the use of technology by faculty and students the Technology Learning Center OLe) was created. The purpose of the
TLC was twofold The first was to supply a physical space (instructional c1assroomJlab) in which instructors could teach while students were on computers. This space was also available for open use by those faculty and students when not being used for courses. A technical help desk was also staffed with students who could provide troubleshooting.
The second purpose of the TLC, and perhaps the more crucial, was the equipment circulation system. COE faculty and students could check out digital still and video cameras, laptops, data projectors, screens, and other equipment from the center for use in their courses or in the field. After grant funding ended, the TLC was folded into an established Curriculum Resource Center, a library area serving the entire college. The hours, equipment availability, and open access to the computer lab were expanded. The
College also purchased carts of wireless laptops to provide at least three classrooms with up-to-date technology to facilitate technology integration.
The sections above describe the technology initiatives and established institutional practices common in Hawaii prior to the start of this study. The background Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 46 and summary of the TI model (Fulford & Ho, 2002) is provided as a professional development framework influential in Hawaii. Further, this detailed program description is important to compare to literatures on effective mentoring programs and relationships.
Also, it should assist readers in understanding the systematic nature of formal mentoring programs developed to encourage the use of technology, at least in this context
Summary
Mentoring as a professional development strategy is clearly being incorporated into nearly every discipline. A general tendency to develop formal mentoring programs to provide professional development seems to exist Recent scholarly work focuses on less hierarchical relationships or traditional mentoring, and rather investigates peer or alternative power structures in mentoring. In considering mentoring individuals to use technology, these common threads are the same. Unique program structures have been piloted and growing understanding of what constitutes successful mentoring strategies
and programs have been advanced recently. While the use of mentoring is exceptionally
popular, there is insufficient understanding of the concrete results of mentoring programs
targeting technology adoption. A vast body of literature exists on the stages of
technology adoption. The lack of clarity and specific description of unique program
implementation compounds the challenge of understanding programmatic outcomes in
relation to specific mentoring program structures and implementation practices. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 47
CHAPTER III
METHOD
Participants
The 78 community college faculty members in this study were mentored in order to increase their technology skills and their integration of technology into their courses.
Faculty from each of the seven community colleges in the state of Hawaii participated in this study. Of the 78 participauts, 28 were male aud 50 were female. The females in the study, representing two-thirds of the sample, completed 202 of the 307 total technology projects. Males completed 105 of the 307 total projects. The 78 faculty members tanght across a broad rauge of subject areas (Table 2). The largest group of faculty members participating in mentoring in this project (35%, n=27) tanght English courses (Figure 2).
This was followed by groups of faculty teaching in the Social Sciences (18%, n=14) and
Business (15%, n=12). The other snbject areas of Language, Math, Science, Medical &
Health, or Arts & Hnmanities attracted 4, 5, or 6 faculty members.
Table 2
Faculty mentored by subject taught
Subject Area No. ofUnigue Faculty Arts & Humanities 4 Business 12 English 27 Language 5 Math 4 Medical & Health 6 Science 6 Social Sciences 14 Grand Total 78 Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 48
5%
r C Arts & Humanities1 • Business 0 English ' o Language 1.Math D Medical & Health • Science [] Social Sciences
Figure 2. Subjects taught by faculty participants
The 78 faculty members in this study worked on a range of technology projects utilizing nearly 80 different pieces of software or hardware. These technologies were classified into 15 categories: online courseware, web design, presentation, equipment,
publishing, graphics, assessment tools, file transfer, communication, internet, file
management, utility, conferencing, information retrieval, and spreadsheets (Table 3). In
this study, 60.26% of faculty chose to learn some application related to online courseware. Faculty also concentrated on web design (46.15%), presentation (44.87 %), equipment (41.03%), and publishing (33.33%). Graphics, assessment tools, video, and
media tools ranged from \0% to 20% of faculty's choice. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 49
Table 3
Technology faculty elected to learn
Category of Technology No offaculty Percentage Online Courseware 47 60.26% Web design 36 46.15% Presentation 35 44.87% Equipment 32 41.03% Publishing 26 33.33% Grapbics 15 19.23% Assessment Tools 13 16.67% Video 12 15.38% Media Tools 8 10.26% File Transfer 7 8.97% Communication 6 7.69% Internet 6 7.69% File Management 5 6.41% Utility 5 6.41% Conferencing 4 5.13% Information Retrieval 3 3.85% Spreadsheets 3 3.85%
Procedures
Faculty participants who volunteered entered a mentoring relationsbip with a technology mentor from their same campus. The goal of these mentoring pairs was to improve the technology skills of the mentee and enable each mentee to begin to integrate technology into their courses. Across all campuses, mentoring was used as a professional development strategy to increase the technology skills and integration of the mentees.
DescriPtion of mentoring relationsbip onset. At the beginuing of the mentoring relationsbip, mentors and mentees defined expectations; products, such as signed contracts with written expectations, helped foster conversation and clarifying roles (see
Appendix A). The mentor and mentee negotiated practical issues, such as, creating a reasonable schedule. During early sessions, mentors and mentees discussed the content of Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 50 the courses mentees taught and options in redesigning current curriculwn to integrate technology. Mentors often demonstrated samples of technology-produced products or teaching practices with technology. Mentees and mentors would clarify and finalize goals with regards to learning and using technology. Goals ranged from broad goals, such as creating an online course or class website to learning how to use a piece of equipment in their classroom or how to use a specific software application, such as PowerPoint.
Each software or hardware a faculty chose to learn was called a technology project.
Multiple technology projects may have been necessary to accomplish a broader goal, such as teaching an online course. Mentors also assessed their mentees' comfort, familiarity, and access to various technologies. This helped them address the practicality and reasonability of schedule and goals of the mentee. Mentors wrote a narrative description of their mentee and their mentee's use of technology in courses and collected artifacts supporting these claims, such as current class materials.
Description of mentoring relationship. The mentors and their mentees met regularly, approximately one hour, once a week, to work on the agreed upon goals.
Mentoring sessions were held most often in the mentee's office. During sessions, mentors helped mentees to revise course objectives, student requirements or class projects. Mentors helped mentees learn about and evaluate using new teaching strategies.
Mentors assisted mentees rethink or modify classroom activities or materials, and in some cases addressed using these in new mediums, such as online environments.
Mentors taught software and hardware knowledge and designed incremental learning steps for their mentees to practice and gain confidence with various software and Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 51 hardware they needed to accomplish their technology learning goals. Mentors located training materials and resources. In general, mentors augmented technology learning through tailored sessions for the mentee and met the needs of their mentee to learn new technology for use with their students in their courses. Mentors filled out mentoring logs about what was studied and progress made in rnentoring sessions. Mentees provided samples of the revised products they created as a result of their participation with a technology mentor. These products served as examples of the results of mentoring.
After the mentoring relationship ended, mentors wrote a narrative describing the mentee's new level of technology skill and their use of technology in courses.
To better frame the faculty participants, the mentoring relationships, and the technology projects mentees choose to work on, the next section will discuss each of the seven campuses. Information about the mentors, the campus contexts, and the technology access at each campus is discussed.
Contexts for Mentoring and Campus Descriptions
The only public institution for higher education in the State, the University of
Hawai'i (UH) is a ten-campus system that includes three universities and seven
Community Colleges (Ce). UH's main campus at Manoa enrolls approximately 17,000 students in graduate and undergraduate programs while approximately 24,000 students are enrolled at the system's CCs in degree seeking programs. The University has a diverse population of students: 49% Asian, 22% Caucasian, 18% Hawai'ianJPacific
Islander, and 11% other. The College of Education (CaE) is situated on the main campus at Manoa, on Oahn, Hawai'i's most populated island. The CaE enrolls approximately Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 52
1,300 students, two-thirds of which are at the graduate and one-third at the undergraduate level. All of the College's undergraduate students are at the upper division level. The
COE partnered with each community college in the State to share their technology mentoring professional development strategies. The University of Hawaii Community
College system consists of seven campuses. Four are on Oahu, the most populated island in the state; the other three campuses are on three distinct islands in the Hawaiian archipelago. Each campns will be discussed in turn, including the faculty who participated in this study to increase their technology skills and their integration of technology into their respective courses.
Community College One. Serving the largest island in the State, Hawai'i, community college one (CCI) enrolls 2,300 students a semester. At the beginning of the study, CC I had the most severe lack of resources and no multimedia classrooms. Given the lack of technology resources available, how could faculty integrate technology effectively? CCI released an English faculty member, who although did not exhibit high-end technology skills was a positive role model effectively integrating technology in his English classes. His implementation strategy was to primarily focus on mentoring low-end technology users or those individuals most afraid of using technology. Given the lack of technology in classrooms, this mentor encouraged faculty to develop companion websites for courses or other resources students could access outside of class time to complement instruction. The mentor negotiated for the financial resources to be allocated to establish four multimedia-enabled classrooms, which improved technology access and expanded the projects that would be useful in these new technology-enhanced Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology S3 classrooms. This mentor began with faculty in the English department, which was his home department To augment his mentoring, he identified faculty who were accomplished in particular technologies and teamed with a grass-roots professional development workshop series. Further, he established an easy access point, in the centralized library building, to his mentoring and technologies, such as, data projectors.
At this campus 10 faculty were mentored; five were mentored for one semester and the other five for two semesters. In the first year of the project, foor out of the seven faculty tanght English, while the other three faculty tanght language, math, and business. In the second year of the project, three additional faculty from social sciences were added.
Table 4 below provides a summary of the mentoring for participants from CCI.
Similar tables will be presented for each campus, and a consolidated list of all campuses is available in Appendix B. In each table, the campus is identified with a label (CCI-7).
Each mentor is identified by an alphabetical letter (A-G). Next, participant information is included in the following six columns: the course subject taught for each faculty mentee is provided, followed by the number of semesters of mentoring (lor 2), the number of coorses their produced products related to, and the applications or hardware the faculty choose to learn.
Table 4
Mentoring detailsjor participantsjrom CCl
Campus Mentor Mentee's Subject Tanght # sem. # coorses Technology learned CCI A Administration Justice 1 2 data projector Front page PowerPoint Learning Skills 1 2 smartboard Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 54
Weber PowerPoint Linguistics 1 1 PowerPoint Weber English 1 1 Email Internet Weber English 2 1 Internet Weber History 2 2 Html Real Media Weber Accounting 1 1 FrontPage English 2 1 Fireworks Impatica PowerPoint History 2 2 Weber Math 2 1 graphing calculator PowerPoint Weber
Community College Two. The focus of community college two (CC2) is technical-occupational areas for the workforce of Hawaii. They decided to retain autonomy from general campus initiatives to have more direct control over their activities and the resources provided. A professor, with minimal technology skills was released from two-three instructional courses each semester to coordinate the project. This mentor's implementation strategy encouraged a project-based method for faculty to redesign their courses. Faculty selected individual projects to incorporate into their course and then they worked towards making those changes. Although the campus had many computer labs, a lack of high-end multimedia production resources for faculty remained.
The Tl facilitator established a small workroom, complimented by laptop computers, and Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 55 digital still and video cameras that were checked out to faculty. The implementation strategy of the mentor attracted faculty seeking to develop high-level technology skills. In the first year, four faculty were mentored who received only one semester of mentoring by this TI facilitator. In the second year of the technology initiative, the TI facilitator and the campus decided to use financial resources to hire a recent UH masters graduate who had a high level of technology skills and direct experience in mentoring faculty to learn technology. In the second year, this mentor assisted five faculty for two semesters. The majority of faculty taught Science (4), but faculty from English (2), Medical & Health
(1), and Social Sciences (2) were also mentored. Table 5 summarizes the participants and technology projects for this campus.
TableS
Mentoring details for participants from CC2
Campus Mentor Mentee's Subject Taught # sem. # courses Technology learned CC2 B Chemistry 1 1 digital video PowerPoint QuickTime Emergency Response 1 1 iMovie English 2 1 ibook laptop web design digital video Physics 1 I Adobe GoLive Excel iMovie PowerPoint C Chemistry 2 1 digital still digital video elmo iMovie Mac environment PowerPoint Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 56
scanning Oceanography 2 I digital microscope digital video iMovie PowerPoint scanning Philosophy 2 3 digital still digital video Dreamweaver iMovie Photoshop Elements scanning WebCT Psychology 2 1 Filemgmt PowerPoint scanning WebCT Speech 2 3 Adobe GoLive digital still Dreamweaver Photoshop PowerPoint scanning videoconferencing
Community College Three. The largest in the State, community college three
(CC3) serves over 14,500 students a year. Faculty training is a major component of its technology efforts providing hands-on workshops, presentations/seminars, consultation, and special events or institutes. Building on this, they tailored assistance to the Pre-
Education faculty who most directly influence future teacher-preparation students. In the first semester of this campus' involvement with this project, a temporary hire from the technology professional development staff, at the same institution, was used to mentor faculty. This temporary hire was pursing a Master's degree in the Educational Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 57
Technology Department at Manoa. After the first semester, a different campus (CCS) hired this individual. She was replaced by the TI facilitator, who orchestrated the professional development training at this campus (CC3) related to technology. During the course of the project, the TI facilitator and this institution experienced a philosophical shift from emphasizing workshops to valuing personalized one-on-one faculty mentoring as more effective. This shift was a direct result of seeing the progress made by faculty using mentoring in comparison to the other strategies used previously at this campus prior to this study. Seven faculty were mentored in the first year of the project and received one semester of mentoring; an additional five faculty were mentored the following year and received two semesters of rnentoring. Faculty mentored at this campus taught all the subject areas identified except Science. Only one to two faculty from each of the other subject areas were mentored at this campus. Table 6 summarizes the faculty participants and technology projects at this campus.
Table 6
Mentoring details for panicipants from CC3
CamEus Mentor Mentee's SUbject Taught # sern. # courses Technology learned CC3 D English 1 1 digital still iMovie PowerPoint Family Resources 1 1 Dreamweaver iMovie Internet PowerPoint WebCT Word Math 1 2 digitalsti1l PDF Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 58
Photoshop Elements PowerPoint Scanning WebCf web design E American Sign Language 1 2 Videoconferencing ESL 1 1 Dreamweaver Photoshop PowerPoint WebCT Word Food & Hospitality Srvc. 1 1 digitalsti11 digital video Dreamweaver Fetch iMovie MediaCIeanerPro Photoshop QuickTime Food & Hospitality Srvc. 1 1 Dreamweaver FTP Html WebCT French 1 1 Dreamweaver Fetch Html WebCT Math 1 1 PowerPoint WebCT Medical Laboratory Tec. 1 1 Dreamweaver portal interface streaming video WebCT Music 1 3 digital video Excel Word Music 1 1 Dreamweaver WebCf Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 59
Community College Four. The second neighbor island campus (CC4) serves as the only college for its 55,000 island residents. This campus and mentor wanted creative, budget-conscience solutions to encourage faculty to pursue professional development and for the campus to acquire and upgrade technology resources available to faculty and
students. This campus released, from instructional and academic support duties, an
Information and Computer Science faculty member to mentor faculty who used a project-
based implementation strategy. The TI facilitator's initial analysis showed that basic
computers and labs were well equipped, but peripheral equipment was not widespread.
Therefore, "technology pods" that included varieties of portable equipment were created
and purchased for faculty and students to work on approved projects. Capitalizing on the
cost-effectiveness of open source software, this TI facilitator built capacity to meet the
technology needs of faculty and students without being committed to the inevitable and
expensive upgrades of commercial software. This TI facilitator created a low-cost
example of technology integration. Mentoring five faculty teaching English and seven
faculty from the other five subject areas, excluding only Arts & Humanities and
Business, a total of 12 faculty were mentored. Five faculty were mentored for one
semester. Seven faculty were mentored for two semesters. Table 7 describes the
mentoring details of CC4.
Table 7
Mentoring details for participants from CC4
Campus Mentor Mentee's Subject Taught # sem. # courses Technology learned CC4 F Journalism 2 1 Cam Studio Moviemaker II Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 60
MWSnap Open Office PHPBB Philosophy 2 5 Big Medium HTML History I 4 digital still camera Image File Managmt Biology 2 1 data projector Inform. & Computer Sci 1 3 CamStudio FOEstool Kit MWSnap VNC English 2 3 Banner ·FLE3 Internet WebCT N/A 1 N/A Cam Studio CD Burner MWSnap Plantronics Journalism or Math 2 2 TI Presenter English 1 3 Banner Big Medium FLE3 WikiPages English 2 2 MWSnap PowerPoint Nursing 1 1 Big Medium Spanish 2 1 Big Medium FLE3 MWSnap Open Office V2E-mail Waste
Community College Five. A rural community college on Oahu, CC5, is the second largest of the seven campuses and a leader in providing distance education Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 61 courses. Blessed with adequate resources it continues to upgrade and expand technology resources available to faculty and students. The project was placed in the Educational
Media Center that already had three full-time staff providing support; one of whom was designated as the TI facilitator. This campus chose to establish a new position to work full-time on mentoring faculty one-on-one. They hired the mentor who had been working part-time at CC3. The TI facilitator established a corollary faculty peer-mentoring program, having faculty, who developed sufficient skills through mentoring, become mentors to other faculty. Faculty mentors received $1,000 equipment reward for a year's work. However, only mentees who received one-on-one mentoring from the hired
Mentor, rather than through the corollary faculty peer-mentoring program, were included as participants in this study. A total of 11 faculty were mentored; six of whom were mentored for one semester and five faculty received two semesters of mentoring. Five of the mentored faculty taught English, two taught Social Sciences, two taught Business, one taught Arts & Humanities, and one taught Math. Table 8 provides details of the mentors, faculty, and their technology projects for this campus.
Table 8
Mentoring details for participants from CC5
Campus Mentor Mentee's Subject Taught # sem. # courses Technology learned CC5 G English 1 1 Acrobat FrontPage PowerPoint Respondus WebCT website design English 1 1 Acrobat Digital Still Camera Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 62
FrontPage PowerPoint QuizMaster Respondus Roxio CD Burning WebCf website design Word Business 1 1 Acrobat FrontPage Respondus Scanning WebCf website design Englisb 1 1 Acrobat Photoshop digital still camera Excel FrontPage PowerPoint Quiz Master Respondus Scanning WebCT website design WinZip H Englisb 1 1 Impatica PowerPoint Scanning WebCf Inform. & Computer Sci 1 2 lmpatica Mimio WebCf Math 1 1 Website Design Art 1 1 Adobe GoLive Image Database website design Anthropology 1 2 digital still camera Impatica Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 63
Mimio Photoshop PowerPoint Spin Image DV History I I WebCf English I 6 Adobe GoLive HTML Photoshop Scanning
Community College Six. CC6 is a relatively large campus, serving students across three islands. A generally high-tech campus, without a faculty professional development program, CC6 encouraged a couple of newly hired instructional faculty to develop training to support faculty. They developed a program that closely paralleled the TI model a couple of years prior to the beginning of this study. Faculty at this campus are
supported to learn technology through mentoring, an on-going workshop series and a
location for walk-in help. At this campus, faculty have multiple optious to receive varying amounts of assistance. During this study, two faculty members were released
partially from teaching in order to mentor their colleagues. A strength of their
implementation strategy is that these mentors can provide their colleagues with content
expertise and pedagogical examples from their content area in addition to technology
skills. This implementation strategy can also use different faculty members with varied
course releases to limit the demand and dependence on any particular person. In total,
three faculty were released to mentor their peers during the two years studied. Each
received one course release to mentor, and no more than two faculty were released during
any semester. One faculty continued for the full two years; the other two faculty each Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 64 mentored for one year. CC6 mentored the most faculty among the community colleges, with 16 faculty receiving mentoring. In the first year, nine faculty were mentored for one semester, and the following year seven faculty were mentored for two semesters. Eight of the 16 faculty taught English. The other eight mentored faculty included four who taught
Busiuess, two faculty who taught Medical and Health, one who taught Language, and one who taught in the Social Sciences. Table 9 summarizes the details for this campus.
Table 9
Mentoring details jor participants from CC6
CamEus Mentor Mentee's SUbject Taught #sem. # courses Technolo& learned CC6 I English I I Acrobat HTML scanning WebCT Nursing 1 3 FTP Internet Photo Deluxe Photoshop WebCT Word Nutritional Science I I Acrobat Images PowerPoint scanning Teleconferencing WebCT Word J Anthropology I I Acrobat E-Mail Respondus scanning WebCT Windows English 1 I Acrobat Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 65
Altris Vision File Management FTP WebCT WebDav Word English 1 3 Acrobat HTML PowerPoint Respondus WebCT English 1 2 Altris Vision PowerPoint Real Producer WebCT English 1 3 Acrobat HTML PowerPoint Respondus WebCT English 1 3 Acrobat HTML PowerPoint Respondus WebCT English 1 3 Acrobat HTML PowerPoint Respondus WebCT English 2 1 Acrobat Netscape scanning Tegrity WebCT Spanish 1 2 Data Projector Netscape Composer Photoshop PowerPoint Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 66
scanning K Accounting I 1 Net Meeting Accounting 1 2 Acrobat Respondus WebCT Business Studies 2 3 Respondus WebCT Hotel Operations 2 1 Respondus WebCT
Community College Seven. With an enrollment of 1,443 students, the second rural community college on Oahu, CC7, is in a position to assist the most socia- economically disadvantaged communities on the island of Oahu. At the beginning of the project, this campus had received several grants, equipping them with numerous new computer labs and portable laptops. However, persounel to provide training were scarce, and the academic computing support personnel were overwhelmed. Sharing the leadership of the project between four academic units allowed all the key players from the campus to be involved. Although careful planning by multiple partners is important, it slowed down the process of change and action in the first year of the initiative. The emphasis and dedication to planning resulted in the campus establishing an official graduation requirement for students to demonstrate basic technology skills and competencies. Only one faculty member was mentored during the first year and received a semester of mentoring. In the second year of the initiative, the campus hired an individual with a Masters degree in Educational Technology who had several years of
experience in mentoring faculty to learn technology. While a total of eight faculty were
mentored at this campus, seven faculty were mentored during the second year of the Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 67 project and received two semesters of mentoring. The faculty mentored were fairly evenly distributed between: Arts & Humanities, Business, English, Science, and Social
Sciences. Table 10 describes the mentors, faculty, and technology learned at CC7.
Table 10
Mentoring details for participants from CC7
Campus Mentor Mentee's Subject Taught #sem. # courses Technolo~ learned CC7 L Speech 1 1 PowerPoint M Chemistry 1 1 Acrobat data projector Dreamweaver PowerPoint WebCT Economics 1 2 PowerPoint Streaming Videos WebCT Website Design History 1 I Acrobat WebCT Inform. & Computer 1 1 Acrobat Impatica PowerPoint WebCT Journalism 1 1 Dreamweaver Photoshop digital still camera Music 2 2 Acrobat Dreamweaver Impatica PowerPoint WebCT Psychology 2 2 Acrobat E-Mail Respondus WebCT WebDav Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 68
Overall, faculty participating in this TI project throughout the state taught in a number of subject areas including Math, Music, Social Studies, English, and Vocational programs. A total of 78 faculty participants across seven unique, two-year college institutions agreed to participate in this study. Data were collected from these 78 faculty members, representing a 100% participation rate of faculty who received mentoring through the technology initiative in this study during the academic years 2002-2003 and
2003-2004. In addition to each of the above contexts in which mentoring occurred, these mentors as representatives of their campuses participated in a statewide technology initiative lead by faculty at the College of Education of the University of Hawaii at
Manoa, receiving support during the period of the study.
Learning Community of the Technology Mentors
Each campus had to fit technology mentoring to their campus system, needs, and resources. During the two-year project, mentors shared their unique implementation strategies through a collaborative exchange model, based on the national Preparing
Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology (Pr3) collaborative exchange model. Each campus sent representatives to an all-day monthly site visit, which was hosted by a different institution on a rotational basis. The collaborative exchanges developed cross iustitutional relationships and provided opportunities to share institutional solutions to common problems experienced during mentoring and implementation of mentoring at their campus. These work groups were venues for TI facilitators to share techniques for success. Visits to individnal campuses came to include sharing from faculty being Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 69 mentored. Faculty discussed their experiences as mentees and demonstrated the courses and products they had worked on with their mentor. The ambiance was extremely friendly; faculty were very excited about their work. Additionally in these meetings, individual campus representatives shared unique contributions towards the macro-level goal of improving the integration of technology into teacher preparation, such as, the development of a pre-education career pathway or graduation requirements for technology skills. Other campuses could choose to replicate these lessons. As a COE university faculty member, this researcher and another colleague, conducted site visits to help CCs with individual campus issues. In total, each campus was visited between 2-6 times during the two-year period. A total of 12 collaborative exchange meetings were held, which involved representatives from multiple campuses. Additionally, 19 individual site visits, where this researcher and a COE colleague met with ouly one campus at a time, were held during the two-year period. Agendas for each collaborative exchange were developed and notes were taken. For meetings with an individual campus, notes from the visits were shared with each campus to summarize what had been learned, discussed, and agreed upon during the visit.
At the initial meetings TI facilitators were given materials developed for TI
Course development in the COE and were encouraged to use and modify them as needed.
The general timeline of one to two semesters for TI mentoring and course development was agreed upon and guidelines for evaluation and data collection were established.
Facilitators were also given time to write about their "campus approach." Project staff developed questions for the facilitators to answer in order to facilitate the planning Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 70 process. Examples include: How is your campus generally approaching this project?
Considering faculty development and the TI Model, how is your campus organizing its project activities and getting the involvement of others? What specific resources are already on your campus that could help leverage this project? and What are obstacles you face at your campus in order to accomplish the goals of the project? The writing process, and accompanying discussions with the facilitator group and project staff greatly assisted with setting realistic goals and developing strategies for reaching those goals. The written campus approaches were revisited and updated by the facilitators three times over the two years. This general structure and support of the statewide technology initiative guided mentors from each campus as they implemented mentoring at their campus and describes the learning community established statewide to support this technology initiative.
Data Collection
The data for this study come from the 78 faculty members involved in the technology initiative who were mentored. The collected data sources for each faculty participant were compiled collaboratively between the faculty member and their mentor.
A critical component is the evidence-based nature of the data. Artifacts from the projects the faculty worked on were required to demonstrate how the faculty member's technology skills and integration of technology into hislher courses changed during the time period helshe was mentored.
The project provided instructions in relation to evaluating faculty progress in
August 2002 before any mentoring occurred (see Appendix C). These instructions asked Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 71 for a 1-2 page narrative description of the course and course products before mentoring followed by a subsequent narrative description of the course, revised course products, and completed surveys. In December 2002, the first campus organized the requested information for four faculty members in the form of an electronic portfolio. This e portfolio was shared in a meeting in January 2003 with other campuses as a possibility for organizing their data. All campuses chose to organize the information requested in this fashion during the period studied August 2OO2-May 2004.
The specific contents of the data sources for each faculty include: narrative descriptions of the faculty member's technology skills pre and post mentoring, narrative descriptions of the faculty member's use of technology in the course pre and post mentoring, and course products pre and post mentoring. The term course "artifact" and course "product" are used interchangeably throughout this study. For some faculty participants additional data sources, such as, information on teaching philosophy or pictures of faculty members, were also included. AdditionaIly, some faculty participants took a pre-mentoring survey measuring their confidence on specific technologies. Those faculty also completed a retrospective, self-report survey after mentoring that measured their perceived increase in confidence on certain technologies using a Likert scale.
Course artifacts. The project collected course artifacts that demonstrated the faculty member's beginning technology skill level. As mentoring progressed, new or revised course artifacts were submitted that demoustrated the progress a faculty member was making on a given project Course artifacts often included screen shots of online course pages or websites, newly created digital presentations, syllabi or handouts, student Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 72 assignments, scanned work, or PDF versions of documents. The most significant and exciting documentation comes from courses in which faculty require students to use technology and included examples of student work. These course artifacts paint the picture of what of the faculty member was working on, what they were creating, and how they were revising their course with concrete examples. The artifacts were intended to demonstrate the impact of mentoring on faculty's teaching materials. The artifacts also
proved useful in recruiting new faculty by demonstrating the possibilities of the
Technology Intensive mentoring program; the course artifacts were used to corroborate
the data of the narrative descriptions.
Narrative descriptions. Shortly after mentoring began, the project collected
written descriptions of faculty members' technology skills and the use of technology in
their courses. In most cases, the faculty member's mentor wrote these narrative
descriptions. A narrative description was always written after the mentor had worked
with an individual and felt he/she had a seuse of the technology skills of the faculty
member and the technology integration in their courses. The mentees had varying
degrees of input on these written descriptions. Some mentors would show the
descriptions to their mentees and ask the mentees if they thought the descriptions
accurately captured their current state. Other mentees and mentors worked
collaboratively to develop these written descriptions. Some mentors choose not to share
with their mentees the written summaries about these mentees. The importance stressed
to the mentors was that these descriptions best explained to other individuals the skill set
and progress of the faculty member, and the choice was given to the mentor how each Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 73 thought they could get the most accurate account Most narrative descriptions ranged from two to six pages. After mentoring, another written description of the faculty member's newly acquired technology skill1evel and the use of technology in their course were composed.
The course artifacts and narrative descriptions were generally grouped together and often placed in an electronic form in a website, creating an e-portfolio for each faculty mentee. While websites were often used as an easy way to house all the files and organize the information in a sensible way, many times these websites were not uploaded to be visible to the public. Rather they were used in a way to organize the progress of each campus and the work they and their faculty were doing. From the natora1ly occurring organization of the electronic portfolios, a faculty member worked on multiple technologies over a period of mentoring. The complement between the narrative descriptions and the course artifacts blended to provide a clear description of each faculty member's learning. Overall, the information from the narrative descriptions and course artifacts could range from 4 - 100+ pages per individual. Even this estimate does not capture the extensiveness of the data collected from the course artifacts, as these often included other media not easily classified into a page count, such as videos, digital photos, and websites.
The resulting data provided extensive information detailing a faculty member's growth on multiple technologies over time. The project received sufficient data from 78 faculty members from seven unique campuses over a period of two years from Fall 2002 Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 74 to Spring 2004. The participating faculty members primarily received either one or two semesters of mentoring during the two-year period.
Challenge to secure data. In considemtion of others that may wish to develop similar studies in the future, it is necessary to highlight the tremendous challenge in securing the data of this study. Funds ($38,000) were given to each campus as part of a gmnt project. This potentially helped in securing the data Put simply, it was not easy to attain the rigor or richness of the data set. Time at certain monthly meetings was allotted to allow mentors to reflect and write about their mentees. A dedicated gmduate assistant joined the project who was tasked with collecting, following up, and organizing the data
It is the researcher's opinion that the focus on evidenced-based change inevitably required more time to document substantial change and potentially made the challenge of securing the data more intense. However, it equally increased the richness of the evidence eventually gathered through the portfolios. Another potential explanation of the resistance to putting together the requested documents was the time factor. There seemed to be an attitude among some mentors that he/she was too busy doing the mentoring to document its impact. Once the portfolios were completed, the mentors felt exceptionally proud. Several mentors further went on to equally feel the process of creating the portfolio encoumged their faculty mentees, allowing them to see their own progress.
Often the portfolios were useful in recruiting new mentees the following semester or demonstmting the project's impact to administmtion.
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this qualitative research study was approached through multiple Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 75 strategies. This researcher examined and reexamined all of the narrative descriptions and course artifacts to identify patterns and themes. Since the intent of the study was to determine whether faculty progressed with regards to using technology, only the comments relating to technology were categorized. The qualitative comparative method of data analysis (Ragin, 1987) was used to construct categories and themes that captured the recurring patterns that emerged from the data. The analysis of the data was cyclical, consisting of initial coding, reflecting, and re-reading, then sorting and sifting through the codes to discover patterns and themes. These methods were used to triangulate the evidence of the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Triangulation is a strategy commonly employed to strengthen the robustness of a qualitative study. Four kinds of triangulation contribute to verification and validation of qualitative analysis. Multiple investigators, multiple data sources, multiple theories, and multiple data collection methods tn conflI1Il fmdings are all strategies for reducing
systematic bias in the data. In each case the strategy involves checking fmdings against
other sources and perspectives. Triangulation is a process by which the researcher can
guard against the possibility that a study's fmdings are simply an artifact of a single
method, a single source, or a single investigator's biases (Patton, 1999).
Methods triangulation. Studies are strengthened by using multiple methods.
Different types of data provide cross-data Validity checks and conflI1Il the consistency of
findings (patton, 1999). This study utilized the following different data collection
methods: site visitations and discussions with participants, written participant narratives,
and document review of course artifacts. In this study, methods triangulation involved Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 76 validating information obtained through self-reports and narratives by checking course artifacts, examples, and documents and other evidence that could corroborate what the participants reported.
Triangulation of sources. The second type of triangulation involves triangulating data sources. This researcher compared and cross-checked the consistency of different data sources within the same method. For example, multiple course artifacts, including numerons sets of instructional materials, were reviewed for each participant
Analyst triangulation. The third kind of triangulation is investigator or analyst triangulation, that is, using multiple analysts to review fmdings. Another common approach to analytical triangulation is to have participants being studied review the findings. "Researchers and evaluators can learn a great deal about the accuracy, fairness, and Validity of their data analysis by having the people described in that data analysis react to what is described" (patton, 1999, p. 1995-1996). In this study, two individuals rated all artifacts; the details of this process will be described later in this chapter.
Further, the ratings were shared with technology mentors, to provide useful member
checks of the findings.
By combining multiple analysts, methods, and data sources, this study provides a robust design in comparison to those using singular methods, lone analysts, or single
perspective theories or models. This researcher used techniques of analysis that can
enhance the quality and validity of qualitative data (patton, 1990). This researcher aimed
for an analytically rigorous, mentally replicable, and explicitly systematic (Patton, 1999,
p. 1191) approach to data analysis. Focusing on what was learned by the convergence of Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 77 the different kinds of data yielded a more balanced overall perspective on the findings of this study and interpretations presented try to provide the best fit for the data (Patton,
1999).
Given the naturalistic inquiry and open-ended approach to data collection, the data sources submitted for each faculty participant varied significantly when compared with those submitted for other participants. The researcher determined that an additional strategy for data analysis was needed aimed at providing a cross-institutional comparison with some reliability among multiple coders. A detailed description of the process of creating the data analysis tool used in this study follows in the next several subsections.
!Jevelgpment of a data analysis tool. A team, including this and four other researchers, worked to develop a system for coding the data sources during the summer of 2003. The goal was to develop a systematic approach that would enable the project to compare the growth of faculty members' skill sets across different institutions in a comparable manner. The tool needed to be sensitive enough to detect subtle differences in growth in a faculty member or their course, as it was still unclear how much growth was even possible or typical in a semester of mentoring. The challenge in the development of this coding instroment was its need to be able to capture the tremendous growth and richness of the progress of faculty members, but to be objective enough to ensure inter-rater reliability and to be able to be equally useful across all campuses.
Also, the project aimed to link these growth steps to something that represented qualitative differences in change.
The process used to develop this coding tool was a collaborative team approach. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 78
Drawing largely on the network of evaluation experts working with other Pr3 projects, this researcher gathered as many instruments that claimed to measure change in faculty members. Several researchers connected with the COE reviewed these, but found that no instrument targeted the objective growth of faculty members' technology skills. Most instruments focused on faculty members' self-reported survey data. Often projects examined changes in how faculty rated their skills or attitodes before and after some professional development (see Christensen & Knezek, 2000, for such well-tested survey instruments). Several observation protocols were well developed; however, while the addition of cJassroom observation would have enhanced the methodological approach of this study, this was not possible given the geographic distances between campuses and the number of faculty members involved, for often a short time period. While the review of these different instruments was a critical foundation, no well-proven instrument was found that looked at a faculty member's skill set growth from a different perspective than
faculty member's self-reported accounts.
A PhD student visiting from Arizona State University was hired in the summer of
2003 to lead the creation of the necessary instrument. The project staff hoped by using
an individual completely unconnected to our particular project that a tool less biased by
our concephlalization of faculty growth and progress would be developed and that this
tool could be useful to other Pr3 projects and institutions. This student along with three
faculty members in the Educational Technology Department at UH, including this
researcher, and one graduate student worked to revise the instrument. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 79
A fIrst draft of the instrument was created and reviewed by this researcher, a faculty member on the Pr3 grant at VH. This draft included definitions, examples, and coder instructions. Based on this collaboration, a second revision was made that was then trialed on data collected the previous year that would not be in the data set but should be similar in nature. Two graduate students, one from Arizona State and one from
University of Hawaii, independently used the tool to rate data from three different faculty members. They then met and discussed their issues in a larger collaborative setting, additionally involving three ETEC faculty members. This half-day meeting resulted in several revisions, and a third complete version was created. This tool was then trialed by all fIve individuals on data from another two faculty members. This group met and discussed any differences they found when using the instrument At this stage, few revisions were needed. The completed coding tool, and necessary definitions are included in Appendix 0, but the coder instructions are not
A challenge for this study was the creation of a coding tool that could detect subtle changes in faculty growth from large amounts of qualitative data that came in multiple forms. Further the coding tool needed to be able to compare those changes in a systematic way across multiple faculty members at different institutions all participating in mentoring relationships to learn technology. The instrument developed is a clear improvement on the dearth of such instruments. However, this instrument is not a proven instrument and is not the only approach that could be used to analyze this data. Hence, it complemented other data approaches, such as constant comparative method and continual reflective examination to determine patterns and represent the most comprehensive and Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 80 accurate description of the data collected in this study. The strength of this coding instrument is twofold. First, its ability to list each technology is similar to how both the mentor and mentee discuss their work. Second, it demonstrates growth on multiple
technologies for one faculty member, which more closely mirrors how individuals learn
technology. Continued use of the instrument will determine how it can be amended and
revised to better handle the data it is asked to synthesize.
Coders recorded on a form each unique technology in which a faculty member
was mentored. Then, for this specific technology a notation was made of: (a) why the
technology was learned, (b) what the faculty member's skill level was before and after
mentoring, and, (c) whether any visible changes would be evident to students in their
courses. In measoring the faculty member's skill level before and after mentoring, a key
featore was using one of the following seven descriptive categories to rate an individual
faculty member's skill in using a specific technology.
No USE: Although the faculty member might be aware of the given technology, he or she has never used it
INITIAL USE: The faculty member is aware of the technology's general capabilities and is beginning to learn the basic skills for use.
KNOWLEDGE OF TOOLS & FEATURES: The faculty member is moving beyond the basics of the given technology's features and is learning to use those features according his or her personal needs.
INDEPENDENCE & CONFIDENCE: The faculty member expresses an improved attitude or a raised confidence in his or her skills in the given technology. The faculty member's use of the technology reflects that change. He or she begins using the technology more independently and might use the technology more artfully, adventurously, or publicly, that is, for coorse content delivery or student communication. Additionally, he or she might begin letting students elect to use their own skills in that technology to complete coorse projects. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 81
iNTEGRATION & STUDENT USE: The faculty member knows enough about the given technology to be able to apply its capabilities to student learning activities. The faculty member is able to design opportunities for students to use the technology in ways that enhance their learning or skill acquisition. Integration efforts will vary. For example, some faculty members might retrofit prior assignments to new technologies, whereas others will redesign class activities and stodent assignments to capitalize on technology benefits.
LEADERSHIP & GUIDANCE: The faculty member has become an expert in the given technology. He or she is able to coach students toward individualized, creative, and exploratory uses of technology to maximize learning or enhance class projects. The faculty member's use might also reflect a shift in teaching philosophy or classroom methodology.
INNOVATION: The faculty member integrates the given technology in an inventive way. He or she pushes the liruits of the technology, and, invents new instructional and student uses in order to make the technology serve his or her technology needs.
The aim in using these categories was to provide a richer description and more concrete measure than a rating of the technology skills of the faculty member on a 1 to 5 scale, where what constitutes a "2" is vagne and could mean different things. Using the course artifacts, narrative descriptions, and other available materials, the coders classified each faculty's skill at using a unique technology before and after mentoring into one of these seven categories.
For the data set in this study, one coder rated all the technology projects of all the participants. A second individual rated approximately 10% of the data, coding 37 technologies learned by 8 participants to determine inter-rater reliability. A goal for reliability of .8 or better was established, given the initial training, discussions, and instrument design. The inter-rater reliability rating was .81 for the ratings of products before mentoring and .83 for the products collected after mentoring. Listing each Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 82 technology, this researcher believes, promoted less subjective rating than rating an individual's overall technology level.
Summary
The 78 faculty participants who volunteered for this study entered a mentoring relationship with a technology mentor from their same campus. The goal of these mentoring pairs was to improve the technology skills of the mentee and enable each mentee to begin to integrate technology into their courses. Collectively, the 78 participants worked on 307 different technologies. Written descriptions, course artifacts, and discussions during site visits were collected before and after mentoring. These data sources were triangulated to Ieam patterns and themes. Further all course artifacts were rated on a coding instrument developed that aligned with the Concerns Based Adoption
Model. These methods were used to answer the research questions of this study. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 83
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This section will present the data collected in response to each of four research questions in sequential order. Data consist of numerical and descriptive data. For each question, first, the summary numerical data will be presented, followed by descriptive data to provide a broader context for analyzing the snmmative numbers.
Question 1: What is the initial technology level of Community College faculty who are non-technology experts and who seek to improve their technology skills through participation in a technology initiative that provides a mentoring component?
The 78 faculty in this study chose to learn 307 technology applications or pieces of hardware. In over 67"10 (n=206) of these projects, faculty learned completely new software and hardware (see Table 11). Over 90% (n=279) of technology projects included software or hardware that the faculty member had no knowledge or basic knowledge in, before mentoring. Only 4 individuals in the sample (n=78) were using a technology application at the Integration & Student Use level when they began to work on their technology projects prior to mentoring. The software applications were WebCT
(3 instances), PowerPoint (1 instance) & the Internet (1 instance).
The beginning comfort level with technology was relatively low for the majority of faculty participants in this study. Faculty described their perceived inadequacies, fears, and negative experiences in using technology throughout the narrative descriptions.
Faculty discussed being unaware of technologies or their application to their classrooms in the following sample quotes: Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 84
Table II
Number of technology projects prior to mentoring by rated level of technology use and campus
8 tid <=!;l Q. !;l § i.,~ o;:J ~ ;:J .~ ~ .~ ~ ..'Q i~ Before 0 'S 1 ~j ] j mentoring Z - ~ 'S .E CCI 12 5 2 3 2 0 0 CC2 27 12 0 2 0 0 0 CC3 34 13 2 0 0 0 0 CC4 31 4 1 0 0 0 0 CCS 30 19 3 3 1 0 0 CC6 57 11 3 1 0 0 0 CC7 15 9 2 1 2 0 0 Grand Total 206 73 13 10 5 0 0
"Before [participating in the technology initiative], I felt incompetent about using technology. I knew that digital cameras existed, but, I had no intention of using them..... (020)
"I do NOT feel confident using technology in the classroom ..... (010)
"I have had enougb experiences of technology not working so that I am presently turned off by its use." (005)
Also, a few participants expressed confidence in using technology, for example ''I feel comfortable using technology" (004). These examples were unique rather than a large group of participants.
In examining the coorse products in use prior to participating in this technology initiative that included a mentoring approach, a common theme of technologies used emerged in this group of faculty participants. Typically, faculty used the following Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 85 technology in order to create instructional materials and support their teaching: showed videos or video clips in class, emailed with stodents, used word processing, accessed the
Internet, and used an overhead projector to display content to students - with a few faculty using an alternative presentation tool in lieu of over head projectors, such as
PowerPoint, while this was more on rare occasions than regular practice. The faculty participants were self-aware of what technologies they had used and implemented in their teaching and their limited selections.
"Before [participating in the technology initiativel, 1 felt very uncomfortable and inadequate in using technology; and therefore kept my use of technology to a minimum. Microsoft Word, Excel, and using email pretty much made up my 'repertoire' of technology skills. 1 have used PowerPoint on occasion but only if 1 needed to (i.e. for brief presentations), and only at its fundamenta1level. My limited use was not based on any preconceptions that technology was unnecessary, but my uneasiness and lack of knowledge and skills in this area. The use of technology, in my opinion can be quite daunting to a person, like myself, who has very little technological experience" (021)
"I use traditional media such as videos, cassette tapes, and overheads almost every class session." (002)
"I use traditional method of teaching and do not rely on technology. I have used a VCR and overheads on occasions. I rely mainly on lectures, small group work, conferencing, and individua1ized instruction" (005)
In general the variety of technologies being modeled for students was few and limited to a few basic uses.
Comments from faculty demonstrate that many of them felt uncomfortable or lacked confidence in using technology and that subsequent integration of technology into their classrooms was negligible. Artifacts support these written claims about the faculty members' skills and choices. Often faculty submitted copies of their transparencies, which were often copies of ditto worksheets that had been used for years, to complement Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 86 the picture of their newly created PowerPoint or webpage or other newer technology product that was replacing these original transparencies as a result of participation in a mentoring approach to learn technologies. Some transparencies included hand-written notes or outlines that had been copied onto a transparency to provide assignment instructions or actual instruction. Artifacts were used to support written claims about the faculty members' skills and further demonstrate the limited use of technology for instructional practices of the participants.
Three common scenarios best describe the current level of technology use by the faculty participants in this study prior to mentoring: (a) Brand new to technology, (b)
Adding something new, andlor (c) About to go online.
Brand new to technolQgy. Some participants in the study were extreme low-end technology users. These faculty were vocal about their ignorance about technology and expressed that they felt "out-of-the-loop" in terms of technology. One mentor describes one of his mentees in his written narrative in a way that captures the "brand new to technology" feel amongst some of the faculty participants.
"(005): Prior to beginning the mentoring, [005] had very little experience with technology and ouly used Word like a typewriter - she used to hate the white-out function ofa typewriter, and was ecstatic that Word had a delete option. That was about the extent of her technology skills. The Distance reading lab [an online site] was new to her, and now she can get online and get her own report out. She has increased her use of the Internet from nothing to almost daily over the 2 years that she has been getting help from [her mentor]. Although the first semester was dedicated to formal mentoring, their offices are located right next door, and she has continued to receive support from [her mentor] since then. [Her mentor] helped her to develop a website in Frontpage (although [her mentor] developed most of it and used her content). now she can go in and revise, update and manage the page herself. Now she has her ESL students do 30 vocabulary tests online (which all used to be paper-based). The students get instant feedback from the computer, and she doesn't have to grade mountains of paper. These vocab tests Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 87
are located on the Distance Reading lab. They have increased the amount of vocabulary the ESL students can acquire in a semester. In addition, she now uses the computer about twice a week with the ESL students in her classroom. The students contribute their compositions online. [Her mentor] also helped with Banner, so they could get their class lists, input grades. She had never used Banner before so had to learn from scratch." (005)
This quote from the mentor above quickly summarizes the level of technology use of this particular faculty. A synopsis is presented of a faculty member who has never been online or accessed online sites. She was introduced to the Internet and subsequently an online site that allows her to host a class webpage, provide compositions and vocabulary tests ouline for students, and publish student work. She was introduced to an online system that eases productivity issues such as recording and tracking grades and class lists.
This faculty participant in particular was complaining to her mentor about using this new program (to her) called Word and lamenting that it did not have the same features as a traditional typewriter, with which she had been comfortable, such as its "white-out" function. Although she had not particularly liked the "white-out" feature, it was something she missed in this new computerized version for making class handouts. Her mentor taught her about "the delete key" that revolutionized how she viewed a program like Word. She went from being a faculty completely unfamiliar with online environments (and the delete key in Word) to using online environments to present information to students, increase her productivity, and requiring students to access these environments and realizing that more content could be covered due to these changes.
In examples such as participant 005, a more advanced technology user may have been "shocked" to learn that other faculty members did not know some basic things, such as the delete button when typing in Word as in participant 005' s case. These extreme Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 88 low-end technology users have never used the technologies that are commonplace for other participants, for example, the Internet or Microsoft Word, or are using them in very unsophisticated ways. These faculty when provided with supportive mentoring relationships learned at their own pace the nuisances of new technologies and begin to see new ways that technology can enhance their practice.
Adding something new. Many faculty participants were not brand new to digital technology, but were slowly adding newer technologies. There was substantial interest to create new instmctional materials using more accepted or modern technologies and to convert former materials into more easily managed, presented, and distributed resources for students. For example, participant 071 had a large collection of slides, which she used to supplement her classroom lectures and stimulate student discussion. However, using slides were cumbersome with older machines breaking or getting jammed and inflexible to skip around and refer back to earlier slides easily. She worked to convert the slides into digital image fIles that she incorporated into PowerPoint presentations.
Whereas participant 072 planned on creating a website and enhancing her PowerPoint presentations with video. While she had created PowerPoint presentations previously she could not fIgure out how to hook up a data projector to display these for students. These faculty describe the technology level of faculty who are using particular types of technologies but are at the stage where they can add a new technology to their repertoire.
About to go online. Faculty were also at the stage of being interested in developing online courses. For example, participant 057 had experience with Word,
PowerPoint, and some teleconferencing prior to mentoring. However, she "had never Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 89 used html, never done any scanning, or work with images, and had not ever used Adobe
Acrobat" (participant 057). "For the first few months [my mentor and I] explored what was involved in delivering an effective ouline course and began experimenting with the various features of WebCT ... we began adding and deleting course content from the
WebCT class site" (participant 057). As the words of her mentor explain, "In the course of the next 6 to 8 months [participant 057' s] computer skills expanded and she was able to put together a wonderfully interactive, quality ouline course." Faculty, such as participant 057, were comfortable learning new technology, while their skill sets were not broad prior to mentoring.
These scenarios are presented to illustrate common levels of technology use across the sample; they are not mutually exclusive categories. A faculty member might be brand new to technology and attempting to teach via a distance for the first time; or a faculty may be adding a companion website to a course as a precursor to teaching ouline in a future semester.
Question 2: What level of technology use do faculty reach after participation in a technology initiative that includes a mentoring approach?
Most participants were successful in learning the technologies they were mentored in and experienced growth in regards to their level of technology use. Table 12 presents the ratings before and after mentoring for all 307 technology applications or pieces of equipment faculty chose to learn. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 90
Table 12
Number offaculty projects at technology use levels before and after mentoring
Before mentoring 206 73 13 10 5 0 o After mentoring 1 36 68 107 82 12 1
The faculty had no knowledge or basic knowledge before mentoring in 90"10 (n=279) of the technology projects. Of the 67% (n=206) of technology projects that the faculty had no use in before mentoring, after mentoring ouly one participant was still rated at the no use level. After mentoring ouly 12% (n=36), were rated at the level of initial use. The data show a reduction from 90% (n=279) before mentoring to 12% (n=37) after mentoring for the lowest two levels of technology. After mentoring, 62% of faculty projects (n=189) were classified as demoustrating technology skills at independence
(35%, n= 107) or integration and stodent use levels (27%, n=82). An important achievement is the 13 instances of faculty's skills found at leadership or innovation levels. The data showed no instances ofleadership or innovation levels among faculty before mentoring. See Figure 3 for a graphical representation of the increase in technology skills found in the faculty mentored. The mode of technology use prior to mentoring was ''No Use" in the sample (see Figure 3). Whereas, the mode of technology use after mentoring is ''Independence." The average increase in technology level after mentoring was 2.4 levels per technology application or piece of hardware. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 91
Figure 3. Increase in faculty's technology skills.
The faculty describe their own perceived growth in using technology as significant.
"Over the semester, I have learned how to operate various software programs (i.e., PowerPoint, DreamWeaver.) More importantly,l have gained a sense of how these programs can truly benefit myself; as an instructor (i.e., organization of course content), and my students (i.e., overcoming their fears of technology). A significant change I have found in myself is that I am no longer afraid or uncomfortable in trying out new computer programs or other technological schemes. From an individual who possessed limited knowledge and skills in the use of technology, to an individual who is presently building her own website, shows tremendous growth that I have gained over a period of one semester." (021)
Faculty gain confidence in using technology after participation in a technology initiative with a mentoring approach and feel that they have made tremendous gains in becoming comfortable and knowledgeable about using technologies. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 92
Faculty not only describe an improved ease with technology but also often report that adding technology to their courses has positively contributed to the quality of their courses and to the meaningfulness to atudents.
"[technology] has added another dimension of quality to my teaching" (021)
''The mentoring process has opened the 'flood gates' of technology. It has provided learning opportunities to me as the teacher and to my students. The mentoring experience has enabled new, fresh ideas, and thinking into the teaching and learning experience. The challenges have made everyone's experiences more powerful" (025)
"Another valuable aspect [of using technology] is that I am more confident about my conrse. It feels good to update it with technology" (047)
Comments such as these also support the new levels of faculty participants' technology use, such as Independence or Integration and Student Use, which include changes in confidence levels. When discussing technology previously, the faculty focused on their discomfort and uneasiness. After mentoring, their comments focus on the benefits for students and their perceived efficacy with technology.
Artifacts submitted by faculty after mentoring demonstrated a large increase in the number of technologies utilized. The pattern of technology use was very similar prior to mentoring (showing videotapes, using an overhead projector, using Word for desktop publishing, accessing the internet, and emailingstudents).However.this pattern of use changed after mentoring. Faculty participants used technology in more varied ways in their courses post mentoring. For example, a mentor reported the "Existing skill set: 1.
Uses basic computer skills and can access folders and files on her system, 2. Knowledge of word processing and basic web browsing; email; PowerPoint" for participant 043 who teaches a common foreign language. The faculty acquired six new skills and Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 93 technologies. This faculty member went from using technology in the patterned way similar to most faculty, that is using word processing, email, and PowerPoint, to one who seuds audio fIles to her students, records and plays digital sound files for her students, captures and creates images to upload to a webpage, creates webpages, masters an online course management system, requires students to search and explore weblinks, and is cousidering teaching fully online. On average faculty focused on four distinct applications or hardware during their mentoring experience. The number of applicatious or hardware each faculty received mentoring to learn ranged from 1 to 14 per participant
Faculty incorporated a specific technology very differently into their courses and contexts. For example, several faculty produced videos that were incorporated into their courses. However, the ways that videos were utilized in courses were very different
One iustructor created a video of prison facilities (obtaining iustitutional approval for her students to visit each semester was challenging) that she incorporated into a virtual fieldtrip for her course. One instructor staged a video, utilizing student actors, which was used as part of a fmal examination for the course. One instructor recorded student feedback. which cousisted of what the students liked or did not about the class, how to study for the course, and what the students learned. The faculty then streamed these videos from his course website to help advertise the course and make the student opinion more transparent Other faculty created videos of classroom demonstratious or selected video clips from a variety of sources; these uses of videos related more directly to content presentation. These uses of faculty-produced videos are a few examples of the unique ways that faculty incorporated this type of technology, video, into their courses. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 94
Among faculty rated at the Independence and Confidence level of technology use, the evidence suggests faculty used the technology as a tool to solve instructional challenges. Faculty at this technology use level express raised confidence in their technology skills. The faculty's use of the technology reflects their raised confidence.
The faculty begins using the technology more independently, artfully, adventurously, or publicly, for example, for course content delivery or student communication. For example, one faculty expressed his opinion that the more he teaches the more he realizes that his time one-on-one with students leads to the most positive learning outcomes. He developed narrated PowerPoint presentations of his lectures and placed them on his course website. During class time, students went to the website and listened to the lectures individually. He used this time to meet one-on-one with students on their projects. The skills of learning PowerPoint and taking advantage of more advanced features, such as inserting pictures, videos or hyperlinks, demonstrates a faculty's experimentation and ease with a particular technology. However, their creative expressions about how best to maximize its actual use in the classroom or particular context often demonstrated their mastery of a program more than their knowledge about the particular features. In other words, the first step is being able to be competent with a particular technology; the next step is to wield that technology to meet teaching goals and objectives. Overall, the faculty participants not only learned a technology's advanced features but applied that technology into their teaching after participating in the mentoring approach of the technology initiative. The mode of the entire sample suggests that the majority of technology projects were rated at this level of technology use, Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 95
Independence and Confidence. after faculty participated in a technology initiative that included a mentoring approach that was specifically targeted at improving classroom applications of technology use.
A large proportion of artifacts (57% of technology projects, n=175) were rated at the Knowledge of Tools (22%. n=68) or Independence (35%, n= 107) levels of technology use after mentoring. These levels most relate to a faculty exhibiting bigher end use of a technology but not strongly encouraging student use of the same technology.
Predominantly, faculty used the technology they learned to update and revise their instructional materials. The following common purposes or projects emerged within the faculty demonstrating these levels of technology use: (a) update content presentation and delivery • (b) create a course companion website, & ( c) develop an online course. Typical examples are included.
Uprlaw content presentation and delivery. Faculty learned software and hardware that they in tum used to update or create new instructional materials. For example, faculty produced videos or created PowerPoint presentations. These products may be completely new to the course and developed in a response to a perceived lack of materials. Alternatively, faculty converted existing materials, such as slides or transparencies, into digital images utilized in their new PowerPoint or other products.
Faculty also learned specialized equipment, such as using an elmo for projecting detailed dissection techniques or tools for projecting graphing calculators for students. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 96
Create a course companion website. Faculty often elected to build a website as an accompaniment to tbeir face-to-face course. A common tbeme as tbe rationale for doing this among faculty was a desire to increase stodent access to resources.
The websites produced by faculty ranged in tbe complexity of tbeir designs, tbe number of resoorces, and tbe level of interaction required by students. For example,
Participant 033 developed a simple but efficient coorse website to ease course management A website provided tbe course syllabi, course assignments, handouts, and a calendar. Students could refer to this website as needed. This type of course companion website is essentially a course handout repository; faculty producing this type of site demonstrated skills most often rated at tbe Knowledge of Tools and Features technology level.
Participant 073 also developed a course companion website, however, his website was more complex and provided instructional content in addition to course organization materials, such as schedules and syllabi. He created two ouline WebCf courses witb ouline content tbat included a schedule, syllabi, internet readings, handouts, narrated presentations, digital photography, streamed videos, multiple choice tests, and a gradebook. This website served as a companion to tbe face-to-face instruction. Use of a companion website is common in hybrid instruction, which combines face-to-face instruction and supplementary ouline resources. Faculty producing tbese course companion websites were more commouly rated at tbe Independence and Confidence level of technology use. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 97
Some course companion websites can include student interactivity to the degree that the course companion website would be rated at the Integration and Student Use.
For example, participant 040 developed a website to host an ouline collaborative writing environment for students. Students submitted assignments electronically, participated in reflecting and reviewing other students' work, and collaboratively revising their written works and those of their peers.
PevelQP an ouline course. Several faculty elected to work on creating a fully ouline course, most often with the intention of teaching the course either in the semester they were being mentored or shortly after. The following two examples detail faculty revising their courses and adapting to a change in mediums.
This following example demonstrates a participant who essentially digitized her face-to-face course. Participant 053 taught four sections of a History course. She preferred to lecture using PowerPoint presentations she had created. These presentations contained images, maps, and key concepts that highlight historical significance. She also encouraged class discussions and individual student question and answer sessions. This faculty revised the course and taught it fully ouline. This involved creating web pages, creating a content module, adding glossary terms to her content module, uploading her
PowerPoint presentations and various documents, and learning to use various tools in a course management system.
However, some faculty modified or updated their course in preparation of launching it ouline. Participant 017 used email with her students and had her students look online for resources for research. She did not use tecbnology directly in the Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 98
classroom prior to mentoring. She used the chalkboard during lectures and had her
students do a lot of in-class collaborative activities. She received mentoring to help her plan and design her course as she prepared to teach it fully online. She learned course
management tools. PowerPoint. and web design technologies and worked with
applications to rethink her collaborative activities as she adapted them to this new
medium. She developed products that she used to update course materials, which were
useful in her face-to-face sessions as well. She rethought activities and considered
unique possibilities or adjustments to effectively use and capitalize on a new medium.
In summary. while participating in a technology initiative that included a
mentoring approach, faculty were successful in increasing their technology skill set
sufficiently to create products that they typically used in their courses and gained
confidence in using technology in the process. Faculty expanded the list of technologies
they utilized. and the pattern of technology used in courses was diversified after
mentoring. Faculty exhibiting technology use at the Independence and Confidence levels
demonstrated mastery of a technology' s advanced features. confidence in using the
technology. and were often artfully utilizing the technology to achieve their teaching
goals. Rather than relying exclusively on faculty's self-reports, artifacts provide a
glimpse of the actual instruction and what technology-modeling students actua11y observe
in the courses. The artifacts collected in this study support faculty claims about the things
they worked on and provide an outside observer a picture of the level of sophistication of
use of that particular technology by an individual. The collected artifacts docmnent the
heavy focus on developing products for courses and suggest three common types of Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 99 creations, for example, developing online courses, creating course companion websites, or updating content presentation and delivery.
Question 3: For the faculty who immediately encouraged student use of technology in their coorses, how did the technology manifest itself in the instruction?
A total of 47 of the 78 faculty in this study (60%) showed evidence of incorporating technology into their coorses in ways that enconraged student use of technology or more advanced levels of technology use. These faculty submitted artifacts rated at the top three levels identified, Integration & Student Use, Leadership &
Guidance, and Innovation, after one or two semesters of involvement with the technology initiative and their local technology mentor. Table 13 below provides the number of faculty who demonstrated these higher levels of technology use and demonstrates that faculty at every campus exhibited technology integration rated at the Integration and
Student Use and Leadership levels.
Table 13
Breakdown of47 faculty incorporating technology into courses requiring student use or more advanced levels of technology use by campus and level of technology use
CamEus Inte~tion & Student Use LeadershiE & Guidance Total CCI 5 3* 8 CC2 5 0 5 CC3 7 0 7 CC4 3 I 4 CCS 4 2 6 CC6 10 2 12 CC7 4 I 5 Totals 38 9 47 *I faculty member from CC I demonstrated competence at the highest level of technology use - Innovation. As this was the only example in the data set, Innovation was collapsed into the Leadership & Guidance category in this table. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 100
Developing online courses was a predominant interest at the time of this study and more than 60% of the participants (n=47) elected to learn online courseware. As online courses, such as those managed by WebCf, require student participation, it was plausible that the inclusion of this one technology application (WebCf) could have inflated the technologies that students were exposed to and had the opportunity to use during their courses. All examples of "Weber online courseware were removed from the original 47 faculty to determine if this particular technology choice was inflating the number of faculty requiring student use of technology in courses. A total of 37 faculty demonstrated levels of technology use at or higher than the Integration and Student Use level, after removing instances of technologies learned related to online courseware, such as, Weber or FLF3. These 37 faculty were requiring student use of technology across numerous technologies, including those related to assessment tools, graphics, web design, presentation, communication, internet, publishing, spreadsheets, video, to list some of the major categories of technology use by studeots.
Examples of Integration and Student Use
Of the 78 study participants, 38 participants (48.7%) demonstrated technology use at the level of Integration and Student Use after their participation in a technology initiative with a mentoring approach targeted to increasing student use of technology. In other words, nearly half the sample required some student use of technology after mentoring. Below is a list of common student interactions with technology at the
Integration and Student Use level of technology. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 101
Online courses: Students learn content through the course site or interact with peers commonly through discussion boards or chat rooms. Some higher end use includes faculty that create online collaborative writing projects or exam study groups.
Presentation software: Students are required to prepare a presentation.
Internet searching (or webquests): Students find and evaluate online resources for research projects or students engage with linked interactive websites to learn course content
Specialized: Students take digital pictures or videos. scan photos. or use a particular software program or hardware.
The student use of technology at this level ranges from using only one technology application or one particular assigmnent to using multiple technology tools for multiple instructional purposes. The way the students use the technology tools aligns exactly to what the tools were predominantly designed to do. In other words, PowerPoint is used as a presentation tool; it is not adapted, for example, for use as a thought organization tool to develop an outline from which students develop a written essay.
Examples of Leadership & Guidance or Innovation
Nine of the 78 study participants (11.5%) demonstrated technology use at the level of Leadership & Guidance or Innovation* stages. These nine faculty (032, 061,
067,048,006*.054,008,009,075) approached technology in their courses in unique ways. A few cases are highlighted to demonstrate the types of projects rated in this category. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 102
Leadership in peer-peer online interaction. It may be common practice in many online classes to orchestrate activities that promote students engaging in reflective thinking or peer assessment Faculty may create these opportunities within an online course management system, such as WebCT. However, participant 051 was rated at the
Leadership technology use level for her use of virtual teams in her interactive online
courses. She teaches four sections with 20+ students each. As she experimented with teaching these sections in hybrid and online ~tions, she developed the idea of wanting the course sections to mingle, one section to gain from the valuable insights of a student
in another section. As the instructor she could see the perfect pair or group of three
formed with students from multiple sections. She developed a common "museum gallery" used throughout all the courses for the student products originating out of course
assigrunents. Judging teams were created that crossed traditional course section
boundaries. These teams rated and critiqued projects, and then returned to their original
sections to bring back new ideas and share. The best of the best from the sections were
voted in by all students into the gallery. The value students placed in the products they
were submitting for this course increased due to the peer judgments from other sections.
In addition, student engagement increased beyond what other instructors at the same
institution experienced. Students commented on the use of technology in the course, "the
technologies are helping me learn more effectively" (quote from student). This instructor
expressed tremendous joy, pride, and confidence in her achievements and
experimentation with technology. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 103
Her technology leadership was exhibited beyond her own students and courses.
She went on to join the "Peer Mentoring Ptogram," a corollary program to the technology initiative described in this study in which a faculty member who has "received" mentoring begins to mentor another faculty member over a semester. After two semesters in the program, this faculty member was given $1,000 for technology purchases. Participant 051 was designated as a "peer mentor" and mentored her colleagues at the same institution. She also went on to attend conferences presenting on her execution of cross sectional virtual teams.
Leadership in Technology use in Student Assignments. Participant 054 taught a variety of English courses in which students explored writing genres, for example, poetry, prose, novels, etc. These courses had companion websites and students played an
active role in creating webpages uploaded into a student lounge section in addition to submitting assignments and discussion postings. In particular, English 205 focused on
analyzing and editing samples from various genres to include in the course culmination project, which was the production of a college-wide magazine in both print and online versions. This faculty learned technology in order to teach students to create an online
magazine. Since the second part of the course was heavily dependent on production, participant 054' s students spent most of their time in a computer lab using In Design and
Photoshop (for the print version of the magazine) and In Design, Photoshop, Acrobat, and
GoLive (for the web version of the magazine). Her use of Photoshop and Adobe GoLive
were rated at initial use prior to mentoring, for example. After her experience with the
technology initiative, her students' production of the college-wide magazine won a Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 104 national competition. This faculty encouraged students to match imagery to written word, to think creatively, and to herald individual expression; her course moved beyond the common 200-level English course. The culmination project and the level of technology integration ignited student interest in English and the variety of different genres. Similarly, Participant 032 developed the first online news-writing course designed to include students throughout all the islands. She created a virtual newsroom that would deliver assignments and provide resources to students. Students would produce the news throughout the islands through writing, submitting, and editing news stories. With audio and digital video recordings, hyperlinked webpages, and digital photography, students developed rich products surpassing typical products in an introductory Journalism course. The level of student production of the magazine or newspaper and the overall quality of the actual product determined the rating of the faculty at the Leadership level, such as the above examples, versus the Integration and
Student Use level, such as participant 076.
Participants 006 and 008 focused on requiring students to use technology throughout various student assignments within their courses versus in one large culmination project For example, participant 008 teaches an introductory English 102 course on a remote island. Engaging students who are mandated based on placement exams to take this remedial English course is a challenge. Students often have low confidence in their writing abilities and dread assignments requiring writing and large amounts of reading. This faculty experimented and found that requiring students to develop a website as part of their research presentation significantly increased their Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 105 involvement. Throughout the course students learned how to evaluate web sites. explored ethical issues related to copyright, and learned research skills, focusing fIrst on technology-based ouline resources and then local library resources. Students selected a topic and conducted research that was incorporated into their research presentation and report. This faculty regularly utilized a Smarthoard, which is similar to a white board but also Internet-connected, allowing users to refer easily to webpages and also make written notes on projected web pages. Notes made on Smartboards can also be printed or emai1ed for future reference. Students used the Smartboards to display their research sites and discuss them collaboratively. Further students were required to develop webpages that summarized their research investigation and linked to their actual research report, which they then presented in-class using the Smartboard.
Leadership in teacher-student communication. Participant 067 received mentoring to learn Net Meeting. This application allowed his students located on a remote island to visually see and hear him for the fIrst time. This addition was well received by students; "it is a big improvement in the situation because I can talk and see my professor and vice versa" (student of participant 067). One student commented that they "feel less left out." Using desktop sharing features (this is where an individual can take control of the desktop of another user). the students received nearly one-on-one personalized demonstrations, something previously unavailable to them.
Overall, faculty demonstrating technology use at Leadership and Innovation levels are maximizing particular technologies and using them often in less traditional ways. They are capita1izing on the potential of the technology and directly require Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 106 stodents to use multiple technologies. The use of the technology by these faculty directly enhances the instruction in clear ways. Technology is used because it provides an instructional advantage, rather than using technology for the sake of using technology.
For example, faculty at the former level Integration and Student use may require students to make a PowerPoint presentation; while this uses more technology the instructional advantage of students using PowerPoint versus creating a hand-made poster board is not clearly imperative. Faculty at the Leadership and Innovation levels always use technology in ways that are clearly related to improved student learning outcomes and clearly present the necessity or advantage of using the newer technology over former methods. In other words, there is a teaching obstacle or a specific culmination project, the technology solves the obstacle or greatly enables the culmination project in ways that are otherwise not possible. Students may be required to make a narrated PowerPoint presentation, but there would be a specific and articulated reason that this particular technology was incorporated. For example, perhaps student presentations are added to an ouline resource database accessed by students across the globe because the student's interest, product, and perceived value of the assigrunent increase by using this medium of the presentation versus exclusively using a locally presented poster. These faculty capitalize on technology to solve instructional problems and critically use technology to improve student outcomes. They often are or become leaders within their departments or institutions and frequently stimulate and motivate other faculty to emulate their instructional strategies. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 107
Question 4: How does faculty's technology use relate to technology content standards?
Of the 78 faculty in this study, 18 specifically mentioned technology standards and related student activities in their courses to those technology standards. Nearly all of the faculty identifying standards (17 out of the 18) were from campuses with the most technology resources and highly skilled technology mentors. Of the 18 faculty who identified standards, the faculty self-identified 28 of the total 33 technology content standards within their teaching. See Table 14 for a list of the technology standards and the number of faculty who stated that they addressed this standard within their course.
Additionally, eight faculty participants included at least one technology standard from each of the six categories. This suggests that among faculty who identify their course as addressing technology standards, approximately half of them are covering the recommended breadth and including standards from the multiple categories.
Table 14
The Technology Intensive standords identified by facUlty participants
#of Technology Intensive Standards Faculty 1.0 Ethics: Use print and electronic technology ethically and responsibly.
1 1.1 Analyze and describe the social implications of advanced technology and the ways representations of human-technology relationships shape social attitudes.
2 1.2 Assess the challenges posed by technology.
1 1.3 Describe technology as it shapes society and the environment Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 108
1 1.4 Describe the cross cultural implications of the use of technology and generate personal standards of ethical use. o 1.5 Describe strategies for facilitating consideration of ethical, legal, and human issues involving purchasing and policy decisions. (adapted from ISTE-2.1.2)
5 1.6 Seek information about current copyright and patent laws and abide by ethical standards of the use and transfer of information. 4 1.7 Use technology to improve communication that addresses the diversity inherent in people 2.0 Operations: Use basic vocabulary and concepts, and operate tecbnology•
3 2.1 Use terminology related to computers and other electronic technology appropriately in written and oral communications. (Adapted from ISTE- 1.1.2)
13 2.2 Opemte a multimedia computer with related peripheral devices. (Adapted from ISTE-1.1.l)
4 2.3 Use imaging devices such as scanners, digital cameras, andlor video cameras with computer systems and software. (lSTE-1.1.4)
2 2.4 Install application software and peripheral devices and their accompanying software.
4 2.5 Use a variety of technologies such as video cameras, fax machines, and copy machines to enhance communications.
o 2.6 Describe and implement basic troubleshooting strategies when using eqnipment such as, multimedia computers, peripheml devices, video cameras, fax machines, and copy machines. (from ISTE-I.I.3)
3.0 Analysis: Recognize, identify, and define an information need.
7 3.1 Describe different modes of inquiry and information acquisition.
4 3.2 Discuss advantages and disadvantages offered by differing forms of technology in solving information issues.
4.0 Retrieval: Access and retrieve information through print and electronic media, evaluating the accuracy and anthenticity of that information. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 109
15 4.1 Use automated on-line search tools and intelligent agents to identifY and index desired information resources. (lSTE-2.3.3)
5 4.2 Check references and evaluate information for validity and reliability.
5.0 A pp Ii cation: Create, manage, organize and communicate Information through electronic media.
1 5.1 Apply relevant technologies to one's professional field.
13 5.2 Use telecommunications tools such as electronic mail and web browser applications for communications and research.
2 5.3 Create and display audio-visual presentations and/or multimedialhypermedia productions that are equal in sophistication in form or content to a well written, paragraph, essay, monograph or novel
4 5.4 Use and interpret visual information and describe how it affects meaning.
2 5.5 Use visual design techniques to maximize readability, legibility, and accoracy in information presentation and display.
2 5.6 Use technology for problem solving.
o 5.7 Process, analyze, interpret, and communicate information using electronic analysis software such as spreadsheets, statistical packages, management, and databases.
o 5.8 Envision, shape and create new technologies.
6.0 Attitudes: Recognize "banging technologies and make Informed choices about their appropriateness. 8 6.1 Choose to explore and use a variety of information technologies to enhance their personal and professional lives.
2 6.2 Utilize technology tools to address multiple intelligences and representations.
o 6.3 Make informed choices about purchases and use of technology.
1 6.4 Choose to be a self sufficient technology user by accessing help menus, manuals, and on-line documentation mther than have a primary reliance on outside personal assistance. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 110
5 6.5 Create, manage, and organize ideas and feelings through various media.
1 6.6 View technology as requiring continuous education to keep current.
1 6.7 Seek and use infurmation regarding the impact of technology on health and well being with regard to physiological, psychological and social issues.
2 6.8 Use electronic management tools to organize and balance the use of personal and professional time in a way that will maximize health and well-being.
From the sample of faculty who identified their course design as addressing technology content standards, faculty indicated that their course activities most often related to the following standards: Operations 2.2, Retrieval 4.1, and Application 5.2. These 3 standards: operating a multimedia computer and peripherals, using automated on-line search tools, and utilizing telecommunications tools such as electronic mail and web browser applications for communications and research, were present 70% of the time among the faculty who identified technology standards. The 5 standards that were not addressed by any of the faculty were spread among four distinct categories of standards, that is, 1.5 Ethics, 2.6 Operations, 5.7 and 5.8 Application, and 6.8 Attitudes. While only 5 standards were omitted, more than half of the standards were addressed only 10% of the time, approximately, or less by those faculty indicating that their course addressed technology standards. This means only 14 of the 33 standards were identified by more than two faculty of the 18 faculty, who identified technology standards their course addressed. Two or fewer faculty participants identified the other 19 of the 33 standards. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 111
While a substantial subsection of faculty identified standards in their course syllabi or course proposals, only one faculty mentioned standards in her reactions or narrative comments.
"I had never seen standards and didn't know they existed. They really helped me think and evaluate about what 1 was requiring students to do. They provided at least an outline of what might be good for students to do with technology and then 1 could evaluate what components 1 could accommodate in my course" (notes from site visit, participant 051).
Summary
This chapter presented the data that was collected during this study. Data were presented to establish the beginning level of technology of Community College faculty who were not technology experts who sought to improve their technology skills through participation in a technology initiative that provides a mentoring component Their beginning level demonstrated that faculty predominantly chose to learn new technologies
with which they had very little experience. Secondly, data was presented to assess the
level of technology use faculty reached after participation in a technology initiative that
included a mentoring approach. Growth was substantial for all participants and
campuses. The mode of technology use in the sample moved from "No Use" to
"Independence & Confidence, representing 3 levels increments. Thirdly, data was
presented concerning how technology manifested itself in the instruction for those faculty
who immediately encouraged student use of technology in their courses. Approximately
60% of the participants required student use of technology after their participation in a Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 112 technology initiative with a mentoring approach specifically targeted at student use of
technology. However, only 10% of the participants exhibited use at the two higher levels
of technology use, Leadership & Guidance or Innovation. Finally, 23% of the faculty
participants perceived technology use in relation to technology content standards. Unlike
previous studies faculty did not omit a particular category of technology content
standards, however, faculty did disproportionately target the same subset of standards.
The next chapter will discuss these results further. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 113
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This chapter will discuss the findings of this study. The discussion will first focus on each specific research question, and each research question will be discussed in turn.
The results will be discussed in relation to whether faculty translate their learning of technologies into changed learning experiences for their students, facilitate student use of technology in their courses, and integrate technology in ways that align with technology
content standards. In the later half of the chapter, the discussion will broaden to focus on
other research fmdings, programmatic implications, tips for new mentoring programs,
limitations of the study, further methodological considemtions and directions for future research.
Discussion Research Question 1 - Initial Technology Level
Question I: What is the initial technology level of Community College faculty
who are non-technology experts who seek to improve their technology skills through
participation in a technology initiative that provides a mentoring component?
This study found that the majority of participants who volanteered to
participate had no to little knowledge in the technologies they chose to learn.
Participants tended to be at the beginning stages of thinking about technology integration
as demonstmted by the initial ratings of technology use levels for each of the 307
technology projects faculty attempted to learn. Prior to mentoring, over 90% (n=279) of
technology projects included software or hardware the faculty member had no or basic
knowledge in, and only four of the 78 faculty participants were already using the Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 114 technology with their students. This study suggests that faculty unfamiliar with a technology may volunteer for professional development approaches that are highly personalized and supportive, such as technology mentoring.
Users with lower technology use levels gravitate to mentoring. The initial technology use level of faculty in this study included many faculty at the beginning stages of learning newer technologies. The sample included faculty reticent about technology, wary of its fa1libilities, and unaware of what technologies are available or how these technologies could solve instructional problems for them. These faculty may have been more likely to volunteer to participate in a personalized mentoring approach than other professional development training opportunities. This level of technology user may not have been able to take advantage of quick training approaches, such as workshops. They may have needed more individualized support to understand technologies, learn the steps to use them, and begin tu experiment with their use. It may be that institutions that launch a technology mentoring program for the fIrst time, would elicit individuals from less tech-savvy backgrounds. Feeling pressure to use technology for years or confronted with a new immediate demand to use technology, such as being required to teach ou1ine, individuals with more limited technology use in the classroom may gravitate to a personalized mentoring approach.
The low initial level of technology use of participants of this study may be partially explained by the geographic location of the context. Participants taught in distinct islands of the Hawaiian archipelago, the most isolated, highly populated place on earth. A large proportion of study participants teach students from the lowest socio- Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 115 economic status and rural areas of the State. Statewide 50% of school-aged children are classified as federally disadvantaged and greater than 60% of students are of ethnic backgrounds considered minorities in other school districts throughout the nation.
Students from very different backgrounds attend community colleges. Instructors have large roles in bolstering these students educationally, advising students in their career choices, and leveraging tight resources to accomplish these tasks. Faculty participants of this study may teach in communities where those statewide averages are even higher.
Within these types of contexts, fmancial resources are used for a variety of critical student needs, such as, financial support, career counseling, or specialized tutoring.
Professional development and technology resources may not be the highest priority, and without the focus and demand for high technology resources and professional development, faculty may tend to not concentrate on upgrading their technology skills.
Educational institutions vary in the technology tools available, the culture and support of technology, and the students' current experience using technology. It is important to consider the faculty, their level of technology use, and their institutions within their own context and recognize the dedication of the participants of this study to learn new technologies. The technologies used and promoted in higher institutional settings may be more limited in certain contexts. However, the level and pattern of technology use in this sample may be very similar to numerous contexts.
Common pattern of initial technology use. The pattern of technology use was
nearly identical for all faculty participants at the beginning of the study. The similarity of
use across all faculty's disciplines and courses should raise concern because it means Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 116 students were seeing the same technology-modeling examples repeatedly. In this sample, faculty were using the five following technologies prior to mentoring: the Internet to gain access to information, email to communicate with peers and students, video to show
information in a class, word processing to create documents, and a presentation tool, such
as an overhead projector or in rarer cases PowerPoint, to present information. All of
these technologies may be very useful to the instruction and students' learning, however,
the initial level of use of these technologies suggested the technologies were not
maximized. For example, a faculty might have created a PowerPoint, but perhaps not
embedded videos or audio clips, searched for copyright-free images to enhance their
communication, or considered visual design principles for their presentation. Stating
faculty used specific technologies does not address the extensiveness to which they have
mastered that technology, which is constantly evolving as well. However, each of these
standard technologies can also produce enriching experiences for students in which they
learn and grow tremendously, and their use should not be viewed as rudimentary
(Burniske, 2004; Hertel, 2003; Marttunen, 1998). As with any technology, it is the
pedagogical use that makes it powerful for students. Nonetheless, given the range of
technologies available at the time of the study, for example, videoconferencing tools,
smartboards, online course management systems, or electronic portfolio management
systems, faculty had incorporated the same technologies in predominantly the same ways,
despite the variety of their subject areas, institutional contexts, student interests, or
available professional development opportunities. Prior to involvement with a technology Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 117 mentor, faculty were not capitalizing on the multitude of technology tools available to them. These faculty sought a personalized approach to technology learning.
Common scenarios of technology projects. Three common scenarios emerged
from the faculty participants of this study: brand new to technology, adding something
new, and about to go online. It seems reasonable to assume that as technology continues
to be an ever-increasing part of daily life that the group of faculty "brand new to
technology" will decrease. However, as newer technologies emerge quickly and
common technologies evolve rapidly, this "brand new to technology" group may be
replaced by a group of those who "feel behind others around me" in large populations. It
may not be sufficient to support this group of faculty through traditional professional
development approaches. These faculty might benefit substantially from personalized
professional development. Another scenario "about to go ouline" may be more temporal,
as recent initiatives have launched ouline courses and programs. As more faculty gain
experience to develop and teach ouline courses this scenario "about to go online" will
likely be replaced with the next "new" thing, such as building virtual worlds. The
scenario "adding something new" appears to be a constant scenario, but what is
considered new will change. Importantly, this scenario is not what ~ new but rather what
is new to an individual faculty member. In addition to attracting individuals with
minimal knowledge of technologies, faculty Interested In learning newer trends with
technology also volunteered to work with a technology mentor.
Discussion Research Question 2 - General Growth
Question 2: What level of technology use do these faculty reach after Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 118 participation in a technology initiative that includes a mentoring approach?
All participants demonstrate progress. This study found that all 78 participants demonstrated observable progress towards learning and using technology, with a minimal investment of one or two semesters of working with a technology mentor. The data showed that all faculty, from the smallest or most remote campus to the largest financially-resourced campus. demonstrated substantial gains in learning technologies when a technology initiative utilized a mentoring componenL The success of the faculty participants in this study across the board is surprising as it is not common in the published litemture to date on professional development approaches that utilize a mentoring component (Widmayer. 2004; Sprague & Cooper. 2004; Chuang. 2004). The findings indicate that when faculty followed recommended mentoring program guidelines. progress to learn technology was observed among all faculty across very different contexts. technology mentors. or individual differences. Not a single faculty member, who taught at a community college and was unknowledgeable about technology, was left behind in learning new technologies, using the recommended technology mentoring strategies included in this study. A strong mentoring progmm
(Chuang et al., 2(03) resulted in faculty making observable progress to learn technology within one or two semesters and led to technology modeling for students.
This researcher suggests that the use of personalized mentoring is more \il<:ely to equalize the potential outcomes for participants than other types of professioual development activities. This may partially explain why this study showed that the use of technology mentoring enabled faculty from all campuses, technology levels. or Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 119 demographic categories, to improve their level of use of technology. An advantage of a technology initiative using a mentoring approach is addressing the learning needs of most faculty rather than specific subgroups. Because technology mentoring assists all faculty, not particular types of learners, mentoring can be argued to be a particularly useful professional development approach.
Tmica! technology use level achieved. This study further found that the majority of participants demonstrated technology use at least at the Independence & Confidence level after mentoring, as evidenced partially by the sample's mode. This suggests that faculty achieved the level of Technology Enhanced of the Technology Intensive model
(Fulford & Ho, 2(02) relatively quickly and easily with participation in a strong mentoring program (Chuang et al., 2003) after one or two semesters. Philosophically, the
Technology Intensive model suggests that faculty will enhance their course with technology if provided with mentoring as a professional development approach. In this study, faculty would be considered to model a technology if their artifacts were rated at least at the Independence & Confidence level. After mentoring, nearly all faculty participants were modeling a technology (90%); whereas, at the beginning of the study a small subgroup of faculty were using those technologies to enhance their instruction
(15%). These observable improvements to courses demonstrate technology mentoring can support faculty to automatically and Immediately transfer the technologies they learned with their technology mentor into classroom application and instruction.
These faculty model technology in courses after one or two semesters of participation. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 120
However, it is important to recognize the subtle but imperative distinction between modeling technology and exhibiting model behaviors with technology.
Technology-modeling refers to faculty exhibiting and using some technology in courses that students can observe. Whereas, technology integration refers to integrating technology into courses that maximize its potential for students' gain and, hence, would align closer with exhibiting model behaviors with technology. This study does not claim that all faculty demonstrate model behaviors with technology or integrate technology effectively in courses after only one or two semesters of participating in a technology initiative with a mentoring component. This study showed faculty changed from not using a technology, to learning it and creating products students directly saw and observed. Faculty translated their learning through technology mentoring into changed learning experiences for students.
Discussion of created products and their use. The results of this study showed faculty created numerous products and used them in classes. Prior to mentoring, faculty participants used a limited number of technologies for common activities; the numbers and types of technologies used by these participants increased tremendously after mentoring. This near identical pattern of technology use among participants prior to mentoring radically diversified after their participation in mentoring. Additionally, artifacts faculty submitted after mentoring demonstrated a substantial increase in the number of technologies utilized. This study suggests that when faculty, at a particular institution, broadly use technology in similar ways, a natura1 diversification of how faculty use technology should be observed as a result of providing mentoring. This Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 121 pattern of diversification may be more related to mentoring than other common professional development strategies. such as workshops. as these approaches typically teach one particular technology to the specific group.
This variety and range indicate that the participants learned to capitalize on a number of different technologies and use them for course relevance and instmction. For example. rather than using the more commonplace. generic technologies faculty used specialized technologies. such as dissecting microscopes or mathematical visualization software. related to their specific content. Faculty also tailored generic technologies to specific course or stodent needs. For example. one faculty revised traditional writing activities into digital writing exercises. better encouraging basic writers to experiment with literacy. In addition to stimulating stodent knowledge of new types of literacy in the
21 ~ century. this faculty used technologies to meet student needs. such as overcoming their fears of writing. After working with a technology mentor. faculty demonstrated more sophisticated uses of technology. Technologies were used to meet specific goals, more targeted to particular faculty, course, or student needs, after mentoring. The diversification of technologies used in classes led to students seeing more diverse examples of technology use rather than the same technology displayed multiple times.
The diversification of number and purpose for technologies leads to richer stodent experiences. This study also found that products ranged in complexity. amount of student interaction. and the number of resources provided to students. Faculty created numerous products predominantly to use as instmctional materials. The sophistication of Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 122 these materials to engage students, especially through interactive means, led to more powerful examples of technology integration.
RewarM qyestion two smmmu:y. Conceptually, students need role-models, exemplars, and time to practice to use technology effectively. ISTE outlines essential conditions to build conducive enviromnents for integrating technology and identifies the need for faculty to demonstrate technologies effectively for students (lSTE 2000, 2(02).
Faculty need to be aware of newer technologies and introduce, model and guide students in their use. ldea1ly, faculty should harness technologies' capabilities, utilize them to improve their iustruction, and maximize student learning as a result Faculty must expand their repertoires to be able to guide student mastery of the effective use of technology (Hall,2006). In this study, the majority of participants created and used products in courses that arguably demonstrated they transferred their learning of technologies to iustructional practices for students, after participation in a technology iuitiative using a mentoring approach. The faculty in this study incorporated the technologies they learned quickly into their classes in visible ways for students.
However, will this same professional development approach be sufficient to enable faculty to move beyond just displaying and using technology themselves and apply it to course requirements for students? The next section will discuss the outcome of technology mentoring in this study to create faculty who applied technology to their courses and required students to begin to use technology. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 123
Discussion Research Question 3 - Students' Use of Technology
Question 3: For the faculty who immediately encouraged student use of technology in their courses, how did the technology manifest itself in the instruction?
When faculty began to work on their technology projects, ouly a few individuals were using a technology at the Integration & Student Use level. However, during this study, faculty changed from being inexperienced in using technology, to experimenting with technologies in their classrooms and requiring students to start using these technologies. This study found that 60% of faculty participants required students to use technology after receiving mentoring for only one or two semesters, at every institution, despite variations in resources, mentors, or support. This suggests that a large proportion of faculty incorporated technology quickly into their teaching in ways that required student use of that technology. Perhaps mentoring provided the confidence and access to resources encouraging participants to experiment with student use of technology.
Technology mentoring snpported a strong proportion of faculty to become technology facilitators, requiring their stndents to use technology. More faculty started using technology with their students, at every institution, within one or two semesters than would have been anticipated based on previous research (Chuang, 2004;
Widmayer, 2004). The rapid inclusion of technology into student course requirements should be a heralded achievement and triumph, of which the mentors and the faculty mentees in this study should be proud.
The institutional reward structures may have encouraged the relatively high number of faculty quickly incorporating technology into their course. Previously, studies Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 124 have suggested that traditional university reward systems do not generally recognize innovation in classroom instruction (Wedman & Diggs, 200 I). However, the participants in this study all teach in community colleges that emphasize and reward good teaching.
Faculty with a strong teaching component as part of their career assessment may be more
likely to adopt technology in ways that require students to engage and use that technology
after a short period of time. Perhaps rewards for strong teaching evaluations and student
opinions of their courses indirectly encouraged the participants to more mpidly require
students to use technology.
Critical examination of technology use by students. Faculty committed to
providing the best education for students, should be reflective about the teaching process,
the models they serve as for students, and how improvements to pmctices can be made.
With this intention, this study, critically explored the student outcomes of this mentoring
approach. While acknowledging the tremendous achievements of the mentors and
faculty in this study, the technology that students used and the ways they were required to
use those technologies were still limited and rudimentary in some cases. The level of
creative student usage was much more limited than the potential. When faculty began to
integmte technology into courses and model technology integration for their students,
their technology integration followed a common pattern, arguably not tailored to their
discipline, content, or specific student needs. For example, they copied a good idea their
colleague used. The same ideas and technology inclnsion is nsed amongst a large
number of courses. For example, common student intemctions with technology found in
the data set included students being required to fmd and evaluate online resources for Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 125 research projects or use a presentation tool, such as PowerPoint, to create and deliver a presentation. Several faculty, requiring students to use technology, did not maximize the potential for technology in their students' learning. This suggests that faculty rated at technology use levels below Leadership & Guidtmce tend to use technology wIthout erItical reflection as they pilot Integrating technology with their students.
However, student use of technology ranged across numerous technologies, including those related to online course management systems, assessment tools, graphics, web design, presentation, communication, internet, publishing, spreadsheets, and video.
Among the goals for learning technology among the faculty participants, developing online courses was a predominant interest at the time of this study. A focus for online education, while influential, does not adequately explain the high percentage offaculty choosing to require student use of technology. Faculty choose to require students to use all sorts of technologies in their courses.
Faculty at Learlmltip & Innovation levels. Nine faculty submitted artifacts rated at higher student technology usage levels, such as Leadership & Guidance or Innovation.
Examples included faculty who guided students in producing college-wide publicatious or in using technology to overcome fears about writing in remedial English classes.
Faculty at the Leadership & Guidance and Innovation categories always use technology In ways that relate to hnproved student learning outcomes and provide an Instructional advantage. At these technology use levels, the faculty and students are not just using the technology. The rationale for using a particular technology application or hardware presents a clear advantage to improved student learning, rather than the Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 126 rationale for using technology being that stodents should be exposed and have opportunities to use technology. In each example in the dataset, stodents were using multiple technologies in each of these courses. These nine faculty capitalized on technology to solve instructional problerus and critically use technology to improve student outcomes. The nine faculty who demonstrated higher levels of technology use were not doing similar things with technology in their courses. Their use of technology was specifically tailored to their courses, content, and their teaching goals rather than copying a clever idea from a colleague. This diversity of technologies used is indicative of more advanced levels of technology use.
This study also found that faculty at the higher levels of technology use become leaders within their departments or Institutions, and stimulated and motivated other faculty to emulate their instructional strategies. Faculty and courses rated at these levels yielded favorable national recognition for the institution. Further, the course examples in this study demonstrated exciting experiences for stodents. Institutions should want to encourage these types of rich, appealing learning experiences for their stodent population.
Research question three summary. Only nine faculty demonstrated more idealized levels of technology integration or model technology integration strategies, after mentoring. In contrast, no faculty demonstrated technology level use at Leadership
& Guidance or Innovation levels prior to participation in this study. While the number of artifacts rated at these higher levels only rose slightly during the study, the emergence of instances of these higher technology use levels is encouraging. This study suggests that Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 127 mentoring did assist some faculty to achieve these higher levels of technology use even after a short period of time, such as one or two semesters. This concern about how to foster more advanced technology skills in faculty has been acknowledged recently in the literature. Hall, for example, concludes "Technology integration for lower skills can be justified; however, it is troubling to discover the number of faculty members and teachers who moved little beyond these levels if they progressed at all." (2006, p. 451). However, this study found that nine faculty or 12% were able to demonstrate these higher levels of technology integration within only one or two semesters.
Discussion Research Question 4 - Standards
Question 4: How does faculty's technology use relate to technology content standards?
Ultimately, the national community of professionals desires faculty who meet the national educational technology standards for teachers and students, as these standards represent a collective agreement about how individuals should be using technology to meet teaching objectives (ISTE, 2002, 2(05). This study found that technology mentors, with an advanced degrees in Educational Technology from a program with a strong instructional design emphasis, in addition to, having advanced technology skills, shaped faculty to conceph1alize and articulate their technology use in relation to technology content standards. Approximately, a quarter of the sample population self-identified the technology standards they were attempting to address in their courses.
These faculty selected the standards and discussed the activities they and their students were using to address each standard. The Technology Intensive Model (Fulford & Ho, Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 128
2002) suggested that if faculty were allowed the autonomy to select which standards to address, the majority of standards would be addressed in a student's education pathway.
The data generally supported this claim. The faculty identified 28 out of the 33 standards and standards in each of the six categories: ethics, operations, analysis, application, and attitudes.
Faculty overemphasize specific standards. Hall (2006) suggested that faculty address certain categories or standards more extensively than other categories. Hall
(2006) identified Ethics as a particular category of standards under-emphasized among participants in her institutional case study. This study drew similar but not identical conclusions. Faculty in this study were just as likely to include Ethics, and often emphasized this category. Among the faculty who identified technology standards, 70% identified the same three standards: operating a multimedia computer and peripherals
(operations 2.2), using automated on-line search tools (retrieval 4.1), and utilizing telecommunications tools such as electronic mail and web browser applications for communications and research (application 5.2). This study suggests that rather than certain categories being ignored, faculty may overuse the same activities to achieve the same limited number of standards. In this study, participants were approaching students addressing these three standards using predominantly the same student activities versus using a wide variety of assignments or activities challenging students to address standards in multiple ways. Perhaps faculty over-utilize certain standards because they relate to technologies the faculty have heard of and want to try. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 129
Faculty omit some technology standards. In general education courses, faculty did not emphasize technology standards related to policy, purchasing, and evaluating resources. The five standards not identified within the sample are the following:
1. (Ethics category) Describe strategies for facilitating consideration of
ethical, legal, and human issues involving purchasing and policy
decisions. (adapted from ISTE-21.2)
2. (Operations category) Describe and implement basic troubleshooting
strategies when using equipment such as, multimedia computers,
peripheral devices, video cameras, fax machines, and copy machines.
(from ISTE-1.1.3)
3. (Application category) Process, analyze, interpret, and communicate
information using electronic analysis software such as spreadsheets,
statistical packages, management, and databases.
4. (Application category) Envision, shape and create new technologies.
5. (Attitudes category) Make infonned choices about purchases and use of
technology.
These standards align with content areas, such as English, Math, or Science, less clearly perhaps than the other standards. Where these standards should be addressed in a student's educational pathway may cause debate. These standards are included in courses designed to teach students about technology; however, as technology is more infused into regular coursework and offered less as an individual subject, these standards may not be integrated into those courses without specific attention to incorporate them. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 130
Standards broaden teaching awroach. Technology mentoring seemed to provide at least one possible avenue for increasing faculty's awareness and experimentation of standards-focused inclusion of technology into their teaching and student learning outcomes. Faculty, initially, have a confined set ideas of how to use technology; using technology content standards in professional development led to faculty expanding that original set of ideas. A quarter of faculty participants in this sample began to experiment, conceptualize, and incorporate technology in relation to technology content standards.
By introducing technologies into a course for the fIrst time, faculty naturally seemed to engage in dialogue and critical thinking about how and why to use particular activities and instructional techniques. As they thought about how to replicate student activities or assignments using a new medium or capitalizing on a newer technology, they made adjustments to their course or teaching based on that reflective process. Examples among the dataset can be highlighted to demonstrate technology revolutionizing how certain individuals taught. Common changes were observed, for example, using technology to increase student-teacher interaction, make more samples and previous student examples available to students, or increase efficiency or course management. This study found that some faculty stated providing technology standards increased their awareness of desired technology uses in student learning. By using tecbnology content standards, within a professional development approach, faculty learned about new categories of technology use, they were not overtly aware of, prior to participating in a technology initiative. The standards stretched the thinking about technology, among faculty participants, to include broader student objectives for technology usage. A Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 131 technology standards-based framework assisted participants to conceptualize making curricular revisions to address a greater number of technology content standards.
Call for evolution of standards discussion. A recent discussion in the literature has ensued about assessment, and an important dichotomy has been suggested between the
"assessment !If learning" and "assessment flIl: learning" (Klenowski, 2000; McMullan et
al., 2003; Smith & Tillema, 2003; Stiggins, 2002). Assessment !If learning documents
what has been learned and tends to relate more often to snmmative assessments.
Assessment flIl: learning is used for the purpose of educating the learner and their teacher
about where the learner is presently and helps to identify target areas for growth.
Assessment fm: learning tends to be used more in formative assessment circumstances
(Stiggins, 2002). The standards that participants did not address or fmdings about
overemphasizing a certain subset should be taken as part of an assessment/or learning,
lessons gained from this study that could inform participants and others about faculty's
initial attempts to use technology in courses and how those attempts relate to technology
content standards. From the learner's perspective, they are displaying their
accomplishments. The faculty participants in this study went from not identifying
technology standards to eighteen identifying technology standards that students met as
part of completing the activities and assignments in their courses. This accomplishment
is remarkable, given that only four faculty were integrating technology in any way that
encouraged student use of technology prior to participation in this technology initiative
that used technology mentoring. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 132
While studies, such as this one and Hall (2006), initiate dialogue about technology integration and how faculty are using technology and reqniring their students to use technology, these studies report what standards faculty state they are addressing. A more careful analysis into how faculty and courses are organized to assist students in mastering specific standards is necessary. The discussion needs to move beyond whether faculty are or are not addressing a standard. As a field, there is a need to engage in a more provocative discussion about unique ways to enable all students to meet a particular standard or more beneficial approaches to enable a deeper mastery of standards by students.
Research question four summmy. A quarter of faculty participants in this study were beginning to discuss the technology that they and their students used within a context of technology content standards after their participation in a technology initiative that utilized a mentoring component. Their and their students' technology usage was emerging to begin to meet technology standards. Faculty in the sample over-emphasized common teaching practices or instructional activities to address standards and perhaps too heavily focused on a finite set of three standards. Also, the depth of mastery of standards is unknown. However, these faculty only participated in this technology initiative for a short period of time. Their redesign of curriculum to address technology content standards may be in beginning stages and continue to emerge.
Other Research Findings
In addition to the fmdings related to the research questions of this study, other fmdings emerged during data analysis that provided new interesting insights. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 133
Changes in discourse sqpport technology use levels. By separating two technology use levels often collapsed in other studies, Confidence & Independence and
Knowledge o/Tools, it was easier to qualitatively understand the data and provided a clearer picture of progress among the participants to learn to use technology. Obtaining the level of Confidence & Independence, requires more than faculty confidently stating they can use a technology. In the data set, faculty's discourse changed about technology.
For example, faculty, rated at the Knowledge o/Tools level, made accomplishments statements, such as, "I learned how to create PowerPoint presentations" or "I produced numerous short videos." The focus is on the faculty member and that the faculty member can create a product. Their discourse described the mechanical process used to create their products, such as the techniques or features they have learned within an application.
The data showed an 18% increase in the products rated at the Knowledge o/Tools level after mentoring (prior to mentoring n= 13, after mentoring n=(8).
Faculty used different verbiage to describe their technology learning and products when faculty moved from Knowledge o/Tools to the Confidence and Independence level.
The faculty's description shifted from emphasizing their ability to create a product, to why they created certain products, or how they maximized a new product to achieve their teaching goals. They no longer made as many accomplishment statements and instead used more technology purpose statements. For example, statements like the following were more common: "I created PowerPoint presentations becanse then 1 could have students watch them individually and 1 could then use classroom time more efficiently to meet one-on-one with students which had been a concern of mine for a long time. 1 fmd Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 134 students do better the more personalized time I can spend with them." or "Once I had created a class webpage, I realized that if I had students create their own webpage then! could ask them to hyperlink concepts, especially the ones I determined they would benefit from researching more. This way I could individualize instruction without creating a lot of work for me." Faculty identified a created product. related that product to affected student learning through a change in classroom activities or assigmnents, and often identified a teaching objective or concern addressed. This language demonstrates that a faculty has moved beyond jnst producing and now is focusing on how those productions can achieve their teaching goals. At the Confidence & Independence level, the use or the creation of the product is assumed and instead faculty enthusiastically share about how they are using it and how it helps them, their course, or their students. The more creative the use, or the more unusual from the set of other faculty, the more easily a rater classifies this product or faculty at the Confidence & Independence level of technology use. The story of how faculty use the products they have created affected how highly individuals rated the faculty's technology use level. The data in this study, suggest that faculty are almost twice as likely to achieve levels of Confidence &
Independence than Knowledge o/Tools after participating in a technology initiative with a mentoring component. By distinguishing Confidence and Independence from
Knuwledge 0/ Tools, this study found a more qualitative change in how faculty think and describe their technology use at a higher technology use level, substantiated through discourse changes. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 135
Artifacts useful in measuring technology use. The collection and analysis of artifacts was a strength in this study's methodology. Using artifacts or concrete examples from courses provided a richness to the data and greatly helped to understand the story and growth of a particular faculty participant in this study. Artifacts support faculty claims about the things they work on and provide a picture tu an outside observer of the level of sophistication of use of that particular technology. This study found that artifacts revealed the level of sophistication of technology use to complement self-report data by faculty. Artifacts began to demonstrate the quality of integration and use of various technologies. Products are sometimes more ioformative than self-reported answers on a survey about an individual's confidence in using a technology. However, on a cautionary note, these artifacts cannot be considered or interpreted devoid of the faculty participant's voice. The blend of faculty's opinions, explanations, and stories combined with the support of seeing the actual products the participant is talking about provided the strong and clear picture of what was learned and incorporated into courses.
Other alternatives, such as classroom observation or student interviews, can compliment self-reports by faculty, but these are often methodologically time intensive and, in this particular study, not feasible due to geographic distances among classrooms of participants. As courses without fixed physical locales continue to emerge, newer methodologies are needed to replace traditional classroom observation methodologies and face-to-face student interviews. This study suggests that collection and review of course artifacts proved to be a useful alternative data source and method. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 136
Changes in technology levels transform student experiences. The fmdings of this study discuss the outcomes of professional development in relation to before and after participation in technology mentoring. Given the before and after ratings used, this researcher wanted to emphasize the qualitative differences represented by these changes in the level of technology use. Changes in levels of technology use, for example,
Confidence & Independence to Integration & Student Use, represent qualitatively different learning experiences for students. Diffusion of innovation and educational change models suggest a systematic process of learning and using new innovations or technologies, through steps. Scales that rate increased usage without directly relating that usage to research-driven incremental stages, should be questioned. Evolving technology use from one level to another is not a simple step increase. The rating of the levels of technology usage is more than a simplistic rating of individuals using more technology or increasing in their confidence with technology. The ratings of levels of technology use represent a continuum or scale of sophistication of technology use in teaching. Each level represents a discemable, standardized definition of technology use, based on scholarly research, and changes represent transformed student learning experiences.
Assumptions should be dismissed. Initial assumptions about who would learn to use technology faster or which campuses or mentors would yield more expeditious improvements among their faculty mentees were not supported by the data collected.
One presumed varying rates of progress because of the differences among participants and mentoring contexts. However, identified variables, such as, technology level of mentors, initial technology ease of faculty, age and/or speed of learning of the individual Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 137 faculty members, did not adequately relate to the rate of growth in learning technologies.
Substantial growth and learning was documented at each campus, among young and older faculty, among faculty defining themselves as extremely comfortable with technology, or firmly and decidedly opposed to technology. After the data were collected and analyzed, the preconceived ideas about which faculty or campuses would be more likely to progress rapidly in learning technologies had to be dismissed.
Implications for Programmatic Implementation
The collective fmdings of this study suggest useful methodological & practical implications for professional development programs. From a pragmatic perspective, this study helped identify what is realistic for professional development targeting faculty's learning and incorporating technology into their teaching. The next two sections will provide practical information for educational technology professionals. First, implications for programmatic implementation that arose from the data of this study will be discussed. Subsequently, the following section will provide practical tips for individuals considering establishing new technology mentoring programs.
Progress at campuses with limited technology resources. Substantial progress of all faculty across all campuses with varying levels of access to technologies was unforeseen. This finding begs the question of how this was achieved, as access to technology has been argued to be an important essential condition of technology integration (ISTE, 2(02). The creativity of individuals in the sample provides major insights into providing at least a partial answer. In an initial meeting, representatives from each campus presented (a) their campus' status with technology, (b) the level of the Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 138 faculty, (c) their technology resources, (d) pending or future directions, and (e) the plan for implementing this technology initiative within their local contexts. One campus descnbed their campus and highlighted the severe lack of resources, relative to the other campuses. This campus had no technology except one smaIl computer lab in the library; no classroom was multimedia-enabled. Even PowerPoint presentations could not be projected for students anywhere on campus. This mentor posed an important question,
"With so little technology, how can our faculty integrate technology?" This researcher remembers that a faculty member from the Research I university campus, with mouth ajar in conundrum, asked the mentor, "Yes, how in the world M you plan to integrate technology?" Rather than saying, "We can't;" this campus said "we can." The unfolding of the technology initiative at their institution and their faculty stories chronicle how faculty relied on online course companion websites, maximized tight financial resources to purchase equipment to establish multimedia classrooms, and took advantage of a single Smartboard so that all faculty and students could start to learn to use technology effectively. This campus still is not a national leader with regard to technology use, and their faculty participants would describe their technology expertise as rudimentary.
However, the excitement of these faculty participating, learuing, exploring, and being successful using technology with their students presents a story for all institutions. "If they can, then we all can," responded a representative from another campus at the meeting. Technology integration into a course is made possible, even at campuses with limited resources, through more creative approaches. Other resource-limited campuses used creative strategies to judiciously use funds to support technology. These campuses Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 139
(a) capitalized on open source software, (b) conducted campus-wide technology needs analyses, (c) established technology equipment loaning systems, and/or (d) created technology carts with peripherals that could be rolled to existing computers, reducing the overall number of peripherals purchased and maintained.
Different backgrounds of mentors achieve different goals. Comparing mentors was beyond the scope of this project; however, a cursory analysis of the data suggest an important difference among mentors with different backgrounds. Faculty teaching the same content areas as their peer mentors seemed to demonstrate the most progress, represented by the number of technology use levels of change before and after mentoring.
Having a technology mentor proficient in one's content area perhaps may have led to more targeted and efficient exploration of options to use technology. Alternatively, these types of mentors may have had more directly relevant materials to demonstrate for their mentees. Additionally or alternatively, affective factors may influence the progress. For example, more responsibility could be felt to a fellow colleague who is giving up time and being patient rather than a technology content specialist, whom a faculty mentee may feel provides support as a regular job responsibility. Technology mentors with shared content teaching areas as their mentees may lead to a stronger "ripple effect" or established community of learners. Chuang (2004) and Widmayer (2004) suggest the magnitude of influence a community of learners may have on the effectiveness of mentoring. While mentors who shared content specialties with their mentees often encouraged the largest gains in one or two semesters, these types of mentors may be more
effective with faculty beginning from lower levels of technology use. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 140
None of the mentors who shared content specialties with their mentees were able to guide their mentees in using technology aligned to technology content standards. Peer mentors with technology specialties were the only mentors whose mentees described technology standards within their artifacts. This study and its findings suggest that different content backgrounds of mentors are useful in achieving different goals. This researcher would posit that technology proficient mentors who share a content specialty with their potential mentee are more effective for producing change in that mentee, if the mentee is using technology below the level of Integration & Student Use. However, if an institution wants to encourage its faculty to use technology at higher levels, such as that of Integration & Student Use, Leadership & Guidance, or Innovation, then a mentor with a technology content background may be more effective. Several mentors had advanced skills in technology, but this was not sufficient for producing faculty who thought about and designed their course to address technology content standards. A technology content background refers to a mentor having advanced training in fields such as Educational
Technology; in this particular study those mentors had Master's degrees from an
Educational Technology department that strongly emphasized Instructional Design foundational coursework and training. Only the mentors who had advanced technology skills and advanced degrees in Educational Technology assisted their mentees to conceptualize and freely describe their course activities in relation to technology content standards. The combination of different backgrounds of mentors may promote the most expeditious attainment of faculty using technology according to technology content standards. This researcher suggests that an iustitution should utilize different mentors for Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 141 different types of learning and advancing the use of technology among their faculty.
Institutions should directly fit the background of the mentor to the intended learning and skill set of their faculty.
Multi-purpose use of technology mentoring. The findings of which individuals gravitated to the technology mentoring program in this study, suggest that technology mentoring can be an effective strategy for different individuals. First, this approach seems to be strong as a starter program, encouraging new technology use amongst faculty more reticent or uncomfortable with technology. Second, this approach can be utilized to achieve specific institutional targets, such as launching a new distance education program or infusing standards-based technology use into curriculum.
Success begets new issues. Encouraging faculty to use greater numbers of technologies, in more sophisticated ways, and then to require student use of technology, raised new issues institutions needed to solve in this study. The expanded repertoire of technology skills among faculty placed new pressure on mentors to learn and support a greater number of technologies. The learning community of mentors, in this study, assisted with these new rising demands. Achievements of requiring students to use technology led institutions to need to support student access to technology resources.
Many institutions needed to rethink their philosophy or policies to allow student access.
Further, institutions must consider decisions about how to fmance and provide support personnel, especially for increased student resources. The theoretical model of skill, will,
& tool informed the learning community of the technology mentors in this study
(Hancock, Knezek, & Christensen, 2(03). As the demand for student resources arose, Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 142 faculty at the various campuses pushed for the resources. In other words, if you have one or two of the needed skill, will, or tool, institutions can focus on stimulating the missing areas to be supplied. Sustaining innovation requires prolonged institutional commitment.
The desired outcome of revolutionized teaching and exciting environments for student learning, enhances reputations of institutions and faculty. However, institutions must continue support for technology and personnel resources, or these innovative changes to teaching would be in danger of disappearing.
Recommended Tips for New Mentoring Programs
Faculty can make tremendous gain in one or two semesters, if a strong mentoring program is implemented. This section will provide practical lessons to guide educational technology professionals interested in establishing new technology mentoring programs.
Training and prlWaration of mentors. On average mentors spend 3-10 hours of learning and preparing for 1 hour of mentoring. The more experienced the mentor the closer the ratio falls to 3: 1 for hours of work for the mentor to prepare to the hours of mentoring. A cadre of mentors seems important Mentors need a support network to get new ideas, follow up on a particular difficult instructional problem they are trying to solve with a faculty member, or learn new advanced tools or technologies. Training of mentors is important and likely can be developed in many ways. However, including training in handling non-technology issues is as important as increasing cutting-edge technology knowledge. In this technology initiative, mentors from the first cadre of mentors identified common problems or difficult situations they encountered in their mentoring relationships and developed videos of role-plays of these situations, which Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 143 were used in training of later cadres of mentors. These videos quickly identified common problems for new mentors before they encountered them in real-time mentoring sessions and further assisted the new mentors to not feel isolated.
Fostering IlIPid progress. Rapid progress is observed when faculty choose to work on projects or practice skills between weekly meetings. Regularity of meetings is a major indicator of success. Faculty, who closely adhered to the recommended schedule of an hour-long session, once a week, were very likely to demonstrate substantial gains.
Recruitment of faculty. Mentors at each institution in this study developed strategies to recruit faculty and stimulate their interest in learning technology. A faculty showcase in which faculty demonstrate their uses of technology or the new approach or activity they are using with their students was very well received in the technology initiative. Sharing faculty experiences was an effective strategy for fueling interest
While face-to-face showcases were used in this technology initiative, other alternatives, such as online repositories or digitaIJibrary collections, could also be trialed. Workshops were another strategy that generated interest and recruited new faculty to participate in mentoring relationships. In this initiative, workshops were developed using instructional design principles. Workshops demonstrated a newer technology and emphasized its ease of use. Then a mentor would work with interested workshop attendees to fme-tune how the demoed technology could be maximized for their courses and students. These are two possible strategies used to recruit faculty in this study. Each institution must invent and refine the strategies most effective with their potential mentees, but an effective Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 144 strategy for fueling interest should highlight the changes past mentees made to their courses.
Commitment of faculty. Mentees committing and recognizing their responsibilities in the mentoring relationships is important A tool, such as the formal contract signed by the participants in this study, can stimulate the important discnssion of expectations needed at the beginning of the mentoring relationship. Mentors should discuss the practical details that will most benefit mentees, such as, not being late for sessions, not accepting interruptions during mentoring sessions, or doing the tasks agreed in mentoring sessions between meetings.
Reasonable expectations for progress. For institutions and professional trainers, general benchmarks of reasonable expectations would be useful. Although not a central purpose of this study, the relatively large sample of participants, that is 78, allows some general guidance on these matters. Typically, faculty increase approximately two levels on the identified six levels, excluding no use, of technology use during one semester.
Faculty rarely work on one technology exclusively and then systematically move to another; rather they study multiple technologies simultaneously. On average, faculty study three to four technology applications or hardware in a particular semester.
Simple outcome-focused vision. Levels of technology use that researchers should use to measure change or that inform change theories, such as the Concerns Based
Adoption Model, are different than those levels most useful for implementing professional development The Technology Intensive model, unlike theoretical models, is desigued for professional development. It oversimplifies all the stages that individnals Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 145 go through to learn a technology, but conceptually it is tremendously powerful in distilling the goals to be acbieved that lead to thoughtful faculty incorporation of technology in accordance with desired content standards. Experientially, faculty do not feel intimidated or burdened by the steps of the TI model. Faculty are encouraged to make one step; the steps represent three desired pbilosopbica1 changes:
1) Use technology in your course. (Technology Enhanced)
2) Require your students to use technology. (Technology Applied)
3) Require your students to use technology tu meet standards in six
categories. (Technology Intensive)
Mentees feel they can acbieve these goals, one at a time. Each step may seem like a major step but a good, reasonable goal for the timeframe of a semester or a year. The goals are attainable and motivating for faculty. Based on general observations. as faculty use one technology and gain more confidence, they then choose to add other technologies to their repertuires and skills sets; therefore, using a non-daunting, motivating framework is important to encourage initial steps likely to lead to future steps more closely aligned with broader institutional or national goals of effective technology use for improved student learning.
Monitoring and evaluating progress. Faculty and professional development deliverers need to be able to see gain and progress in the short-term. Faculty learning to use technology effectively is a process, and researchers have documented the progressive levels of this process. The proposed progressive levels, such as the seven used to measure progress in this study, make small changes observable to mentors and mentees, as the Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 146 mentees continue to aim for higher levels of technology use. However, labels used in professional development for technology are very important; the labels should be encouraging and motivating, not condescendingly judgmental. No one wants to be labeled a luddite; however, more subtle labels for levels, such as, Basic or Rudimentary should be re-examined. The research and change theory models influence how trainers in technology describe technology use. All labels were re-termed in this study to be more participant-friendly. Labels, such as Establishing Confidence replaced labels such as
Mechanical Use, to use a more positive and palatable label to participants. Each step is described in a positive light, and participants feel very confident and proud to attain each.
Hypothetically, this may lead to encouraging those luddites to establish the confidence they need. These labels were used, not a priori with future faculty mentees, but after the study to describe progress to faculty mentors and mentees based on the work they submitted in participation with this study.
Limitations of the Study
In naturalistic inquiry, when the researcher does not know the specific research focus prior data collection, the researcher may omit certain potentially useful sources.
While the data in this study were sufficient to provide insights about technology mentoring, an explorative qualitative investigation was not planned from the beginning of data collection. This naturally led to certain procedures not being included in this study, such as classroom observations. Artifacts faculty submit, such as a created website or
PowerPoint presentation, is not observing the modeling that students observe. The productions were used instead of classroom observations or dialoging directly with Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 147 students. Future similar research should focus on collecting student interviews and products, and hence better represent student opinions in assessing the integration of technology into courses. Additionally, in retrospect, the methodology should have emphasized and gathered more faculty participants' first hand accounts, through interviews or structured surveys, rather than relying on what participants provided in their narratives and course products. These provided data in an unstructured manner but made data analysis unnecessari1y more time-consuming.
This study did not examine the relationship between the mentors and mentees.
Several studies that evaluate mentor-mentee relationships suggest this relationship is the
strongest predictor of success, and this researcher would concur based on experiential knowledge. This study utilized faculty participants who volunteered and may have only
included positive mentor-mentee cases through self-selection. Those mentor-mentee
relationships, not as strong initially, may have precluded the faculty from choosing to
participate in technology mentoring. Therefore, this study may document more growth
because of natura1 self-selection due to the volunteer sample.
This particular study is temporally bound by a period of one or two semesters, and
hence the data collected is affected by this artificial time frame. Learning technology
does not necessarily and neatly fit into a semester timeframe. Faculty may begin a new
project near the end of the semester, for example. A snippet of time may not capture the
faculty's learning of a particular technology. A faculty member might learn some element
of a particular technology project within that semester, but the following semester that
same faculty may master the technology completely. Therefore, the level of technology Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 148 use is not fixed although the data and charts present it as such. Another example is a faculty member who worked on four technology projects, increasing four levels on each, and began a new fifth technology project towards the end of that same semester. Due to the semester constraint. this participant only increased one level on this fifth particular technology because most of the semester was focused on the four other applications. In this case, the indication of how successful the mentoring was is diluted by this one "low" instance of gain.
Further Methodological Considerations
A potentially important strategy in this study was that data were collected in a way that aligned with how faculty and mentors talk about what they do. Mentors and mentees talk about what technologies they used and what projects they worked on, and then mentees describe the ways those technologies or projects relate to their goals, personal needs, or decision-making process to use a technology. Researchers often do not want to gather information from participants based on particular hardware or software, as these are likely to change within a few years, as the technology evolves.
However, this is specifically how mentors and their mentees feel most comfortable describing what they have done and Ieamed. Participants most naturally begin to talk about their process to learn technology by focusing on specific technology applications and hardware. Then, they proceed to relate those technologies to loftier aims, such as instructional problems, teaching objectives, or national standards, as their technology usage levels gradually rise. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 149
A substantial potential for reporter bias in overestimating one's abilities or use of technology exists in this line of research. Individuals want to feel confident and competent and may be more reticent to describe their weaknesses or inadequacies with candor. For example, if you pose the question "what did you learn this semester?" few participants want to honestly admit ''nothing.'' Instead people will naturally try to dig up and make more grandiose statements about what they have learned. Researchers should also be aware of another potential for bias related to the participants' perspective of their technology skills and use and their learning process. Participants are likely to be unaware of the newest findings and tools related to technology. This limited scope of understanding may lead to overrating their knowledge or confidence. Their self-ratings are based on their field of vision and perspective. As individuals gain understanding about other technology choices available, their confidence and self-rating of mastering technology often decreases, not because they are losing confidence, but because they are becoming more aware of how much more there is to learn. Triangulation of self-reported statements with other data sources addresses this potential bias. "Finding such inconsistencies ought not be viewed as weakening the credibility of results, but rather as offering opportunities for deeper insight into the relationship between inquiry approach and the phenomenon under study" (Patton, 1997, p.1193). This study used products in addition to participants' opinions assisting the researcher to understand participant statements and discern possible examples of reporter bias.
The way researchers investigate technology use is largely influential on what is found. It is plausible that participation in this study affected the likelihood of success that Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 150 a faculty would learn technology. The emphasis throughout the data collection process was on products, artifacts, and concrete examples. Given the methodology of this study, no result could be shown without producing products that documented change. Perhaps, requiring participants to produce visible changes that external evaluators could see, promoted more production of those products and therefore increased the overall findings of progress. Stated conversely, if the researcher of this study had not required products and ouly used interviews or surveys perhaps less actual progress among faculty participants may have been observed. The findings of the study could be distorted or a reaction of those in the study to participating in a study. If true, individuals involved with professional development may want to acknowledge and incorporate this into the design and delivery of their professional development programs. Patton (1997) also found this phenomena and calls for intervention-reinforcing evaluation. Patton suggests turning
.....this traditional threat to validity into an asset by designing data collection to enhance achievement of the desired program outcomes. For example, at the simplest level, the observation that "what gets measured gets done" suggests the power of data collection tu affect outcomes attainment" (1997, p. 1202).
Professional development delivers should consider how to encourage desired behaviors through data collection.
Future Directions for Research
Interaction of learning multiple technologies. Facolty attempt to learn multiple technologies in one semester. As of yet, technology adoption models do not address the interaction that learning one technology may have on learning a subsequent technology.
The overlap of possible subskills within common applications would suggest a certain amount of interplay between learning multiple technologies. Similarly, what an Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 151 individual masters with technology today or in the next few months, it makes cognitive sense, would influence what that individual chooses to learn to do with technology six months or a year later. Learning is a process of building on one's past experience and knowledge and adding new knowledge. Therefore, what one has learned previously must influence what one learns in the future. In the field of Educational Technology, scholars have not addressed the interactions among various technologies on each other and on the general learning process to master technologies. Future research could examine the decisions faculty make about which technologies to learn and the influence of those decisions on their subsequent choices of technologies to learn.
Long-range outcomes of mentorinl!. Longitudinal follow-up of professional development is often not emphasized enough. However, the long-term gain for institutions or consequences for students are almost more practically useful than studies reporting short-term gains from professional development. This study described the technology that faculty learned and the products they produced and used in classes as a result of their participation in technology mentoring. However, the length of time those creations are used in courses or whether the observed change is still visible later was not considered. How long-term are the observed changes in this study? Will faculty continue to integrate technology? Will faculty subsequently upgrade the products they created during this study? Will they learn the next newest technology based on their newly gained confidence or will faculty stagnate once they do not have a mentor or participate formally in a mentoring relationship? A follow-up investigation of the technology used Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 152 by the 78 participants in this study, five years later, would be useful to understanding long-range outcomes of participating in structured professional development
Promoting users with higher technology levels. The emergence of Leadership &
Guidance and Innovation levels of technology use in the sample population raises the question of whether mentoring can encourage more advanced technology integration strategies. Would sustained mentoring continue to increase the nmnber of faculty reaching higher levels of technology use and students participating in more technology enriched experiences where technology serves specific purposes to improve their learning? It is unclear that other professional development methods are successful in stimulating technology use at these higher levels. If comparisons could be done, one may find that strong mentoring programs provide a particularly fruitful strategy to encourage these higher use levels. Further, an unanswered question is whether personalized mentoring can increase the nmnber of faculty who intensively focus on technology to meet technology content standards, specifically tailoring how they and their students use technology? Future studies may also want to analyze the quality of technology
integration by faculty participants, as this study did not focus on this. This study did not
examine how effectively students were addressing technology standards in courses tanght
by faculty mentees. Future work that investigates higher-level technology uses should
also carefully address the issue of quality of technology use.
Correlation of technolQgy confidence and model technology use. Future studies
may want to determine the correlation between faculty's self-reported confidence with
technology and their course requirements of students to use technology. Self-report Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 153 surveys have been reliably validated in the literature that measure facolty's confidence and attitode in using technology. Linking those measures with classroom observation data or collections of classroom products, such as used in this study, shoold yield promising discussions and conclusions. In this study, examples could be highlighted of facolty with minimal confidence or technology skills requiring sophisticated technology rich products of students. Alternatively, facolty with superb technology skill sets sometimes focused on producing exquisite instructional materials but required minimal use of technology by students. While contradictory examples can be found, a correlation may well exist between technology use levels and the number of diverse technologies students use. A robust correlation study woold be a valuable addition to the field.
Summary
Administrators often perceive mentoring as an inefficient and expensive professional development strategy. However, if less personalized training options are offered exclusively, limited progress and lack of faculty achieving desired outcomes may ultimately be more costly to institutions. In this study, mentoring produced substantial results. Mentoring was a very effective strategy for enabling faculty to reach technology integration goals in a relatively short period of time. Mentoring supported faculty to become confident with technology, create and develop instructional materials, and incorporate technology into their classrooms. Mentoring effectively supported facolty who had minimal confidence and feared using technology (extreme low end users).
Mentoring supported faculty to undertake a major instructional change, such as requiring electronic portfolios of students or developing and teaching an online course. Mentoring Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 154 showed mentees "new things" to improve their efficiency, solve instructional problems, or add new activities or features to their courses. This study suggests that mentoring may be an approach that more uniquely enables faculty at more advanced technology levels to gain the personalized support they need to extend their use of technology to orchestrate more specialized and innovative uses of technology to enhance student learning. This study shows that in general, faculty can move towards standards-identified strategic inclusion of technology with a technology mentor. This study presents strong evidence that faculty improve in effectively using technology with personalized mentoring. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 155
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
An important evolution within the field of Educational Technology was to not emphasize or argue the need for technology, but rather to provide leadership, based on scholarship and experience, in identifying what the scholarly community believes students should know about technology and how to use technology to maximize student learning. A proposed strategy for increasing the technology skills of students is to increase the technology skills of those that teach them by providing professional development. Professional entities, such as the International Society for Technology in
Education, desire teachers ..... skilled in using technology systems and software appropriate to their subject area specialty and model effective use as part of the coursework" (lSTE 2000 & 2(02). Also suggesting the value of faculty modeling technology, Sprague and Cooper stated "It is believed that the ideal way to prepare preservice teachers for incorporating technology into classrooms is by integrating technology-based learning environments into the college curriculum, with university faculty modeling usage" (2004). This identified goal of college faculty modeling technologies and technology integration into teaching is hoped to transfer to their students' use of those technologies in meaningful ways for learning. The professional and academic community aims for professional development to translate into changed experiences for students. While the logic seems plausible and hopeful, this reality has not been well proven, previously. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 156
Institutions nationwide have incorporated professional development strategies to assist faculty learn to use technology. However, institutions of higher education have also entered an era of accountability for their quality of education and teaching effectiveness. Increased pressures on higher education administrators, such as, steadily rising tuition costs or predictions of student enrollment declines, may encourage administrators to limit costs related to professional development of their faculty.
Scrutinizing cost-effectiveness and efficiency of profesSional development strategies should be addressed by robust investigatious and relate outcomes to changed student learning experiences. An emphasis should be on the effectiveness and outcomes of professional development activities.
This study focused on one of the most promising professional development strategies advanced from the community of professionals for assisting faculty to learn technology - technology mentoring. Does this approach of professional development for faculty, personalized technology mentoring, actua1ly lead towards achieving the goals of the national community to create technology-rich, meaningful classroom experiences for students? This study used a sample of 78 faculty participants who collectively learned
307 technologies over one or two semesters while participating in a technology initiative at their campus that used a mentoring component. These faculty participants submitted artifacts and written narratives that demonstrated what they worked on, created, used in classes, and asked their students to use in classes. This study critically examined this relatively large sample of faculty participants to understand the outcomes of their participation with technology mentoring. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 157
Summary of Findings
The following major findings were found in this study:
1. Faculty who had none to little knowledge in technologies gravitated to a
technology mentoring program. Further, technology mentoring was fruitful in
encouraging faculty to learn the newest trend with technology, such as online
course development was at the time of this study.
2. Not a single faculty member, who taught at a community college and was
unknowledgeable about technology, was left behind in learning new technologies,
using the recommended technology mentoring strategies included in this study.
3. Participants automatically and immediately transferred the technologies they
learned with their technology mentor into classroom application and instruction
and modeled the use of these technologies for their students.
4. Technology mentoring transformed faculty into sophisticated technology users,
radically diversifying their patterned use of technology from generic to tailored,
purposeful technology use to accomplish specific teaching objectives.
5. Technology mentoring supported a strong proportion of faculty to become
technology facilitators, educators requiring their students to use technology, after
working with a technology mentor for one or two semesters, at every institution,
despite variations in resources, mentors, or support.
6. Faculty, who are technology facilitators with their students but rated at technology
use levels below Leadership & Guidance, tend to use technology without critical Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 158
reflection as they pilot integrating technology with their students. Whereas.
faculty at the Leadership & Guidance and Innovation categories always use
technology in ways that relate to improved student-learning outcomes and provide
an instructional advantage.
7. Faculty at the higher levels of technology use become leaders within their
departments or institutions. and stimulate and motivate other faculty to emulate
their instructional strategies.
8. Technology mentors. with an advanced degree in Educational Technology from a
program with a strong instructional design emphasis. in addition to. having
advanced technology skills. shaped faculty to conceptualize and articulate their
technology use in relation to technology content standards.
9. Using technology standards as a framework. increased faculty's awareness of
categories of technology use in student learning and led to expanded student use
of technology across multiple categories.
Summary
Individuals may assert that mentoring is expensive or inefficient, considering the heavy demands placed on human infrastructure. These individuals may argue that other professional development strategies. such as workshops or group training. can target greater numbers of individuals. However. this study points to the effectiveness of technology mentoring to 1) address.!ill individuals. despite different learning styles. personalities. or content specialties. 2) translate into changed learning environments for students. & 3) enable faculty to facilitate higher-order technology use by students along Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 159 categories of technology standards. These outcomes are achieved in only one or two semesters and speak to the efficiency of technology mentoring to enable institotions and their faculty to obtain national goals, related to technology, quickly. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 160
References
Anastos, J., & Ancowitz, R. (1987). A teacher-directed peer coaching project.
Educational Leadership, 45, 40-42
Appalasamy, D. (1995). Mentoring with senior students in a medical faculty. Mentoring
& Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 3, 19-22.
Appleton, K., & Kindt, L (2003). Beginning elementary teachers' development as
teachers of science. Journal oj Science Teacher Education, 13(1),43-61.
Aryee, S., Wyatt, T., & Stone, R. (1996). Early career outcomes of graduate employees:
The effect of mentoring and ingratiation. Journal ojManagement Studies, 33(1),
95-118.
Bess, J. (2000). Teaching along, teaching together: Transforming the structure of teams
for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bligh, J. (1999). Mentoring: An invisible support network. Medical Education, 33(2-3).
Britton, E., Raizen, S., Paine, L., & Huntley, M. A. (2001, March). More swimming, less
sinking: Perspectives on teacher induction in the US and abroad. Paper presented
at the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st
Century, Washington, DC.
Bulstrode, C., & Hunt, V. (2000). What is mentoring? The Lancet, 356, 1788.
Bunker, K. A., Kram, K. E., & Ting, S. (2002, December). The young and the clueless.
Harvard Business Review, 5-11.
Bumiske, R. W. (2004). Acts of inqniry in digital dramas: A study of student-generated
questions in a global, telecollaborative learning activity. Educational Technology Mentoring Faculty to Use Tecbnology 161
Research and Development, 52(4), 99-115.
Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 51,
43-57.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Fonnal and infonnal mentorships: A
comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts.
Personnel Psychology, 45(3), 619-636.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2000). Internal consistency reliabilites for 14 computer
attitude scales. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 327-336.
Chuang, H.-H. (2004). Sustainable facUlty development: Issues in technology for teacher
education. UnpUblished Ph.D., Iowa State University, United States -- Iowa.
Chuang, H.-H., Thompson, A., & Scbrnidt, D. (2003, Summer). Faculty tecbnology
mentoring programs: Major trends in the litemture. Journal of Computing in
Teacher Education, 19, 101-106.
Corzine, J. B., Buntzman, G. F., & Busch, E. T. (1994). Mentoring, downsizing, gender,
and career outcomes. Journal ofSocial Behavior and Personality, 9(3), 517-528.
Crow, G •• & Matthews. L. J. (1998). Finding one's way: How mentoring can lead to
dynamic leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Daloz, L. A. (1986). Effective teaching, mentoring. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Daresh, J. (2001). Leaders helping leaders: A practical guide to administrative
mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Digh, P. (1999). Mentoring to create a diverse pipeline for talent. SHRM Mosaics, 5(2),
1-4. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 162
Donaldson, S. I., Ensher, E. A., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2000). Longitudinal examination
of mentoring relationships on organizational commitment and citizenship
behavior. Journal ofCareer Development, 26(4),233-249.
Dreher, G. F., & Dougherty, T. W. (1997). Substitutes for career mentoring: Promoting
equal opportunity through career management and assessment systems. Journal of
Vocational Bel1ilvior, 51, 110-124.
Eby, L. T. (1997). Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational
environment: A conceptual extension of the mentoring literature. Journal of
Vocational Belwvior, 51, 125-144.
Fagenson, E. A. (1992). Mentoring - who needs it? A comparison of prooog~s' and non
prooog~s' needs for power, achievement, affiliation and autonomy. Journal of
Vocational Bel1ilvior. 41(1), 48-60.
Fulford, C. (1997). University of Hawaii technology intensive courses: Curriculum
development guidelines. Retrieved June 9, 2008 from http://www.hawaii.edulti/.
Fulford, C., & Eichelberger, A. (2003). A system of reciprocity: Empowering
stakeholders to do more with less in Educational Technology. In S. Trinidad
(Ed.), The next step: Leadership and change models ofbest practice in using leT
in the classroom (1 st ed., pp. 2-11).
Fulford, C., Eichelberger, A., Theal, G., & Rivers, R. (2003, March). Online Videos
Modeling Technology Integration. Paper presented at the Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education (SITE) International Conference, Albuquerque,
New Mexico. Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 163
Fulford, C., & Ho, c. (2002). Creating a model for technology integration through a
'technology intensive' course designation. TechTrends, 46(4), 11-17.
Fulford, C, & Hines, M. E. (1997). Technology intensive standards. Retrieved June 9,
2008 from http://www.hawaii.edultil.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning o/educational change (3rd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M., Stiegelbauer, S. M., & Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning o/educational
change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education:
Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Garmston, R. (1987). How administrators support peer coaching. Educational
Leadership, 44(5), 18-26.
Gibson, S. K. (2004). Mentoring in business and industry: The need for a
phenomenological perspective. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning,
12(2),259-275.
Gilley, J. W., Eggland, S. A., & Gilley, A. M. (2002). Principles 0/ human resource
development (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and induction. InJ.
Sikula (Ed), Handbook o/research on teacher education (pp. 548-594). New
York: Macmillan.
Hall, L. (2006). Modeling technology integration for preservice teachers: A PT3 case
study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(4).
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 164
N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
potholes. Boston; London: Allyn and Bacon.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
potholes (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Hancock, R., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2003). The expanded will, skill, and tool
model: A step towards developing technology tools that work. In D. Lassner &
C. Mc NaUght (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications, 1415-1422.
Hawkridge, D. (2003). The human in the machine: Reflections on mentoring at the
British Open University. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 11(1),
15-24.
Hay, 1. (1995). Transformational mentoring: Creating developmental alliancesjor
changing organizational cultures. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hertel, T. 1. (2003). Using an e-mail exchange to promote cultural Jearning. Foreign
Language Annals, 36(3), 386-396.
Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In W. Houston
(Ed.), Handbook ofteacher education (pp. 535-548). New York: Macmillan.
Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach: Implications for teacher
induction and mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 173-
180.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 165
technology standardsjor students: Connecting curriculum and technology.
Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Also available
from h!W:/lcnets.iste.orglstudentsls stands.html
International Society for Technology in Education. (2002). National educational
technology standards jor teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene,
OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Also available from
ht!p:/lcnets.iste.org/teachers/t book.html
International Society for Technology in Education. (2005). National educational
technology standards. Retrieved February 1,2006, from http://cnets.iste.org/.
Johnson, A. W., & Sullivan, J. A. (1995). Mentoring programs practices and
effectiveness. In M. W. Galbraith & N. H. Cohen (Eds.), Mentoring: New
strategies and challenges - new directions for teaching and leaming. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, H. (1997). Mentoringjor exceptional performance. Glendale, CA: Griffin
Publishing.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The message of research.
Educational Leadership, 37(5), 379-385.
Joyce, 8., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership,
40(4-10).
Kaye, B., & Jacobson, B. (1995). Mentoring: A group guide. Training and Development,
49(4),23-27.
Klitz, G.K., Danzig, A., & Szecsy, E. (2004). Leamer-centered leadership: A mentoring Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 166
model for the professional development of school administrators. Mentoring &
Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 12(2), 135-153.
Klenowski, V. (2000, Jul). Portfolios: Promoting teaching. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 7(2),215-236.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational
life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational
life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Leung Mee-Lee, D., & Bush, T. (2003). Student mentoring in higher education: Hong
Kong Baptist University. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 11(3),
263-271.
Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons ofa man's life (1st ed.). New York: Knopf.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Loughran, J. (1994). Bridging the gap: An analysis of the needs of second-year science
teachers. Science Education, 78(4), 365-386.
Luft, J., Roehrig, G., & Patterson, N. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of
the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary teachers'
practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching,
40(1),77-97.
Manouchehri, A. (2001). Collegial interaction and reflective practice. Action in Teacher
Education, 22(4), 86-97.
Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 167
in the classroom. Journal ofResearch on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220.
Marttunen, M. (1998). Electronic mail as a forum for argumentative interaction in higher
education studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4),387-405.
McMullan, M., Endacott, R., Gray, M. A., Jasper, M., Miller, C. M. L., Scholes, J., et al.
(2003, Feb). Portfolios and assessment of competence: A review of the literature.
Journal ofAdvanced Nursing, 41(3), 283-294.
Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and proteges: A critical review of the literature. Adult
Education Quarterly, 33(3), 161-173.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of
Medicine. (1997). Advisor, teacher, role model,Jriend. Washington, DC: National
Academic Press.
Noe, R. A. (1988). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of
Management Review, 13(1),65-78.
Odell, S. J. (1990). Mentor teacher program. Washington, DC: National Education
Association.
Odell, S. J., & Ferraro, D. (1992). Collaborative teacher induction. In G. Debolt (Ed.),
Teacher induction and mentoring: School-based collaborative programs (pp. 51-
73). New Yark: State University of New Yark Press.
Olian, J. D., Carroll, S. J., Giannantonio, C. M., & Ferren, D. B. (1988). What do
proteges look for in a mentor? Results of three experimental studies. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 33(1), 15-37.
Patton, M.Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 168
Service Research, 34(5), 1189-1208.
Patton, M.Q. (1997). Utilization-Jocused evalUillion: The new century text. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Peters, K., & March, J. (1999). Collaborative observation: Putting classroom instruction
at the center ofschool reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology. (2002). PT3 stories & strategies:
Faculty development Retrieved 1112112006, from
http://pt3.a1tec,org/storieslfaculty.html
Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative
strategies. CA: University of California Press.
Rauch, K., & Whittaker, C. (1999). Observation and feedback doring stndent teaching:
Learning from peers. Action in Teacher Education. 21(3), 67-78.
Richey, R.C. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT Definitions of the Field.
TechTrends, 52(1), 24-25.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York & London: Free
Press.
Rothwell, W. J., & Kazanas, H. C. (2003). The strategic development oftalent: A
framework to support your organizational strategy. Amherst, MA: HRD press.
Rossell, J. E. A., & Adams, D. M. (1997). The changing natnre of mentoring in Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 169
organizations: An introduction to the special issue on mentoring in organizations.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51,1-14.
Shea, G. (1994). Mentoring: Helping employees reach their full potential. New York:
American Management Association.
Sherry, L. (1998). An Integrated Technology Adoption and Diffusion Model.
International Journal ofEducational Telecommunications, 4(V3), 113-145.
Sherry, L., Billig, S., Tava1in, F., & Gibson, D. (2000). New insights on technology
adoption in schools. THE Journal Retrieved 8/31/2006 from
http://lwww.thejournal.comlmagazine/vaultlA264Q.cfm
Sherry, L., & Gibson, D. (2002). The path to teacher leadership in educational
technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(2).
Slater, C .• & Simmons, D. (2001). The design and implementation of a peer coaching
program. American Secondary Education, 29(3), 67-76.
Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2003, Dec). Clarifying different types of portfolio use.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6), 625.
Spragne, D., & Cooper, 1. (2004, April). High tech mentoring: Evaluating the impact ofa
PT3 project. Paper presented at the AERA Conference, San Diego, CA.
Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR leaming.
Retrieved l/5/2007, from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappanlk0206sti.htrn
Stokes, A. (2001). Using telementoring to deliver training to SMEs: A pilot study.
Education and Training, 43(6), 317-324.
Stott, K., & Walker, A (1992). Developing school leaders through mentoring: A Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 170
Singapore perspective. School Organisations, 12, 153-164.
Stupiansky, N., & Wolfe, M. (1992). The north country mentor/intern teacher program: A
mral consortium. In G. Debolt (Ed), Teacher induction and mentoring: School
based collaborative programs (pp. 75-96). New York: State University of New
York Press.
Thomas, D. A. (2001). The troth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harvard
Business Review, v. April, 99-107.
Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role ofprot6g6 personality in receipt of
mentoring and career success. Academy 0/ Management Journal, 37(3), 688-702.
US Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology:
Making the connection. Report No. OTA-HER-616.
Vincent, A. (1999). Using telementoring to overcome mentor shortages: A process
mode1.1nternational Journal o/Management, 16(3),413-421.
Wallace, J. (2001). The benefits of mentoring for female lawyers. Journal o/Vocational
Behavior, 58, 366-391.
Wedman, J., & Diggs, L. (2001). Identifying barriers to technology-enhanced learning
environments in teacher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(4),421-
430.
Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1992). Correlates of career-oriented
mentoring for early career managers and professionals. Journal 0/ Organizational
Behavior, 13(2), 141-154.
Widmayer, S. A. (2004). Mentoring and change: A study o/the use 0/ K12 teacher Mentoring Faculty to Use Technology 171
mentors to train education faculty in the integration of technology. Unpublished
Ph.D., George Mason University, United States - Virginia.
Zachary, L. (2002). The role of teacher as mentor. In R. Gordon (Ed.), Contemporary
viewpoints on teaching adults effectively (pp. 27-37). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Zey, M. G. (1984). The mentor connection. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Zey, M. G. (1993). The mentor connection. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. APPENDIX A: Technology Mentoring Materials Letter of Agreement Faculty Member
Involvement in tbe LEI A10ba Grant One-on-One Assistance
I agree to be involved in the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) funded project LEI. Aloha (Learning Enhancement through Innovation) for developing "technology intensive" Courses. I understand that assistance will be provided through the Fall 2002 semester to help me become a self-sufficient technology user. I understand that my mentor's role is to provide me with technology assistance and help me gain the technology skills I need to accomplish my goals. My mentor's job does not entail doing my work for me. My involvement in the project will include:
• Participation in one-on-one sessions that will assist in specific course technology development needs;
• Cooperation in providing pre and post-mentoring course-related materials such as handouts, syllabi, transparencies, etc.;
• Completing a pre and post technology needs survey;
• Agreement to be prepared for and focused during one-on-one mentoring sessions;
• Agreement to stick with goals established with mentor (unless mutually agreed upon)
• Development of a technology enhanced, applied, or intensive course proposal;
• Communication with my mentor of the progress and the development of the course;
• Cooperation in external evaluation activities of my ''technology intensive course";
• Agreement to be listed and contacted as a project participant in grant pUblications and web sites.
I understand that I may also be asked to participate in other optional data collection activities such as surveying my students, allowing a grant staff member to observe my class, taking a surveyor being interviewed.
Name: ______Position: ______
Department/Campus Address: ______CampusPhone#: ______Email: ------
Signature: ______Date: ______Letter of Agreement by Technology Mentor Involvement in the LEI Aloha Grant One-on-One Assistance
As a LEI Aloha technology mentor I agree to do my best in training and assisting faculty to develop ''technology intensive" courses. My involvement in the project will include:
• Collecting data from faculty members for the grant project. Items include: o Course narrative which I will write based on information provided by instructor o Pre and post technology needs/skills survey o Course related material (syllabi, web sites, transparencies, handouts) o Pre and post-mentoring course-related products;
• Cooperation in providing assistance to faculty with a flexible schedule;
• Agreement to be prepared to assist faculty and provide follow-up to weekly sessions;
• Agreement to teach faculty and allow them to perform on their own;
• Patience with my faculty mentee and their personal learning style
I understand that I may also be asked to participate in other data collection activities such as surveying the students of a faculty member, observing a class, or interviewing a faculty member.
Name: ______Position: __Graduate Assistant_
Signature: ______Date: ______Working with Faculty Toward Technology Integration
SettIng: Agree on an appropriate location and time. • Find a comfortable area without distractions. • Have the appropriate materiaIs/ equipment.
Introductions: Stert with 2-way brief personal introductions to break the ice. • Hobbies, interest, field of study, family, etc.
Technology Find out about the faculty member's: Background: • Technological strengths and weaknesses • Comforts/ fears about technology
Needs Review Technology Integration Needs Survey with the faculty Assessment: member to determine: • General course content (if possible work with a syllabus). • Where he/she is with technology? • What are the goals for the use of technology?
Set Goals: Set goals that correlate with faculty objectives. • Start with 3 main goals with 2 sub goals each relating to what they want to see happen with technology in their classroom.
Identify Tools: Distinguish what is available or needed in terms of: • Hardware and software • Your services, one-on~e mentoring • Connections with other faculty using technology in their classrooms • Resources on campus, professional development services • Training videos, web resources or people/facilities in the community
Instructional Steps to follow: Design: • Always have an agenda. • Use real examples that can be used in courses. • Provide an instructional module (include step by step procedures and job aids) • Practice (work with tool, create) • Review (create again) • Evaluate (gather feedback, proposals)
Reflection: Tracking the project actlvitl~ • Evaluate total work with regard to objectives, process, and practice. • Record and report data and feedback in LEI Aloha reports.
expanding Keep faculty interested and motivated with: Possibilities: • New or advanced resources to keep them advancing and maintain their interest. • A compilation of projects and even a small presentation to other faculty on campus (confidence builder and good PR). Maybe through a video? APPENDIX B: Consolidated Table of Mentoring Details
CamI!US Mentor Mentee's Subject Taught #sem. # courses Technology learned BA CCI A Administration Justice 1 2 data projector 1 4 Front page 14 PowerPoint 24 Learning Skills I 2 smartboard 34 WebCT 1 3 PowerPoint I 5 Lingnistics I I PowerPoint 45 WebCT 25 English I 1 Email 45 Internet 55 WebCT 25 English 2 1 Internet 25 WebCT 25 History 2 2 Html 14 Real Media 14 WebCT 57 Accounting I 1 FrontPage 14 English 2 1 Fireworks I 5 Impatica 16 PowerPoint 16 History 2 2 WebCT 36 Math 2 I graphing calculator 45 PowerPoint I 3 WebCT 1 3 CC2 B Chemistry 1 1 digital video 14 PowerPoint 14 QuickTime 14 Emergency Response 1 I iMovie 15 English 2 1 ibook laptop 24 web design 1 4 digital video 14 Physics 1 1 Adobe GoLive 1 5 Excel 25 iMovie 45 PowerPoint 45 C Chemistry 2 1 digital still I 4 digital video I 3 elmo 24 iMovie I 4 Mac environment I 3 PowerPoint 14 scanning 13 Oceanography 2 I digital microscope 25 digital video 12 iMovie I 2 PowerPoint 15 scanning I 3 Philosophy 2 3 digital still 24 digital video 24 Dreamweaver I 5 iMovie 24 Photoshop Elements 14 scanning 14 WebCT 14 Psychology 2 I filemgmt 24 PowerPoint 24 scanning I 4 WebCT 12 Speech 2 3 Adobe GoLive 1 2 digital still 24 Dreamweaver 25 Photoshop 1 4 PowerPoint 23 scanning 14 videoconferencing 1 5 CC3 D English I 1 digital still 1 3 iMovie 13 PowerPoint 24 Family Resources 1 1 Dreamweaver 1 2 iMovie 1 2 Internet 23 PowerPoint 25 WebCT 1 3 Word 23 Math I 2 digital still 13 PDF 12 Photoshop Elements I 3 PowerPoint 13 Scanning 12 WebCT 23 web design I 3 American Sign E Language I 2 videoconferencing 15 ESL I I Dreamweaver I 3 Photoshop I 3 PowerPoint 24 WebCT 12 Word 24 Food & Hospitality Sevc. I I digital still 15 digital video I 5 Dreamweaver I 4 Fetch 14 iMovie I 5 MediaCleanerPro 13 Photoshop 14 QuickTime 14 Food & Hospitality Srvc. I I Dreamweaver 24 FTP 24 Html 24 WebCT 25 French 1 I Dreamweaver I 2 Fetch 23 Html 13 WebCT 35 Math 1 I PowerPoint I 3 WebCT 13 Medical Labomtory Tee. I I Dreamweaver 13 portal interface 13 streaming video 1 3 WebCT 35 Music I 3 digital video 15 Excel 13 Word 23 Music I I Dreamweaver 14 Weber 14 CC4 F Journalism 4 1 Cam Studio 14 Moviemaker II 1 6 MWSnap I 6 Open Office 1 6 PHPBB 24 Philosophy 2 5 Big Medium 1 3 HTML 13 History 1 4 digital still camera 1 4 Image File Managmt 1 4 Biology 2 I data projector 14 Inform. & Computer Sci 1 3 CamStudio 14 FOEstool Kit 13 MWSnap 1 4 VNC 14 English 2 3 Banner 1 3 FLE3 1 3 Internet 24 Weber I 2 N/A 1 N/A Cam Studio 1 2 CD Burner 1 I MWSnap 12 Plantronics 12 Journalism or Math 2 2 TI Presenter 1 5 English 1 3 Banner 12 Big Medium 15 FLE3 1 3 WikiPages 1 4 English 2 2 MWSnap 14 PowerPoint 24 Nursing 1 1 Big Medium 14 Spanish 2 1 Big Medium 14 FLE3 35 MWSnap 1 5 Open Office 12 V2E-mail 1 5 Waste 22 CCS G English 1 1 Acrobat 24 FrontPage 1 4 PowerPoint 14 Respondus 1 2 WebCT 34 ,- website design 23 English 1 1 Acrobat 1 2 Digital Still Camera 23 FrontPage 44 PowerPoint 34 QuizMaster 1 5 Respondus 15 Roxio CD Burning 12 WebCf 24 website design 23 Word 46 Business 1 1 Acrobat 1 3 FrontPage 1 5 Respondus 14 Scanning 1 3 WebCT 45 website design 12 English 1 1 Acrobat 14 Photoshop 23 digital stilI camera 12 Excel 23 FrontPage 12 PowerPoint 24 Quiz Master 1 5 Respondus 1 5 Scanning 13 WebCT 35 website design 24 WinZip 1 5 H English 1 1 lrnpatica 14 PowerPoint 24 Scanning 14 WebCT 55 Infonn. & Computer Sci 1 2 lrnpatica 14 Mimio 24 WebCT 25 Math 1 1 Website Design 13 Art 1 1 Adobe GoLive 23 Image Database 1 2 website design 23 Anthropology 1 2 digital still camera 14 Impatica 14 Mimio 13 Photoshop 12 PowerPoint 24 Spin Image DV 12 History 1 I WebCf 1 5 English I 6 Adobe GoLive 26 HTML 24 Photoshop 25 Scanning 24 CC6 I English I 1 Acrobat 1 2 HTML 12 scanning 12 WebCT 13 Nursing 1 3 FfP 12 Internet 24 Photo Deluxe 12 Photoshop 13 WebCT 23 Word 24 Nutritional Science 1 1 Acrobat 14 Images 13 PowerPoint 34 scanning 13 Teleconferencing 34 WebCT 1 5 Word 45 J Anthropology I 1 Acrobat 1 5 E-Mail 23 Respondus 1 5 scanning 15 WebCT 15 Windows 1 3 English 1 1 Acrobat 14 Altris Vision 13 File Management 24 FfP 1 3 WebCT 15 WebDav 1 3 Word 24 English 1 3 Acrobat 1 5 HfML 15 PowerPoint 1 2 Respondus 1 5 WebCT 1 5 English 1 2 Altris Vision 1 5 PowerPoint 34 Real Producer 25 WebCT 26 English 1 3 Acrobat 15 HfML 1 5 PowerPoint 1 2 Respondus 1 5 WebCT 1 5 English 1 3 Acrobat 1 5 HfML 1 5 PowerPoint 12 Respondus 15 WebCT 15 English 1 3 Acrobat 15 HfML 15 PowerPoint 1 2 Respondus 1 5 WebCT 1 5 English 2 1 Acrobat 14 Netscape 13 scanning 1 4 Tegrity 1 3 WebCT 1 3 Spanish 1 2 Data Projector 14 Netscape Composer 23 Photoshop 1 3 PowerPoint 14 scanning 14 K Accounting 1 1 Net Meeting 1 6 Accounting 1 2 Acrobat 23 Respondus 1 3 WebCT 25 Business Studies 2 3 Respondus 15 WebCT 1 5 Hotel Operations 2 1 Respondus 1 5 WebCT 1 3 CC7 L Speech 1 1 PowerPoint 12 M Chemistry 1 1 Acrobat 1 4 data projector 23 Dreamweaver 25 PowerPoint 24 WebCT 25 Economics 1 2 PowerPoint 44 Streaming Videos 24 WebCT 34 Website Design 1 3 History 1 1 Acrobat 14 WebCT 14 Inform. & Computer 1 1 Acrobat 24 Jmpatica 14 PowerPoint 56 WebCT 56 Journalism 1 1 Dreamweaver 15 Photoshop 25 digital still camera 35 Music 2 2 Acrobat 14 Dreamweaver 14 Impatica 14 PowerPoint 24 WebCT 15 Psychology 2 2 Acrobat 14 E-Mail 1 5 Respondus 14 WebCT 24 WebDav 14
* The two columns to the far right of the above table, B and A refer to the ratings before (B) and after (A) mentoring. The numbers related to the identified technology use levels in this stody in the following manner: 1- No use, 2- Initial Use, 3- Knowledge of Tools and Features, 4- Independence & Confidence, 5- Integration & Student Use, 6- Leadership & Guidance, and 7- Innovation. APPENDIX C: Evaluation Instructions
InstrucHons for EvaluaHon: Documenting Faculty Professional Development
Goal 1: To increase the number of faculty integrating technology into their course content delivery and student activities.
Goal 2: To document the qualitative changes of faculty members as they progress in acquiring technology skills and integrating technology into their courses.
Required Data Collection Before Mentorlng • Write up a 1-2 page written course description of each course before mentoring begins. • Collect course-related products developed/used before mentoring (course syllabi, websites, transparencies, handouts, etc).
During Mentorlng Semester • Attend monthly meetings to discuss progress, obstacles, and suggestions for improvement
Post Mentorlng • Write up 1-2 page 11 course proposal after each semester of mentoring for each course. Samples available. • Collect the revised course-related products after mentoring each semester (Powerpoint presentations, WebCT sites, students' technology-related work). • Complete mentoring survey attached or meet with LEI team personnel for an interview where we ask you similar questions and write it up for you© • Have faculty complete skills survey measuring pre/post skill sets
Data Collection (timing will vary/TBA) Certain faculty, especially those you mentor, may be asked to either 1) distribute a questionnaire to students, 2) have their class observed, 3) take a survey, or 4) be interviewed. (may be conducted by TI facilitators or LEI Aloha staff)
Host TI facilitators from other campuses to share strategies and present your campus' approach to project implementation.
Fill out faculty development technology integration rubric Resources LEI Aloha staff ready to come to your campus to provide workshop of your choice to audience determined by you (faculty, stodents, combination) on your time schedule.
LEI Aloha staff ready to meet regularly with you (or whomever you designate) to train you to lead workshops we currently provide. Also, we can be present to provide back-up assistance.
Online workshop/mentoring materials; Anything we have is yours! 1I
TI Video & Website (in development)
Each other!!! Cooperation and teamwork can utilize the expertise of each campus.
Deadlines
Fall 2002 semester ... Date Required evaluation ActlvItv September 6. 2002 Submit names of faculty members to be mentored to LEI Aloha October 4. 2002 Submit pre- mentoring data to LEI Aloha January 10.2003 Submit post-mentoring data to LEI Aloha
Spring 2003 semester Date ...... Reaulred Evaluation ACLtIvitV ...• January 24. 2003 Submit names of faculty members to be mentored to LEI Aloha February 21. 2003 Submit pre- mentoring data to LEI Aloha May 30. 2003 Submit post-mentoring data to LEI Aloha
T1mellnes Suggested Implementation Tlmellne for Fall 2002 semester
R equired dea dfmes s h aded TIme Period Activities July - August 2002 Recruit/Identify faculty members to be mentored Late August 2002 Pre-semester conSUltation with faculty members to be mentored Auoust 26, 2002 Begin mentorino faculty members Septembel 6, 2002 . Submit names of faculty members to be mentored '. . . . to LEI Aloha . Sept - Oct 2002 Collect pre-mentoring data • 1-2 page course descriptions • Course-related products [syllabi, websites, transparencies, handouts, etc.} OctObe14. 2002 . Submit pre- mentoring data to LEI Aloha' ...... , '. December 2002 Collect post-mentorlng data • 1-2 page TI course proposal • Revised course-related products [PowerPoint presentations, WebCT sites, students· technolooy-related work, etc.} December 20, 2002 End mentoring faculty members Januarv 10. 2003 ..... Submit post-mentorino data to LEI Aloha '.
Suggested Implementation Tlmellne fOI Spring 2003 semester
R eqUlfS. doe8 dlIJnes sh8 0 e d TIme Period . Activities .' ' '. Nov - Dec 2002 Recruit/Identify faculty members to be mentored Early January 2003 Pre-semester consultation with faculty members to be mentored January 13, 2003 Beain mentorina faculty members January 24•. 2003 • "i Submit names of faculty members to bemenfored . ..•... '. '. to LEI Aloha.' ...... • ....• . .' . ..' . Jan - Feb 2003 Collect pre-mentoring data • 1-2 page course descriptions • Course-related products [syllabi, websites, transparencies, handouts, etc.) Februarv 21 2003 . Submit ore-mentorlna data to LB Aloha .. , Jan - May 2003 Mentor faculty members May 2003 Collect post-mentorlng data • 1-2 page TI course proposals • Revised course-related products [PowerPoint presentations, WebCT sites, students' technology-related work, etc.} May 16, 2003 End mentoring faculty members May 30. 2003 Submit post-mentorlng data to LEI Aloha .' ...•. . APPENDIX D: Technology Use Coding Tool Date: Rater:
Faculty Member Name: Campus:
FACULTY MEMBER GROWTH CHECKLIST
Note.
See Appendix 0-1 for a list of sample technologies thai support each of the purposes listed on the checklist See Appendix IJ..2 for definitions of growth levels. P...... Post- Mentored In: As Used For: Mentoring Growth Level Mentorlng First Steps & Concepts 0 0 No Use 0 Is the post-mentoring growth Mansgement & Productivity 0 0 Basic Use 0 level observeble to students In Presentetion & Content Delivery 0 0 Knowledge of Tools & Features 0 the faculty membefs course(s)? Student ActivItIes, Assignments 0 0 Independence & Confidence 0 - & Assessments 0 Intsgration & Student Use 0 DYes ONo 0 Leadership & Guidance 0 DonlKnow 0 0 Innovation 0 o Insufficient Evidence 0 Insufficient Evidence 0 First Steps & Concepts 0 0 No Use 0 Is the post-mentoring growth Management & Productivity 0 0 BasIc Use 0 level observable to students In Presentstion & Content Delivery 0 0 Knowledge of Tools & Features 0 the faculty membefs course(s)? Student ActivItIes, Assignments 0 0 Independence & Confidence 0 - & Assessments 0 Integration & Student Use 0 DYes ONo 0 Leadership & Guidance 0 Don't Know 0 0 Innovation 0 o Insufficient Evidence 0 Insufficient Evidence 0 First Steps & Concepts 0 0 No Use 0 Is the post-mentoring growth Management & Productivity 0 0 Basic Use 0 level obselVable to students In Presentation & Content Delivery 0 0 Knowledge of Tools & Features 0 the faculty membefs course(s)? Student Activities, Assignments 0 0 Independence & Confidence 0 - & Assessments 0 Intsgration & Student Use 0 DYes ONo 0 Leadership & Guidance 0 DonlKnow 0 0 Innovation 0 o Insufficient Evidence 0 Insufficient Evidence 0 First Steps & Concepts 0 0 No Use 0 Is the poet-mentoring growth Management & Productivity 0 0 Basic Use 0 level observable to students In Presenletion & Content Delivery 0 0 Knowledge of Tools & Features 0 the faculty membefs course(s)? Studant ActivItIes, Assignments 0 0 Independence & Confidence 0 - & Assessments 0 Integration & Student Use 0 DYes ONo 0 Leadership & Guidance 0 DonlKnow 0 0 Innovation 0 o Insufficient Evidence 0 insufficient Evidence 0 First Steps & Concepts -0 0 No Use 0 Is the post-mentoring growth Management & Productivity 0 0 BesicUse 0 level observeble to students in Presentation & Content Delivery 0 0 Knowledge of Tools & Features 0 the faculty membefs course(s)? Student Aclivilies, Assignments 0 0 Indepsndence & Confidence 0 - & Assessments 0 Intsgration & Student Use 0 DYes ONo 0 leadership & Guidance 0 Don't Know 0 0 Innovation 0 o Insufficient Evidence
0 Insufficient Evidence 0 Appendix 0-1 :
The Faculty Growth Checklisfs Categories of Use and Examples for Specific Technologies Foundations: lhe skills and concepts needed before a faculty member cen use technology for olher purposes
Management & Productivity: personal uses for work lhat Is more profasslonal-Iooklng, efficient, convenient, or organized
Presentation & Content Dellverv: planned, designed, and scheduled Information dissemination
Student ActIvities. Asslgnmenta. ASS'M'llGnts; uses lhat require a student to use technology to respond
Examples
.. 1ats~~&Co_ JmII, & Prod_ Pr_.bdI"" & C. D. 8tudanl &A. COUnIeW_ BasIc program skDls Posting organizational Posting cowse content Student Web Design documen1B (e.g., PowmI'oInl Fetch and FTP (e.g., syllabi, course presentations, WebquesIB 888Ignments, grading readfngs, note sheets, Web design conceplS sheels) resouroe 11sIs) Interactive Web-bssad instruction . DIgItal Video Beale, unedited use Selfr()bseMJIion (video Instructional videos Student vldeo-maklng CsmenI end Video taping your class) EdlllIIII_ Performsnce-bssed ...... ,nts
D~onlloard Basic use FIelding student- X CIsss discussions initiated ClUestions starling threSds Collaborative work EmsU SettIng up an scoount Facully..facuily _Ing readings Sludsnt cell_on communications -Ing class nolss Student dlseuselons SendIng cIsss announcements
AnswerIng student ClUestions
EmaUIng grades FDa Management Ale management sI Definitions of the Faculty Member Growth Levels No Use: Although the faculty member might be aware of the given technology, he or she has never used It Initial Use: The faculty member Is ewere of the program's basic capabilities and Is beginning to leam the basic skills for use. Knowledge of Tools & Features: The faculty member Is discovering more of the given technology's faetures and Is leamlng to use those features according his or her personal needs. Independence & Confidence: The faculty member expresses an Improved attitude or a raised confidence In his or her skills In the given technology. The faculty member's use of the technology reflects that change: He or she begins using the technology more IndependenUy and might also use the technology more artfully, adventurously, or publicly (e.g., for course content delivery or student communication). Additionally, he or she might begin letting students elect use their own skills In that technology to complete course projects. Integration & Student Uae: The faculty member knows enough about the given technology to be able to apply Its capabilities to student leamlng activities. The faculty member Is able to design opportunities for student to use the technology In ways that enhance the leamlng or skills acquisition. Integration efforts will vary. For axample, some faculty members might retrofit prior assignments to new technologies, whereas others will redesign class activities and student aSSignments to capitalize on technology benefits. Leadership & Guidance: The faculty member has become an expart In the given technology. He or she Is able to coach students toward IndMduallzed, creative, and exploratory uses of technology to maximize leamlng or enhance class projects. Tha faculty member's use might also reflect a shift In teaching philosophy or classroom methodology. Innovation: Tha faculty member Integrates the given technology In a cuttlng-edge way. He or she pushes the limits of the technology and Invents new class and student uses In order to make the technology serve his or her technology needs. APPENDIX E: Technology Intensive Standards c~,,_,Tech~9Iogy Intensive Standards .. What Should, ,--" ,_., Our Graduates Know? of HawaII should be able to: ::Gr.duatesfr~~\JL~~~~erslty'_ ""'" __ ,' _:,_:jjr , '''_ 1.0 Ethics'" Use print and electronic technology ethically and r_ponslbly. (Adapted from GE-IRT #1) St1Jdeflis mUst have the opportunity to reflect on the implications ofthe new technologies on their and iithers' lives, assess the challenges posed, communicate their ideas about these new systems, and learn how to make informed judgments about when, how and why it is appropriate to use them. 1.1 Analyze and describe the social implications of advanced technology and the ways representations of human-technology relationships shape social attitudes. e.g. As the students analyze the current issues and practices in special education and related fields, they will describe the social implications ofadvanced technology and the way representations ofhuman-technology relationships shape social attitudes e.g. As part ofthe Issues paper assignment, where students are required to address the ethical issues regarding educational assessment, students will include an analysis and description of the social implications ofadvanced technology and the challenges posed by technology 1.2 Assess the challenges posed by technology. e.g. Students will discuss the challenges that technologies pose for persons with disabilities and those working with them 1.3 Describe technology as it shapes society and the environment. e.g. Students will describe various forms ofADA universal compliant technologies and describe how AT is shaping society and the environment e.g. Students will describe the ways technology is shaping the learning ofadults throughaut our society 1.4 Describe the cross cultural implications of the use of technology and generate personal standards of ethical use. 1.5 Describe strategies for facilitating consideration of ethical, legal, and human issues involving purchasing and policy decisions. (adapted from ISTE-2.1.2) 1.6 Seek information about current copyright and patent laws and abide by ethical standards of the use and transfer of information. e.g. Students will abide by rules and standards governing the use of copy written materials and discuss their understandingfor the reasons these rules were enacted e.g. Students will receive an orientation to ethics in educational research. This will include appropriate citation ofresources on the Internet and copyright issues. e.g. Students will tour the display about ethical issues found in the lobby of W"lSt Hall and discuss the ethical issues presented in class 1.7 Use technology to improve communication that addresses the diversity inherent in people e.g. Students will apply safe and appropriate communication practices for young and diverse learners e.g. Students will discuss and implement technology in a way that addresses the diversity inherent among people 2.0 Operations Use basic vocabulary and concepts, and operate technology. (Adapted from GE-IRT #2) In today's worldfilledwith technology. those with knowledge are empowered. and those withaut are disadvantaged As technologies are changing rapidly. this knowledge needs to be fluid and reflect an open mind which allows one to retool one's skills to fit the changes. 2.1 Use tenninology related to computers and other electronic technology appropriately in written and oral communications. (Adapted from ISTE-1.1.2) e.g. Instructor and students will use the appropriate terminology related to computers and other electronic devices in written and oral communication e.g. Students will use terminology related to both the use of computers in distance learning (MAILE system) and the use of interactive television as a means ofeducation (HITS system) 2.2 Operate a multimedia computer with related peripheral devices. (Adapted from ISTE-1.l.1) e.g. Students will operate multimedia computers to access WebCT and design web pages e.g. Students will use multimedia computers to conduct presentations and to access course materials via MAILE 2.3 Use imaging devices such as scanners, digital cameras, and/or video cameras with computer systems and software. (ISTE- 1.1.4) e.g. Students will use imaging devices such as scanners, digital cameras, etc. in completing their final projects e.g. Students will operate digital video cameras, video equipment, and nonlinear video editing software in the production oftheir class assignments and projects 2.4 Install application software and peripheral devices and their accompanying software. 2.5 Use a variety of technologies such as video cameras, fax machines, and copy machines to enhance communications. e.g. Student will use a variety oftechnologies, such as fax machines, copy machines, and electronic mail to enhance communications. 2.6 Describe and implement basic troubleshooting strategies when using equipment such as, multimedia computers, peripheral devices, video cameras, fax machines, and copy machines. (from ISTE-1.1.3) e.g. Students will learn how to operate a video camera and troubleshoot any problems. Students will then videotape all their planned speeches, watch their speeches on videotapes and evaluate their performance. 3.0 Analysis Recognize, Identify, and define an Infonnation need. (GE IRT#3) Today's resources are vast and growing. Validation and assessment ofthis iriformation must be included in a student's search for meaning and understanding. 3.1 Describe different modes of inquiry and information acquisition. (Adapted from GE-CT #4) e.g. Students will use the Internet to acquire iriformation related to the course and their assignments e.g. Students will use WebCT and the Internet for inquiry and acquisition of information e.g. Video will be used as a tool ofinquiry and acquiring iriformation 3.2 Discuss advantages and disadvantages offered by differing forms of technology in solving information issues. (Adapted from GE-CT #4) e.g. Students will discuss the advantages and disadvantages ofusing Web sites as resources to enhance one's knowledge ofdisabling conditions e.g. Students will provide regular feedback on the pros and cons of using technology in learning as applied to assessment e.g. Students will search the Internet for information on the advantages and disadvantages oftechnology e.g. Students will provide regular feedback on the positive and negative experiences ofusing modern technology to learn Tagalog 4.0 Retrieval Access and retrieve Information through print and electronic media, evaluating the accuracy and authenticity of that Information. (GE-IRT #4) Technology has made it possible for people to distribute any and all types information. Students should acquire the skills to access and evaluate the myriad sources ofinformation available to them, both print and electronic. 4.1 Use automated on-line search tools and intelligent agents to identify and index desired information resources. (lSTE-2.3.3) e.g. Students will use online search engines to acquire information related to the course e.g. Students will use appropriate search and evaluation strategies to obtain resources over the Internet e.g. Students will be required to conduct ERIC and Internet searches on self-selected topics relating to their research interests and provide the results ofthese searches e.g. Students will use online search tools such as Agricola, Biosis, Cambridge, UnCover to locate primary literature articles for a research report 4.2 Check references and evaluate information for validity and reliability. e.g. Students will check online resources and evaluate the acquired information for validity and reliability e.g. When doing research online, students will be required to check references and evaluate information for validity and reliability using the A. U.R.A (Authenticity, Unbiased, Reliability, Authority) test 5.0 Application Create, manage, organize and communicate Information through electronic media. (GE-IRT #5) Students need to learn both the basics which are currently available to them (e-mail, web, multimedia, etc.) as well as gather the skills to adapt to new technologies as they arise. 5.1 Apply relevant tecbnologies to one's professional field. e.g. Students will apply assistive technology (A1) when working in their fields and during their in-service assignment 5.2 Use telecommunications tools such as electronic mail and web browser applications for communications and research. (Adapted from ISTE-2.3.2) e.g. Students will use e-mail, web browsers, WebCT. and web authoring software e.g. Students will communicate with each other and the instructor through the class listserv 5.3 Create and display audio-visual presentations and/or multimedialhypermedia productions that are equal in sophistication in form or content to a well written, paragraph, essay, monograph or novel. e.g. Students will create a HyperStudio stack incorporating multi levels oftechnology for their final project e.g. Students will produce and present an audiolvideo production as outlined by the requirements ofthe course e.g. Students will create and present PowerPoint presentation in class 5.4 Use and interpret visual information and describe how it affects meaning. e.g. Students will use and analyze various methods ofpresenting visual information and discuss its effect on meaning and interpretation 5.5 Use visual design techniques to maximize readability, legibility, and accuracy in information presentation and display. e.g. Students will use and analyze various design techniques to maximize readability, legibility, and accuracy in their presentations and demonstrations 5.6 Use tecbnology for problem solving. e.g. Students will analyze various barriers posed to individuals with disabilities and arrive with assistive technology (A 1) solutions for these obstacles e.g. Students will use a graphical software package to simulate interactions between plants and herbivores over space and time. Students will manipulate variables (e.g. palatability of plants, speed ofpredators) and report on the effect on simulated plant and herbivore populations 5.7 Process, analyze, interpret, and communicate infonnation using electronic analysis software such as spreadsheets, statistical packages, management, and databases. 5.8 Envision, shape and create new technologies. 6.0 Attitudes Recognize changing technologies and make Informed choices about their appropriateness and use. (GE-IRT #6) Technology has become an integral part ofeveryday life. Students who make informed choices about the use and management oftechnology will be healthier, happier, and able to contribute more successfully to society. 6.1 Choose to explore and use a variety of infonnation technologies to enhance their personal and professional lives. e.g. Students will refiect on the impact oftechnology on teaching and their personal lives e.g. Students will use e-mail to request and receive study guides for the midterm and final examinations. Study guides will only be distributed via e-mail 6.2 Utilize technology tools to address multiple intelligences and representatious. e.g. Video will be used as an alternativeform ofknowledge representation that will present an alternative method for producing and representing knowledge 6.3 Make infonned choices about purchases and use of technology. e.g. Students will evaluate assorted learning software and make class presentations relating to the benefits and barriers relating to each 6.4 Choose to be a self sufficient technology user by accessing help menus, manuals, and on-line documentation mther than have a primary reliance on outside personal assistance. 6.5 Create, manage, and organize ideas and feelings through various media. e.g. Students will create, manage, and organize ideas andfeelings through various media, such as communication via email, posting written work online, and participating in chats and discussion boards. Additionally, as part ofthe course attendance requirement, students will be mandated to participate in the online portion ofthis course 6.6 View technology as requiring continuous education to keep current. e.g. Students will consider the way in which it is necessary to utilize continuous education in order to keep current in the field of technology and its application to adult learning 6.7 Seek and use information regarding the impact of technology on health and well being with regard to physiological, psychological and social issues. 6.8 Use electronic management tools to organize and balance the use of personal and professioual time in a way that will maximize health and well-being. Codes: GE-ITR: General Education - Information Technology and Retrieval GE-CT: General Education - Critical Thinking; ISTE: International Society for Technology in Education