Dr. Robert Smith,University of North Carolina, Wilmington

smithrw@uncw.edu

Dr. Dennis Kubasko,University of Norh Carolina, Wilmington

kubaskod@uncw.edu

DRAFTMentoring Interns in Using Technology

DRAFT

Mentoring Interns in Using Technology

The incorporation of new technologies in P-12 teaching has received widespread

interest and support at the state and federal level. Some states require that preservice

teachers meet state technology standards for teacher licensure and several states also have

technology standards for teachers. 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.

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).

The provision of an experienced and knowledgeable mentor/partnership teacher,

serving to model, guide and continuously evaluate a mentee’s teaching would appear to

be as important in learning to use technology as it is in other aspects of learning to teach.

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). 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

2

whether their cooperating teacher used and modeled technology integration in their

teaching, most responded “strongly disagree” (Dexter & Reidel, 2003).

While the use of technology has been embraced by some teachers, others have

been less enthusiastic to change practice. Various explanations have been provided for

why teachers do not use emerged or emerging technology.1 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). In addition to these

“external” obstacles, Robertson et al (1996) identify various types of teacher resistance to

computer use.

This study examines secondary interns’ use of technology in teaching and

learning and particularly the mentoring provided by their partnership teacher. The study

sought to answer the following questions:

1. How and why are interns using technology in teaching and learning?

2. What mentoring does the partnership teacher provide to the intern in their use of technology?

3. How does the mentoring affect the interns’ use of technology?

The use of technology in teaching and learning would appear to be a complex

outcome influenced by 1) technology specific factors and 2) discipline specific content

pedagogy. In regard to the latter, discipline specific content pedagogy may shape how

technology is used to support teaching and learning.

1 In this paper emerged and emerging technologies refer to the following types of technology: PowerPoint, electronic grade book, computer lab., Webquests, probe ware and streaming video.

3

1) Technology specific factors: The use of technology can be seen as affected by: 1) the

larger societal context of national and state standards and policies relating to technology;

2) the local or school context, including the school district and individual school and

policies relating to technology use, access and support, and 3) the individual teacher’s

knowledge, skills and interest in technology. Thus, even with a larger common context

of national and state technology standards, differences in priorities of school districts,

resources at individual schools and teachers’ receptiveness to change may all affect how

and whether teachers use technology. In recognizing the complexity of factors affecting

technology use, Zhao and Frank (2003) propose a model of technology use from an

ecological perspective (Figure 1). They argue, “ If we accept the ecological metaphor, it

becomes clear that innovations cannot be implemented without regard to the internal

social structures of schools or other pressures that schools face (p. 833).

Insert Figure 1 here:

The importance of within-school factors in influencing the use of technology is

supported by Means (2003) observation that, “teachers have considerable latitude . . . in

interpreting and implementing policies developed at higher levels of the education

system” (p. 159). Means suggests a view of teachers as mediators of instruction and thus

mediators of technology use.

The significance of the local context in technology use in “filtering external

resources, opinions and innovations” (Zhao & Frank, 2003 p. 831) would in part appear

to be related to the view of the teaching profession as based more on craft knowledge

than “research knowledge” (Burney, 2004). Burney argues that, even though there is a

body of research knowledge, it is shared only haphazardly among teachers. Furthermore,

4

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). The importance of the local context in shaping technology use, together with a

view of the teaching profession as based on craft knowledge, would appear to offer

insights in understanding technology mentoring. Specifically, these ideas would suggest

1) variation in the use of technology from school to school and within schools and 2)

mentoring in technology based on personal knowledge and skill of individual teachers.

Insert Figure 2 here

2) Discipline specific content pedagogy: There are differing views on the potential for

technology to bring about significant changes in teaching and learning. Some educators,

such as Cuban, Kirkpatrick and Peck (2001) argue that fundamental changes would need

to be made in how schools are structured. They argue:

Without such major changes, only modest peripheral modifications will occur in schooling, teaching and learning. Teachers will adapt innovations to the contours of the self-contained classroom. New technologies will paradoxically sustain old practices (p. 830).

Social studies content pedagogy. Within the discipline of social studies there

are also varying views on how technology is currently being used and the potential for

technology to change teaching practices. In a review of technology use in the social

studies, Berson (2004) states, “over the past decade the conceptualization of technology

in the social studies has evolved from an atheoretical integration of a collection of tools

to a constructivist orientation for advocating the integration of technology” (p. 142). He

5

cites examples of Web-based instruction, the facilitation of multicultural awareness

through telecommunications, and the importance of the internet in social studies for

developing and involving citizens in an information age. In particular technology has

been seen as useful in “actively engaging students in learning with the opportunity for

instruction that is multidisciplinary, inquiry oriented, student centered and multisensory”

(Berson, p.142). Similarly Manchester (2001) states, “many faculty today are seeking

ways to promote active learning by designing problem- and/or project – based learning

activities that provide increased opportunities for students to explore their interests and to

develop their skills” (p. 108).

While there are examples of social studies teachers using technology to support a

more constructivist approach, others argue that these approaches are still few in number.

In relation to historical inquiry, Hartzler-Miller (2001) states, “As compelling as this

“natural affinity” may be, historical inquiry is seldom practiced in US classrooms” (p.

673). From a case study of four accomplished high school social studies teachers who

used technology in teaching, Dewitt (2005) concluded:

They used computers to improve on traditional instructional strategies by incorporating more visual materials, increasing instructional variety, and increasing efficiency, but there is no evidence among these long-term computer users that their core beliefs about teaching changed as a result of computer use (p. 208).

He described the practices of these four teachers as “Technology-Enhanced

Traditionalism” and concluded that the study provided little support for the position of

computer advocates asserting that computers serve as catalysts for constructivist

pedagogy (p. 208). Finally, Hicks, Doolittle and Lee (2004) argue,

6

If integrating technology means nothing more than enhancing the traditional delivery system of social studies content, where laptops replace notebooks, where PowerPoint slides replace handwritten overheads, where e-textbooks replace hard copy textbooks, then we will be no closer to the NCSS’s vision of transformative, powerful social studies teaching and learning (p. 75).

Methods

This is the third year in our study of our secondary interns’ use of technology

during the internship. The internship is frequently cited by interns as being the most

valuable part of their preparation with the cooperating teacher playing an important role.

Mentoring in the use of technology was conceptualized in three ways: the partnership

teacher 1) modeled the use of emerged or emerging technology; 2) provided general

feedback/support to the intern on their use of technology and, 3) provided specific

guidance on their use of technology. Technology use was also conceptualized in two

ways. First, technology is used by the teacher or intern in planning and teaching, and

second, technology is used by students as directed by the teacher.

Eighty-one secondary interns, enrolled in a 2004-2005 secondary teacher

education program at a medium size university in the Southeast, participated in the study.

The interns were surveyed at the end of the internship about their use of technology. The

following three areas were examined: (1) interns’ level of comfort and skill in using

technology, (2) the types of technologies interns used, and (3) interns’ beliefs about the

effects of technology on student motivation and achievement. Other topics included the

role of the partnership teacher and university supervisor in their use of technology.

In addition to surveying all interns, three social studies interns and their

partnership teachers were selected for more detailed study of the mentoring relationship.2

Individual interviews were conducted with each intern and partnership teacher at the

2 Social studies was selected as this represented the areas of expertise of the authors.

7

beginning and end of the internship. Interns also completed a weekly log at two points

during the internship describing their use of technology and recording any conversations

with their partnership teacher about their use of technology. Each intern was also

observed four times by one of the authors teaching a ninety minute lesson.

The three social studies interns were selected to illustrate a range of mentoring

relationships with regard to the interns’ use of technology. The interviews with the social

studies interns and partnership teachers allowed a more in-depth understanding of how

interns used and thought about technology as well as the mentoring they received.

Interview questions to interns and mentors included their use of technology, their beliefs

about technology, the overall quality of the mentoring relationship, and mentoring in the

use of technology.

Findings:

Twenty-four percent of interns described their skills with using technology in

teaching and learning as intermediate, one percent novice, 70% advanced and 5% expert.

In terms of their uses of technology, 100% indicated they used word processing and

email, 96% used internet searches, 83% used presentation software, 50% developed a

teacher web page and 48% reported using an LCD projector. On the other hand, only

15% reported using handheld computers. Interns responded to several questions about

their beliefs relating to technology. On a four point Likert scale, interns responded with a

mean score of 3.7 to the item “I support the use of technology in the classroom,” 3.2 for

“student motivation increases when technology is integrated into the curriculum,” and 2.8

in relation to “there is enough time to incorporate technology into the curriculum”.

8

Interns were asked several questions about mentoring and technology. While

interns (n=81) agreed that their partnership teacher played a significant role in their

overall experience (mean score of 3.4), in relation to their teacher’s use and modeling of

technology, the mean score (2.6) was lower. In response to the item “my partnership

teacher provided guidance on technology” the mean score was 2.5. 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).

Mentoring in the Use of Technology in Social Studies: The three social studies

mentors all taught at the same high school. The school, which was located in a rural area,

had 700 students, with about 40% of students on free and reduced lunch. The social

studies department consisted of six teachers. Nick the department chair had taught social

studies for twenty nine years. Mandy had taught for three years and Allen, who had just

been hired at this school, had taught for seven years. The three teachers varied in the

types and uses of technology. Both Mandy and Nick, with Amber and Sandra

respectively as their interns, used technology for instruction and planning with each using

PowerPoint on a frequent basis and the internet to access resources. Nick’s teaching

approach was lecture and discussion. He described his teaching:

Well, normally speaking, I do a lot of discussion. So I’ll use a PowerPoint to provide some information. Sometimes I put questions within the PowerPoint that we’ll use as basis for discussion. Other times I just stop the PowerPoint and slide to the kids and talk about it.

As department chair, Nick had purchased a SmartBoard for his classroom, which he used

to help students with comprehension of the text. While Mandy’s teaching style involved

lecture using PowerPoint, she usually had students apply the information to assignments

9

often involving various types of student creativity. In addition, she had tried to use a

classroom set of laptops but without success. She also took students to the computer lab

She stated:

I do have the kids go out to the computer lab quite a lot or to the computer lab. in the library and have them actually hands-on use the equipment. They learn how to surf the web, how to research certain documents, data bases, things like that and then using the new CPS system when it’s up and running.

Allen, the mentor teacher for George, used little technology other than an occasional

video. He described his use of technology as very limited. He explained that this was

partly due to having spent six years in third world countries after college.

The three interns varied in the degree to which they modeled the pedagogy and

technology use of their mentors. Of the three interns, Amber and her mentor, Mandy,

were the most similar in pedagogy and in their use of technology. Amber described how

she worked with her mentor:

We sat down together and pretty much did our presentations together. We really worked together and made sure that we presented the same knowledge to both of our classes so they would be on the same page. We both used the same test. And, so we would work together to use the technology. We showed a lot of the same movies, used a lot of the same music, so we did a lot of the same things as far as using technology in the classroom.

Sandra and her mentor Nick both used technology to enhance instruction. Sandra

described the way they worked together: “If he had a PowerPoint, he would let me look

at it to see if there was anything I was forgetting or anything I could incorporate with the

SmartBoard.” However, while Nick relied heavily on lecture, Sandra differed in her

approach. She stated, “He is an awesome lecturer, not lecturer, he doesn’t stand back

10

there, but he gets the class involved by talking to them, getting them involved. He likes

worksheets a lot, and I can’t lecture for an hour and thirty minutes, I just can’t do it.” She

described her style as involving “more hands on activities and group work.” Although

both Sandra and her mentor used technology for teacher presentation, Sandra also took

students to the computer lab. She stated, “but the computer lab, I kind of did on my

own. He wasn’t a big computer lab person.” She said by the end of the internship that

they got to use the computer lab a lot. She stated: “First I was taking them to the library

computer lab but that was just too distracting. So the computer lab, we went to a lot and

they did their own research, their own graphics, they typed it out, and they had all sorts of

technology.”

Finally, George and his mentor Allen were very similar in their general approach

to pedagogy. They both used lecture and worksheets. However, unlike his mentor

George used PowerPoint to present the information. He described other areas in which

their approach differed. He stated, “We discussed problems with behavior. I think I

would change some things, my style is different from him. I think he understood it and let

me do my thing there, too. He didn’t even interfere with that. When I tried to tighten up

certain rules in the class, he didn’t get in the way at all.” In relation to technology use,

Allen rarely used technology other than to show a video. George commented on this in

his final interview: “That’s probably the biggest weakness in my internship. He didn’t use

it [technology]. I don’t think it was because he didn’t want to use it. I don’t think he was

really familiar with the resources that were available to him.”

In relation to teacher use of technology, both Amber and Sandra described receiving good

mentoring from their partnership teacher. Amber described her mentor: “She [Mandy]

11

modeled and supported my use of technology. She is a digital goddess.” Sandra

described the role played by her partnership teacher. “He [Nick] 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.’” For both interns, their teachers modeled, supported and gave them guidance in

teacher use of technology. George, however, received only minimal mentoring from his

partnership teacher in relation to technology. He described him as, “not even a model of

support. Well, he was supportive, he didn’t say don’t use them. But, he didn’t say use

them. It is something I picked up on my own. The only thing he told me was how to book

the computer lab. That was the extent of his help.”

In relation to teacher directed student use of technology, Amber received some

modeling and guidance from her mentor. However, neither George nor Sandra’s

partnership teacher had students use technology. Sandra described using the computer

lab on her own. She recognized that her style of teaching was different from her mentor

and stated, “He knew when my teaching was way too different from his teaching that I

might want to get someone else’s opinion.” While George’s mentor was supportive of

him taking the students to the computer lab, he received little guidance. George stated,

“The only thing he told me was how to book the computer lab.”

The three social studies cases reveal a wide range in the mentoring provided by

partnership teachers to the interns in the use of technology. Based on the cases, three

models of mentoring between partnership teacher and intern are described. The models

represent three cases out of a variety of possible mentoring relationships in both general

pedagogy use and technology use. Moreover, while the models show a variety of

12

mentoring and uses of technology, they are not seen as representing the full range of

options.

In Model 1, which depicts the relationship of Amber and her mentor Mandy, the

intern models the partnership teacher’s general pedagogy and use of technology.

Model 1: Intern models Mentor’s full teaching practice Mentor Intern

General Pedagogy:Lecture with use of guided practice including creative assignments

Intern models mentor’s practice

Same

Technology Use:Mainly teacher use but with some student use

Intern models mentor’s use of technology

Same

In Model 2, which depicts the relationship of Sandra and her mentor Tim, the

intern partly models the partnership teacher’s general pedagogy. The intern models

teacher use of technology but introduces student use of technology.

Model 2: Intern modifies Mentor’s practice Mentor Intern

General Pedagogy:Lecture, with ppt, discussion and work sheets

Intern uses lecture but includes creative assignments for student application and reinforcement of learning

Lecture with ppt plus creative student assignments

Technology Use:Teacher use only: Ppt and Smartboard

Intern models mentor’s use of technology. Intern has students use technology

Primarily teacher use but with some in class student use

In Model 3, which depicts the relationship of George and his mentor Allen, the

intern models the parternship teacher’s general pedagogy but receives no modeling or

guidance in emerged or emerging technology.

Model 3: Intern models Mentor’s general pedagogy

13

Mentor InternGeneral Pedagogy:

Lecture with use of worksheets

Intern models mentor’s practice

Same

Technology Use:No use of emerged or emerging technology

No modeling or guidance Intern uses ppt for instructional presentation

Discussion:

The study raises important issues about how technology is being used in teaching

and learning and the mentoring provided to interns. The perspective emphasizing the

local context in shaping technology use, together with a view of the teaching profession

as based on craft knowledge, offers insights in understanding technology use in this

study as well as intern mentoring. The picture presented by this research is of wide

variation in the use of technology even in classrooms in the same school. Intern

mentoring in the use of technology likewise shows significant variation with some interns

provided with modeling and guidance and others left to guide themselves. In addition, as

partnership teachers were only identified by 35% of interns as the main source of support

for technology integration, several other groups are playing an important role in interns

use of technology. The number of groups identified as supporting interns use of

technology could be viewed as a positive sign of a broad basis of support, or as the

resourcefulness of interns in finding help. On the other hand, the large percentage

identifying other soursces of support beside their partnership teacher raises questions

about the quality of mentoring as well as the lack of adequate mentoring from the

partnership teachers.

14

Given the dominant paradigm in social studies of teacher centered classrooms, it

is not surprising that technology is primarily being used for teacher use in instruction and

planning. There are only limited examples of teacher directed student use of technology.

15

The wide variation in the use of technology by the three social studies teachers

particularly given that they were at the same school, supports Burney’s observation of

teaching guided more by craft knowledge than by a sense of shared ideas or knowledge

base about effective use of technology. This lack of a shared knowledge base would

appear to be particularly troubling in terms of the mentoring of interns in the use of

technology.

16

Figure 1: Model of school ecosystem – Zaho and Frank, 2003

President Nation Legislature

Institutions Resources

17

Governor State Legislature

School Board District Community

Administrators School Other Teachers

ClassroomExistingBeliefs

Teachers

Teaching Practices

Students ExistingTechnology

NewTechnology

Figure 2: Model of Intern Mentoring in Technology – Adapted from Zhao & Frank, 2003

President Nation Legislature

Institutions Resources

Institutions Resources

18

Governor State Legislature

School Board District Community

Administrators School Other Teachers

Classroom

Influences on Intern’s Use of Technology

MentorDiscipline specific

Pedagogy Use of Technology

Other TeachersOther InternsUniversity SupervisorSchool Technology Coord.

Traditional Technology

InternDiscipline Specific

PedagogyUse of Technology

Emerged and Emerging Technology

References

Berson, M.J., Balyta, P. (2004). Technological thinking and practice in the social studies:

transcending the tumultuous adolescence of reform. International Society for

Technology in Education, 20(4), 141-150.

Burney, D. (2004). Craft knowledge: The road to transforming schools. Phi Delta

Kappan 85 (7), 526-531.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in

high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American

Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 813-834.

Dewitt, S.W. (2005). Computer use in high school social studies classrooms: a

comparative case study within social class context. (Doctorial dissertation,

University at Buffalo, 2005).

Dexter, S., & Riedel, E. (2003). Why improving preservice teacher educational

technology preparation must go beyond the college’s walls. Journal of Teacher

Education 54 (4), 334-346.

Hicks, D., Doolittle, P., & Lee, J. K. (2004). Social studies teachers’ use of classroom-

based and web-based historical primary sources. Theory and Research in Social

Education, 32(2), 213-247.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), The National Educational

Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T), 2003 [On-line]. Available:

http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_profile-stu.html

19

Lemke, C. & Coughlin, E. (1998). Technology in American Schools: Seven Dimensions

for Gauging Progress. California: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

[On-line]. Available: http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=158

Manchester, M.M. (2001). History.edu. In D.A. Tinkle & S.A. Merriman (Ed.), “Doing

history” evaluating technologies that promote active learning in the history

classroom (pp. 108-116). New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Means, B., Roschelle, J., Penuel, W., Sabelli, N. & Haertel, G. (2003). Technology’s

contribution to teaching and policy: Efficiency, standardization, or

transformation? In R. Floden (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp.159-

182). Washington, DC: AERA.

Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teacher’s use of information and communications

technology: a review of the literature, Journal of Information Technology for

Teacher Education, 9(3) pp. 319-341.

Pedretti, E., Smith-Mayer, J. & Woodrow, J. (1999). Teaming technology enhanced

instruction in the science classroom and teacher professional development,

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7, pp. 131-143.

Robertson, S. I., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., O’Shea, T. & Lambrechts, G. (1996).

Pupils, teachers and palmtop computers, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,

12, pp. 194-204.

Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher

technology use: Implications of preservice and inservice teacher preparation.

Journal of Teacher Education 54 (4), 297-310.

20

U.S. Department of Education Retrieved 4/5/2004 from the Department of Education

Website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/teachtech/index.html?exp=0

Veen, W. (1993). How teacher use computers in instructional practice: four case studies

in a Dutch secondary school, Computers and Education, 21(1/2) pp. 1-8.

Zhao.Y., & Frank, K.A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an

ecological

perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.

21