Implementation and Evaluation of Technology Mentoring Program Developed for Teacher Educators: A 6M-Framework

Abstract

<p><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: ES; mso-fareast-language: ES; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">The purpose of this basic research is to determine the problems experienced in the Technology Mentoring Program (TMP), and the study discusses how these problems affect the process in general. The implementation was carried out with teacher educators in the education faculty. 8 doctorate students (mentors) provided technology mentoring implementation for one academic term to 9 teacher educators (mentees) employed in the Education Faculty. The data were collected via the mentee and the mentor interview form, mentor reflections and organization meeting reflections. As a result, the problems based on the mentor, on the mentee and on the organization/institution were determined. In order to carry out TMP more effectively and successfully, a 6M-framework (Modifying, Meeting, Matching, Managing, Mentoring - Monitoring) was suggested within the scope of this study. It could be stated that fewer problems will be encountered and that the process will be carried out more effectively and successfully when the structure in this framework is taken into consideration.</span></p>

Faculty members’ planned technology integration behaviour in the context of a faculty technology mentoring programme

“…While implementing these innovations, they encounter challenges such as poor administrative support (O'Flaherty & Philips, 2015), negative attitudes (Prottas et al, 2016) and lack of knowledge of computer-based instruction (Marzilli et al, 2014). Problems related to time, access, space, supervision, operation and software (Gunuc, 2015), difficulties in curricular integration (Rivera, 2017) and a lack of technical support (Schoepp, 2004) were also noted. To break down these barriers, universities have implemented face-toface, online, synchronous, asynchronous, one-time and recurring professional development (PD) programmes, including self-directed learning experiences, professional meetings, seminars, workshops and conferences to accommodate faculty members' needs for effective technology integration in their classrooms (Johnson, 2015).…”

One-On-One Technology Mentoring for In-Service Teachers: The Experiences of Future ICT Coordinators

“…Developing programs based on educators' needs, motivation, concerns, and contexts improves their level of integration of technologies into classroom practices (Baran, 2016a). When the mentoring program is not developed based on mentees' specific needs, mentees might not want to follow the sessions regularly and lose their motivation on the content of the program (Gunuc, 2015).…”

“…Although there are various affordances of one-on-one technology mentorship and contribution to both mentors and mentees, some difficulties may still arise during the mentoring process. For example, in different studies, various challenges related to the content in the mentoring process were mentioned, such as discontinuing the previously planned content, not covering the subject in detail, unattractive content for the mentees, mentees being at least as knowledgeable as mentors (Gunuc, 2015), mentors not competent in some subjects that mentees request (Gunuc, 2015;, and mentors' limited knowledge of technological resources appropriate for mentees' subject areas (Konca & Tasdemir, 2018;. Similarly, some researchers have mentioned various logistic challenges such as the mentors/mentees having difficulties in continuing the process (Baran, 2016a;Gunuc, 2015;Iancu-Haddad & Oplatka, 2009), using only a small part of the planned time in some meetings (Gunuc, 2015), and a lack of a suitable working environment (Gunuc, 2015).…”

“…For example, in different studies, various challenges related to the content in the mentoring process were mentioned, such as discontinuing the previously planned content, not covering the subject in detail, unattractive content for the mentees, mentees being at least as knowledgeable as mentors (Gunuc, 2015), mentors not competent in some subjects that mentees request (Gunuc, 2015;, and mentors' limited knowledge of technological resources appropriate for mentees' subject areas (Konca & Tasdemir, 2018;. Similarly, some researchers have mentioned various logistic challenges such as the mentors/mentees having difficulties in continuing the process (Baran, 2016a;Gunuc, 2015;Iancu-Haddad & Oplatka, 2009), using only a small part of the planned time in some meetings (Gunuc, 2015), and a lack of a suitable working environment (Gunuc, 2015). Similarly, some researchers mentioned teaching difficulties such as mentors' fear of failure due to unforeseen problems that may arise in meetings (Gunuc, 2015;Iancu-Haddad & Oplatka, 2009), a decrease in mentees' motivation as the process progresses (Doukakis et al, 2019;Gunuc, 2015), and mentors' difficulties in managing the process (Gunuc, 2015).…”

“…Similarly, some researchers have mentioned various logistic challenges such as the mentors/mentees having difficulties in continuing the process (Baran, 2016a;Gunuc, 2015;Iancu-Haddad & Oplatka, 2009), using only a small part of the planned time in some meetings (Gunuc, 2015), and a lack of a suitable working environment (Gunuc, 2015). Similarly, some researchers mentioned teaching difficulties such as mentors' fear of failure due to unforeseen problems that may arise in meetings (Gunuc, 2015;Iancu-Haddad & Oplatka, 2009), a decrease in mentees' motivation as the process progresses (Doukakis et al, 2019;Gunuc, 2015), and mentors' difficulties in managing the process (Gunuc, 2015).…”