Mentoring Interns in using Technology: Cause for Optimism or Reasons for Concern Robert Smith Dennis S. Kubasko, Jr. University of North Carolina Wilmington

Overview and Perspectives Understandings of learning to teach typically involve the placement of a mentee or novice teacher with a more experienced mentor whose role is to supervise and guide the mentee. Understandings of learning to teach typically involve the placement of a mentee or novice teacher with a more experienced mentor whose role is to supervise and guide the mentee. However, with regard to emerging technologies, many mentees are more knowledgeable and skilled in the use of such technologies than their mentors (Dexter & Reidel, 2003). However, with regard to emerging technologies, many mentees are more knowledgeable and skilled in the use of such technologies than their mentors (Dexter & Reidel, 2003).

Purpose The study examines secondary interns’ use of technology in teaching and learning and the mentoring provided by their partnership teacher. The study examines secondary interns’ use of technology in teaching and learning and the mentoring provided by their partnership teacher.

Research Questions How and why are interns using technology in teaching and learning? How and why are interns using technology in teaching and learning? What mentoring does the partnership teacher provide to the intern in their use of technology? What mentoring does the partnership teacher provide to the intern in their use of technology? How does the mentoring affect the interns’ use of technology? How does the mentoring affect the interns’ use of technology?

Perspectives and Theoretical Framework The National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) proposed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) provides six standards for inclusion of technology in all teacher education programs. The National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) proposed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) provides six standards for inclusion of technology in all teacher education programs. The overall goal, as described in Standard 3, is that teachers use methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning. The overall goal, as described in Standard 3, is that teachers use methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning. The NETS-T standards call for all interns to be “supervised by a mentor or master teacher on a consistent basis” to enable them to become proficient and technologically literate (ISTE, 2003). The NETS-T standards call for all interns to be “supervised by a mentor or master teacher on a consistent basis” to enable them to become proficient and technologically literate (ISTE, 2003).

Preservice Teacher Use of Technology Preservice teachers’ level of comfort and skill in using technology has been seen as leading to an increased use of computers in instruction (US Department of Education, 2000) and thus, as a possible catalyst for changing instruction (Pedretti, Smith-Mayer, & Woodrow, 1999). Preservice teachers’ level of comfort and skill in using technology has been seen as leading to an increased use of computers in instruction (US Department of Education, 2000) and thus, as a possible catalyst for changing instruction (Pedretti, Smith-Mayer, & Woodrow, 1999). However, others have argued that future teachers need to have more experience with technology and receive more guidance in the use of technology (Lemke & Coughlin, 1999). However, others have argued that future teachers need to have more experience with technology and receive more guidance in the use of technology (Lemke & Coughlin, 1999).

Mentoring and Technology Use In a recent study of student teachers, 30% indicated that instructional support for technology at their student teaching site was “fair” to “poor,” and when asked whether their cooperating teacher used and modeled technology integration in their teaching, most responded “strongly disagree” (Dexter & Reidel, 2003). In a recent study of student teachers, 30% indicated that instructional support for technology at their student teaching site was “fair” to “poor,” and when asked whether their cooperating teacher used and modeled technology integration in their teaching, most responded “strongly disagree” (Dexter & Reidel, 2003). Various explanations have been provided for why teachers do not use emerged or emerging technology. Various explanations have been provided for why teachers do not use emerged or emerging technology. These include: lack of teaching experience with new technology; lack of on-site support; lack of help supervising children; lack of specialist technology teachers; lack of computer availability; lack of time and lack of financial support (Mumtaz, 2000). These include: lack of teaching experience with new technology; lack of on-site support; lack of help supervising children; lack of specialist technology teachers; lack of computer availability; lack of time and lack of financial support (Mumtaz, 2000).

Previous Work This is the third year in our study of our secondary interns’ use of technology during the internship. This is the third year in our study of our secondary interns’ use of technology during the internship. Interns on average rated their skills with using technology higher than that of their partnership teachers. Interns on average rated their skills with using technology higher than that of their partnership teachers. Interns viewed the barriers to technology as being less substantial than their partnership teachers; however there were few differences between partnership teachers’ and interns’ in their beliefs about the value of technology integration. Interns viewed the barriers to technology as being less substantial than their partnership teachers; however there were few differences between partnership teachers’ and interns’ in their beliefs about the value of technology integration. The findings of the study raise some important issues about interns’ use of technology in teaching and learning and the problems of providing appropriate mentors. (Smith and Kubasko, 2005) The findings of the study raise some important issues about interns’ use of technology in teaching and learning and the problems of providing appropriate mentors. (Smith and Kubasko, 2005)

Participants The participants were enrolled in a secondary teacher education program at UNC- Wilmington. The participants were enrolled in a secondary teacher education program at UNC- Wilmington. Eighty-one secondary interns participated in the study representing the following seven content areas: English (25), mathematics (9), social studies (22), physical education (11), science (8), foreign language (3), and music (3). Eighty-one secondary interns participated in the study representing the following seven content areas: English (25), mathematics (9), social studies (22), physical education (11), science (8), foreign language (3), and music (3). Three social studies interns and their partnership teachers and three science interns and their partnership teachers were selected for more detailed study of the mentoring relationship. Three social studies interns and their partnership teachers and three science interns and their partnership teachers were selected for more detailed study of the mentoring relationship.

Methods “Intern Surveys” “Intern Surveys” All secondary interns were surveyed at the end of the internship about their use of technology. All secondary interns were surveyed at the end of the internship about their use of technology. “Case Studies of Mentoring Relationship” “Case Studies of Mentoring Relationship” Three science and three social studies interns and mentors were selected to illustrate a range of mentoring relationships in relation to the interns’ use of technology. Three science and three social studies interns and mentors were selected to illustrate a range of mentoring relationships in relation to the interns’ use of technology.

Methods “Intern Interview” “Intern Interview” Case study interns were interviewed twice about the mentoring received Case study interns were interviewed twice about the mentoring received beginning of the internship beginning of the internship end of the internship end of the internship “Technology Log” “Technology Log” Interns completed a technology log at two different points during student teaching. Interns completed a technology log at two different points during student teaching. The interns use the log to describe their use of technology as well as record any conversations with their partnership teacher about their use of technology. The interns use the log to describe their use of technology as well as record any conversations with their partnership teacher about their use of technology. “Intern Observation” “Intern Observation” Each intern was also observed four times by one of the authors teaching a ninety minute lessons. Each intern was also observed four times by one of the authors teaching a ninety minute lessons.

Methods Other data sources Other data sources assignments completed for student internship which required the use of technology (e.g. a two week unit plan submitted using TaskStream, an electronic toolset). assignments completed for student internship which required the use of technology (e.g. a two week unit plan submitted using TaskStream, an electronic toolset). “Case Partnership Teachers” “Case Partnership Teachers” Case study partnership teachers were interviewed twice about their use of technology and about the mentoring offered for their intern. Case study partnership teachers were interviewed twice about their use of technology and about the mentoring offered for their intern. beginning of the internship beginning of the internship end of the internship end of the internship

Findings Intern Survey (n=81) Intern Survey (n=81) Interns described their skills with using technology in teaching and learning: Interns described their skills with using technology in teaching and learning: 1% novice, 24% intermediate, 70% advanced, and 5% expert. 1% novice, 24% intermediate, 70% advanced, and 5% expert. Intern use of technology includes: Intern use of technology includes: 100% used word processing and , 96% used internet searches, 83% used presentation software, 50% developed a teacher web page, 48% reported using an LCD projector, and 15% reported using handheld computers 100% used word processing and , 96% used internet searches, 83% used presentation software, 50% developed a teacher web page, 48% reported using an LCD projector, and 15% reported using handheld computers

Findings - Intern Survey (n=81) On a four point Likert scale, interns responded to each item (Strongly Disagree - 1; Disagree - 2; Agree - 3; Strongly Agree – 4) On a four point Likert scale, interns responded to each item (Strongly Disagree - 1; Disagree - 2; Agree - 3; Strongly Agree – 4) “I support the use of technology in the classroom” = 3.7 “I support the use of technology in the classroom” = 3.7 “Student motivation increases when technology is integrated into the curriculum” = 3.2 “Student motivation increases when technology is integrated into the curriculum” = 3.2 “There is enough time to incorporate technology into the curriculum” = 2.8 “There is enough time to incorporate technology into the curriculum” = 2.8 “Your partnership teacher played a significant role in their overall experience” = 3.4 “Your partnership teacher played a significant role in their overall experience” = 3.4 “Your partnership teacher used and modeled technology” = 2.6 “Your partnership teacher used and modeled technology” = 2.6 “My partnership teacher provided guidance on technology” = 2.5. “My partnership teacher provided guidance on technology” = 2.5.

Findings - Intern Survey (n=81) Interns were asked to evaluate the role played by other individuals in their experience of learning to teach with technology. Interns were asked to evaluate the role played by other individuals in their experience of learning to teach with technology. The following mean scores were generated: university supervisor (2.6); methods instructor (3.0); high school technology coordinator (2.0) and high school students (2.6). The following mean scores were generated: university supervisor (2.6); methods instructor (3.0); high school technology coordinator (2.0) and high school students (2.6). While 35% of interns indicated that their partnership teacher was the main source of support for technology integration, While 35% of interns indicated that their partnership teacher was the main source of support for technology integration, 65% indicated other main sources (26% other interns, 25% university supervisor, 9% other teachers and 6% school technology coordinator). 65% indicated other main sources (26% other interns, 25% university supervisor, 9% other teachers and 6% school technology coordinator).

Findings Social Studies Intern Cases Social Studies Intern Cases Two of the three social studies interns, Amber and Sandra, described receiving good mentoring from their partnership teacher. Two of the three social studies interns, Amber and Sandra, described receiving good mentoring from their partnership teacher. Amber described her mentor: “She modeled and supported my use of technology. She is a digital goddess.” Amber described her mentor: “She modeled and supported my use of technology. She is a digital goddess.”

Findings Social Studies Intern Cases Social Studies Intern Cases Sandra described the role played by her partnership teacher. “He had to teach me how to do everything. He [provided guidance] with PowerPoint. He would say this is good and make sure you put this on your PowerPoint so students understand this. This is a good website.” Sandra described the role played by her partnership teacher. “He had to teach me how to do everything. He [provided guidance] with PowerPoint. He would say this is good and make sure you put this on your PowerPoint so students understand this. This is a good website.” However, George, the third social studies intern, received only minimal mentoring, with no modeling or guidance. However, George, the third social studies intern, received only minimal mentoring, with no modeling or guidance.

Findings Science Intern Cases Science Intern Cases Two out of three science interns, Anna and Renee, expressed confidence in the mentoring they received from their partnership teachers. Two out of three science interns, Anna and Renee, expressed confidence in the mentoring they received from their partnership teachers. Anna described her partnership teacher, “she is so ready to use technology in everything that we do and I just didn’t fathom that I could do that much with it.” Anna described her partnership teacher, “she is so ready to use technology in everything that we do and I just didn’t fathom that I could do that much with it.” Renee agreed, “We don’t really differ. I use a lot of stuff he uses because it works…” Renee agreed, “We don’t really differ. I use a lot of stuff he uses because it works…”

Findings Science Intern Cases Science Intern Cases Janice felt differently. She stated “So I think maybe she’s a little intimidated or something like if we have to change something on the power point or something like that, I’m the one that does it and that’s fine. But it’s just that maybe she’s a little hesitant and I’m not.” She expressed reservations about her partnership teacher’s ability to adjust to the changing technology. Janice felt differently. She stated “So I think maybe she’s a little intimidated or something like if we have to change something on the power point or something like that, I’m the one that does it and that’s fine. But it’s just that maybe she’s a little hesitant and I’m not.” She expressed reservations about her partnership teacher’s ability to adjust to the changing technology.

Discussion As this study indicates, there are examples of mentor teachers modeling and guiding interns in the effective use of technology in teaching and learning. As this study indicates, there are examples of mentor teachers modeling and guiding interns in the effective use of technology in teaching and learning. However, these teachers tend to be the exception. However, these teachers tend to be the exception. Intern mentoring in the use of technology often consists of limited modeling, with general praise for the interns use of technology but little specific guidance. Intern mentoring in the use of technology often consists of limited modeling, with general praise for the interns use of technology but little specific guidance. Finally, where technology is being used, it is mainly by the teacher. There are only limited examples of teacher directed student use of technology. Finally, where technology is being used, it is mainly by the teacher. There are only limited examples of teacher directed student use of technology.

Discussion What is most striking is the variation between classrooms in the use of technology and in the quality of mentoring available to interns. What is most striking is the variation between classrooms in the use of technology and in the quality of mentoring available to interns. This in part would seem to reflect that technology use is a complex outcome influenced by a number of factors. This in part would seem to reflect that technology use is a complex outcome influenced by a number of factors. These include: 1) the larger societal context of national and state standards; 2) the local or school context, including access and support for the use of technology, and 3) the individual teacher’s knowledge, skills and interest in technology. These include: 1) the larger societal context of national and state standards; 2) the local or school context, including access and support for the use of technology, and 3) the individual teacher’s knowledge, skills and interest in technology.

Conclusion In examining the use of technology in schools, Means (2003) notes, “teachers have considerable latitude... in interpreting and implementing policies developed at higher levels of the education system” (p. 159). In examining the use of technology in schools, Means (2003) notes, “teachers have considerable latitude... in interpreting and implementing policies developed at higher levels of the education system” (p. 159). Teachers are viewed as mediating instruction and thus mediating the use of technology. Teachers are viewed as mediating instruction and thus mediating the use of technology. This perspective on the role of teachers as mediating policy is consistent with Burney’s (2004) characterization of the teaching profession as based more on craft knowledge than “research knowledge.” This perspective on the role of teachers as mediating policy is consistent with Burney’s (2004) characterization of the teaching profession as based more on craft knowledge than “research knowledge.”

Conclusion Burney argues that, even though there is a body of research knowledge, it is shared only haphazardly among teachers. Burney argues that, even though there is a body of research knowledge, it is shared only haphazardly among teachers. Furthermore, craft knowledge is “largely hidden because there are no institutional arrangements for codifying, legitimating and sharing it” (p. 527). Furthermore, craft knowledge is “largely hidden because there are no institutional arrangements for codifying, legitimating and sharing it” (p. 527). Consequently, “each teacher is left to invent his or her own knowledge base – unexamined, untested, idiosyncratic, and potentially at odds with the knowledge from which other teachers may be operating” (p. 528). Consequently, “each teacher is left to invent his or her own knowledge base – unexamined, untested, idiosyncratic, and potentially at odds with the knowledge from which other teachers may be operating” (p. 528).

Conclusion Burney’s characterization of teaching as lacking a shared knowledge base and in need of an entirely new professional culture in schools and districts, would seem to offer insights both in relation to the use of technology as well as the mentoring available to interns. Burney’s characterization of teaching as lacking a shared knowledge base and in need of an entirely new professional culture in schools and districts, would seem to offer insights both in relation to the use of technology as well as the mentoring available to interns.

Mentoring Interns in Using Technology: Cause for Optimism or Reasons for Concern Robert Smith Dennis S. Kubasko, Jr. University of North Carolina at Wilmington