The purpose of this study was to investigate the approach of mentoring two college of education faculty by a graduate student and an undergraduate student. A qualitative case study approach was utilized to examine the mentoring process and its outcomes. Data were collected from two mentoring pairs in the form of journals, observations, interviews, and documents. These case studies provide descriptions and analysis of the mentoring experiences. The data in each case will provide the reader with significant insights into the complexities of student/faculty technology mentoring relationships. (1988) elaborate on the roles and functions of mentors in their development of a conceptualization of mentoring. These roles include teacher, sponsor, encourager, counselor, and befriender. Playing the role of a teacher is characterized by "modeling, informing, confirming/ disconfirming, prescribing, and questioning" (Anderson and Shannon, 1988, p. 40). Through the role of sponsor mentors may protect their proteges from environmental elements or from their own mistakes. The sponsoring role may also find the mentor promoting the protege in the professional and social systems of their environment, by introducing them to other professionals in their field. The Case #1: 'Dr. Crawford and RichardThe first mentoring pair included Dr. Crawford, a full professor in the area of reading and language arts, and Richard, a Ph.D. student in the area of Curriculum and Instructional Technology. As you will see, Dr. Crawford and Richard were only able to partially fulfill the successful mentoring characteristics.The first key to successful mentoring is communication (Gehrke, 1988).Communication is a key to the development of any relationship, and the lack of communication had the most impact on this relationship. During their first meeting, Richard was unable to fully communicate his overall goal of wanting to playa role in integrating technology into Dr. Crawford's instruction for that semester (MJ: 2/1/96). In addition, he was not able to communicate his idea for improving Dr. Crawford's XapShot camera activity. His idea was to create a WWW homepage with pictures on it for K-6 students to write about. The elementary students could then send their stories via the homepage or e-mail to the preservice teachers, who could then respond to the elementary students. In addition, the stories would be available for the preservice teachers to evaluate and discuss in class (MJ: 12/8/95). Although Richard's idea could have been a more compelling learning experience for Dr. Crawford's students, he was unable to fully communicate his idea to Dr. Crawford. Another example of their lack of communication was when expectations were not clearly defined for Richard who was to join Dr. Crawford in the classroom for the XapShot activity. Dr. Crawford did not feel that Richard was there early enough to help her get set up (FJ: 2/8/96). The result was that both Dr. Crawford and Richard were frustrated with