Smith, S. J. (2000). Graduate student mentors for technology success.

http://tes.sagepub.com/Exceptional Children

Education Division of the Council forEducation: The Journal of the Teacher

Teacher Education and Special

http://tes.sagepub.com/content/23/2/167The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/088840640002300210

2000 23: 167Council for Exceptional ChildrenTeacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the

Sean Joseph smithGraduate Students Mentors for Technology Success

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

Teacher Education Division of the Council of Exceptional Children

can be found at:Education Division of the Council for Exceptional ChildrenTeacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the TeacherAdditional services and information for

  http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://tes.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://tes.sagepub.com/content/23/2/167.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Apr 1, 2000Version of Record >>

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

167

Graduate Students Mentors

for Technology SuccessSean Joseph smith

Abstract: Current efforts to integrate technology across teacher education, particularly special education,preparation programs are contingent upon preparing teacher education faculty members to integrate theuse of technology into the teacher education curriculum. In this article, I describe the evaluation of an inno-vative faculty technology-training program that utilized special education graduate students as technologymentors. Feedback from pre-post interviews and weekly online journal submissions on the part of graduatestudent mentors was collected to assess the impact of this program. The results of this mentorship trainingmodel illustrate several distinctive outcomes: an increase in faculty technology integration, an increase ingraduate student technology use, and an increase in mentoring relationships between the graduate studentsand faculty members.

ithin the past decade, considerable dis-cussion has occurred regarding theneed to integrate technology across teachereducation curricula. Most recently, two

somewhat congruent perspectives have

emerged to enhance this integration effort. In1997, National Council for Accreditation ofTeacher Education’s (NCATE) Task Force onTechnology recommended that schools ofeducation stimulate more effective uses of

technology in teacher education programs.To prompt greater technological integration,NCATE is currently revising its professionalstandards to require teacher training pro-grams to articulate the roles they envisiontechnology will play in the preparation ofteacher candidates and to describe how theircandidates will be expected to use technol-ogy in the K-12 environment (NCATE).Similarly, in 1999 the United States

Department of Education initiated a fundingprogram called Preparing Tomorrow’sTeachers with Technology (seehttp://www.pt3.org) focused on preparing

preservice teacher education faculty mem-bers to use technology across teacher educa-tion programs. Of course, the final outcomecenters on effective technology integration inthe K-12 classroom; however, initial effortsare striving to get teacher educators preparedso that they can model effective use duringinitial teacher education training.

Behind these efforts is the point that fac-ulty training is a crucial element in preparingtechnologically proficient teachers for theK-12 environment (Office of TechnologyAssessment (OTA), 1995; Topp, Mortenson,& Grandgenett, 1995; Wetzel, 1993).Although many colleges of education are

making changes to facilitate the use of com-puter-related technologies (i.e., access to

state-of-the-art software and hardware), fac-ulty training continues to stumble hinderingthe change process (OTA, 1995; Thompson,Schmidt, & Hadjiyianni, 1995). Surprisingly,despite an increase in technology access,teacher educators are limited in their use of

technology and preparation programs gener-

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

168

ally falter on effective modeling across theteacher education curriculum.

Several questions emerge when oneconsiders the possible ways to furtherenhance the use of technology by teachereducators in the higher education curricu-lum. Recently, case studies have illustratedhow colleges of education have attempted tointegrate technology into their teacher prepa-ration programs (Good, 1996; Smith,Houston & Robin 1995; Sprague, Kopfman,& Dorsey, 1998). Several universities haveexamined how teacher education facultymembers can be assisted to develop moresophisticated approaches to integrating tech-nology. Thompson and Schmidt (1994) andtheir colleagues (Beisser, Kurth, & Reinhart,1997; Fox, Thompson, & Chan, 1996;Thompson, Hanson, & Reinhart, 1996) haveconducted a program of research examininghow technology use can be expandedthrough mentoring activities. Replacing sin-gle technology courses, faculty memberswere paired one-to-one with technologycompetent graduate students. Similarresearch indicates that teacher mentoring canassist faculty members and new teacherswith ongoing support integrating features ofeffective staff development literature(MacArthur et al., 1993; Sprague et al., 1998).

A portion of this process infuses the

mentorship model. Similar to components ofpeer-tutoring (DuPaul & Eckert, 1997), men-toring has grown in popularity due to its

intense, dyadic relationship in which thementor furthers the professional and per-sonal development of the prot6g6 providinginformation, assistance, support, and guid-ance. The mentoring relationship is usuallyorganized around supportive activities, suchas: (a) observation (visiting each other’s

classroom); (b) demonstration (coaching);(c) conferencing (feedback); and, (d) jointpreparation (Alderman & Milne, 1998;Gratch, 1998; Hawkey, 1998).

Like the peer tutoring model, the men-toring technique has been shown to benefitboth the tutor and tutee in content, behavior,and social interaction. In peer tutoring rela-tionships, students in a class (peer students)whom have mastered a portion of the con-tent assist those individuals who require

additional instruction and practice. The flexi-bility of the model allows tutors to take on avariety of responsibilities, such as reviewer,director, monitor, facilitator and evaluator.Several studies indicate that effective peertutoring involves an active reinforcing rela-tionship between the peer tutor and tutee.Effective conditions also include periodicsessions scheduled for a set time (usuallythirty minutes) that offer sequenced instruc-tional steps outlined in a lesson format(Gerber & Kauffman, 1981; Jenkins &

Jenkins, 1985; Knapczyk, 1989).Similarly, mentor research indicates that

an effective mentor/mentee relationshipdepends upon mentors avoiding an authori-tarian approach, and instead sharing the

process with the mentee. They need to

establish expectations of mutual respectful-ness and contribution. Mentors also need to

help mentees apply their own experiences aslearners, rather than encouraging them torely on the mentor’s experiences for learn-ing.

Reports indicate that effective mentoringis based upon interpersonal communication.Through communication, mentors andmentees can develop along the three phasesof the mentor/mentee relationship: (a) estab-lishing the relationship; (b) getting to work;and (c) evaluation and follow-up (Alderman& Milne, 1998; Gratch, 1998; Hawkey, 1998;Hiemstra & Brockett, 1998). Recently,national, state, and local efforts have soughtto support mentoring relationships amongstexperienced teachers and entry-level teach-ers. Through these supportive relationships,literature indicates that entry-level teacherswill be better prepared to face the day-to-daychallenges of the K-12 classroom. For

instance, the Educational Testing Service’s

(ETS) Praxis (2000) program has been

recently adopted by states across the country(i.e., Ohio, Maryland). The Praxis framework,designed by the ETS (see http://www.ets.org), is intended to be used by preserviceand beginning teacher mentors. The trainedmentor/observer is able to observe, analyzethe teaching in light of nineteen specific cri-teria, and provide the protege with substan-tive and specific feedback and coaching aspart of the mentoring process.

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

169

This current study is a follow-up to acase study that a colleague and I reported inan earlier edition of Teacher Education and

Special Education (Smith & O’Bannon, 1999)which extended the work by Thompson andher colleagues (1994). Similar to the previousreport, faculty members were provided tech-nology training to enhance technology inte-gration across curriculum. In contrast to theprevious study, however, I will report on theimpact of the mentoring project and subse-

quent technology-training program from theperspective of the special education graduatestudents. What is more important, rather than

limiting the discussion on the impact towardtechnology integration I will also discuss sev-eral outcomes that arose from findings con-cerning the study. Discussion will include therole of mentoring, impact on use of technol-ogy, relationship to overall professionaldevelopment, and the impact of technologyuse beyond the confines of this faculty tech-nology training program.

In previous studies, faculty membersand their assigned technology competentgraduate students (enrolled in a technologycourse) dictated what technology skill theywere interested in developing apart from therest of the faculty (Beisser, Kurth, & Reinhart,1997; Thompson, Hanson, & Reinhardt, 1996;Thompson & Schmidt, 1994). In the currentstudy, however, the technology integrationeffort focused on a particular software appli-cation (Microsoft PowerPoint). Previous staff

development research indicates that educa-tional change is dependent upon intensivetraining supported by a high level of com-munication among and collaboration with

participants (Fullan, 1991; Hargreaves &

Fullan, 1992; Joyce, Murphy, Showers, &

Murphy, 1989). Thus, I anticipated that thecombination of guided lessons and ongoingone-on-one support would result in positivechanges in faculty members’ willingness andability to integrate technology into teacherpreparation courses.

Method

Participants

A total of nine special education gradu-ate students and nineteen College ofEducation and Human Development facultymembers participated in this study. All werevolunteers to the faculty technology trainingprogram having expressed an interest in

learning how to use technology in his or herteaching. Similarly, both graduate studentmentors and faculty members were identifiedas having limited technology expertise, how-ever, they were proficient in basic word pro-cessing.

Graduate student mentors. A total ofnine graduate students participated in this

study. Via flyers and announcements at grad-uate student meetings, I notified them of theopportunity to participate in a technology-training program aimed at enhancing facultytechnology use in teacher education curricu-lum. To be eligible to participate, these stu-dents were required to participate in a tech-nology training program and commit to

mentoring faculty members for one hour aweek for six weeks. Selected graduate stu-dents were competent with basic computerapplications like word processors and

spreadsheets, however, none had previousexperience with Microsoft PowerPoint. Eightof the nine graduate students were pursuinga Masters of Education (M.Ed.) in SpecialEducation. The ninth graduate student, a for-mer special education teacher with a M.Ed.in Special Education, was pursuing a doctor-ate degree in Educational Administration.

Eight of these students mentored two facultymembers while the remaining student men-tored three.

I should note, that unlike previous men-toring efforts, the graduate students in thisstudy did not have previous technologyexpertise gained through related course

work or professional experiences (seeThompson & Schmidt, 1994). Instead, stu-

dents with limited expertise were used toexamine whether traditional graduate stu-

dents, trained on a specific application,could serve as an expert and enhance the

technology integration process. Thus, insteadof using instructional technology majors

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

170

(graduate or undergraduate), I selected tradi-tional special education graduate students.

College of Education and Humarc

Development Faculty. A total of nineteen fac-ulty members volunteered for this study.Each faculty member had office access to aMacintosh Power PC 5200 and the MicrosoftOffice software package. Included in theMicrosoft Office package was PowerPointVersion 4.0, which had been on each of theircomputers for at least the past ten months.Each faculty member had access to

Microsoft’s PowerPoint tutorial as well as

related university technology training pro-grams, which had been available for the pasteight months.

Training Procedures

In late January and early February 1998,the nine graduate students and nineteen fac-ulty members were selected for this pilotprogram. I began the PowerPoint training inmid-February with the nine graduate stu-

dents. After they completed their second ses-sion, faculty members participated in the 60-minute group session during the final weekof February, 1998. Individual sessions fol-lowed with mentoring activities being com-pleted by mid-April, 1998 (see Table 1).

Graduate student mentors. Based on

professional development guidelines devel-oped by Joyce and Showers (1~~5), Idecided to train the graduate students

through a series of demonstration, practice,and critical feedback components. The train-ing was divided into two 60-minutes ses-

sions. Each session included several activitiesbased on a PowerPoint Learning Packet (seeSmith & O’Bannon, 1999). The goal of thegraduate-training program was to teachPowerPoint basics and develop sample pre-sentations integrating multiple interactive

features. An additional training goal was tosupport student comfort and reinforce abilityto teach others how to use this application.

Following a demonstration and practicemodel, graduate students were introduced tofive specific features of PowerPoint: (a) cre-ating a basic presentation; (b) incorporatingclip art, graphics and images into a presenta-tion ; (c) modifying presentation basics withcolor, template adaptations, and multipleinteractive features (e.g., transitions and slidebuilds; (d) integrating video, audio, andrelated multimedia features; and, (e) incor-porating related Microsoft programs into thepresentation template (e.g., Word tables,Excel spreadsheets). At the end of the first

TABLE 1. Benefits

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

171

60-minute session, participants demonstratedcompetency in PowerPoint basics by devel-oping, editing, and modifying an interactivemultimedia presentation.

The first session also featured furtherdemonstration and practice guided by thescripted learning packet (see Figure 1). Thissession featured a question and answer for-mat to identify areas of concerns and offercritical feedback where necessary. Duringthis training, graduate students created addi-tional slide presentations that featured exten-sive multimedia components. Training alsoincorporated the scripted lesson, thus famil-iarizing the graduate students with the fac-ulty learning packet. Upon completion oftheir training, graduate students were able tooperate the program-having completed awell-developed slide show-for all the sub-sequent faculty one-on-one sessions. It

should be noted, that the technology trainingsessions did not consider mentoring or

teaching issues but instead, focused strictlyon the &dquo;how to&dquo; components of the technol-ogy application.

To provide an ongoing component tothe graduate student technology training pro-gram (Joyce & Showers, 1995), participantsmet for an additional 60 minute session withthe author to review questions and issuesabout their collaboration with assigned fac-ulty members. Coordinated after the first fac-ulty one-on-one mentoring session, the

meeting offered a question and answer for-mat to troubleshoot or problem solve anyissues related to technology access or theoverall mentoring process. Although the ses-sion provided the opportunity to considertechnology questions, participants did not

pose technology questions but instead,focused on schedule coordination and access

problems associated with individual facultycomputers.

Faculty trainees. During a 90-minuteintroductory training, 19 College ofEducation and Human Development facultymembers were introduced to the programand to PowerPoint basics. The faculty mem-bers were introduced to the program via aPowerPoint Learning Packet (Smith &

O’Bannon, 1999). This session was dividedinto four specific components: (a) an

1. Introduction1. Basic Introduction2. Creation of Five Slides3. Format Basics4. Text Integration5. Creating Transition & Builds

li. Adding Visuals1. Inserting Clip Art2. Inserting images3. Scanning Images4. Second Five Slide Creation5. Accessing Images from the Internet6. Adding a slide7. Using the Slide Sorter8. Animation Basics

III. Color Schemes & Template Background1. Changing the style of the text2. Changing the color of the text3. Expand Slide Show4. Add Color Schemes5. Animation Part 11

IV. Inserting Graphs1. Adding Graphic Objects to your

Presentation2. Inserting Excel Spreadsheets to Slide

Show3. Creation of Third Slide Show Example

V. Notes, Handouts, Slide Shows, andPrinting

1. Creating Notes2. Printing Options3. Alternative PowerPoint Dissemination

Features

Figure 1. Powerpoint Learning Packetoverview of the mentorship training pro-gram ; (b) an introduction to the learningpacket; (c) demonstration and practice of thePowerPoint application; and (d) schedulingand coordination for the one-on-one six-

week training sessions.After the initial introductory session, fac-

ulty members received six one-hour trainingsessions in their related College of Educationoffice. Conducted by the graduate studentmentor, each session included a scripted les-son to mentor the faculty members on howto integrate PowerPoint. The scripted lessonsdirected the first half of the session while

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

172

permitting flexibility for the remaining 30minutes to address related technology orPowerPoint concerns (see Figure 1).

Assessment of TrainingSemistructured interviews before and

after the training project were used to seekinformation from student participants aboutthe training program, mentoring experience,and related technology training efforts.

Audiotaped interviews, conducted individu-ally for all participants, were approximately30 minutes in duration. Participants wereinterviewed twice, once before the facultymentoring process began and once after thetechnology training was completed. The ini-tial interview questions were designed to

explore technology and mentoring issuesthat graduate student participants might haveconcerning the training process. Here, partic-ipants were questioned about concerns withthe PowerPoint application and faculty train-ing. Questions were generally organized intothree categories that included: (a) comfortwith the PowerPoint application; (b) con-cerns with the Learning Packet and mentor-ing process; and, (c) general issues concern-ing the one-on-one faculty-training model.

At the conclusion of the training project,graduate students were asked a series ofinterview questions that were broadlygrouped into three categories that included:(a) training issues with faculty members; (b)mentorship support and interaction; and, (c)the overall student training component.Interview questions were related to studentcomfort with the training program and howeffectively the mentoring relationshipallowed for faculty understanding and possi-ble technology integration.

All data were collected and analyzedsolely by the author with participants beingoffered the opportunity to check related tran-scripts. Interviews were conducted at the

beginning and the end of the study over thecourse of several weeks. The data gatheredincluded only the personal experiences andopinions of the student participants. Weeklyjournal entries were also analyzed and datarecorded (see Figure 2). Available via theworld wide web (web), graduate studentswere expected to submit a journal entry once

a week following their one-on-one facultytraining session. Developed to gain generalfeedback about the mentoring activity gradu-ate students were also prompted with the fol-lowing general topics of concern: (a) expla-nation of the training activity; (b) discuss anyproblems they confronted; (c) describe theircomfort level with various Learning Packetcomponents; and (d) provide any additionalcomments concerning the mentoring rela-

tionship, technology problem-solving needsor any related issues. Targeted to collectadditional data on the mentoring compo-nent, the weekly journal entries also assistedme in identifying any training problems andtroubleshooting technology needs through-out the six-week mentoring process.Similarly, it provided the graduate student anoutlet to discuss issues related to the men-

torship process.All journal entry data were collected and

analyzed solely by the author with partici-pants being offered the opportunity to checkrelated transcripts. The data gatheredincluded only the personal experiences andopinions of the student participants. Itemsneeding the author’s immediate attention

(e.g., hardware troubleshooting) were

addressed upon receipt of the journal entry,otherwise, training issues were discussed inthe follow-up interviews at the completion ofthe faculty training sessions.

Analysis of lnterviews/Journal Entries

The analysis of the interviews followedprocedures described by Lincoln and Guba(1985) and Patton (1980). Using the processof constant comparison, responses were

coded and sorted according to themes thatdeveloped. All interviews were audiotapedand transcribed for content analysis.Similarly, all journal entries were compiled intext format for content analysis. To check thereliability of the interpretations, the authorreviewed all the recordings of interviews toconfirm quotes and organizations of patternsof participant responses. To reduce the

potential bias in data collection and subse-quent analysis, an author’s colleague(College of Education faculty member)checked and coded the transcribed

responses. Thus, reliability was assessed by

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

173

Figure 2. Graduate Student Online Journal

comparing the correspondence of the codingand organization of the two reviewers.Member checking was also performed to

ensure the credibility and trustworthiness ofthe data. Participants unanimously perceivedthe presented results as accurate reflectionsof the training and concerns specific to men-toring.

The interview responses were examinedand partitioned into data units by the author(i.e., comfort with mentoring). These dataunits were organized into categories (i.e.,mentorship process) established from spe-cific themes that developed out of the grad-uate student interviews. These categorieswere grouped directly from the themes toorganize the findings. Analysis identified fourelements related to the technology integra-tion process: (a) faculty ability to use tech-nology, (b) the training program, (c) gradu-

ate student technology integration across theteacher education program and within the

K-12 classroom, and (d) the mentorshipprocess and its impact on the training and

subsequent outcomes.The participants knew the author. I con-

ducted the initial faculty training, the multi-ple sessions graduate student training, andinterviews with all participants. I believe

multiple contact assisted in establishing a

rapport with the participants enhancing thecredibility of the findings. Although partici-pants’ familiarity with me may have had ini-tial impact on related responses, ongoingjournals, extensive pre and post interviews,and extended peer debriefings were con-ducted to offer further discussion and analy-ses of the participants’ responses.

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

174

Results

Organized into three themes, graduatestudent responses to the interview questionsand related journal entries offered an under-standing to the effectiveness of the mentor-based technology-training program (seeFigure 3). In the section below, I describethese themes and offer participant feedbackto measure the effectiveness of the trainingprogram and the related benefits toward

technology integration. Similarly, a summaryof these statements can be found in Table 1,illustrating that graduate student mentors

where generally appreciative, excited andlearned from this technology training pro-gram.

Previous studies of faculty technologymentoring programs have noted that a keyingredient to technology developmentinvolves technology proficient mentors. In

this study, I adopted a different workingassumption, that traditional graduate stu-

dents, regardless of their previous technol-ogy expertise, could offer technology-men-toring support.

Faculty Technology IntegrationThe intent of this study was to enhance

faculty integration of technology across theirhigher education teaching. As reported in anearlier article (see Smith & O’Bannon, 1999),initial findings indicate that faculty membersbecame increasingly competent, confident,and excited about their ability to integratethe PowerPoint application into the currentinstruction.

Reflecting upon their development, fac-ulty members believed the multiple-sessiontraining had been effective in enhancingtheir understanding and ability to use theapplication. Although many did not considerthemselves experts, they expressed compe-tency. In the final week of mentoring activi-ties, faculty members reported to the gradu-ate student mentor and the author that theywere able to develop slides and completepresentations for courses currently beingtaught that semester.

Graduate student mentors also indicated

witnessing an increase in faculty technologyuse as a result of the training program.Although findings differed, all graduate stu-

dents remarked how the weekly training pro-gram appeared to enhance faculty comfortlevel and subsequent use of PowerPoint intheir professional activities. For instance,graduate students remarked how the

Learning Packet and the Multiple Session

Training Format were an integral part of thedevelopment of technology-based projectsfor classroom teaching. One student

explained:

During our first weekly meeting Dr.Nolan shared with me an outline of whatshe wanted to present at a conference in

April. She said that she wanted to getthis presentation done over the next

three weeks so that she could practice itbefore she left. So, from the first trainingsession we worked on the presentationwhile we covered the packet.

By the end of the training this same

graduate mentor reported how the learningpacket had been replaced by equipmentissues (e.g., remote equipment set-up) forremote presentations:

Instead of completing lessons five andsix, we worked on her presentation andI taught her how to get the equipmenttogether for her presentation ... wespent the final lesson in a classroom onthe second floor practicing putting thelaptop and projection system togetherfor her presentation.

Although the intent of the program wasto have an immediate impact on facultyteaching, graduate students reported that fac-ulty members were concerned with modify-ing lectures they had already prepared forthe spring semester. Instead, several gradu-ate mentors reported working with facultymembers to prepare for summer classes. For

example, one mentor explained:Tried to talk Dr. Wilson into changing alecture for next month but no go. Shewants to concentrate on summer session

so I’m working with her on a lecture forJune ... same course as this semesterbut she is worried about messing thingsup.

Similarly, graduate mentors reportedthat faculty members were more comfortable

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

175

Figure 3. Interview Questions for Graduate Students

with preparing for the future rather than

modifying current teaching efforts. It

appeared that they did not want to jeopar-dize current teaching efforts but were willingto address technology integration in futureteaching efforts. One mentor explained sev-eral peers’ sentiments:

I think Dr. Herman is really prepared forthe summer. Together, we created pre-sentations for several classes during thesix-week training. I think she realizes

that we could have done this for thissemester now, but I think she was wor-ried about the time and learning every-thing.

Overall, all graduate students reportedthrough weekly journals and post-interviewsthat the six-week mentoring programimpacted faculty technology use. Althoughsome of this use was not immediate,responses indicate that the training programhad created the necessary support for faculty

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

176

to use the technology during future coursework and related professional activities.

It should be noted, recent follow-up upinterviews with faculty participants found acontinued use of the PowerPoint applicationamongst trained faculty members. In addi-tion, five faculty members reported extend-ing technology integration to include worldwide web (web) based applications. All fac-ulty members attribute their recent web useto the initial technology training program,which developed awareness and comfortwith their office computer and related tech-

nology.These findings extend faculty feedback

and substantiate claims made by facultymembers toward their increased use in tech-

nology. Certainly, this training programsought an impact on faculty technology useand thus, mentors agreed this program hadbeen a success. However, reports belowindicate that this training model has otherbenefits that extend the model’s usefulnessand may impact technology use beyond theconfines of teacher education curriculum.

Technology Integration Across TeachersPreparation Program and K-12Environnaent

It was clear in reading the transcriptsthat all graduate students felt they were pro-ficient in use of PowerPoint and comfortablein sharing their technology expertise withothers. Interestingly, previous technologyuse for all graduate student participants hadbeen limited to word processing basics and ageneral awareness of the Internet. However,after a brief introductory training programstudents reported comfort and an ability touse the PowerPoint application. It appears acritical component relied on the trainingprocess and the related learning packet. Forexample one participant said:

... having the chance to see howPowerPoint worked and then immedi-

ately create my own slide show was key.Your hands on approach really got mecomfortable with PowerPoint.

Another remarked:

The packet was a great guide. It helpedme learn but also helped me teach. I had

the packet so I knew if Dr. Joyce askedany questions I’d know the answer.

Similar responses were reported fromother student transcripts. Findings also indi-cate that the ability to have the applicationdemonstrated followed by an opportunity topractice developing their own slide showwas instrumental in their learning process.

A surprising result of the technology-mentoring program was the outcome

expressed by all of the graduate students ontheir increased ability to integrate technologyacross the K-12 environment. To be effectivementors in this training program, I expectedgraduate students would become competentwith the PowerPoint application. However,student training did not target or addressK-12 technology integration issues. Thus, it

came rather unexpectedly to find that all

graduate participants perceived an increasedability to integrate technology into the K-12classroom as a result of the mentoring expe-rience.

As mentioned earlier, journal entries andfollow-up interviews targeted participants’comfort with and ability to use technology asa result of their mentoring experience. Bothsets of collected data showed that programexperiences expanded significantly beyondthe faculty PowerPoint training format.

Instead, when questioned, all participantsresponded in the affirmative to an increasedperception in their ability to apply this totheir future teaching in the K-12 classroom.

Interestingly, all eight special educationgraduate students remarked how they wishthis training had been part of their under-graduate experience. Responses indicatedthat if they had been properly trained duringtheir initial preservice program, they wouldhave immediately integrated technology dur-ing their practicum experience and subse-quent first year of teaching. For instance, oneparticipant explained:

Where were you three years ago? If I hadlearned half of this during my senioryear, I know exactly how I could haveused it during my students teaching andlast year in my 6th grade resource room.I’m not talking so much aboutPowerPoint but the computer in general.My class last year had three Power PC’s

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

177

and I was so afraid in using them. Lastyear I had students typing out papersand doing some basic drawing inClarisWorks what a waste.

Considering the training programfocused on PowerPoint, I pursued severalquestions concerning the perceived benefit.It appears that the mentoring program signif-icantly impacted student comfort and will-ingness to experiment with the computer.Although they didn’t learn specific applica-tions, responses indicated that increasedcomfort made an impact on the willingnessto try. As one participant explained:

The training did teach me about otherstuff but the regular use really affectedme. For seven weeks you had me think-

ing about computers and how to usethem ... also, the biggest thing aboutthis use was for a purpose. You know,all our training with my professors cen-tered on using it in their teaching. Theyhad a purpose for why they should useit.

Besides computer comfort, graduatementors also remarked about how they hadstarted to increase their computer use in theirclasses and related internships. Journalentries show a gradual increase in technol-ogy related projects graduate mentors

became involved in during the course of thesemester. Similarly, follow-up interviewsfound that students had applied a number oftechnology applications to various projectsrelated to the K-12 classroom.

When asked about specific technology-based projects, many expressed incorporat-ing their new skills into several class and

practicum projects. As the following quoteillustrates, several graduate students appreci-ated the flexibility of applying technology tocourse projects:

I created an end of the semester

PowerPoint presentation in place of thefinal paper. I demonstrated my project tothe entire class. This was not part of theclass but I mentioned it to Dr. Libby inMarch and he agreed to try it. I foundthe PowerPoint really took the pressureoff me.

Another student remarked how she wasable to integrate PowerPoint into her

practicum placement. It appears that not

only was the application used, but throughher assistance, the practicum teacherenhanced her use of technology with herK-12 students. The graduate mentor

explained:

Yes, I used PowerPoint with Ms. Petry. Ifirst came up with the idea to use it dur-

ing an open house with the parents. Wecreated a slide show showing studentwork. She liked it so much she asked meto help the kids use it. Right now we’recreating presentations about a field tripwe just took.

Besides enhancing course work, partici-pants also mentioned incorporatingPowerPoint into several professional devel-opment activities with faculty members.

Although not directly related to the study,several graduate students explained how twoadditional special education faculty membershad sought out their expertise during thecourse of the semester. As one participantexplained:

Dr. Aust asked Stacy and me to help.She’s our advisor so we couldn’t say no.As it turned out, we created two presen-tations with her, one for a national earlychildhood conference and the other onefor a state meeting last month. She let usgo to both of them and had us co-pre-sent.

Reflecting upon their technology devel-opment, five graduate mentors also

expressed an increase in general computeruse in course related and practicum-basedprojects. Although many did not considerthemselves experts with other computerapplications, they expressed some compe-tency. In the final weeks of the training pro-gram journal entries reported an increase inthe use of the web for related class projects.It seems that general technology use influ-enced further attempts to try technologyapplications. One participant explains:

Yes, I am creating a web site for a courseproject. It has been an option since

January but I didn’t think about it until acouple of weeks ago ... yes, using the

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

178

web and PowerPoint for this project hadan impact. I figured this isn’t too hardand why not try. I’ve had some helpfrom a friend and it really hasn’t beenbad.

Similarly, two students were quitedescriptive in their K-12 computer use. Theyshared with me a step-by-step plan theydeveloped with their two-practicum teachersto better integrate the classroom computersinto a unit lesson. They explained the goalsand objectives of the unit lessons, the differ-ent software and related materials they used,the corresponding activities and how the

computer use applied to the general content,and the amount of time each computer activ-ity took to complete. According to their per-ceptions, both their practicum teachers haveappeared to embrace the use of technology.As one mentor explains:

Using Inspiration as part of our unit

really worked. Watching the studentslearn with the computer was great and Ithink it affected Mrs. Peters. She gave me

great feedback and said she would startusing her three computers more. I thinkshe’s going to because we’ve rearrangedthe room and the computers are nowmore available to the students.

Another remarked:

With Mr. Sloan’s help, I created a projectfor his students using HyperStudio. It

was really neat ... no, I don’t think I

would have volunteered to help himwith HyperStudio if I hadn’t had yourtraining. I guess I wasn’t as afraid of the

computer.

Although the impact on technology inte-gration into the K-12 environment was unex-pected, the results are welcome. The projectfocused on faculty instruction. However, theoverall goal of technology integration acrossteacher preparation is to develop technologyskills for the K-12 classroom. Thus, this pro-ject appears to have done a little of bothtoward that end. Not only have faculty mem-bers increased their use of technology, grad-uate students have increased their K-12 inte-

gration while further impacting K-12

teachers.

The Relationship of Mentoring onProgram Outcomes

One would expect that graduate stu-

dents with limited technology and teachingexperience would be apprehensive about

teaching faculty members to use technology.Not surprisingly, initial interviews found stu-dents concerned about the one-on-one men-

toring process. Although they reported com-fort with the PowerPoint application, all

graduate students were not certain of theirability to convey relevant information. Forexample, one graduate student explained:

you were right, PowerPoint is not too

bad. I think I’ve got the basics but teach-

ing someone else, I’m not sure. Now, if

you asked me to teach Trinka [peer], noproblem but to teach Dr. Hess in heroffice I think I need more help.

While graduate students feared the

teaching component, others expressed a

concern with being considered a technologyexpert. Yes, they felt competent with theapplication but feared being asked a tech-nology related question and not having theanswer. This fear appears to have beenenhanced through the fact they were goingto conduct the training within the confines ofthe faculty members office. One mentor

explained:I’m afraid I’m going to do something andmess up their computer. I mean, I knowPowerPoint, but I’m not an expert on theMac. I freeze my computer at least oncea week and would hate to mess up orloose some of their important work.

Fortunately, graduate mentor fears wereunfounded and at the conclusion of the pro-gram expressed a positive experience. Manyexplained that they were right, they didn’tknow all the answers but figured things outby having access to the learning packet, theauthor, and being willing to problem solve.

Interestingly, the fact that the graduatementors were not instructional technology(technology experts) students had a signifi-cant impact on the mentoring experience. It

appears that the fact they had just learnedthe application put many of the faculty mem-bers at ease. Instead of seeing them as an

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

179

expert, the graduate students felt they wereseen as facilitators to assist them in this learn-

ing process. Thus, faculty members did notappear to be concerned with making mis-takes and graduate mentors were not wor-ried when they did not know an answer. Asone mentor explained:

Not being an expert was the best thingabout this mentoring. You know I wasworried, but I think the fact that I had tolook back at the lessons made Dr.

Allsopp feel better. After the first lessonwe kinda worked together. She didn’tlook to me for all the answers but I wasable to be there and help.

By the end of the technology program, Ifound a surprising development hadoccurred between the graduate students andtheir corresponding faculty members.

Interestingly, many had begun to developrelationships that went beyond a technologymentor. In a way, the training program helpsfoster the development of positive mentoringrelationships opposite from those that wereexpected. Instead of the graduate student

being the primary mentor, faculty membersassisted graduate students on professionalrelated issues and opened their eyes to vary-ing programs and related issues. For

instance, one graduate participant reported:This mentoring has been great. I’velearned so much about the College ofEducation. You know I’ve been here six

years counting my undergrad and I

never knew what I’ve been learningfrom these professors. We’ve been talk-ing pretty regularly after your programand I don’t see it stopping.

Another remarked:

She had me come in last week and talkto her exceptional learner class aboutdeafness. Me as a guest speaker. I lovedit and she said she wanted me to comein during the summer.

Similarly, graduate students reported thegrowth of mentoring relationships that

appear to mimic much of what is discussedin the literature. For example, graduate stu-dents reported professional and personaldevelopment through gaining important

information, assistance, support and guid-ance from the various faculty members theyworked with. For example, one participantreported:

Dr. Hess helped me too. She recom-mended I talk to one of her formerboss’s about work experience for thesummer.

An effective mentor/mentee relationshipalso depends upon mentors avoiding anauthoritarian approach, and instead sharingthe process with the mentee. All graduatestudents responded that the overall experi-ence was one of sharing and offering guid-ance when appropriate. For instance, onegraduate mentor commented:

For summer classes, Dr. Smith suggestedan elective I hadn’t considered. It’s not

in special education but it’s a course shewas familiar with. In a way, she became

my second advisor for classes this sum-mer. She said I could ask her questionsabout any other classes when I was

interested.

Many of the graduate mentors werethankful for the opportunity to get to knowvarious faculty members. They expressedgratitude over the opportunity to meet andget to know faculty members outside theirfield of study. Several graduate mentors

believed this interaction would not haveoccurred if it hadn’t been for the technology-training program. As one explains:

I was supposed to be the mentor in thisprogram and yet I was mentored. Boththe faculty members I worked withasked me about my program and what Iwanted to do. This summer I’m going towork with one of them on one of her

grants. She’s going to let me coordinatethe summer program, which should helpme a lot next year when I’m looking fora job.

It was clear in reading the transcriptsthat all graduate students felt they were pro-ficient in use of PowerPoint and comfortablein sharing their technology expertise withothers. Interestingly, previous technologyuse for all graduate student participants hadbeen limited to word processing basics and a

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

180

general awareness of the Internet. However,after a brief introductory training programstudents reported comfort and an ability touse the PowerPoint application. From initialinterview responses and subsequent journalentries, it appears a critical component reliedon the training process and the related learn-ing packet.

Discussion

Based on substantive evidence collectedvia faculty and graduate mentor interviewsand through weekly online journals, themost significant finding in the data was fac-ulty members’ increase in technology inte-gration across teacher education course workas well as professional related activities.Illustrated through initial faculty feedback(see Smith & O’Bannon, 1999), this studystrengthened initial results offering furtherevidence on the part of the participatinggraduate students. A significant surprise,however, related to the increase in graduatestudent comfort and subsequent use of tech-nology across several settings. Even thoughthe training program focused on an increaseon the part of faculty members’, graduatementors responded overwhelming on the

impact of the training project on their tech-nology use. Arguably, this outcome wouldwarrant additional mentoring activities basedon the integration of technology across theK-12 environment. However, an increase in

technology use by both faculty and graduatestudent offers greater evidence to the successof the technology integration program. Theevaluation findings further indicate that a

mentoring program can impact technologyuse beyond the confines of the teacher

preparation program.Although limited in technology profi-

ciency, findings suggest special education

graduate students can support faculty tech-nology development. Although this studywas limited to special education students,one would expect other traditional graduatestudents enrolled in similar education pro-grams would have similar impact.Interestingly, as a result of feedback from thegraduate students, faculty members appearto appreciate limited technology expertise.One key element was the fact that they

viewed the graduate mentor as an equalstruggling with the challenges of learning anew technology application.

Graduate student mentors represent aviable means to support ongoing efforts toassist teacher education faculty membersenhance their use of technology in the

higher education environment. Used in con-junction with a multiple-session-training pro-gram that features effective staff develop-ment components, this structured trainingwill likely provide faculty members with thenecessary skills to integrate technology intotheir instruction. As found through previousmentoring case studies (Smith & O’Bannon,1999; Thompson, Schmidt, & Hadjiyianni,1995), student mentors can support integra-tion efforts; however, these findings extendprevious research by examining the mentor-ship relationship.

The findings reported here hold impli-cations separate from technology instructionand subsequent integration. As educationalinstitutions, specifically K-12 classrooms,continue to restructure through mentorshipsupport (see ETS, 2000), schools of educa-tion must be prepared to foster mentoringopportunities thus modeling what is

expected in the K-12 environment. This

study suggests while working toward moreeffective use of technology, schools can fos-ter mentoring opportunities. Thus, the designof this program offers multiple benefitsacross several prescribed developmentalneeds.

Conclusions

The goal of this study was to examinewhether special education graduate studentswith limited technology experience could

support faculty members in their effort tolearn and subsequently integrate technology.In general, the outcomes are positive to theeffectiveness of this model. There was animmediate integration of technology into

classroom teaching and related professionalactivities. In addition, there has been an

unexpected implementation of technologybeyond the confines of the teacher prepara-tion program. Indications suggest that furthersupport for K-12 use would foster effectivetechnology integration during practicum and

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

181

entry-year teaching experiences on the partof the student mentors. Unlike previousteaching where a faculty member mightdirect this use, mentoring activities appear toinstill independence and technology exper-tise. Teacher preparation programs shouldconsider the use of graduate and possiblyundergraduate students as they attempt toprepare technology proficient faculty mem-bers subsequently, integrating technologyacross the teacher education curriculum.

Overall, graduate responses have indi-cated an increased use and expertise withthe application of technology. Because grad-uate student mentor programs are relativelynew, long-term results of technology integra-tion are unknown. However, results indicatethat effective mentorship, which previous lit-erature has found to be an effective supportsystem, has the potential of leading towardfurther technology integration in both the

higher education environment and K-12

education. Thus, future technology trainingefforts should measure long-term and relatedbenefits for technology integration in the

preservice teacher preparation program.

References

Alderman, B., & Milne, P. (1998). Partners inlearning educators, practitioners and students col-laborate on work-based learning: A case study.Higher Education Research and Development, 17,229-49.

Beisser, S., Kurth, J., & Reinhart, P. (1997,April). The teacher as learner: An undergraduatestudent and faculty mentorship success.

Proceedings of the International Conference ofthe Society for Information Technology andTeacher Education (SITE) Orlando, FL.

DuPaul, G. J., & Eckert, T. L. (1997). Theeffects of school-based interventions for attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analysis.School Psychology Review, 26, 5-27.

Educational Testing Service (2000). ThePraxis series: Professional assessment for begin-ning teachers. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Fox, L., Thompson, D., & Chan, C. (1996).Computers and curriculum integration in teachereducation. Action in Teacher Education, 17(4),64-73.

Fullan, M. (1991) The new meaning of edu-cational change. Teachers College Press: NewYork.

Gerber, M., & Kauffman, J. M. (1981). Peertutoring in academic settings. In P. S. Strain (Ed.).The utilization of classroom peers as behaviorchange agents (pp. 155-187). New York: PlenumPress.

Good, K., (1996). Integrating technology intoeducating preservice special education teachers.Action in Teacher Education, 17(4), 55-63.

Gratch, A. (1998). Beginning teacher andmentor relationships. Journal of Teacher

Education, 49, 220-27.Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1992). Teacher

development and educational change. London:Falmer.

Hawkey, K, (1998). Mentor pedagogy andstudent teacher professional development: Astudy of two mentoring relationships. Teachingand Teacher Education, 14, 657-70.

Hiemstra, R., & Brockett, R., G. (1998). Frommentor to partner: Lessons from a personal jour-ney. New Directions for Adult and ContinuingEducation, 79, 43-51.

Jenkins, J., & Jenkins, L. (1985). Peer tutoringin elementary and secondary programs. Focus onExceptional Children, 17, 1-12.

Joyce, B., Murphy, C., Showers, B., &

Murphy, J. (1989, April). Reconstructing the work-place : School renewal as cultural change. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Francisco,CA.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Studentachievement through staff development :Fundamentals of school renewal. New York:

Longman.Knapczyk, D. R. (1989). Peer-mediated train-

ing of cooperative play between special and reg-ular class students in integrated play settings.Education and Training Mental Retardation, 24,255-264.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

MacArthur, C. A., Pilato, V., Kercher, M.,Peterson, D., Malouf, D., & Jamison, P. (1993). Amentoring model for technology education forteachers. Educational Media & Technology, 21,119-125.

National Council for Accreditation ofTeacher Education (1997). Technology and thenew professional teacher: Preparing for the 21stcentury classroom. Washington, DC: Author.

Office of Technology Assessment (1995).Teachers and technology making the connection.Washington, D. C.: United States Congress, Officeof Technology Assessment.

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluationmethods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

182

Smith, R. A., Houston, W. R., & Robin, B. R.(1995). Preparing preservice teachers to use tech-nology in the classroom. The Computing Teacher,22(4), 57-59.

Smith, S. J., & O’Bannon, B. (1999). Facultymembers infusing technology across teacher edu-cation : A mentorship model. Teacher Education &Special Education, 22, 123-135.

Sprague, D., Kopfman, K., & Dorsey, S.

(1998). Faculty development in the integration oftechnology in teacher education courses. Journalof Computing in Teacher Education, 14(2), 24-28.

Thompson, A., Hanson, D., & Reinhart, P.

(1996). A college departmental technology diffu-sion project. In B. Robin, J. D. Price, J. Willis & D.

Willis (Eds.), Technology and Teacher EducationAnnual, 1996, (p. 495-498). Charlottesville, VA:Association for the Advancement of Computing inEducation.

Thompson, A., & Schmidt, D. (1994). A threeyear plan to infuse technology throughout a

teacher education program: Year 3 update. In J.Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis (Eds.), Technologyand Teacher Education Annual, 1994 (p. 46-51).Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advance-ment of Computing in Education.

Thompson, A., Schmidt, D., & Hadjiyianni, I.,(1995). A three year plan to infuse technologythroughout a teacher education program. journalof Technology & Teacher Education, 3(1), 13-24.

Topp, N. W., Mortenson, R., & Grandgenett,N. (1995). Building a technology-using faculty tofacilitate technology-using teachers. Journal ofComputing in Teacher Education, 11(3), 11-14.

Wetzel, K. (1993). Teacher educators’ uses ofcomputers in teaching. Journal of Technology &Teacher Education, 1, 335-352.

Sean Joseph Smith is Assistant Professor ofSpecial Education at Bowling Green State

University, Bowling Green, OH.

Sean ,Joseph Smith is Assistant Professor ofSpecial Education at Bowling Green State

University, Bowling Green, OH.

at University of Kansas Libraries on October 22, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from