Subject-Specific Mentoring For Increasing Preservice Teachers’ Inclusive Practices: A Lens Of Affordances

Öz

This research focuses on a case study based on a series of observations, interviews, diaries of mentors and material analysis that were developed by preservice teachers guided by a subject-specific mentoring approach. In this study, subject-specific mentoring brought together special education (SE) faculty members and preservice Instructional Technology (IT) teachers. In order to guide the preservice IT teachers’ integration of technology into pedagogical practices related to inclusive education, eight Special Education faculty members (three female, five male) were assigned mentor roles. In total, 42 preservice IT teachers (24 female, 18 male) were assigned mentee roles; additionally, they undertook the function of being instructional designers. The study aimed to explore the understanding of participants’ affordances of this particular mentoring study. Affordances of the study’s mentoring program clustered around four emerging themes; namely “mediating elements,” “social support,” “structured process,” and “subject-specific focus.” The study points toward subject-specific mentoring as a way of enhancing knowledge construction of preservice teachers to conduct instructional decision-making in SE.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Inclusive Education
• Preservice Teachers
• Subject-Specific Mentoring
• Universal Design for Learning.

Öğretmen Adaylarının Kapsayıcı Uygulamalarını Artırmak için Konuya Özel Mentörlük: Olanaklar Açısından Bakış

Öz

Bu araştırma, öğretmen adayları tarafından konuya özel mentörlük yaklaşımıyla geliştirilen bir dizi gözlem, görüşme, mentör günlükleri ve materyal analizine dayanan bir vaka çalışmasına odaklanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, konuya özgü mentörlük, özel eğitim öğretim üyeleri ile bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adaylarını bir araya getirmiştir. Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adaylarının teknolojiyi kapsayıcı eğitimle ilgili pedagojik uygulamalara entegre etmelerine rehberlik etmek amacıyla sekiz Özel Eğitim öğretim üyesine (üç kadın, beş erkek) mentörlük rolü verilmiştir. Toplamda 42 bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adayına (24 kadın, 18 erkek) menti rolü verilmiş; ayrıca öğretim tasarımcısı olma işlevini de üstlenmişlerdir. Çalışma, katılımcıların bu özel mentörlük çalışmasına ilişkin anlayışlarını keşfetmeyi amaçlamıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları mentörlük programının olanakları, "aracı unsurlar", "sosyal destek", "yapılandırılmış süreç" ve "konuya özel odaklanma" olmak üzere ortaya çıkan dört tema etrafında kümelenmiştir. Çalışma, öğretmen adaylarının özel eğitimde öğretimsel karar alma süreçlerinde bilgi yapılandırmalarını geliştirmenin bir yolu olarak konuya özel mentörlük uygulamalarının olanaklarına işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kapsayıcı Eğitim
• Öğretmen Adayları
• Konuya Özel Mentörlük
• Öğrenmede Evrensel Tasarım.

Kaynakça

1. Alemdağ, E. & Ozdemir-Simşek, P. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ evaluation of their mentor teachers, school experiences, and theory– practice relationship. International Journal of Progressive Education, 13(2), 165-179. http://www.inased.org/v13n2/ijpev13n2.pdf
2. Ambrosetti, A. (2014). Are you ready to be a mentor? Preparing teachers for mentoring pre-service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 30-42. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.2
3. Ambrosetti, A. & Dekkers, J. (2010). The interconnectedness of the roles of mentors and mentees in preservice teacher education mentoring relationships. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 42-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2010v35n6.3
4. Ambrosetti, A., Knight, B. A., & Dekkers, J. (2014). Maximizing the potential of mentoring: A framework for pre-service teacher education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(3), 224-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2014.926662
5. Arslan, O. (2013). Current use of instructional technology by METU faculty: barriers and enablers [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University. https://open.metu.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11511/23101/index.pdf?sequence=1
6. Arslan, O., Kamalı-Arslantaş, T., & Baran, E. (2021). Integrating technology into an engineering faculty teaching context: examining faculty experiences and student perceptions. European Journal of Engineering Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2021.2011148
7. Awaya, A., McEwan, H., Heyler, D., Linsky, S., Lum, D., & Wakukawa, P. (2003). Mentoring as a journey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00093-8
8. Baran, E. (2016). Examining the benefits of a faculty technology mentoring program on graduate students’ professional development. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(3), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1169958

9. Bella, R. A. (2016). Investigating psychological parameters of effective Teaching in a diverse classroom situation: The case of the higher teachers’ training college Maroua, Cameroon. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(23), 72-80. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/32579
10. Benton-Borghi, B. H. (2013). A universally designed for learning (UDL) infused technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) practitioners’ model essential for teacher preparation in the 21st century. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 245-265. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.48.2.g
11. Bower, M. (2017). Technology integration as an educational imperative. In M. Bower (Ed.), Design of technology-enhanced learning: Integrating research and practice (pp. 1-16). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787141827
12. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
13. Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST. 1998). What is universal design for learning? Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved July 11, 2019, from http://www.cast.org/research/udl/index.html
14. Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communications technologies? Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 113-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968776042000216183
15. Coyne, P., Evans, M., & Karger, J. (2017). Use of a UDL literacy environment by middle school students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 55(1), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-55.1.4
16. Crisp, G. & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50(6), 525-545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9130-2
17. Dani, D. E., Hallman-Thrasher, A., Harrison, L. M., Diki, K., Felton-Koestler, M., Kopish, M., Dunham, J., & Harvey, L. W. (2019). Affordances of a cyclical and content-specific model of collaborative mentoring. In T. E. Hodges & A. C. Baum (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Field-Based Teacher Education (pp. 117-141). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6249-8.ch005
18. Deng, L. & Yuen, A. H.K. (2011). Towards a framework for educational affordances of blogs. Computers & Education, 56(2), 441-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.005
19. Giblin, F. & Lakey, B. (2010). Integrating mentoring and social support research within the context of stressful medical training. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(7), 771-796. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.7.771
20. Hairon, S., Loh, S. H., Lim, S. P., Govindani, S. N., Tan, J. K. T., & Tay, E. C. J. (2019). Structured mentoring: Principles for effective mentoring. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 19, 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-019-09251-8
21. Hayes, N. (2000). Doing psychological research: gathering and analyzing data. Open University Press.
22. Hedner, T., Adli, A., & Magnus, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial resilience. Annals of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), Article. 7986. https://doi.org/10.3402/aie.v2i1.6002
23. Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.001
24. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Wesley.
25. Hudson, P. (2004). Specific mentoring: a theory and model for developing primary science teaching practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2), 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976042000223015
26. Hudson, P. (2016). Identifying mentors’ observations for providing feedback. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(2), 219-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055446
27. Hudson, P. & Hudson, S. (2018). Mentoring preservice teachers: Identifying tensions and possible resolutions. Teacher Development, 22(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2017.1298535
28. Hudson, P., Skamp, K., & Brooks, L. (2005). Development of an instrument: Mentoring for effective primary science teaching. Science Education, 89(4), 657-674. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20025
29. Israel, M., Ribuffo, C., & Smith, S. (2014). Universal design for learning: Recommendations for teacher preparation and professional development (Document No. IC-7). http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/.
30. Izadinia, M. (2016). Student teachers’ and mentor teachers’ perceptions and expectations of a mentoring relationship: do they match or clash? Professional Development in Education, 42(3), 387-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.994136
31. Kamalı-Arslantaş, T. (2021). Evrensel tasarım [Universal design for learning]. In T. Kamalı-Arslantaş & G. Yalçın (Eds.), Görme yetersizliği olan bireylerin eğitiminde yardımcı teknolojiler ve erişilebilirlik [Assistive technologies in the education of individuals with visual impairment and accessibility]. (pp.43-62). Nobel
32. Kamalı-Arslantaş, T. & Kocaöz, O. (2021). Examining the mentoring process in collaborative project-based learning of preservice instructional technology teachers. Education Reform Journal, 6(1), 47-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.22596/erj2021.06.01.47.61
33. Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260-271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00620.x
34. Kennedy, J. & Dorman, J. (2002). Development and validation of the extended practicum learning environment inventory. Australian Catholic University.
35. King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 257-270). Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280119.n21
36. Le Cornu, R. & Ewing, R. (2008). Reconceptualising professional experiences in pre-service teacher education…. reconstructing the past to embrace the future. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1799-1812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.008
37. Marino, M. T., Sameshima, P., & Beecher, C. C. (2009). Enhancing TPACK with assistive technology: Promoting inclusive practices in pre-service teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 186-207. https://bit.ly/32OLy80
38. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). Sage.
39. McMahon, D., Wright, R., Cihak, D., Moore, T., & Lamb, R. (2016). Podcasts on mobile devices as a read-aloud testing accommodation in middle school science assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 263-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9591-3
40. Mena, J., Hennissen, P., & Loughran, J. (2017). Developing pre-service teachers’ professional knowledge of teaching: The influence of mentoring. Teaching & Teacher Education, 66, 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.024
41. Metsala, J. L., & Harkins, M. J. (2019). An examination of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs about inclusive education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(2), 178-192. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0888406419873060
42. Moore, E. J., Smith, F. G., Hollingshead, A., & Wojcik, B. (2018). Voices from the field: Implementing and scaling-up universal design for learning in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Special Education Technology 33(1), 40-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417732293
43. Moulding, L. R., Stewart, P. W., & Dunmeyer, M. L. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy: Relationship to academic ability, student teaching placement characteristics, and mentor support. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.007
44. Murphy, E. (2004). Recognizing and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4), 421-431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00401.x
45. Nabi, G., Walmsley, A., & Akhtar, I. (2019). Mentoring functions and entrepreneur development in the early years of university. Studies in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665009
46. Nilholm, C. & Göransson, K. (2017). What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and North American journal articles with high impact. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(3), 437-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1295638
47. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
48. Pearson, M. (2015). Modeling universal design for learning techniques to support multicultural education for pre-service secondary educators. Multicultural Education, 22, 27-34. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1078698
49. Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher–student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365-386). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17
50. Russell, M., O’Dwyer, L. M., Bebell, D., & Tao, W. (2007). How teachers’ uses of technology vary by tenure and longevity. Journal of Education al Computing Research, 37(4), 393-417. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.37.4.d
51. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.
52. Scott, L., Bruno, L., Gokita, T., & Thoma, C. A. (2019). Teacher candidates’ abilities to develop universal design for learning and universal design for transition lesson plans. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Advance Online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1651910
53. Scott, L. A., Thoma, C. A., Puglia, L., Temple, P., & D’Aguilar, A. (2017). Implementing a UDL framework: A study of current personnel preparation practices. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-55.1.25
54. Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. (2007). Effects of training universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 8-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280020101
55. Subaşıoğlu, F. & Atayurt Fenge, Z. Z. (2019). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de görme engellilik: zaman çizelgesi [Visual impairment in Turkey and in the world: timeline]. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 59(1), 595-645. https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2019.59.1.31
56. Thoma, C. A., Bartholomew, C. C., & Scott, L. A. (2009). Universal design for transition: a roadmap for planning and instruction. Brookes.
57. Tornero, S. & Kan, K. (2017). Remix with humor: Motivating learners in an inclusion classroom with visual culture. Art Education, 70(5), 50-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2017.1335551
58. Torrez, C. A. F. & Krebs, M. M. (2012). Expert voices: What cooperating teachers and teacher candidates say about quality student teaching placements and experiences? Action in Teacher Education, 34(5-6), 485-499. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.729477
59. Twyman, T. & Tindal, G. (2006). Using a computer-adapted, conceptually based history text to increase comprehension and problem-solving skills in students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340602100201
60. Vitelli, E. (2015). Universal design for learning: Are we teaching it to preservice general education teachers? Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(3), 166-178, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643415618931
61. Wang, J. (2002). Contexts of mentoring and opportunities for learning to teach: A comparative study of mentoring practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00038-X
62. Xiangming, L. & Song, S. (2018). Mobile technology affordance and its social implications: a case of “Rain Classroom”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 276-291, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12586
63. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 89(11), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671