Lessons learned from service learning and reverse mentoring in faculty development: a case study in technology training.
Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) under President Clinton's administration and No Child Left Behind under President Bush's administration have been major federal grants and topics frequently discussed by educators since 1999. The grants target national concerns about teacher qualifications and student learning that have become complex issues since rapid technology advancement entered education.
Young children, who were born in an advanced technological world, are accustomed to digital technology and easily adapt to it. Most of their schools are "wired" to the Internet. Many of their teachers, however, feel uncomfortable using technology in their teaching. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2000), only one-third of the teachers in the United States feel well prepared to use computers and the Internet in their teaching. This finding creates a growing challenge in modern education, especially in Teacher Education programs, in the United States: Teachers are not prepared to teach with computers and the Internet while their students are already very familiar with this technology. How can we help teachers employ technology in enhancing student learning? How can we train university professors to set examples in the use of technology, so that such teaching methodology becomes part of the practice of the future teachers?
In response to these questions, technology training becomes necessary. In this article, the author intends to share her experience with technology training and the use of service learning and reverse mentoring during the training. Following an introduction to service learning and reverse mentoring will be an illustration of technology training in a Teacher Education program at a state university. The author will describe how service learning and reverse mentoring were integrated into and benefited the training. The formative evaluation results are presented afterwards but are not intended to serve as research data.
SERVICE LEARNING AND REVERSE MENTORING
Mentoring and service learning have existed as alternative teaching and learning methods much longer than their popularization in the past decade, but the increasing popularity has also led to a variety of research that supports each method as effective and meaningful when used appropriately. Service learning "entails a credit-bearing educational experience in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility" (Cameron et al., 2001, p. 105). Cameron et al. went on to explain that since this service is used in the form of scholarships, the definition requires direct connection with, and correlation to, specialized knowledge and professional activity. Service learning meets an assortment of educational goals in addition to building and practicing academic knowledge, such as improving self-concept, building awareness and tolerance of others, and increasing political engagement (Morgan & Streb, 2001) through collaboration, partnership, mentorship, and participatory learning.
According to Cotugna and Vickery (1998), definitions for mentoring often include words such as guide, preceptor, advocate sponsor, adviser, and role model in a relationship where the mentor helps a protege or mentee become professionally competent, and this relationship is traditionally built between an older (or more experienced) person and a younger (or less experienced) person with the older acting as role model. Reverse mentoring is a more recent concept generally credited to Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, who formally used this method to increase Internet expertise among his top managers (Greengard, 2002). Clear and popular examples are found in technology training, even though this method is applicable in a multitude of settings. In technology training, the case is often that older/more experienced people who have worked their way into top management or tenured positions are technology illiterate or inexperienced while their younger/less experienced subordinates possess considerable technology skills. Therefore, the knowledge within an organization is used to its full advantage when the technologically competent (otherwise less experienced) person mentors the older person. Reverse mentoring partnerships are used in education, business, and medicine to increase competency in a variety of disciplines and technology training.
Research reveals that the application of service learning and reverse mentoring (individually or in combination) have gained popularity in the last decade because of their inherent benefits (Arman & Scherer, 2002; Carr, 2002; Cotugna & Vickery, 1998). Some of these benefits include cost efficiency, simple duplication, improved morale, diverse application, high participatory involvement, and engaged learners, and it is important to note that these methods result in benefits to all parties involved. Although research supports these methods as beneficial, the exact results have been more challenging to measure due to their subjective and complex nature.
Examples of Service Learning
Service learning is structured in educational settings because it is an inherently scholastic activity by definition (Cameron et al., 2001). Many such projects are associated with higher education; however, service learning has also become common in some high schools. For example, a graduation requirement in the U.S. Department of Defense dependents high schools is to complete 20 hours of service learning projects during each year of high school (9-12) grade (Schlenker & Schlenker, 2001). These service learning projects can often be based on any subject area of the student's choice and provide flexibility that enables students to stretch their imaginations and to develop creative projects that coincide with their particular area(s) of interest. Such democratic instructional style gives students the power of choice and decision-making responsibilities in the construction of their learning experience.
Schlenker and Schlenker (2001) described an 11th-grade chemistry class at one of the dependents schools. The teacher observed student interest in water quality through some informal class conversation and proposed that the students, as a service to their school community, examine the cause of foul-tasting water in certain drinking fountains. The students were expected to compile observations, gather data, analyze the results, and then use their conclusions to outline some suggestions for improvement in a letter to the school principal. This service learning project empowered the students in the decision-making process and lead them through meaningful investigations and constructivist teaching.
An example, presented by Schwartzman (2001), was about a sophomore communication student who chose to perform an internship with a chronically under-funded and understaffed chapter of Planned Parenthood. Her project goals were to develop prevention messages regarding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in the form of brochures and public radio announcements targeting college students. She was required to apply multiple concepts to complete her project. In addition to constructing the messages, she had to decide how to best format and publicize the information, where to place the brochures, when to deliver the announcements, and how best to deliver each of them.
Instructors of "Introduction to Sport Management," an online course, incorporated a service learning component to overcome the perceived weaknesses of online instruction, for example, interaction (Bennett & Green, 2001). Students in the class were given practical examples and applications to which they could relate the text and process course material through personal interaction. They were expected to practice these skills by demonstrating the knowledge they were gaining and were required to apply various concepts to successfully complete their project. Through service learning, the students found a variety of ways to effectively meet course goals.
Gujarathi and McQuade (2002) described a case study focused on service learning in an intermediate accounting course. Since service learning applications in business schools have only begun to emerge, the authors suggested some examples of appropriate projects for business schools: conducting strategic analyses of community organizations (management), providing assistance and counseling to low-income taxpayers filing their income tax returns (taxation), and helping a local crisis line to develop and implement a training program for new volunteers (human resources).
Professionals support the use of service learning in teacher preparation programs (Swick, 2001; Clark, 2002). Examples of projects included developing and constructing case studies, collaborating with science students to teach science lessons to elementary school students, and using technology education to manufacture toys for young children (Alexandrowicz, 2001; Carr, 2002; Michael, 2001). School counselor preparation programs also place students in the field with service learning assignments to meet similar goals through experiential instruction methodology (Arman & Scherer, 2002).
Examples of Reverse Mentoring
While mentoring is a common structure, nontraditional reverse mentoring is a relatively recent concept. Since Jack Welch introduced it at General Electric (Greengard, 2002), other corporations and organizations have instituted reverse mentoring programs to better use the knowledge and skills within their establishments.
Proctor and Gamble is a corporation that has been showcased for its successful implementation of reverse mentoring in a variety of ways. For example, a staff scientist who holds a Ph.D. in toxicology mentored a Chief Information Officer (CIO) in the area of biotechnology to increase his awareness and knowledge of the relationships between business and science (Solomon, 2001; Greengard, 2002). Another Proctor and Gamble program that has been acknowledged by the public is the Mentor Up program which pairs mid-level female managers with upper-level male managers to improve cross-gender communication (Zielinski, 2000).
Mentor Up was developed in the mid 1990s as a response to disconcerting surveys that revealed different reasons between women and men for resigning from their positions. Although both men and women were valued by management as competent employees, the men tended to leave for better pay, promotions, or better assignments. The trend among young women who left showed that they responded differently to the feedback they received from management. This included feelings of under-appreciation because they were not explicitly told of their value, commended for their contributions, or had their career options openly discussed. Therefore, the reverse mentoring program was constructed to pair mid-level management women in the company with upper-level management men to improve interpersonal skills and to retain more of the skilled women who were valued by the company.
Zielinski (2000) reported positive results and benefits to all who were involved in the partnership. The company benefited when departures of the female managers decreased by 25%. An upper-level male manager noted that, through meetings and conversations with his mentor, his cultural sensitivity in the workplace improved not only his relationships with women but also with men. His mentor, a mid-level female manager, benefited from the mentorship by maintaining a direct line of communication with a higher level member of the company and establishing a functional relationship in which her professional concerns could be addressed. Although cultural sensitivity workshops or training programs could have been used to improve cross-gender communication, reverse mentoring within the company has been more readily available for ongoing partnerships and has addressed a broader range of concerns for both the upper-level management men and mid-level management female mentors.
In addition to the mentorship in corporate settings, collaborative partnerships have been formed between professionals in the field and educators. Professors must keep pace with current and upcoming concerns and issues to maintain meaningful instruction in preparation programs. Practicing professionals then mentor experienced professors by keeping them abreast of the newest innovations and typical expectations. Arman and Scherer (2002) examined a project that used service learning to pair students with professionals in a traditional mentorship but implemented reverse mentorship opportunities for university faculty and practicing counselors to collaborate. Morgan and Streb (2001) presented an example of students in a computer class mentoring the elderly and teaching them how to use technology and to surf the web. A study of reverse mentorship in service learning conducted with nutrition students and practicing dieticians revealed the method as successful and identified the students as a valuable resource (Cotugna & Vickery, 1998).
The projects and studies noted in this section suggest that service learning and reverse mentoring promote students' responsibilities in constructing their own learning, importance of interaction, and learning in a social context (Alexandrowicz, 2001; Bennett & Green, 2001; Michael, 2001; Schlenker & Schlenker, 2001; Schwartzman, 2001; Solomon, 2001; Swick, 2001; Arman & Scherer, 2002; Carr, 2002; Clark, 2002; Greengard, 2002; Gujarathi & McQuade, 2002; Morgan & Streb, 2001). These key concepts correspond with principles of constructivist learning theory supported by Dewey (1938) and Vygotsky (1978) who advocated that students must construct their own understanding to truly learn. Social interaction, reflection, experience, and interest in community all play critical roles in students' learning process.
Constructivist learning theory also fits well with characteristics of digital technology. In the digital technology age, information is processed and passed on differently, teachers are no longer "information givers," and students may access nearly all information and interact with any instructors, students, or content with assistance of technology. This shift opens an arena in which students may construct their learning without much boundary.
TECHNOLOGY TRAINING IN A TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
Similar to the projects stated, the project of the article employed service learning and reverse mentoring. It contributes to the body of literature by presenting the use of both service learning and reverse mentoring in faculty technology training that involves two academic programs: Teacher Education program and IT program.
This section starts with the background of the project, followed by an overview of the faculty technology training. The author then describes how service learning and reverse mentoring were used in the project. Formative evaluation and discussions are reported at the end of this section.
The College of Education (COE) of the state university was one of the 2001 PT3 grantees. Due to personnel change, the original PT3 director at the college could not carry out the grant project; consequently the start of the grant project was delayed for four months until a new director was appointed by the college. The new director, the author of this article, took over the project in November 2001 and tried to expedite the process to compensate for the four-month delay. To expedite the process, the author focused on one of the project objectives--training COE faculty members to use and integrate technology into their instruction, and used existing resources, for example, graduate students in the IT program, in the training.
She first introduced the PT3 project at a COE meeting and invited faculty members who qualified for the grant project to participate in technology training supported by the grant. A survey (needs assessment) was conducted during the meeting to identify who would be interested in the training, what technology they would like to learn, and when they would be available for the training.
A total of 35 faculty members indicated their interest in the training. They were divided into three groups based on their subject areas: Language Art, Math and Science, and Foundation and Educational Psychology; it was believed that people in the same group would have similar needs and that a learning community of their own could facilitate collaboration. Each group had two team leaders: an IT faculty member whose technology strengths could be beneficial and a content faculty with expertise in specific subject areas. Both team leaders collaboratively facilitated their groups' activities and, as liaisons, attended bi-weekly PT3 leadership meetings.
Technologies identified in the survey were categorized and separated by groups as shown in Table 1. Technologies listed in the top half of the table were pointed out by more than one group, and those listed in the bottom half were noted by only one group.
Based on the results obtained from the survey, the faculty training was delivered in multiple ways: group training (large group workshops and small group meetings) and individual training (working with individual mentors and technology helpers). Professors selected the types of training they preferred and constructed technology projects that could assist their instruction. Figure 1 illustrates the training model.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Workshops involved training on PowerPoint, Webpage development, Blackboard, iMovie, Inspiration, digital video and so forth, and were conducted by a variety of parties involved in the grant project, such as Apple computers, the Faculty Development Office at the university, and K-12 teachers. Most workshops were offered twice to accommodate the faculty members' busy schedules.
The small group meetings were organized and facilitated by team leaders once a month or once a quarter based on individual group needs. During the meetings, the participants discussed integrating technology into subject areas by, for example, learning software used in science in high schools, reviewing math software, learning spreadsheet, or studying how to integrate software into language arts courses. They also brainstormed ideas and conducted team projects.
In addition to attending workshops and working with their team members, the faculty members had the option to participate in individual training with a mentor. (See the following section "Use of Service Learning and Reverse Mentoring" for detailed explanation.) If a faculty member needed help but could not get hold of his/her mentor, he/she could always contact the technology helpers supported by the PT3 grant or assistants at the university's Faculty Development Office. The difference between the helpers (or assistants) and the mentors was that the latter had K-12 teaching experience while the former did not.
To encourage faculty members' participation in the training, they received a stipend upon completing three documents, one each at the beginning, middle, and end of the training. During the initial stage, they needed to write a plan describing what they wanted to learn, to do, and to produce. The plan guided the professor throughout his/her learning process. During the middle stage, they wrote a progress report to document activities, such as attending workshops and working with a mentor. At the end, they submitted their products. Examples of their products included CDs, websites, online course materials, and PowerPoint presentations.
Use of Service Learning and Reverse Mentoring
The author believed that individual technology assistance and mentoring were necessary because faculty members had a wide range of technology skills and needs that could not be covered by technology workshops. Although the needs of having individual technology mentors were clear, it was a challenge to recruit the mentors who were technology proficient and aware of technology use in K-12 settings.
First, the author tried to recruit mentors through her colleagues. She expressed the need at a COE meeting and hoped that faculty members would recommend teachers who might be interested in being a mentor. A couple of K-12 teachers were recommended and contacted. Unfortunately, such recruitment did not generate fruitful results.
The author then tried to recruit mentors through her IT graduate students in the final stage of their course work and working on their M.A. projects. She thought that the students would have technology knowledge and skills for mentoring the faculty members and that they could use the work as part of their M.A. project if they liked. Unfortunately, such recruitment did not bring many mentors on board because many of them were eager to complete their degree and were worried that such involvement would delay their graduation.
The author then turned to recruiting IT graduate students who were in the middle of their course work in the IT program. Most of them were technology proficient and K-12 inservice teachers who dealt with technology use in K-12 settings on a daily basis. They could help professors keep pace with current technology and upcoming concerns and issues in K-12 settings to maintain meaningful instruction in preparation programs. Meanwhile, they could benefit from the experience with training the faculty members. The skills they gained from training the faculty could be easily applied to training teachers at their schools that often was or would be their responsibility.
As coordinator of the graduate Instructional Technology program, the author identified a couple of graduate courses suitable for service learning, consulted the course instructors, and then collaboratively constructed activities with them. She went to the selected classes, introduced the PT3 project to the students, and invited them to serve as mentors. Ninety percent of the students chose to be a mentor as the service learning component of such courses. They completed an online form describing their technology skills, teaching experiences, instructional subject areas, locations, and schedules. The information was compiled and posted at a website that allowed the professors to click on each student's name and obtain his/her profile.
During an orientation meeting, the professors reviewed the students' profiles and selected three mentors by ranking them, with the understanding that he/she might not get his/her first choice. The author and the course instructors paired the students (mentors) with appropriate faculty members (mentees) based on the professors' input and the students' skills. After the pairing, both professors and students were informed by e-mail of their partners. They then made personal contact on their own. Twenty-two professors requested mentors, and each received a mentor.
Throughout each quarter, the mentor spent 10% of course time, approximately 12 hours, on working with a faculty member individually. There was a mutual understanding that the mentees could not ask the mentors to create or produce technology projects for them as traditional professors did with their graduate students. Instead, the professors had to produce projects by themselves with the help of their mentors. During the quarter, the students discussed issues related to the service activities with their instructors and classmates; at the end of the quarter, they wrote a report describing and reflecting on their experience and presented it in class.
Formative Evaluations and Discussions
Throughout the year, the author conducted formative evaluations to provide better training to the faculty members, including phone interviews, surveys, informal interviews, and student presentation evaluation. The phone interviews were conducted about two months after the mentor and mentee relationship established. During that time, faculty members have had opportunities to participate in different training activities and were asked during the phone interviews to share what they thought of the PT3 training and how PT3 could better serve them. Surveys were conducted at the end of every workshop to learn about the quality and relevance of the presentations and to elicit suggestions for improvement. The author conducted informal interviews at every activity by randomly asking participants about PT3 training. She also attended the class sessions at the end of the quarter in which the mentors shared their experience with PT3.
More than 20 professors provided feedback on the PT3 training during the phone interviews. The professors greatly appreciated the flexibility of the training and mentioned that they learned a lot from the workshops. A professor expressed:
The offerings and delivery of the professional development were guided by what learners actually needed to do. The practitioner- learner was the focus, and we gained a deeper level of learning that informed our practice. The PT3 professional development provided opportunities to improve instruction by learning technology skills that were just the right next step, rather than attending classes that were not tailor-made to individual needs. The unique approach of the group instruction, lead by a course instructor and adequate numbers of assistants who were in the room during each session, was to allow us (participants) to direct our own learning and provide the needed support and enable shortcuts.
Many professors enjoyed working with their mentors and noted that such training was the most beneficial training they have ever received. Just as the mentees of projects described in Cotugna and Vickery (1998), Zielinski (2000), Morgan and Streb (2001), Solomon (2001), and Greengard (2002), the mentees of this project also greatly benefited from the service provided by the graduate students. A professor noted:
Supporting the principles of individualized instruction, graduate student mentors made plans with their assigned university professor. They were flexible in topic, location and length of sessions. A partnership and friendship developed between the graduate student and the professor that benefited both. Most professors reported learning that improved communication with students through the various online means and noted that classroom presentations reflected their improved skills in using power point, sound and video. The PT3 staff development gave them flexibility and choice. They have confirmed that this approach meets their needs better than a specific curriculum with given objectives and tasks to master.
Although many professors who worked with the mentors expressed kudos for this individual training, the author noticed that some professors requested and received a mentor but never worked with their mentors or worked with their mentors only once or twice. When asked why the service was not fully utilized, faculty members mentioned that they really liked the idea but did not have time to continue the work. This fact worried some students. They were afraid that their grade would be negatively influenced due to few hours or no hours of training their mentees. Fortunately, the concerns were addressed to the course instructor who worked with the author and who adjusted grading criteria accordingly.
From discussions with the course instructors, the author also noticed that it took more time than anticipated for the students to connect with their professors and longer than a quarter (or a semester) for the mentorship to flourish. For example, the mentors and mentees of this project received their partners' contact information during the second week of the quarter. It took about two weeks for both parties to set a time to meet through e-mail. It took even longer (about one month) if a professor was out for a conference during that time. By the time they could meet in person, it was toward the middle of the quarter. By the time when they knew and felt comfortable with each other, it had reached the end of a quarter. As Starcevich said, "... planning and management of the relationship are critical. A commitment of time ... seem[s] to be central ingredients for any mentoring relationship...." (Starcevich, 2001, Summary) The lesson learned resulted in a curriculum change of the IT program of the author. A new course spanning more than one quarter was created to allow students to get involved in such service learning experience while they are in the program rather than when they are in a course. It is hoped that the change would allow such mentorship to flourish.
Mentors' presentations indicated that they had positive experiences and encountered challenges as well. As examples presented by Alexandrowicz (2001), Michael (2001), and Carr (2002), the graduate students of this project explored course topics in a specific and focused manner, such as training educators on the use of technology. The mentoring experience also raised the students' self-esteem as described by Morgan and Streb (2001); they were very proud of mentoring their professors and were no longer viewed as dependent or insufficiently competent in front of their mentees who usually were viewed as the "expert." However, difficulties of connecting with faculty members, as previously mentioned, frustrated some students. They felt that sometimes such mentorship was beyond their control and that they spent more time on figuring out a schedule with a professor than on actual training. Obviously, the mentors needed to be assured that they were not responsible for what was beyond their control.
As mentors benefited from maintaining a direct line of communication with a higher-level member of a company (Zielinski, 2000), some graduate students benefited from the relationship or network built with a faculty member in this project. For example, a student obtained a full-time position at a new school; three students became university adjunct faculty members; more than five students obtained invitations from faculty members and schools to provide technology training and received payments for their service.
The survey results indicated that faculty members were satisfied with the group workshops. A couple of professors addressed the need for more workshops on technology integration, examples of technology use in classrooms, and best practice. They also suggested that presenters should leave ample time for them to conduct hands-on activities and facilitate discussions among faculty members about technology integration. Workshops emphasizing technology skills seemed to turn faculty members off.
The small group meetings were designed to prepare a learning community in which professors who taught the same subjects could brainstorm ideas and collaborate. Based on the author's observation, the small group meetings did not reach their full potential because the number of the meetings decreased over time. Faculty members' busy schedule, especially of the team leaders, might have contributed to the decrease. Having team leaders who believe in the merits of the meetings and who may commit themselves to such responsibility is important for the success of the learning community.
Although the formative evaluation pointed out needs of some adjustments, the technology training, especially the use of service learning and reverse mentorship in the training, benefited the participants of the project. Because such learning experience matches with constructivist learning theory and since K-12 students often have stronger technology skills and may acquire new skills much faster than their teachers, it is recommended that educational institutions, including K-12 schools, experiment with such faculty development training by using existing resources, for example, their students.
When experimenting with such training, institutions might find that faculty members are too busy to participate in training. Such problems were not only found in this project but also addressed by other university professors and K-12 teachers across the nation. As Carroll (2000) mentioned, institutions need an organizational change aligned with technology training and purchase to better prepare our future teachers. Administrators such as principals, department heads, and college deans play crucial roles in the process of an organizational change. Without their support and involvement, faculty development would only leave superficial marks but would not be able to make a real impact on student learning.
Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) under President Clinton's administration and No Child Left Behind under President Bush's administration have been designed and supported by the United States Department of Education to better prepare teachers to educate 21st century learners. Millions of dollars have been distributed to teacher education programs and school districts to train their teacher educators and teachers. Although they all deliver their training in their own ways, they should reach the same ultimate goal--enhance student learning.
The training in this article was delivered in multiple ways: group training (workshops and subgroup meetings) and individual training (working with individual mentors and technology helpers). The individual training that integrated service learning and reverse mentoring was the highlight of the project during which graduate students in the Instructional Technology program were paired with individual faculty members at the Teacher Education program. As mentors, they spent 10% of course time on training the faculty in the use of technology.
Results indicated that training was successful and that mentors (the graduate students) and mentees (the university professors) benefited from the experience. The faculty members greatly appreciated the flexibility of the training, and some considered working with their mentors to be the best training they have ever received. The students gained self-esteem and real-life experience in training educators, and some of them benefited from the relationship by obtaining a position at a new school, becoming a university adjunct faculty member, or being invited to offer more technology training.
Results also indicated that some adjustments are needed to better serve the participants, for example by allowing mentors to spend longer periods of time on working with their mentees and by protecting mentors when mentees do not carry out their commitments. Offering workshops that leave ample time for participants to practice and that facilitate discussion on technology integration is important. Having small group leaders who believe in the merits of a learning community and who may commit themselves for such service is necessary for the success of a learning community.
The training worked well in this institution and may be implemented in other higher education institutions, even in K-12 settings. However, the faculty members in this institution, similar to professors in other institutions and teachers in K-12 schools, have experienced challenges such as time constraints. An organizational change and administrators' involvement are crucial to help faculty members facing the challenges and to enable faculty development training to make a real impact on student learning.
Table 1 PT3 Needs Survey Results PT3 Needs Survey Results Subject Technology Subject Technology Language Setting Online Math & Setting Online Arts and Courses Science Courses Literature (Bb, WebCT) (Bb, WebCT) Web page Web page PowerPoint PowerPoint Inspiration Digital Video Digital Video iMovie Excel Video Math Software Conferencing Concept Video Streaming Mapping CD Buming Digital Cameras File Maker Pro Advanced Web Page Lab Probes, GPS for Mapping PT3 Needs Survey Results Subject Technology Foundation & Setting Online Ed. Psychology Courses (Bb, WebCT) Web page PowerPoint Inspiration Adobe Hypertext Lego Logo Kits General Training Distance Learning Uploading, Downloading Databases
The author would like to thank Jennifer Tseng for her assistance with the manuscript.
The work reported was supported by Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grant.
Alexandrowicz, V. (2001). Community service learning in culturally diverse settings as a springboard for student constructed case studies. Education, 121(4), 761-767.
Arman, J.F., & Scherer, D. (2002). Service learning in school counselor preparation: A qualitative analysis. Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 41, 69-86.
Bennet, G., & Green, F.P. (2001). Promoting service learning via online instruction. College Student Journal, 35(4), 491-497.
Cameron, M., Forsyth, A., Green, W.A., Lu, H., McGirr, P., Owens, P.E., & Stolz, R. (2001). Learning through service. College Teaching, 49(3), 105-113.
Carr, K. (2002). Building bridges and crossing borders: Using service learning to overcome cultural barriers to collaboration between science and education departments. School Science & Mathematics, 102(6), 285-298.
Carroll, T. (2000, February). If we didn't have the schools we have today--would we create the schools we have today? Presented at the annual convention of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.
Clark, C.T. (2002). Unfolding narratives of service learning: Reflections on teaching, literacy, and positioning in service relationships. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(4), 288-297.
Cotugna, N., & Vickery, C.E. (1998). Reverse mentoring: A twist to teaching technology. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98(10), 1166-1168.
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Greengard, S. (2002). Moving forward with reverse mentoring. Workforce, 81(3), 15.
Gujarathi, M.R., & McQuade, R.J. (2002). Service-learning in business schools: A case study in an intermediate accounting course. Journal of Education for Business, 77(3), 144-150.
Michael, K.Y. (2001). Technology education students make a difference through service learning. Technology Teacher, 61(3), 30-32.
Morgan, W., & Streb, M. (2001). Building citizenship: How student voice in service learning develops civic values. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 156-169.
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education (2000). Teacher use of the Internet in public schools. [Online]. Available: http://nces.edgov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000090
Schlenker, R.M., & Schlenker, K.R. (2001). Integrating high school and service learning. Science Activities, 38(2), 22-28.
Schwartzman, R. (2001). Service-learning responds to technological enchantment and intellectual isolation. College Student Journal, 35(3), 423-432.
Solomon, M. (2001). Coaching the boss. Computerworld, 35(5), 42.
Starcevich, M.M. (2001). What is unique about reverse mentoring, survey results. Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.coachingandmentoring.com/reversementoringresults.htm
Swick, K.J. (2001). Service-learning in teacher education: Building learning communities. Clearing House, 74(5), 261-264.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zielinski, D. (2000). Mentoring up. Training, 37(10), 136-140.
AMY S. C. LEH
California State University San Bernardino
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Leh, Amy S.C.|
|Publication:||Journal of Technology and Teacher Education|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2005|
|Previous Article:||Teachers, technology, and change: English teachers' perspectives.|
|Next Article:||Training teachers to integrate technology into the classroom curriculum: online versus face-to-face course delivery.|