Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 45–71 | Cite as

Investigating faculty technology mentoring as a university-wide professional development model

Article

Abstract

A growing and increasingly important area of research in higher education is the investigation of how different forms of support and training programs facilitate faculty adoption of technology into pedagogical practices. This study explored the implementation of a faculty technology mentoring (FTM) program as a university-wide professional development model, focusing on the success factors and critical strategies that encourage technology adoption in faculty teaching practices. The goal of this effort is to provide evidence-based discussion on an FTM model tailored to faculty members’ needs in a university context. Participants included 12 faculty members (mentees) and 12 graduate students (mentors), paired throughout the FTM program. Analysis of mentors’ weekly blog posts, case reports, and interviews with faculty members revealed six critical strategies: determining needs; exploring technologies’ affordances and limitations; scaffolding; sharing feedback; connecting technology, pedagogy, and content; and evaluating. Success factors included motivation, meeting challenges, the nature of mentoring relationships, communication channels, and support. The results point to key recommendations for higher education institutions that plan to implement similar mentoring programs in order to support technology integration into faculty members’ teaching practices.

Keywords

Faculty technology mentoring Higher education Technology integration Professional education 

References

  1. Adamy, P., & Heinecke, W. (2005). The influence of organizational culture on technology integration in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 233–255.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Senaidi, S., Lin, L., & Poirot, J. (2009). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning in Oman. Computers and Education, 53(2009), 575–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2014). A professional development framework for online teaching. TechTrends, 58(5), 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beisser, S. (2000). Technology mentorships in higher education: An optimal match for expanding educational computing skills. In B. Gillan & K. McFerrin (Eds.), Faculty development (pp. 441–447). Retrieved from ERIC database (ED444497).Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program. Internet and Higher Education, 6(2003), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierema, L. L., & Merriam, S. B. (2002). E-mentoring: Using computer mediated communication to enhance the mentoring process. Innovative Higher Education, 26(3), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chuang, H., & Schmidt, D. (2008). Faculty technology mentoring programs. In A. D. Thompson, H. Chuang, & I. Sahin (Eds.), Faculty mentoring: The power of students in developing technology expertise (pp. 29–46). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Chuang, H., Thompson, A., & Schmidt, D. (2003). Faculty technology mentoring programs: Major trends in the literature. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(4), 101–106.Google Scholar
  10. Corbin, J., & Holt, N. L. (2005). Grounded theory. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 49–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Cotugna, N., & Vickery, C. (1998). Reverse mentoring: A twist to teaching technology. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98(10), 1166–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlstrom, E., & Brooks, C. D. (2014). Study of faculty and information technology research. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/study-faculty-and-information-technology-2014.
  14. Dawson, P. (2014). Beyond a definition: Toward a framework for designing and specifying mentoring models. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers and Education, 64, 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franklin, T., Turner, S., Kariuki, M., & Duran, M. (2001). Mentoring overcomes barriers to technology integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(1), 26–31.Google Scholar
  18. Friel, T., Britten, J., Compton, B., Peak, A., Schoch, K., & VanTyle, W. K. (2009). Using pedagogical dialogue as a vehicle to encourage faculty technology use. Computers and Education, 53(2009), 300–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gabriel, M. A., & Kaufield, K. J. (2008). Reciprocal mentorship: An effective support for online instructors. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(3), 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Georgina, D. A., & Hosford, C. C. (2009). Higher education faculty perceptions on technology integration and training. Computers and Education, 25, 690–696.Google Scholar
  21. Georgina, D. A., & Olson, M. R. (2008). Integration of technology into higher education: A review of faculty self-perceptions. Journal of Higher Education and Technology, 11(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  22. Grant, M. (2004). Learning to teach with the web: Factors influencing teacher education faculty. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  24. Kealy, W. A., & Mullen, C. A. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction: At the nexus of mentoring and technology. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 11(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your students: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25–55.Google Scholar
  26. Kopcha, T. J. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers and Education, 59(2012), 1109–1121.Google Scholar
  27. Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Education Technology Research and Development, 58, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larson, L. (2009). A descriptive study of mentoring and technology integration among teacher education faculty. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 7(1), 119–135.Google Scholar
  29. Leh, A. S. C. (2005). Lessons learned from service learning and reverse mentoring in faculty development: A case study in technology training. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 25–41.Google Scholar
  30. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Communities of designers: A brief history and introduction. In P. Mishra, M. J. Koehler, & Y. Zhao (Eds.), Faculty development by design: Integrating technology in higher education (pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Ng, W. (2015). Adopting new digital technologies in education: Professional learning. In W. Ng (Ed.), New digital technology in education: Conceptualizing professional learning for educators (pp. 25–48). Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Rhodes, C., Stokes, M., & Hampton, G. (2004). A practical guide to mentoring, coaching and peer-networking. London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  36. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Silva, K., Correia, A., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2010). A faculty mentoring experience: Learning together in Second Life. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(4), 149–159.Google Scholar
  38. Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Swan, K., Holmes, A., Vargas, J. D., Jennings, S., Meier, E., & Rubenfeld, L. (2002). Situated professional development and technology integration: The capital area technology and inquiry in education (CATIE) mentoring program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 169–190.Google Scholar
  40. Thompson, A. (2008). History of the faculty technology mentoring program. In A. D. Thompson, H. Chuang, & I. Sahin (Eds.), Faculty mentoring: The power of students in developing technology expertise (pp. 29–46). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Xu, Y., & Meyer, K. A. (2007). Factors explaining faculty technology use and productivity. Internet and Higher Education, 10(2007), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perpetual control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 5–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of EducationMiddle East Technical UniversityCankaya, AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations