A Technology Partnership: Lessons Learned by Mentors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mentoring has been shown to provide support for the development of skills and knowledge in many professions. Journalism, law, and medicine, using the mentoring process, place apprentices in real world, clinical situations early in their training. The teaching profession has had a long history of mentoring in which a practicing teacher within a school and a professional from an educational institution provide support and direction to a young teacher in the form of student teaching. This article discusses the lessons learned when instructional technology graduate students act as mentors to elementary teachers in a rural school in Ohio. The transformation of graduate mentors and teacher mentees provides inspiration for mentoring in elementary schools. Elementary teachers continue to positively support the value of students using the computer and their own use of the computer, but report that they are unable to make the connection of how the computer fits into the daily classroom. These same teachers indicate that most of their professional development has focused on computer skills rather than classroom management of computers and integration into lessons used in the classroom (Franklin, 1999). Mentoring has been shown to provide support for the development of skills and knowledge in many professions. Journalism, law, and medicine, using the mentoring process, place apprentices in real world, clinical situations early in their training. The teaching profession has had a long history of mentoring (Evans, 2000; Janas, 1996; Stewart, 1999) in which a practicing teacher within a school and a professional from an educational institution provide support and direction to a young teacher in the form of student teaching. These young teachers learn at the side of a more experienced teacher and are provided opportunities for a one-on-one relationship with a veteran teacher. A mentor can provide role modeling, acceptance, confirmation, counseling, and friendship (McArthur, Pilato, Kercher, Peterson, Malouf, & Jamison, 1995). A mentee can benefit from the experience as he/she learns how technology can transform traditional instruction. The mentor also has an opportunity to reflect on his or her own practice of teaching with technology. As the key focus of professional development, mentoring has the advantage of addressing individual needs, while providing guidance in the planning, implementation, and support for teachers in the classroom (Edutopia, 1999). THE MEMBERS OF THE PARTNERSHIP Mentoring as a professional development model for the integration of technology in an elementary school in rural Appalachia by graduate students in Instructional Technology at a College of Education in Ohio was the focus of this research project. A rural K-6 school with two classes at each grade level in Southeastern Ohio was selected as the study site. Eight teachers and eight Instructional Technology graduate students participated in a 21-week onsite mentoring process in which a technology partnership was established. A team of elementary teachers, the school principal, graduate students enrolled in a university course, and college faculty worked together to determine the organization and implementation of the partnership. The elementary school and its principal were visited each week to assess the project and to make recommendations for change when needed. DATA SOURCES Data was gathered from multiple sources using multiple measures including journals of both teacher mentees and graduate mentors. Weekly meetings were held with the Instructional Technology university faculty and graduate mentors to support the mentoring partnership and determine areas in which the graduate students needed more help than originally anticipated. University faculty members in Instructional Technology acted as the liaisons among the instructional technology mentors and the elementary school mentees. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".