Mentoring: a strategy for change in teacher technology education.
A preservice mentoring program involving second year mentors and first year proteges focused on concerns regarding the use of the Internet for teaching and learning. The mentoring program was analyzed using the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). This model describes three developmental phases of concerns regarding innovation and change: self-focus, task, and impact. The Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) was used as both a pre and postassessment of participants concerns. The unique nature of mentoring allowed each group to address relevant concerns and make positive shifts to higher levels of concern. The validity of the SoCQ for preservice teachers is discussed and an alternative is investigated.
Using technology to strengthen learning requires teachers who possess the skills and abilities to do so. Teachers need to become competent both with basic technology skills, and with using technology for teaching and learning. Acquiring this knowledge base is not a one-time event; it is an ongoing process of change.
A 1999 national survey of teacher education programs has found little correlation between training in formal technology classes and the capacity for integration in actual teaching (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999). The current model used in higher education all too frequently reinforces this problem. Preservice teachers' primary experience with technology often occurs in a stand-alone course that focuses on computer skills. Effectively preparing preservice teachers to integrate technology requires a systematic program that recognizes the concerns preservice teachers have with the use of technology.
This study examined a peer-mentoring program that was implemented as one method of integrating technology across the preservice teacher program. The program centered on using the Internet for teaching and learning. The mentors were second and third year students enrolled in an instructional technology course. The proteges were first year students enrolled in Introduction to Elementary Education, the first course in the elementary education sequence. Mentors learned Internet and technology integration skills by developing WebQuests for use by K-6 students as part of the instructional technology course. After creating these WebQuests, the mentors coached their proteges in the development of a web page focusing on Internet sources for teachers. The first year students did not receive any training on use of the Internet in the introductory course.
The mentoring took place over a five-week time frame. The mentors were responsible for scheduling instruction and developing strategies to meet the individual needs of their proteges. Mentors evaluated their proteges both in terms of their basic technology skills and their attitudes and concerns regarding use of the Internet for teaching and learning. This study covered 45 mentors and 65 proteges in one semester.
Stages of Concern
Feelings of concern and disequilibria are normal when preservice teachers learned new skills or an innovation. A theory of the change process was developed by Fuller (1969) who posited three developmental stages that preservice teachers go through: (a) nonconcern, (b) concern with self, and (c) concern with others. Fuller's model led to a more general theory of innovation and change called the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). CBAM was based on several assumptions: (a) change was not an event, but a process; (b) change was best seen as happening within individuals rather than as within institutions; (c) individuals had different concerns as well as different skill levels at different stages of the change process; and (d) effective facilitation of change meant addressing the specific concerns of individuals who were at different stages of the change process (Berlin & Jensen, 1989).
The evolution of developmental change theory from Fuller to CBAM led to the use of varying terminology and differences in the precise number and identification of stages by different researchers. For clarity, this article used the CBAM model and denoted stages of this model with the use of italics. As in the original model developed by Fuller, these stages were organized into three developmental levels: self-focus, task, and impact on others (Hall, Alquist, & Hendrickson, 1999).
This progression of concerns from self-focus to impact on others was a typical progression that preservice teachers went through as they made the transition from thinking of themselves as students to thinking of themselves as teachers (Fuller, 1969). This was especially true for innovations that were entirely new to preservice teachers, such as the use of technology for teaching and learning. Empowering preservice teachers to use technology meaningfully required preparation with a range of skills.
Mentoring and the CBAM Model
In a review of the literature on mentoring, Jacobi (1991) concluded that mentoring, a one-to-one helping relationship and nurturing process between a mentor and protege, provided social support that buffered the stress associated with collegiate demands. Jacobi identified three functions of mentoring that helped reduce stress: (a) direct assistance or professional development, (b) emotional support, and (c) role modeling. These functions addressed the needs of individuals with a variety of concerns. Direct assistance most directly related to participants at the self-focus level. Providing emotional support helped individuals with task concerns, both personal and management. Role modeling, although beneficial at all levels, was most effective for those with concerns for others as expressed at the impact level.
Peer mentoring addressed the need for systematic integration of technology within the framework of the CBAM model and provided several possible advantages from a CBAM perspective. Possible advantages of using mentoring included: (a) addressing change incrementally, providing support for the relevant concerns of preservice teachers at various stages in multiple courses and years, (b) providing a positive experience centered on social collaboration, and (c) increasing preservice teacher awareness of the change process.
Hall, George, & Rutherford (1979) found that training was more successful when the current concerns of individuals were successfully addressed. The mentoring program was designed to address the differing concerns of both the mentors and the proteges. Both groups were learning to use new technologies, but on different levels.
Proteges' concerns focused on basic technology skills. A number of freshmen were still limited in their basic computer knowledge. These students were expected to use word-processing, e-mail, and the Web in a number of their classes, but did not receive formal training in these skills until they took the instructional technology course in their second or third year. The mentoring program helped to reduce stress that freshman experienced when required to use technology.
Mentors began this process less concerned with basic technology skills and more with how they would be able to use their skills as future teachers. They had at least one field experience and were possibly thinking of themselves in their future roles as teachers. These students already had experience with the basic skills of using the Internet, yet they had not had any practical experience using the Internet in the role of a teacher or facilitator.
The second advantage of mentoring from the CBAM perspective was that students used technology as part of a collaborative project that emphasized social relations between preservice teachers from different courses. Throughout the mentoring program an emphasis was placed not only on the project students needed to complete, but also on the social aspects of the collaboration. Mentors and proteges were introduced to the program in a joint meeting that included personal presentations from previous participants. Also, mentors and proteges were encouraged to use partnerships as a way to "pass down" lessons learned by the more experienced students about classes, field experiences, and college life generally. One of the stages related to impact dealt with collaborative relations and how teachers worked with others. The mentoring experience more closely resembled collaboration between teachers than within-class collaborative projects in that students found ways to engage with peers outside the boundaries of their class rooms.
Finally, one of the biggest advantages of using CBAM as a training tool was that it provided credence to the concerns of preservice teachers when tackling the use of new technology (Horsley & Loucks-Horsley, 1998). An important characteristic of the mentoring process was that a reciprocal relationship existed. Both the mentor and the protege derived benefits from the relationship, either emotional or tangible (Clifford, 1999; Frykholin, 1998, Jacobi, 1991).
FOCUS OF RESEARCH
The focus of this study was on whether or not and in what ways a peer-mentoring program shifted concerns about use of the Internet as a tool for teaching and learning. Specifically, did mentors and proteges move from a focus on self toward a focus on task and impact as a result of the mentoring process?
Data collection consisted of pre and post use of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) (Hall, Wallace, & Dossett, 1973) and an open-ended questionnaire at the end of the project. The SoCQ measured concerns related to the three developmental phases of CBAM: self-focus, task, and impact on others. These phases are further broken down into seven stages. Self-focus was made up of three stages: (a) awareness, (b) informational, and (c) personal; task had only one stage: management; and impact was broken down into three stages: consequence, collaboration, and refocusing. The SoCQ contained 35 questions; five questions for each of the seven stages. Participants rated each item on a scale of zero (not true of me now) through seven (very true of me now). A multivariate repeated measures analysis was conducted to compare within-subject changes from pre assessment to post assessment and for comparing differences between mentor and protege groups for each of the seven subscales represented in the SoCQ. Examples of q uestions from each of the seven stages are presented in Appendix A.
After analyzing the effects of the mentoring program, we undertook an analysis of the SoCQ to verify the validity of the seven-stage model. A principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted to see if items grouped as predicted by the seven stages of the SoCQ. As discussed in the results section, this factor analysis did not demonstrate consistency with the seven factors used to group SoCQ questions.
Exploratory analysis was conducted to establish new scales that would more meaningfully fit the concerns of participants. In addition to factor analysis, the meaning of the original SoCQ items was analyzed for relevance to a preservice technology context. This process resulted in the development of four subscales with three questions representing each of the subscales. A multivariate repeated measures analysis was again conducted for comparing pre and post scores of individuals and for comparing mentors and protege groups.
Qualitative analysis of CBAM constructs was recommended for interpreting data from the SoCQ (Shotsberger & Crawford, 1996). This was especially true for use of the survey with preservice teachers (O'Sullivan & Zielinski, 1988). To provide for triangulation of data from the SoCQ, as well as to interpret results within the context of the mentoring project, all students were asked to complete an open-ended questionnaire at the conclusion of the project. Questions included personal reactions to participation in the mentoring program, skills learned, and explanations of SoCQ questions related to the innovation and collaboration. A summary of the questions is presented in Appendix B. Data analysis of the open-ended questionnaire followed deductive pattern matching as defined by Yin (1994). Responses were listed under the category of mentor or protege. Similar words and phrases were tallied. Finally, the words and phrases were categorized and compared to predicted functions of the mentor as established in the litera ture review and concerns as described in the SoCQ. Initial analysis using the seven-stage model revealed that very few responses were at the awareness level and none at the refocusing level. An interpretation of the data using the broader categories of self, task, and impact was conducted.
According to a review of literature, mentors assumed three general functions that help reduce stress. The mentors in this study assumed all three of these functions: direct assistance or professional development, providing emotional and psychological support, and to some extent acting as a role model. The first two functions were clearly demonstrated by the results of both the SoCQ as well as the results of the open-ended questionnaire. In addition, mentors and proteges demonstrated decreased concerns related to lower stages such as awareness and management and demonstrated increased concern with the higher stages related to impact on students and collaboration with others.
Although both quantitative and qualitative data indicated clear development according to stages consistent with a self-task-impact model, the picture resulting from the data does not fit well with the seven-factor model represented in the SoCQ. The results of the SoCQ were examined first, followed by interpretation and analysis of the qualitative data.
Inconsistency with the SoCQ Model
Following the procedures used by Bailey and Palsha (1992), an initial analysis of the SoCQ survey data was conducted to determine whether the data was consistent with a seven stage developmental model. A factor analysis was conducted to determine if the questions loaded on the same factors proposed by the survey and a correlational analysis was conducted to determine whether the factors related in ways consistent with the CBAM model. These analyses demonstrated problems with interpretation of the survey according to a seven-stage model.
A factor analysis with Varimax rotation with a seven-factor solution specified was conducted to see if items grouped as predicted by the seven stages of the SoCQ. This analysis did not demonstrate consistency with the seven SoCQ subscales. None of the sets of five questions per subscale loaded on a single factor; the number of questions loading per factor ranged from 1 to 10.
Next, a correlational analysis of the relationship between the seven subscale factors did not fit the developmental assumptions underlying CBAM. As shown in Table 1, the level of correlation between the stages was very high indicating a lack of clear distinction between subscale stages. In addition, according to the theory, a pattern should exist in the correlations showing closer correlation between adjacent stages and lower correlations with stages that were further apart. In fact, there was no such pattern in the correlations.
These inconsistencies mirrored findings in the qualitative data as well as the informal observations of the researchers. Many participants had trouble interpreting several of the questions. Although the SoCQ instrument was based on a theory that was originally developed in a preservice context, the survey seemed to apply better to inservice teachers. The questions from two of the subscales, personal and refocusing, did not seem to fit preservice teachers very well. For example, question 33 asked participants to rate their agreement with, "I would like to know the effect of reorganization on my professional status." This question had little meaning for preservice teachers and was also not very relevant to the context of technology.
The qualitative data demonstrated that personal concerns were extremely important to participants, but the particular questions in the survey did not fit the personal concerns of preservice teachers.
The refocusing subscale did not show up in the qualitative data at all and was probably not relevant to preservice teachers. The refocusing subscale applied best to practitioners with experience with an innovation and who were concerned with how to revise and improve their use of the innovation. Preservice teachers were novice users and had little if any experience using the innovation with students, let alone revising their use of the innovation. Although participants theoretically should rate irrelevant questions with a zero, in practice the questions appeared to be so unrelated to preservice teachers that they had problems with interpretation.
Modification of the SoCQ
To gain a more meaningful interpretation of the data, an exploratory analysis was conducted to see if questions could be selected that fit the developmental model and the context of preservice teachers. Several considerations were used in the selection of these questions: (a) they should come from an optimal factor solution from the original data, (b) they should be clearly meaningful within a preservice context, (c) they should show the correlational pattern expected from the CBAM model, and (d) they should be conceptually related to the original subscales of the SoCQ.
A Scree analysis indicated an optimal four-factor solution representing awareness, management, consequence, and collaboration factors. This eliminated information, personal, and refocusing stages from the original analysis. Although informational concerns were very important for preservice teachers, it was not highly distinct from awareness (Bailey & Palsha, 1992). Qualitative analysis of answers to open-ended questions demonstrated that personal concerns were very important to preservice teachers; however, the questions in the original survey simply did not address this factor well. Consistent with qualitative findings, this breakdown also eliminated the refocusing category.
Next, three questions from each factor were selected based on the strength of loading and on clear interpretation of the question from a preservice context. This resulted in the selection of 12 questions. These questions were next analyzed to determine whether they were consistent with CBAM and with the original categories of the SoCQ. A factor analysis of these 12 questions accounted for 69% of the variance and demonstrated strong loading on four distinct factors that were consistent with the SoCQ subscale categorizations for these questions (Table 2).
An intercorrelational analysis demonstrated good consistency with the developmental assumptions of CBAM. The correlations clearly formed a pattern of stronger correlations between adjacent stages than other stages. This data is presented in Table 3.
Next, a correlational analysis was conducted to see if the four categories in the modified SoCQ were closely related with the same categories from the full survey. The correlations were all at an acceptable level, ranging from .79 for awareness to .95 for consequence.
Findings Using the Modified SoCQ
The findings from the four-factor model demonstrated growth in the type of concern for both mentors and proteges. Both mentors and proteges demonstrated decreased concerns for awareness (combined decrease from 10.54 to 6.62) and management (combined decrease from 9.81 to 8.71) and increased higher-level concerns for consequences to students (combined increase from 13.04 to 14.25) and collaboration (combined increase from 9.61 to 11.03). Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviation results for pre and post assessment for proteges and mentors. The results also fit the expected pattern for differences between groups with mentors having lower concerns for awareness and management and higher concerns for consequence and collaboration as compared with proteges.
A multivariate repeated measures analysis was conducted to test for within subjects changes from pre assessment to post assessment and for between group differences for each of the four factors.
All comparisons were significant. From a multivariate perspective, there was a significant change from pre to post assessment, F(4,109) = 25.15, Wilks' [lambda] = .52, p < .001. Univariate changes were also significant for each of the four factors. Awareness, F(4,109) = 96.06, p < .001, management, F(4,109) = 6.4l, p <.05, consequence, F(4,109) = 3.98, p <.05, and collaboration, F(4,109) = 5.89, p <.05 all demonstrated significant changes in the predicted direction.
The multivariate between groups comparison showed a significant difference between mentors and proteges, F(4,109) = 9.202, Wilks' [lambda] = .748, p <.001. Univariate analysis also showed significant differences between the groups on each of the four factors. Awareness, F(4,109) = 11.27, p < .001, management, F(4,109) = 17.08, p < .001, consequence, F(4,109) = 8.l9, p < .01, and collaboration, F(4,109) = 4.95, p < .05 all resulted in significant differences consistent with expected differences.
The significant findings on all subscales of the modified SoCQ begged the question of whether the selected questions skewed the outcomes that might have been found using the full 35 questions. Did our selection of 12 questions lead to the findings of significance? Despite the poor fit of the data to the model, a multivariate repeated measures analysis was conducted using all 35 questions to test this question. This analysis revealed significant multivariate differences within and between subjects and univariate differences on most of the factors.
A significant multivariate change from pre to post assessment was found using the full SoCQ instrument, F(7,98)=13.83, Wilks' [lambda] = .503, p <.001. Significance was also found for within subject univariate comparisons for the awareness, consequences, collaboration, and refocusing scales. Significant changes were not found for the informational, personal, or management stages. The multivariate between groups comparison also showed a significant difference between mentors and proteges, F(7,98) = 4.16, Wilks' [lambda] = .77l, p <.001. The univariate differences were significant for all factors except refocusing.
The problems with the full instrument previously described indicated that comparisons using all the questions and seven factors were less meaningful than the comparisons made using the modified SoCQ. Nevertheless, significant multivariate changes were found for awareness, consequences, and collaboration for both within and between group comparisons regardless whether the full 35-question instrument or the modified SoCQ was analyzed.
The qualitative survey was used both for interpreting the results of the SoCQ within the specific context of the mentoring project as well as for providing triangulation of the SoCQ data. The explanation of results was developed according to the three hypothesized functions of mentoring and their interpretation according to the CBAM model. The explanations of these results were also used to reflect on the findings from the SoCQ.
Professional Development and Self-Concerns
Most proteges felt that their mentors provided adequate assistance reporting that mentors were knowledgeable and experienced, guided and answered questions, cleared up misconceptions, provided feedback, and made the project relevant. Many benefits of the project were viewed from a personal level. Proteges reported that they learned new skills, knowledge, and resources that they could use personally and that mentors helped them and made them feel more comfortable and confident in their own abilities. Mentors perceived that they benefited by reinforcing their own skills and in finding additional resources they could use in the future.
Emotional Support and Task Concerns
In most responses, proteges described mentors as being helpful, patient, understanding, and friendly. They also reported that mentors made the project enjoyable and as a result, they were not embarrassed to ask questions and gained confidence in using technological skills. A few responses indicated that the mentor had not been supportive. In most cases this was attributed to lack of knowledge and skills on the part of the mentor and scheduling difficulties. Mentor responses revealed that support for mentors was not perceived as strongly as for proteges.
The largest number of responses revealed that proteges had a task-focus that was expressed either as personal concerns or management concerns about completing the mentoring project. Proteges viewed the project more as a course assignment than as a way to prepare to help their future students. In this context, individuals were uncertain about the demands of the innovation, their ability to meet the demands, and their role with the innovation. Concerns at this level revolved around the ability to complete the web page assignment due to inadequate skills or lack of confidence with their own computer skills or to lack of abilities of the mentor.
Another area of concern for proteges was with management of the project. Most of these concerns dealt with scheduling meeting times, time frame for the project, and matching proteges and mentors. Examples of scheduling responses included "it was difficult at times to get in touch with my mentor," "allow class time for students to meet with their mentor," and "coordinating times with my mentor was difficult."
Like the proteges most mentor responses related to the task level. Mentors expressed additional stress, added responsibility, lack of confidence, and lack of support. One mentor stated, "When I was the protege, I loved this project. As the mentor I felt a little more responsibility, however, and that made me a little uncomfortable sometimes." Mentors also indicated that they learned additional technological skills and resources, teaching skills, and gained a sense of accomplishment and confidence.
The second greatest area of concern for mentors, like the proteges, was at the management level. Time and scheduling were the primary concerns. Comments included, "Being a full time worker and part time student, I found that the mentoring project did not flow as easily as possible to be done in the allotted time. To commute a distance for an unproductive session proves to be frustrating." Another example of a management concern was "technology changes so fast that keeping up to date is very difficult."
The final function of the mentor was role model. Neither mentors nor proteges reported this as a strong area. Several students in each category stated that they did not perceive the mentor as a role model, more as a colleague who was more knowledgeable. One protege stated that there had not been enough time to develop a role model relationship. Several proteges used their mentors to gain information about college life, the elementary education program, and specific classes and professors.
A few proteges expressed awareness of impact level consequences to students when using the Internet in their future classrooms. Examples of these responses included, "I feel the Internet is a positive experience for all ages," "I think the Internet is a great source for information that should be available to students K-6," and "When I am a teacher, I will want to have a web page, use software and use the Internet with students."
The next stage related to impact concerns was collaboration. Mentors expressed a desire and fondness for working together. Responses included "one-to-one interaction was good," "we learned together," "sharing the wealth is a good way to build knowledge and understanding," and "working together is always a plus."
Several protege comments related to the collaboration level. Most of these responses indicated that these proteges liked to work collaboratively and would like to share this knowledge with colleagues when they were teachers. As one protege stated, "Team work is the way to go."
The qualitative results were consistent with the direction, but not with the relative importance, of the consequence and collaboration stages as found in the SoCQ data. The SoCQ data showed consequences as the highest-ranking category for both mentors and proteges. The qualitative results show a marked difference from the survey in terms of the magnitude of these concerns. When answering open-ended questions, participants rarely expressed concerns related to impact; the focus was much more clearly on self and task. It may be that survey questions such as "I am concerned with the impact of the innovation on students" prompted participant reflection in a way that did not represent the concerns that were foremost in their thinking. The open-ended questions may have been more revealing of the relative magnitude of participant concerns.
Both quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that mentoring can be effective for both mentors and proteges in terms of growth toward higher stages. Proteges were initially concerned with completing the web page assignment. At the conclusion of the project, many proteges stated that the project was not as difficult as they had anticipated and some recognized how they could use these skills for instruction in future college classes and in their future classrooms. Mentors became more focused on collaboration as they assumed a teaching role.
Pairing preservice teachers at different stages of development and at different stages in their concerns about adoption of an innovation appears to be a very effective method of helping students at both low and higher level stages of concern. This is especially important in the area of technology innovation. New technology standards from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) propose four levels of technology preparation for preservice teachers. The ISTE standards outline benchmarks for general preparation, professional preparation, field experiences, and first year teaching. The standards do not explicitly refer to the CBAM model, but they implicitly recognize the change process as developmental and align with the CBAM model. The mentoring program examined in this study is an effective way to implement these standards in a meaningful way across program levels.
The findings of this study are consistent with the underlying principles of the CBAM model, but not with the more finely tuned stages hypothesized by the SoCQ widely used to measure concerns related to technology use. This study demonstrates the need for modification of the SoCQ, or for the development of a new instrument, for assessing levels of concern for preservice teachers. Promising avenues for further research include development of an instrument with fewer categories, perhaps more clearly aligned with Fuller's model that posits three developmental phases for preservice teachers: non-concern, self-concern, and concern for others. Integration of technology in teacher preparation represents a significant challenge and an area of constant innovation. More effective instruments that can help assess this process and that can help highlight effective programs for supporting change are especially needed.
This study used the theoretical framework of CBAM as a method for analyzing the functions and effectiveness of mentoring. In addition to being an assessment tool, CBAM is designed to help innovators adapt support to the concerns of teachers. When proteges are made aware of CBAM concepts, it may help them understand that the challenging aspects of innovation are part of a normal process. Further, mentors who use CBAM to assess their proteges gain experience as facilitators of change. This provides for the possibility of even more powerful understanding of the change process. Further study should assess the effectiveness of CBAM as a tool for change in mentoring programs.
Examples of SoCQ Items
Stage 0 Awareness
Although I don't know about this innovation, I am concerned about things in the area.
Stage 1 Information
I would like to discuss the possibility of using the innovation.
Stage 2 Personal
I would like to have more information on time and energy commitments required by this innovation.
Stage 3 Management
I am concerned about my inability to manage all the innovation requires.
Stage 4 Consequence
I am concerned about how the innovation affects students.
Stage 5 Collaboration
I would like to help other faculty in their use of the innovation.
Stage 6 Refocusing
I would like to revise the innovation's instructional approach.
Qualitative Survey Questions
Read the statement about peer-mentoring and explain in what ways this was true or not true of you.
1. College work is stressful and I liked peer mentoring because it gave me some emotional support as I worked on a project and while I learned some new skills.
2. Peer-mentoring gave me a way to learn some technical skills and to become aware of resources on the Internet.
3. I liked having a role-model for another student.
We would like to understand better why certain feelings changed or what the survey is really telling us. Please provide reactions to the following statements from the SoCQ survey.
4. I don't even know what the innovation is.
5. I have a very limited knowledge about the innovation.
6. I would like to help other faculty in their use of the innovation.
Table 1 Intercorrelational Matrix of Seven Stages Stage 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 -.13 -.06 .16 -.19 -.11 .17 1 .69 ** .31 ** .60 ** .58 ** .58 ** 2 .39 ** .61 ** .69 ** .60 ** 3 .30 * .15 .45 * 4 .62 ** .61 * 5 .59 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 2 Rotated Component Matrix-Four Factor-12 Question Solution Factors Collaboration Consequence Awareness Management Q3 -0.19 -0.28 0.75 0.16 Q6 -0.13 -0.18 0.83 0.10 Q23 0.07 0.39 0.61 0.25 Q4 -0.18 0.18 0.16 0.61 Q21 -0.05 -0.22 0.25 0.75 Q34 0.15 -0.06 0.02 0.84 Q11 0.19 0.80 -0.17 0.09 Q24 0.38 0.73 -0.02 -0.15 Q32 0.53 0.56 -0.15 -0.18 Q5 0.81 0.13 -0.22 -0.02 Q10 0.86 0.21 0.05 0.00 Q18 0.83 0.24 -0.10 0.01 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax Table 3 Intercorrelational Matrix for Four Stages Stage Management Consequence Collaboration Awareness .501 ** .002 .040 Management .25 * .19 * Consequence .659 ** ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 4 Four Factor Results Factor Group Pre- Post- assessment assessment Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Awareness Protege 11.54 7.82 n=65 (4.423) (4.71) Mentor 9.22 5.04 n=45 (5.382) (3.385) Total 10.54 6.62 n=114 (4.971) (4.397) Management Protege 11.45 9.83 n=65 (4.504) (4.696) Mentor 7.63 7.22 n=45 (4.693) (4.469) Total 9.81 8.71 n=114 (4.944) (4.759) Consequence Protege 11.88 13.18 n=65 (5.819) (5.226) Mentor 14.57 15.67 n=45 (5.891) (6.183) Total 13.04 14.25 n=114 (5.976) (5.765) Collaboration Protege 8.6 10.22 n=65 (5.159) (5.732) Mentor 10.96 12.1 n=45 (6.235) (6.539) Total 9.61 11.03 n=114 (5.741) (6.136)
Bailey, D.B., & Palsha, S.A. (1992). Qualities of the stages of concern questionnaire and implications for educational innovations. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 226-232.
Berlin, B.M. & Jensen, K. (1989). Changing teachers. Education and Urban Society, 22, 115-120.
Clifford, E.F. (1999). Mentors and proteges: Establishing systems of assisted performance in preservice teacher education. Early Child Development and Care, 156, 35-52.
Frykholm, J.A. (1998, April). Beyond supervision: Learning to teach mathematics in community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(3), 305-322.
Fuller, E.F. (1969). Concerns of teaching: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226.
Hall, G.E., Alquist, A., & Hendrickson, M.B. (1999). Using constructs and techniques from research to facilitate and assess implementation of an innovative mathematics curriculum. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 34, 1-8.
Hall, G.E., George. A., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC questionnaire (Report No. 3032). Austin, TX: The University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147 342)
Hall, G.E., Wallace, R.C., & Dossett, W.A. (1973). Measuring self task, and impact concerns: A manual for use of the teacher concerns questionnaire. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.
Horsley, D.L. & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). Tornado of change. Journal of Staff Development, 19, 17-20.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505-532.
Moursund, D. & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation. Retrieved July 28, 2000 from: http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME154.pdf
O'Sullivan, K.A., & Zielinski, E.J. (1988, April). Development of a stages of concern questionnaire for preservice teachers. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, Lake Ozark, Missouri.
Shotsberger, P.G., & Crawford, A.R. (1996). An analysis of the validity and reliability of the concerns based adoption model for teacher concerns in education reform. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Isaak, Troy J.|
|Publication:||Journal of Technology and Teacher Education|
|Date:||Dec 22, 2002|
|Previous Article:||Computer coordinators as change agents: some New Zealand observations.|
|Next Article:||Learning to notice: scaffolding new teachers' interpretations of classroom interactions.|