Mentoring in a 9-12 Setting
I had the ideal teacher in mind to approach with this request. Since I was working three days a week as a media specialist and attending classes the other two days that year, it worked well to be able to choose a colleague. The duties of my real job and the mentoring class overlapped tremendously, so it was a nice fit.
Amy Jones, Columbia High School French teacher, agreed to work with me for this project. She had taught AP French over the Iowa Communications Network (ICN), which is a fiber optic network connecting many schools throughout Iowa with interactive video and audio. She had participated in local technology staff development, as well as an intensive foreign language institute, so she had a fairly good background in the use of a variety of technologies. Originally, we planned to meet during one of her planning periods each week or for one hour after school. The specific day would likely vary depending on her schedule or mine. Typically, the sessions were to take place during her planning period.

Highlights of the Sessions

September

Since we had known each other for about twenty years both professionally and personally, the preliminary getting acquainted session was held over the telephone early in the semester. Mary indicated that her goal was to include more technology in her French 1, 3, and 4 classes. She felt that Advanced Placement (AP) French students might not benefit as much, since more technology wasnit likely to help them pass their AP exams in the spring. Her new textbooks included several Internet activities, so she also wanted help with those. In most cases, these activities involved more than simple searching on the Internet, so we could view the infusion of technology into a curriculum from another angle.
Another of her goals resulted from her participation in the New Technologies in Foreign Language Institute at Iowa State University. During those eight days, she heard about a Jeopardy game that a presenter had created. She bought a copy and hoped to learn how to use the game in her French classes.
My first goal was to help her connect the computer, a presentation device, and the 32i monitor in her classroom. With copies of one or more of the activities in her teacheris guide and the Jeopardy program, I could then show her how the presentation process worked.
Weeks went by in an attempt to get the Jeopardy game to work. Email message after email message was sent to and received from the creator of the program with finally a promise of another disk. Two more weeks went by without sight of the diskette. Unfortunately, his web page didnit contain anything except ordering information. I was also one step ahead of each of his suggestions as they came through the email.

October

One Friday, Mary and I developed a list of other options that we can try while we waited on the Jeopardy diskette. The goals that she choose were:

i Find a way to download the worksheets that accompany the French 1 text from the Holt, Rinehart, and Winston web site (www.hrw.com). These worksheets included other sites that relate to the French 1 course.
i Learn to show the Internet on the 32i monitor in her classroom.
i Find sites with current French money and the new Euros, since the textbook still had only the older monetary illustrations.
i Look into other web searches that French 3 and French 4 students might do.
One French 4 discussion topic was Roman and Gothic cathedrals. Some of these attractions actually had web sites relating to them, so finding a list of addresses would be helpful. When I asked her to consider challenging her students to do this work, she was a little hesitant.
I suggested that she think of ways that students might demonstrate their knowledge as a result of Web searches (and maybe even book searches). I suggested that they might develop a ClarisWorks slide show or simply show a Web site and talk about it with the class. She was a little unsure about the value of these activities.

However, before the end of the session, I made sure that we connected the computer and the large screen monitor. Then with one click of her video distribution remote, she had the computer screen on the large monitor, with an option to zoom into one of nine areas of the screen at a time. There was only one magnification, but she was still quite pleased with the result. The next week we planned to explore the options for student use of the equipment. I think she was surprised at how easy the large screen connection in her room was to operate. She had been teaching in the ICN room for a couple of years and was a little spoiled with that great setup, but I think she was pleasantly surprised that she could easily do some of the same things right in her classroom.

Since the first time I tried to print parts of the HRW web page, I discovered that my old Personal Laser Writer did not work with some web sites, but my color printer did. So we had to find a printer at school that would work. In my role as the library media specialist, I also needed to find a way to bring her older computer up to speed with Netscape Communicator 4.5 in order for her to open the HRW site. This seemed to require a newer version of Open Transporter, which in turn required a newer System software. When another teacher and I tried to download it from the Apple site, there was a charge! Apparently, my initial information about it being free was inaccurate. More telephone calls, more notes, more work and still not much progress!

November

Our mid-morning session did not work very well. Mary thought she shouldnit waste my valuable time in school and didnit want to burden me with coming in on my days off. I tried to explain that I needed to do it one way or another for my class credit. I also suggested that we might need to spend time during a weekend, if we couldnit find enough time during the week!

I decided to try one more time with the Jeopardy game, since the promised diskette still hadn't arrived. It seemed to represent a new version of vaporware. Against all rules of mentoring and puzzling problems out together, I finally solved the problem on my own and shared the solution with Mary. This seemed to fit our time constraints and her expectations better, without really jeopardizing (pun intended) the mentoring.
Mary and I met in the ICN room, since Microsoft Office 98 is loaded on the Power Macintosh there. I brought a diskette named French and the program renamed to QuizzIt without any additional characters. I then showed her that the alias on the desktop was for the older PowerPoint not the newer version. We finally seemed to have the right combination and QuizzIt opened. Apparently, we were using the older version of PowerPoint the first time we tried the program.

I show her how to make an alias of the right program and name it PowerPoint 98, so there will be no confusion in the future. I helped her save the document to the hard drive, since we arenit sure how big the file would be once she added quiz items. We talked about the process we were using as we worked.
Then I briefly showed her some of the features of PowerPoint, especially the various views, beginning with the slide view and then the sorter view and how to move or select slides. When we hit the slide show view, she exclaims, iThatis it,i with great relief that we actually found what she expected to be on the diskette. My relief was just as great. It seemed as though we would never reach this plateau, especially before my class deadline at the end of the semester. Then we used the Escape key to return to the program where we looked at the slide view and how to make changes to a slide, and finally, we checked the outline view. Of the four views, she preferred the outline option and started to enter vocabulary words. She had created a very nice chart of the whole layout, so this step went quickly. It was obvious that she had spent some time preparing to use this game, so it was especially nice to finally see it work.

Before she entered too many items, I suggested that we check to be sure that the game actually worked right. Since I have no clue how it was supposed to work, I asked her to show me. She reiterated her favorite phrase, iRemember, I was the dumbest one in the class, so how can I show you?i To which I reply, iI wasnit there and you at least saw it work, so you know more than I do. Letis try it.i Unfortunately, when we clicked on a category in the slide show, gave an answer, checked it, and then returned to the opening window, that category was now blank! We tried a iSave Asi command and a iClosei command without saving, but either way the category was blank. We were going to have to look for an autosave option and see if it could be turned off and on. Automatic saving might be great when a class is actually playing the game, but it sure was a nuisance while we were learning. Perhaps it was just built into the template that she purchased.
Luckily, we actually had one file with a class name and the original file. When we open the original, all the categories are fine. This gave me an opportunity to reiterate the importance of saving the file with a new name for each class and also to show her how copy and paste commands work. Since I was not sure what the designer did to the template, this gave me a chance to say, iLetis see if this will work. If it doesnit we can just start over again.i I hoped that this sense of not being able to ruin anything would encourage her be more adventuresome in other computer endeavors. In this case, the copy and paste commands brought back all the vocabulary and translations that she had just entered. At this point, I donned my library media specialist hat and went across the hall to a meeting. She was on her own and quite satisfied with the progress.

When I checked back in a little later, we talked some more about how she might use this program with her class. She said that they had just completed the chapter with these words in them, but I suggested that she might use it as a review or as an introduction to the game. I also suggested that she consider using the ICN room and its computer until we could find another option. I added that then she could even bring her classes to the ICN room for the games. She replied iI never thought of that. The kids love to come down here and with two big screens it should be even better than in my room.i At this point, the technology had just become a tool to assist in thinking outside the box. That could be as important as her increased computer skills.

We also discussed some options that might be handier for her or other teachers who might want to try a game format like this. The ICN room was easy for her to use, since she uses it regularly. Her planning period was right after her ICN class, so she could simply stay in the room to create a game. It appeared that creating a QuizzIt file probably took only about a half hour to create, once all the kinks were worked out. Later, we hoped to put Power Point Player on her computer for the times she wanted to use her room instead of the ICN room. Another option we talked about was to put an iMac with Office 98 on it and make it available for staff members to check out from the media center. I assured her that an iMac was as fast or faster than the computers in the ISU lab that she used during the Institute and definitely faster than the 7500 we were using in the ICN room.

This activity was exactly what Mary wanted to do, so progress now proceeded rapidly. We covered terms, such as the difference between a program like PowerPoint and a file or template such as the Jeopardy game. We discuss the basic operations of PowerPoint and how its commands, such as copy and paste which were very familiar to her from her use of ClarisWorks, applied to this new situation. We talked some more about options for keeping score, since this game didnit seem to have that feature built into it. Then I mentioned the difference between shareware games such as this one and more expensive ones that might automatically keep score and also allow random access to the vocabulary words. I told her that I would like to sit in on a game session once she has it ready. She was excited and I was satisfied, but she continued to protest that I was spending too much time helping her. It is nice to be appreciated!

December

We finally tried the CD-ROM discs that came with her new textbook. In a fashion typical of our experience so far, the first one didnit work! So I took it to another computer, to be sure the problem was not in the use of her slightly older computer. Even on a Power PC it didnit work. Then with a little mental problem solving, I decided to check the other two CDs in the folder. Sure enough, both of them included the Installer, and lo and behold, both of them work. So I checked in again with Mary later and explained the situation. She agreed to take care of requesting a replacement CD from the company. She used the second CD and installed the program on her computer, connected it to the large monitor, and voilananother goal was met. We are getting better!

Summary and Conclusions

Between the readings and discussions in class, the literature review, and the mentoring process itself, I am delighted to report that the experience worked equally well at the high school level as it does at the university level. As each of the stories unfolded in the other chapters, obviously the success level is more than acceptable. Maryis own words about the process are included at the end of this case study. Some other areas that she and I might explore later include a simulation of Philippeis adventures in Paris from Syracuse Learning and perhaps email. She has some reservation about trying an e-mail pen pal activity, because she believes that access to technology is limited in most French speaking places. Perhaps we can look for a Quebec school or find web sites with e-mail requests.

Two examples illustrate Maryis confidence and her technology growth. First, she was able to fix an audio problem with the CD and the large monitor with only verbal directions from me. Later, she decided to use the CD in the ICN room and installed the program on that computer, again without help, in fact without even needing the verbal directions. In her own words, iLook, no mentor needed!i
In addition to what we gained that directly relates to technology mentoring, we are better problem-solvers in regards to the equipment and software, as well as classroom activities and projects. This is a step toward infusion of technology in one classroom. As Darling-Hammond (1992) says, the process has been as important as the content.

The future

One-on-one mentoring became one focus of technology staff development in our high school and continues to be the research focus in my doctoral program. More details are provided at the end of the description of the experiences of a larger group of secondary school teachers later in this chapter.

From the viewpoint of the mentee

As far as Iim concerned, working with Jeannette Babcock this semester has been a very successful endeavor. She has spent a lot of time helping me improve on what I know and having me feel more and more comfortable about using the computer in the classroom. We have worked on computer units to use in class, a computer Jeopardy game and the CD-ROM programs that accompany my new French I textbook.

The computer Jeopardy game took hours for her to have up and running for me, so that I can use it in class with students. Not only did it involve time with me AND computer time, but she had to correspond extensively with its author to have it be compatible with my computer.

Jeannette has been VERY helpful in suggesting new computer projects to be incorporated into my curriculum. When we were studying Gothic and Roman architecture in French IV, she thought it would be a good idea for each student to take a different cathedral or church, do a web search on it, then present what he had found in class, on the computer, but over the Dynacom system so that the whole class could benefit. The students really enjoyed the unit; both they and I learned a lot more about the architecture of that time period, AND it took very little outside preparation on my part, for the students.

Fortunately for me, Jeannetteis schedule is very compatible with mine, so I know weill spend a lot more time together, adding technology to my curriculum. Sheis been extremely easy to work with and more important, sheis been very patient with this computer rookie.
Amy Jones, Columbia High School French teacher

Mentor Me Thus!
The Columbia High School Experience
What knowledge and skills do teachers need?

Technology competencies for teachers are being addressed by many groups. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) recently released a revision of its previous lists of compentencies in this area for teachers (ISTE, 2000). This information is also available on their web site, www.iste.org at the Update icon. The Colorado Department of Education provides a similar list of technology competencies for teachers and media specialists (Colorado, 1999).
Surveys, competency lists, and even rubrics are featured in journal articles, workshops, and presentations. Bray (1999a, 1999b) provided such a rubric at an Area Educational Agency (AEA) technology institute and encouraged attendees to adopt or adapt it as desired, which we did. Many school districts are sharing similar instruments. Wolinsky (1999) used a staff self-assessment study based on an adaptation of the Bellingham School District's adaptation of the Mankato Scale. Award winning schools often use similar appraisal instruments (Richardson, 2000). Atkins and Vasu (1998) and Zehr (1999) offer similar models. Such surveys of teacher needs direct staff development more appropriately than the typical one-size-fits-all approach of other models.

Vojtek and O'Brien Vojtek (1999) suggest that the technology standards for students developed by ISTE and American Library Association (ALA) can be used to develop a framework of skills and knowledge that teachers need to help students use technology more effectively. Brearton & Shuttleworth (1999) add that content area standards can also be used to determine what teachers need to know and be able to do and that such information should direct staff development plans.

What do teachers need and want in a staff development program?

Many of the staff development models that were tried during the past two decades lacked, what ACOT researchers found in their second decade of research, namely followup and ongoing support (Apple, 1995). In the last five years, the emphasis has been on more collaboration, support, and collegiality in staff development and school improvement plans (Topper, 2000).

Flexibility, time, and financial support are also important to a successful program (Clouse & Alexander, 1997; Denton, 1999). Acknowledgment, incentives, and rewards are also valuable to teachers (Black, 1998). Pratt (1997) effectively combines many of the ideas presented thus far with balance between teacher skills and curriculum implementations, connections to classroom practice, and identification of technology competencies by working with a partner. Bailey & Pownell (1998) mention similar needs, namely recognition, time, support, and continual innovation.

Plans for collecting data and assessing the effectiveness of the staff development program are essential for its success. Several researchers and authors provide ideas to consider (Cadiero-Kaplan, 1999; Porter,1999; Wolinsky, 1999). These include surveys, questionnaires, cost-effectiveness studies, and appropriate goal setting. The rubrics mentioned earlier can also be used to chart teachers' progress. See www.edtechplanners.com for additional ideas.

What don't teachers need or want in a staff development program?

Teachers frequently complain when staff development is held before the technology is available for them to use. When, and if, it is available, they need the staff development repeated. They also don't like to sit through sessions that repeat what they already know. Inconvenient times are another problem for many teachers, especially those responsible for extracurricular activities.

Columbia High School Pilot Study

Based on reviews of the literature and the personal experience with one-on-one mentoring described in the beginning of this chapter, I proposed to the Columbia High School Technology Team that we try a process similar to the ISU one. Several teachers applied to be mentors or mentees and we chose seven mentors and nine mentees. Two district technology people assisted me in the selection. We thus had an opportunity to study various combinations: one-on-one, one-on-two, and two-on-three based on the goals of the mentees and the expertise of the mentors.

We struggled with the details of the program the first semester. We spent some time determining requirements and the direction that the group would take. A district technology staff person worked with us and offered excellent suggestions. The mentors helped each other a lot. Perhaps for the first semester, that was really the strength of the program. The mentors attempted to meet every other week for about 45 minutes to encourage each other, to share new technology developments, and to report on their mentoring progress.

At first it seemed like the mentors struggled with the hardware. They were given Power Books to use in their classrooms and as their personal computers. This way they were able to take the computer with them for mentee sessions, if necessary. The portability also encouraged them to put in a lot of their own time increasing their technology skills.

Once the mentors and mentees were working as collaborative teams, they were directed to set goals, based on the mentees' needs and placement on the technology rubric. The mentors were expected to meet with their mentees about an hour every other week. In between those sessions, they could learn what was needed on their own, share expertise with other mentor's, take AEA staff development classes alone or with a mentee, and/or ask for assistance from the two leaders. They were also encouraged to use some excellent programs from the Internet on their own, with their mentee, or with other mentors. Again, this allowed them to structure the staff development time to meet busy schedules.

The Riverdeep LOGAL math and science simulation program that we piloted the previous year offers online staff development. I encouraged the math and science teams to use this resource, but maybe that suggestion was a little premature. They had other more pressing goals. Perhaps it will be an option for another year. Cifarelli (1998) describes another such online staff development program. Her "anytime, anywhere" philosophy of staff development matched my vision for both staff development and information technology. Mather (2000) adds that professional development online allows teachers to choose the time and location for their learning.

The mentoring model of technology staff development addresses the teacher needs and staff development needs listed in this chapter and elsewhere in this book. We are in the process of seeing just how well it works.

Progress to Date

Following the one semester pilot study, this program was expanded to 10 mentors and 11 mentees during the following school year. There have been some ups and downs. We quickly realized that we needed to direct the goal setting, so that it went beyond software skill development. We strongly suggested that the mentors encourage their mentees to pick a technology competency that they wanted to improve, but also to select one area of their curriculum to change so that students would also expand their use of technology. One mentee had another agenda and we didn't help the mentor enough to bring the goals more in line with the expectations.

The mentors spent about half their time working with their mentees. They spent the other half about evenly between personal learning to increase their own technology competencies and supporting each other formally through meetings or informally.

During the selection process for the first set of mentors, we quickly realized that we needed written criteria to help make the next selection more accurate. We developed a rubric based on the mentor application. It improved both quality of the applications and the ease of the selection process. We also used the technology competency rubric adopted by the entire district as another part of the selection of both mentors and mentees.

As with all projects, there were some problems. Some of the mentors put in the recommended number of hours; others didn't quite do so. Schedule conflicts were still a problem, even though each pair was allowed to pick the time and place for mentoring sessions. The logistics of the personal ownership of the PowerBooks plagued us all semester and is not quite resolved. Mentee incentives were never determined and this caused one problem. Accountability has been a concern of administrators, but some recommended changes for the future seem to address that issue satisfactorily. We will try a three year process. During the first year, mentors will spend slightly more time on their own learning. During the second and third years, mentors will increase their time with mentees each year. Also, third year mentors will be encouraged to share their expertise with larger groups. As this program evolves from year to year, hopefully we will keep the best of one-on-one mentoring and modify it to meet our local needs.

However, the excitement, professional conversations, collaboration, and feelings of accomplishment exhibited in the first few months of this project indicated that this was a very successful and effective method of staff development. Other people asked when they could become mentors or mentees. This plan used the elements of staff development recommended by the researchers as likely to be most effective and it seemed to be working.

Of course, until several waves of mentors reach an equal number of mentees, we won't have the whole staff involved. We are hoping to add at least four more sets of mentors and mentees for the second full year of this program, which will bring the number of participants to about thirty. Additional study will be needed to determine whether this process is success or not over time. Unfortunately, more traditional models often failed to reach even the number of staff members who are now actively talking infusion of technology into the curriculum.

Comments from Mentors and Mentees [actual names left out]

Wow! (When something was shared between mentors and it worked).
This graphing calculator is awesome. (Mentor learning along with mentee).
The excitement of the two mentees in learning new uses for the video distribution system and the computer to TV connection is gratifying for me.
Student presentations were well done and met the expectations of the instructor (mentee as reported to the mentor).
I am excited with [my mentee's] enthusiasm to use technology in his science classes.
I enjoyed the [mentee's] excitement.
It allows effective communication, one on one questions and answers. (Mentee)
My goals were discussed and modified so they would meet student goals as well. I was able to bounce around ideas, then try one! Mentor was exceptional.
Teacher centered.
I learned so much and spent about 5 hours a week since February [to May] of my own time working on what I learned.
Wealth of new material.
Opened up new plans for speeches.
The fact that my mentor and I had common planning periods made meeting easy for us. I enjoy the coaching approach.
I felt somewhat intimidated when I had to tell (mentor) some of the things that I didn't know how to do.
Having mentor and mentee close by each other was a strength of the program.
I am always surprised at how much I learn in various situations.
I am confident that this program is going to be an excellent learning opportunity for me as I work with the other mentors.

References

vApple, Inc. (1995). Apple education research reports: A collection that highlights the role of technology in teaching and learning. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Also http://www.apple.com/euro/pdfs/acot.library
vAtkins, N.E. & Vasu, E.S. (1998, May). The teaching with technology instrument: Effectively measuring where teachers are and planning for staff development. Learning & Leading with Technology, 25, (8), 35-39.
vBailey, G.D. & Pownell, D. (1998, November). Technology staff-development and support programs: Applying Abraham Maslow's hierachy of needs. Learning & Leading with Technology, 26, (3). 47-51, 64.
vBlack, L.H. (1998). Computing survival skills: Training the workforce to stay abreast of technology. Cause/Effect, 21, (4), 49-52. Also http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/cem984a.html.
vBray, B. (1999, November). Eight steps to success: Technology staff development that works. Learning & Leading with Technology, 27, (3), 14-20.
vBray, B. (1999b). Heartland AEA Technology Leadership Institute. Des Moines, IA, January, 1999.
vBrearton, M.S. & Shuttleworth, S. (1999). Racing a comet. Journal of Staff Development, 20, (1). 30-33.
vCadiero-Kaplan, K. (1999). Collaborative technology development: A staff development model for integrating computers into school curriculum. California.
vClouse, R.W. & Alexander, E. (1997). Classrooms of the 21st century: Teacher competence, confidence and collaboration. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 26, (2), 97-111.
vColorado (1999). Colorado technology competency guidelines for classroom teachers and school library media specialists. Colorado Department of Education, January, 1999. Also http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdedepcom/et_stand.htm
vDarling-Hammond, L. (1992). Building learner-centered schools: Developing professional capacity, policy, and political consensus. One of three papers in Building learner-centered schools: Three perspectives. New York: Columbia University.
vISTE. (2000, April). ISTE Update, 12, (7), 1-2. Also http:// www.iste.org at the Update icon.
O'Brien Vojtek, R. & Vojtek, R. (1998). Harnessing technology to improve student learning: An interview with Linda Roberts. Journal of Staff Development, 19, (1), 4-16.
vPorter, B. (1999, April). Data lends schools a helping hand. T.H.E. Journal, 26, (9). 28, 30, 32, 34-35.
vPratt, J. (1997). Managing curriculum development: Using school teacher appraisal to find the means. In B. Somekh and N. Davis (Eds.), Using information technology effectively in teaching and learning: Studies in pre-service and in-service teacher education (pp. 239-253). London & New York: Routledge.
vTopper, A. (2000, April). Professional growth: Theoretical rationale. Michigan State University College of Education. Retrieved April 6, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/letsnet/frames/bigideas/b9/b9theor.html
vVojtek, B. and O'Brien Vojtek, R. (1999). Flung into motion. Journal of Staff Development, 20, (1). 67-69.
vWolinsky, A. (1999, March). What works in staff development. MultiMedia Schools, 6, (2). 36-40. Also, http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/mar99/wolinsky.htm.
vZehr, M.A. (1999, September 23). Moving teachers along a competency continuum. Education Week, 19, (4), 41.