INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNOLOGY MENTORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE STUDENT MENTORS AND FACULTY VIEWS

Abstract

ÖĞRENCİ MENTORLAR VE ÖĞRETİM ELEMANI BAKIŞ AÇILARINA GÖRE TEKNOLOJİ MENTORLUK PROGRAMININ ETKİLİLİĞİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, bir devlet üniversitesinin Öğretme ve Öğrenme Merkezi tarafından öğretim elemanlarının teknolojik becerilerini geliştirmek ve derslerinde teknolojiyi etkili kullanmalarını desteklemek üzere yürütülen Teknoloji Mentorluk Programını (TMP) kuramsal temelleriyle açıklamak ve programın etkililiğini sürece katılan öğretim elemanları ve öğrenci mentorların görüşlerine göre incelemektir. Çalışmanın temelini oluşturan kuramsal çerçeve Collins, Brown ve Newman (1989) tarafından geliştirilen bilişsel çıraklık modelidir. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını 13 öğretim elemanı ve mentorluk yapan 26 öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Veriler “Teknoloji Mentorluk Programına Yönelik Beklentileri Belirleme Anketi”, haftalık şablonlar ve “Teknoloji Mentorluk Programına Yönelik Deneyimler Anketi” aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel analiz ile içerik analizi yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, TMP’nin hem öğrenci mentorlar hem de öğretim elemanlarına önemli katkılar sunduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Lisans öğrencilerinin mentorluk yaptığı bu çalışmada programın başarılı bulunması önemli bir sonuç olarak değerlendirilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• teknoloji mentorluğu
• bilişsel çıraklık modeli
• mesleki gelişim

References

1. Adnan, M. (2017). Professional development in the transition to online teaching: The voice of entrant online instructors. ReCALL, 30(1), 88-111.
2. Baran, E. & Correia, A. (2014). A professional development framework for online teaching. TechTrends, 58(5), 95–101.
3. Baran, E., Correia, A.P. & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421-439.
4. Brill, J., Kim, B., Galloway, C. (2001). Cognitive apprenticeships as an instructional model. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/. Erişim Tarihi: 13.04.2022.
5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-41.
6. Buchanan, T., Sainter, P. & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(1), 1-11.
7. Campbell, A. (2016) Talking point: Flexible targeted online staff development that works. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(3), 1-10.
8. Chuang, H.-H., & Schmidt, D. (2006). Faculty technology mentoring programs. In A. Thompson, H.-H. Chuang & I. Sahin (Eds). Faculty mentoring: The power of students in developing expertise (pp. 29- 46). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.

9. Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6-11.
11. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Corso, J., & Devine, J. (2013). Student technology mentors: A community college success story. Community College Enterprise, 19(2), 9-21.
13. Cox, M.D. (1997). Long-term patterns in a mentoring program for junior faculty: Recommendations for practice. To Improve the Academy. 376. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad/376. Erişim Tarihi: 27.04.2022.
14. El Fadil, B. (2015). High school technology design process – goals and challenges, International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8(6), 109-116.
15. Feist, L. (2003). Removing barriers to professional development. THE Journal, 30(11).
16. Ferdig, R. & Kennedy, K. (2014). Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blended Learning. Library of Congress, ETC Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
17. Gibbons, A. S. (1996). New techniques for an old profession. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=567862. Erişim Tarihi: 13.04.2022.
18. Gunuc, S. (2015). Implementation and evaluation of technology mentoring program developed for teacher educators: A 6M-Framework. Qualitative Research in Education, 4(2), 164-191. doi:10.17583/qre.2015.1305
19. Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005) New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach language online, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500335455
20. Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Comput. Educ. 59, 1109–1112. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
21. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609268
22. Leh, A.S.C. (2005). Lessons learned from service learning and reverse mentoring in faculty development: A case study in technology training. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 25-41. Norfolk, VA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/6565. Erişim Tarihi: 27.04.2022.
23. Lu, M. Y., Todd, A. M., & Miller, M. (2011). Creating a supportive culture for online teaching: A case study of a faculty learning community. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ941254. Erişim Tarihi: 13.04.2022.
24. Lumpkin, A. (2011). A Model for mentoring university faculty. The Educational Forum, 75(4), 357–368. doi:10.1080/00131725.2011.602466
25. Meyer, K. A., & Murrell, V. S. (2014). A national study of training content and activities for faculty development for online teaching. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(1), 3-18.
26. Naidu, S. (2016). The case for open educational practice. Distance Education, 37(1), 1-3, DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2016.1157010
27. Nicol, A.A., Owens, S.M., Le Coze, S.S.L., MacIntyre, A. & Eastwood, C. (2018). Comparison of high-technology active learning and low-technology active learning classrooms. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 253-265.
28. Pamuk, S. (2008). Faculty technology mentoring: How graduate student mentors benefit from technology mentoring relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames
29. Pamuk, S., & Thompson, A. D. (2009). Development of a technology mentor survey instrument: Understanding student mentors’ benefits. Computers & Education, 53(1), 14-23. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.017
30. Porter, W.W., & Graham, C.R. (2015). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption ofblended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748-762. doi:10.1111/bjet.12269
31. Somera, S.L. (2018). Educator experiences transitioning to blended learning environment in K-6 public schools, Order No. 10746266, No. 2019657254, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Ann Arbor, MI.
32. Stiles, M. & Yorke, J. (2006). Technology supported learning – tensions between innovation, and control and organizational and professional cultures. Journal of Organizational Transformation and Social Change, 3(3), 251-67.
33. Stein, S. J., Shephard, K. & Harris, I. (2011). Conceptions of e-learning and professional development for e-learning held by tertiary educators in New Zealand. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 145-165.
34. Thompson, A. D., Chuang, H. H., & Sahin, I. (Eds.) (2007). Faculty mentoring: The power of students in developing technology expertise. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
35. Tracy, E. E., Jagsi, R., Starr, R., & Tarbell, N.J. (2004). Outcomes of a pilot faculty mentoring program. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 191(6), 1846-1850. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.08.002
36. Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (4), 47-64.
37. Wilson, B. G., Jonassen, D. H., & Cole, P. (1993). Cognitive approaches to instructional design. In G. M. Piskurich (Ed.), The ASTD handbook of instructional technology (pp. 21.1-21.22). New York: McGraw-Hill.
38. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd Edition). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
39. Zellers, D. F., Howard, V. M., & Barcic M. A. (2008). Faculty mentoring programs: Reenvisioning rather than reinventing the wheel. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 552-588.