A mentor is simply someone who helps you learn something you might not have learned, or would have learned more slowly or with more difficulty if you had to learn it completely on your own.

Introduction
Mentoring is a deliberate act of dedicating time to assist someone in a pursuit. This task can be rewarding if the mentor is committed to the idea of helping. Mentoring requires the developing of a plan, working the plan, and evaluating the plan for effectiveness (Johnson, Huwe, & Fallow, 1999). The purpose of this paper is to examining the tenets of a semester long mentoring relationship between a graduate student and a faculty member in a technology course. The primary purpose of mentoring is learning. Mentors and mentees need to focus on learning, have clear goals and objectives, and keep learning at the forefront of activities (Zachary, 2000).

It is imperative that this paper takes the constructivist view because the mentoring experienced in this college course adopted the learning-by-doing approach. As part of the introduction of this paper, the growing use of technology and a profile of both mentor and mentee will be furnished. The paper will further explore the mentoring process including the challenges, triumphs, and the proliferation of technology use in today's college classroom. The paper will conclude with suggestions for strategies to be employed in approaching the mentoring process differently and some mentoring tips.

The growing use of technology:

The ubiquity of computer technology has impacted all areas of life in and out of the classroom (Lee, 1997; Townsend, 1997). Do new technology change the traditional approach to teaching and learning? Are the technologies changing interpersonal relations in the classroom? Are teachers properly prepared to use technology in their classroom? (Wild, 1996; Duhaney, 1999). Can an instructor survive in today's college classroom without some knowledge of technology? Will Generation "Xers" tolerate a class where technology is neither integrated nor used?
Many students are attending college being "techno-savvy ." Instructors are expected to "come-on-board" the technology train and deliver instruction to these techo-savvy students-using technology. Is this too hard to do? According to Green (2000) many instructors get the feeling that they must use technology in sophisticated ways even though they lack training. The reality is, in many instances, some students are more advanced in the use of technology than their teachers/instructors. So, what can a professor who is cognizant of this fact do to help instructors learn how to use technology in the college classroom? Design a course where students having knowledge about technology can mentor faculty members in using and integrating technology in their classes at no additional cost to the institution.

Trotter (1999) describes today's college students as having a "natural affinity for technology" (p. 45). There are instances where students can be asked to help their instructors develop skills in using technology. Chisholm (1994) gives a classical example of how students can be used as teaching resources in helping instructors and other student develop technology skills.
A multidirectional technology learning paradigm has been postulated by Chisholm, whereby administrators learn from instructors, instructors learn from each other, instructors learn from students, students learn from instructors, and students learn from each other. In this regard, teaching and learning become reciprocal and multidimensional as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Multidimensional teaching and learning web

Using this multidirectional reciprocal model, I will navigate readers through the student mentoring faculty program as part of the requirement for Curriculum and Instruction (CI610) at Iowa State University (ISU). This program has been beneficial to both instructors and students over the past decade.

In this class, all four dimensions of Chisholm's multidirectional teaching and learning web was at work. However, the student-mentoring faculty was the strongest link. However, it was found that students mentored instructors and mentoring was reciprocated whereby there are times when instructors mentored students. In addition, students mentored students informally because of the supportive network that was created in the class. Each week there is a debriefing session whereby students spoke of their triumphs and challenges. It is not uncommon for students having challenges with a concept or technology issue found another student to get needed help. In fact, one student suggested that another student in the class mentored her constantly. In addition, there were times when a student invited his/her colleague to work with the mentee. Instructors also received help from each other in dealing with various technology issues in this multidimensional mentoring model.

Background

Technology and teacher education (CI610) has been offered to students in the CIT department for the past decade. This is a 2-3 credits class offered each fall semester. Students taking the class for 2 credits are required to mentor a faculty member and turn in a paper at the end of the semester. Students who opt for 3 credits will mentor one or two faculty members and submit a journal article at the end of the semester. Noteworthy is the fact that all students were required to keep a journal of the mentoring activities. The class instructor who gave students constructive feedback assessed this journal.

Faculty members interested in the mentoring program indicate their willingness to the CI 610 instructor. Generally, students choose a mentee based on student's area(s) of expertise, strengths and interest as well as the interests and needs of the mentee. This is not always the case because there were situations whereby students become a mentor and they have to learn the software and/or the technological application the mentee had an interest in. It was not uncommon for both mentor and mentee to learn some technology application during the mentoring process. In the next section a profile of the mentee and mentor in this case study will be provided.

Mentee profile:

Dr. A has been a professor of special education at ISU for the past 24years in the department of curriculum and instruction. His class Special Education 250 is a prerequisite for several other courses in the teacher education program and it also satisfies the diversity requirement across the university. As a result, he has a class of over 250 students each semester. This class is held in a large lecture hall that is technology friendly. Therefore, access to technology is not an obstacle for my mentee.

In studies carried out by Leggett & Persichitte (1998) and Moskal, Martin, and Foshee (1997) three major obstacles to technology integration were identified: (1) lack of required equipment in the classroom, (2) lack of time to learn how to use technology, and (3) lack of funds. Other factors cited in the literature includes pedagogical issues, organizational issues related to incentives and rewards, change in practice, and expertise (Beaudoin, 1990; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Schrum, 1995).

In addition the literature suggests that teachers/instructors personal characteristics, workloads, technical and administrative problems, and fear of reduced student interaction are barriers for technology integration. In this mentoring project, many of the challenges listed above were non-issues for my mentee. First, the classroom where Dr. A has his class is equipped with all the technology "bells and whistles" including Internet connection. Second, the issue of time was negotiated from the first meeting. We were aware of the requirements for meeting at least one hour per week. We worked our schedules accordingly and kept our weekly appointments. Finally, the areas of funding, pedagogy, and organizational issues were not barriers to learning and integrating technology in Dr. A's class. Learning how to integrate technology at the pace one is comfortable with, in a non-threatening environment with one's own equipment makes for the shift in paradigm to embrace technology worthwhile (Carr, 1999). For the past few semesters, Dr. A has integrated technology in his class enthusiastically.

Dr. A has infused technology in his class through the use of power point presentations and blackboard.com as the managing soft ware for his classes. The infusing of technology in the educational process has presented new ways in which Dr A enlivens and enriches his teaching/learning strategy. Dr. A has moved up the ladder of technology integration in his classes. This is in keeping with several research findings

A number of researchers (Cuban, 1993; Evans-Andris, 1995; Duhaney, 1999; and Zimmerman, 2001) investigated teachers' reactions to the use of technology in their classroom, overtime. Table 1 gives a comparison of how different groups of teachers have viewed and responded to this change-technology usage. Between 1993-2001 different groups of teachers respond to technology usage in a similar fashion from fear and avoidance to optimism and experimentation.

Table 1: Teachers initial and subsequent reactions to technology usage

In my view, my mentee falls in Group 2. According to Franklin, Turner, Kariuki & Duran (2001) Dr. A would be operating at the intermediate level. Dr. A is very receptive to learning how to improve his technology skills, specifically power point presentations and blackboard.com capabilities. Based on my experience this semester with Dr. A, with encouragement and help he will continue to develop the technology competences required for him to advance to the third stage of becoming an active and confident experimenter. Dr. A's goals are also in keeping with the further development of his technology skills.

My mentee had specific workable and achievable goals for the semester. His goals included:

v Becoming more adept with power point
v Learning how to create links in blackboard.com
v Identifying and using as many capabilities of blackboard as possible
v Applying for a technology grant, and
v Searching for relevant cases and software addressing special education that could be integrated in class lectures.

Goal setting was the pivotal point of our first mentor/mentee contact. For a mentoring relationship to be worthwhile, it is important to agree on learning goals or outcomes in a collaborative manner. According to Van Ast (2000), the essence of mentoring is the individual relationship and mutual goal setting between mentor and mentee. Although the mentor may choose a variety of strategies and activities to help the mentee grow, and develop professional competence, attitudes and behaviors, "it is the qualitative nature of the relationship, which will ultimately determine success" (p. 6) in achieving the outlined goals.

Mentor profile:
I am a sociable, practical, and intense individual who thrives on challenges. I am from the country of Jamaica where I was trained as a high school teacher. Currently, I am a PHD candidate in both educational leadership and policy studies (ELPS) and curriculum instruction technology (CIT) at Iowa State University.

Since coming to ISU in 1998, my interest and skills in technology integration, leadership, and change have matured. Prior to taking technology courses in the CIT department, I had no experience with technology integration. However, I was always curious and I had a positive attitude towards technology usage.

Understanding the pedagogical usage of technology in teacher education is of importance to me. As a result, it was very appealing to me when I learned that there was a mentoring aspect to the course. However, the concept of mentoring a professor made me anxious, nervous, and fearful initially. How can I a student mentor a professor in technology usage? Can I choose an instructor whom I am comfortable with to mentor? Will I be able to succeed in this activity? These were some of the questions I wrestled with in the first few weeks of class. I was able to overcome my anxiety when I learned that two of us in the class would be mentoring Dr. A. I had confidence in the technological capability of my colleague Pasha. Such a partnership and team worked effectively for all three of us.

As the mentoring experience progressed, I developed personal goals for my mentee that were driven by the goals of my mentee. My goals spanned the four constructs postulated by Van Ast (2000).
Table 2: Constructs of mentor's goals for mentee

1. Competence Mastery of knowledge, skills, and applications on blackboard.com
2. Self-confidence Strong belief in his capability of making good decisions regarding technology integration in his course
3. Self-direction The assurance and ability for my mentee to take charge of using a variety of technology in his class based on the needs of
and usefulness to student learning, and
4. Professionalism To continue using technology to enhance his pedagogy and professionalism in the field of special education.

I was committed to the task of helping my mentee fulfill these goals. I felt I was entrusted with the "sacred" responsibility of helping my mentee achieve his goals and grow. This was in a similar manner in which Odysseus, the King of Ithaca entrusted his friend (mentor) with the care of his son as he went to fight the Trojan War-according to the mentoring legend (Carr, 1999).

The mentoring process

At the start of the mentoring process, Dr. A had two student mentors Pasha and I. In the first half of the semester we accomplished the first three goals. As a team, Pasha and I worked with Dr. A in all areas of his needs and/or challenges. The literature on mentoring highlights challenges that may surface in mentoring relationships. Warring and Lindquist (1989) found that if mentors and mentees do not have clear goals this could lead to potential challenges including poor communication, which in turn will hinder progress. Another challenge that can be disruptive in the mentor/mentee relationship is when the mentee is not as participatory in the teaching/learning activities as deemed necessary. This can lead to the mentee being so dependent on the mentor that his/her learning is hindered (King, 1991).

In my mentor relationship with Dr. A, the above-mentioned challenges did not characterize our relationship. Two challenges surfaced over the semester for us as we worked together. They were technological and personal challenges.

Technological challenges:

Challenge #1: It is ironic that I was chosen as the mentor and I became challenged with "simple" technological procedures. The first technological challenge we experienced as a team was uploading a file to blackboard.com that would make it easier for Dr. A's students to post their plans for their group project. Pasha, Dr. A., and I tried all the options we were aware, in uploading the table to blackboard.com, but none of the options were successful. This was frustrating for all three of us. But we encouraged each other. Eventually, we resorted to sending the document to students via e-mail rather than as a link on blackboard.com.

Challenge # 2: A second technological challenge was when Dr. A lost a file of over 100 power point slides. "This was it," I thought. Dr. A was distraught, angry, and frustrated. We tried all the trouble shooting capabilities we knew. With no success we got two computer technicians to try and help us retrieve the document. When Dr. A realized that the computer technicians went through the same trouble shooting procedures we had already gone through and they could not retrieve the file, he was so sad. The look of disbelief, discouragement, and disappointment all intermingled on my mentees face as he pounded the desk with his fist.

In my opinion, if my mentee did not see the value in integrating technology in the classroom he could have given up due to frustration with technology. I gave my mentee the support to vent his frustration. At the same time I encouraged and supported him not to give up. I did offer to help with the entire process of compiling the slides again but he saw it as "a waste of my time" so he asked for the meeting to be adjourned.

The meeting was aborted because my mentee was satiated with the disappointment of losing several hours of hard work. I assured him before I left that I was willing and ready to work with him in getting his document together again. I reminded him to save all his work in multiple places to safe guard against losing files in the future.

In retrospect, technology is a useful tool in helping individuals to organize, conduct and retrieve work with ease and speed. However, technology has a dark side. It is finite and can fail. Together with my mentee we learned from this painful experience. This is in keeping with Zachary (2000) views that mentors and mentees must focus on learning. Facilitating this learning process starts with self-learning. Without which, the potential for effectiveness in the learning relationship is greatly reduced and so is the ability to empathize.

Having lost all my computer files to a virus a few weeks earlier, I could understand the frustrations and disappointment my mentee felt. He blamed himself a lot and I was able to encourage him that it is so easy to lose a file--even when you are a mentor. He was able to smile about that comment, and he definitely felt a little better about himself. Based on this experience the nature of mentoring work was reinforced to me. According to Zachary (2000), the nature of mentoring suggests:
Ħħ Mentoring is a powerful growth experience
Ħħ Mentoring is a process of engagement
Ħħ Facilitating effective mentoring begins with self-learning
Mentoring with staying power focuses on the learners, the learning process, and the learning

Challenge # 3: The third technological challenge I will highlight in this paper occurred close to the end of the semester. Several students in Dr. A's class e-mailed him because they were able to log on to blackboard.com. He tried logging on and he was able to get on with ease. As a result, he suggested to students that the problem might be with their computers.

At our subsequent meeting we explored the issue. Students were getting anxious about not being able to get in blackboard.com. to do the required readings for their class. Together Dr. A and I visited the blackboard.com site and we found that the mainframe page and the links for students in Special Education 250 to log on were changed. During our meeting, we called the computer technicians at blackboard.com and we found out how to work around the changes.

As a result, my mentee and I were armed with the solution to our third technological challenge. Dr. A e-mailed the solution to all the students so they would know how to access the course on blackboard.com. My mentee asked me to accompany him to his class the following day to give a live demonstration to all students. This went well and some students were asked to participate in the activity of logging on to blackboard.com during the class. Coupled with the technological challenges enumerated, I had a few personal challenges during the mentor/mentee relationship.

Personal challenges:
This was my first experience having to mentor a senior professional in using technology. I had to revise several of my "teaching" strategies in order for the mentor/mentee relationship with Dr. A to be a success. Dr. A was not aware that I had these personal challenges, as I was able to deal with them professionally.

First, I had to learn to be the guide on the side, the cheerleader, supporting and encouraging my mentee along. Reflection on the mentoring activities brought to the forefront the fact that my mentoring style mirrored my high school teaching style/paradigm. In this paradigm, I operate at "giving instruction" more than facilitating, coaching, and being the guide on the side, not the "sage on the stage."

This was a mistake I was glad I caught early in the mentoring relationship. I was able to adjust my style to becoming more student-focused (mentee-focused). In this way, my skills as a mentor were developed and enhanced positively.

For example, I remember in one of our meeting that I wanted so badly to control the mouse as Dr. A and I worked on how to put transitions in the power point slides. However, my mentee did not give me a chance. Upon reflection on this experience I concluded that this was a very good thing. Who would benefit most from controlling the mouse? What were my goals and objectives within the mentoring process? What are the goals of my mentee in this process? Who should the focus be placed on, the mentor or the mentee?

I learned from my mistake of wanting to get a hold of the mouse. Now, had to give clear instructions at a comfortable pace for my mentee to follow rather than demonstrating or showing him what to do. Simultaneously, my mentee learned how to use the tools in carrying out the processes I explained to him. After all, the goal of the mentoring experience is for instructors to learn how to use the technology tools efficiently.

My mentee got the opportunity to ask questions and to seek clarifications. Instead of telling Dr. A the answers, I changed my strategy to probing and encouraging him to "toy" with the functions he was curious about. For example, we discovered how to use pointer during a slide show in power point. Dr. A asked, "What will happen if I selected the pen instead?" My response was, "go ahead and try it, play with the features and let us see the result." When he selected the pen he realized that he had to carry out two additional steps in getting the pointer to work. So he smiled and said, "it is easier to select the pointer." He tried the action all by himself and he was very excited when he was successful in getting the pointer to work by himself. This was another learning (AHA) moment for Dr. A and I.

He asked, "How do I get rid of the marks on the slide?" I asked, "what if you click off the slide mode, what would happen?" He clicked from the slide mode and he exclaimed, "YES!" He was really excited to learn how to use the pointer efficiently.
Another challenge I faced was the pace at which I wanted to go. I approached this exercise being task-oriented. Next time I will spend a time building a relationship with my mentor. This led me to feel a little impatient at times when I did not accomplish my list of activities planned. I had to learn to step-back and allow my mentee to be in the driver's seat. Ebbs and flows in the pace at which we accomplished tasks characterized our mentoring process. The ebbs and flow in my mentoring experience with Dr. A served as enriching the experience.

Sometimes I also felt that I was not challenged enough adequately to be resourceful. This is based on my personality of thriving on challenges. Reflecting on my attitude during this time made me realize that I did not have the task-oriented challenges I was looking for. Rather I had the relational challenges that I had to work through and overcome.

As we progressed through the semester with the mentoring activity, I learned to learn. I am constantly reminded that the role of the mentor is to facilitate learning in a manner in which the knowledge, skills, and competencies that I bring connect with the instructions I give and the actions, and ability of my mentee (Zachary, 2000).

What have I learned about the mentoring: What would I do differently?

This mentor/mentee activity was a real learning experience for me. I have gained a wealth of knowledge form this exercise. However, I found some limitations that could be addressed to enrich the mentor/mentee relationships of subsequent students in the future.

Table 3: Approaches to enhance student-mentoring faculty in the future

Ħħ The mentoring literature should be uncovered earlier in the course. Some authors postulate that mentoring is a natural process but my experience dictates otherwise. If I had more background knowledge from the literature I could have been a more effective mentor

Ħħ Grounding students in the mentoring theory can be beneficial. It is vital at the outset, to have students develop a clear understanding of the stages of the mentoring process (Krupp, 1997) which can serve a guide to them

(1) Initiation stage-relationships are established,
(2) Mentoring stage-the mentor fosters the growth of the mentee, and
(3) Termination stage-where independence is encouraged at the appropriate

Ħħ Help student mentors realize that they need to be relational. I was task-oriented so I lost out on the opportunity to build a sustained social relationship with my mentee

Ħħ Mentors need to understand there is a lot to be learned from their mentees. I learned lots of classroom management skill from attending a few of my mentee's classes. However, I did not take the opportunity to have Dr. A teach me how to use the features of blackboard.com. I learned the features on my own. Such an opportunity for my mentee to teach me about technology would have encouraged him to realize that he was an expert in this area.

Conclusion

I think my mentee is a capable and talented instructor who is teachable and willing to learn about--and to integrate technology in his class. This intentional mentoring program offered at ISU is cost effective and a great teaching/learning tool. The mentoring approach employed in the CIT department matches its culture of sharing and helping others to grow in using technology in the classroom. Integrating mentoring in the fabric of the college curriculum is a fascinating model that students can follow when they go out in their careers.

The goals my mentee and I set at the beginning of the semester were accomplished, some to a greater extent than others. However, even in the most well designed and choreographed mentor/mentee initiatives there are challenges to overcome. All parties need to be aware of the goals and objectives of the mentoring relationship. There must be visioning, trust, a willingness to take risks, and the desire to learn from each other. Outside help can be sought in order to help move the mentoring relationship along. Using the multidirectional approach to teaching faculty to integrate technology in the classroom is effective. In fact, based on the mentoring model in CI 610 success has been achieved in helping faculty to learn about technology and technology integration.

Table 4: Mentoring tip

Ħħ True mentoring cannot be ordered or forced or taught
Ħħ Mentoring is worthwhile and should be fostered not forced
Ħħ Mentoring is a desirable process
Ħħ Mentoring is leading by example
Ħħ Good communication and sharing of experiences are essential to this process
Ħħ Feedback from mentor and mentee is "like oxygen to a fire"
Ħħ Mentoring must be characterized by flexibility
Ħħ Both mentor and mentee must reflect on the experience and relationship for growth to be maximized.

References

Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor's changing role in distant education. The
American Journal of Distant Education, 4(2), 21-29.

Carr, R. (1999). Achieving the future: The role of mentoring in the New Millennium.
Paper prepared for the program for the support of women's leadership and representation (PROLEAD). British Columbia, Canada.

Chisholm, I. M. (1994). Culture and technology: Implications for multicultural teacher
education. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 3(2), 218-226.

Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classrooms: Classrooms wins. Teacher's college
Record, 95(2), 185-210.

Dillon, C., & Walsh, S. M. (1992). Faculty/ The neglected resource in distant education.
The American Journal of Distant Education, 6(3), 5-21.

Duhaney, D. (1999). Technology and the educational process: Transforming classroom
activities. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(2), 67-70.

Evans-Andris, M. (1995). Barrier to computer integration: Micro-interaction among
computer coordinators and classroom teachers in elementary schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(1), 29-45.

Franklin, T., Turner, S, Kariuki, M., & Duran, M. (2001). Mentoring overcomes barriers
to technology integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(1). 26-30.

Green, M. Y. (2000). Why aren't girls more tech savvy? NEA Today, 19(3), 31.

Johnson, B., Huwe, J., & Fallow, A. (1999). Does mentoring foster success? U.S. Naval
Institute Proceedings, 125(12), 44-46.

King, R. (1991). Mentoring: A review of related literature. Unpublished paper.
Colorado State University, CO.

Krupp, J. (1983). Mentoring: A means by which teachers become staff developers.
Journal of Staff Development, 8(1), 12-15.

Leggett, W. P., & Persichitte, K. A. (1998). Blood, sweat, and tears: 50 years of
technology implementation obstacles. Tech Trends, 43(3), 33-36.

Moskal, P., Martin, B., & Foshee, N. (1997). Educational technology and distant
education in Central Florida: An assessment of capabilities. The American Journal of Distant Education, 11(1), 6-22.

Schrum, L. M. (1995). Educators and the Internet: A case study of technology
development. Computers in Education, 24(3), 221-228.

Townsend, M. (1997). Computer block-does it exist in the comprehensive secondary
school? National Council for Educational Technology, 28(4), 3-5.

Trotter, A. (1999, September 23). Training matters: The kids and I learned together.
Education Week, XIX(4), 44-46.

Van Ast, J. (2000). Community college induction mentoring program mentor-mentee
handbook. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Wild, M. (1996). Technology refusal: Rationalizing the failure of student and beginning
teachers to use computers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 134-143.

Zachary, L. (2000). The mentor's guide: Facilitating effective learning relationships.
San Francisco: Jossy-Bass

Zimmerman, I. K. (2001). Building public support: The politics of technology
transformation. In J. LeBaron and C. Collier (Eds.), Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 99-111.