|
Professional Development and Mentoring Priorities for MatEdNational Resource Center for Materials Technology Education (MatEd) February 2008 Introduction The primary focus of MatEd is to provide manufacturing and
engineering technology instructors with the curriculum that is needed for them
to introduce their students to the fundamentals of materials technology. MatEd’s current year 3 priorities are to
The competencies needed by
students in materials technologies have been identified and curricula relating
these competencies are being collected.
The web site and the professional development program are currently
being implemented. MatEd’s
initial professional development program focuses on upgrading instructor
understanding of materials and the materials core competencies needed by their
students, along with presenting teaching strategies and strategies for
inserting needed materials concepts into a manufacturing curriculum. Professional development workshops are held
at appropriate partner sites either separately; or in conjunction with specific
conferences or other activities planned by the partner, and are focused on
specific partner and regional needs.
Since materials is a hands-on discipline, these workshops generally include
laboratory components related to core competency subjects, as well as modules
aimed at assisting faculty to develop and implement specific lessons and
exercises. Following these workshops, follow-up activities are to provide
support to the instructors involved to assist them in implementing materials
technology curriculum in their courses and institutions. This
analysis focuses on how best to follow up on these professional development
programs to ensure that instructors have the support they need to follow through
with the introduction of materials concepts and competencies into their
classes. The original proposal calls for
the development of regional support groups and a mentoring program for this
purpose, but the details are undefined. All
components of professional development, including workshops and their
subsequent follow-up programs must be integrated and coordinated to make up a
fully functional professional development program. The important question here is how to
formulate an efficient and cost effective follow-up program for MatEd’s
workshop participants. Will the regional support groups be sufficient, or is a
mentoring system needed? If so, how best
can mentoring be coordinated with the workshops and regional support group
program? Once MatEd has experience in
this area, should a broader, web-based tutorial and mentoring program be used
for project dissemination to a broader set of faculty? For MatEd planning purposes, it is important
for the project to consider these questions strategically as it develops
project priorities and timetables. This
will assist the project in promoting education in materials technology in the
most cost effective manner. Mentoring Systems Mentoring usually consists of one-on-one interactions between a mentor and a mentee, with the mentor being a person experienced in the subject at hand, and the mentee being a person studying or otherwise learning that subject. In recent years, a number of mentoring systems have been developed, many being between new K-12 teachers (the mentees) and experienced teacher mentors. Other common mentoring systems exist between students and professionals in their prospective careers, and between new and experienced employees in corporations. Some mentoring systems are quite complex and follow strict rules. Others are less formal and more flexible. Peer mentoring programs exist on both formal and informal bases and are often undertaken using a simple e-mail based listserv arrangement. Definitions and types of mentoring systems are listed in the appendix to this report. (Proven Practices for Recruitment of Women into STEM Fields, NSF ATE #0501971) Mentoring
systems are not always effective (Feiman-Nemser, 1996). In formal systems, the mentors must be well
trained and be broadly knowledgeable in the subject content involved, and a
sufficient number of mentors must be trained and available to match mentee
needs. In any mentoring program, mentees
must have support systems that ensure that they make use of the mentoring being
done. Since most instructors work alone, it is often difficult for a mentor to
know what the mentee really needs to become a more effective instructor and to
apply new ideas to existing curricula.
In MatEd’s case, the mentees must be convinced that introducing materials-related
curricula into existing courses will enhance both the course and the student’s
future on-the-job performance. Formal
mentoring systems can also be quite expensive, both in terms of staff time for
planning and execution of the program, and in terms of funding. In the case of MatEd, mentors would need to
be recruited and trained in the core competencies and in the modules involved,
as well as in the process of mentoring.
Training materials would need to be developed. A facilitator would also be needed to match
mentor and mentee and to ensure that the relationship develops and provides the
mentorship needed. Less formal mentoring
systems are less expensive, but still need some facilitation to ensure that
mentees take advantage of the program. E-mail
and other on-line mentoring systems use web-based software for contact between
mentor and mentee. Often in these
systems there is no face-to-face contact, just regular electronic interactions. The computer-based system and software are
important here, and very sophisticated systems have been developed.
Facilitation and mentor training are even more important than in face-to-face
mentoring systems, as are the visual materials available for use by the
mentor. Videos of laboratories and
demonstrations are vital, especially in a field like materials technology. With no personal contact, the mentee must be
sufficiently motivated and supported by her/his institution such that she/he
will put the mentoring process near the top of her/his priority list. The mentee and the mentor also must both be
sufficiently familiar with use of the web to ensure smooth interchange of
ideas. Application to MatEd As
noted, MatEd’s initial professional development program uses hands-on in-person
workshops tied into partner needs and programs. Remembering that the focus of
MatEd’s professional development program is the community or technical college
instructor, the question here is how best to enhance the faculty experience
with follow-up and support programs following a workshop activity. One
of the difficulties faced by many community college instructors is a lack of
time due to multiple courses and other duties.
For this reason, it is difficult to get some instructors to attend
conferences or professional meetings, especially in congested urban areas
(Curiel, private communication). For
these instructors, on-line programs, including tutorials and a mentoring
program, may be the answer. However,
many technology instructors are very hands-on and would prefer hands-on
workshops. Other instructors are eager
to learn new material, and in some cases have even participated in high
school-level programs to find out what is happening at that level (Nydam,
private communication). These
differences are undoubtedly due to different learning styles as well as to
geographical and cultural differences in different areas of the country. The
focus of MatEd’s proposed regional support groups is to bolster the knowledge
and experience of the professional development workshop participants, and to
assist them in implementing the new curriculum materials focused on materials
core competencies. These groups would be
organized in the geographic regions where workshops are held, and provide for
regularly scheduled one or two-day face-to-face meetings between workshop
participants and more experienced instructors.
These group meetings are aimed at reviewing and further developing the
concepts included in the workshops, including
Participants also, as part of
these group meetings, interact with one another informally to exchange ideas and
resources on what works, what does not work, and how
to make it work, relative to labs and related exercises. This interaction can be continued after the
face-to-face meeting using e-mail or telephone to work on specific
questions. Participating experienced
faculty could be included in these potential follow-up interactions as well. The
relationships developed in MatEd workshops and at these regional support groups
can provide the basis for the development of longer-term mentoring-type
relationships between participants and more experienced faculty. A peer
mentoring program, perhaps using a web-based forum or a list-serve system,
would be quite effective in this situation.
This may need to be facilitated to make the system useful to all
participants, and some expert input would be desirable to answer technical
questions, but the participants themselves are often best in answering
questions related to the how-to of the subject content, as well as how best to
introduce new materials modules into existing courses. An
initial trial system will use a listserv approach. Participants from one of MatEd’s workshops
who have interacted both in the workshops and in follow-up regional meetings,
will have the opportunity to interact on a listserv site, asking questions,
providing ideas and suggesting solutions to specific problems. This trial system will be facilitated by
MatEd staff and instructors to prompt users and to provide needed modules,
input and answers. This initial trial
will provide MatEd with experience with informal on-line mentoring; an
evaluation of its effectiveness will provide input on whether such a system
should be used in other regions or perhaps nationally. Once
experience is developed using hands-on workshops supplemented by regional
support groups and a peer mentoring system for additional follow-up, it could
be useful to investigate further the potential of developing on-line tutorials
and a follow-up mentoring system for faculty who are unable or unwilling to
attend a workshop. The workshop program
could be developed into a set of tutorials including videotapes /DVDs for use in the tutorial program. The lack of personal
contact in on-line mentoring means that the mentor cannot physically show the
mentee the demonstration or laboratory that should be taught; thus, the
addition of face-to-face interaction could be needed to adequately teach
hands-on demonstrations and laboratories.
ASM’s experience with their Teachers Camp program, and Edmonds’
experience with the EMTECH project, indicates that faculty members are most
comfortable with an experiment or demonstration when they have performed it
themselves under the direction of an instructor or mentor. Thus, in MatEd’s case, face-to-face programs
should also be available to supplement any indirect mentoring program that
might be developed. The type of
mentoring that could accompany this broader tutorial program would need to be
determined based on an evaluation of the effectiveness and operations of the
peer mentoring noted earlier. This
overall approach, using tutorials augmented by face-to-face opportunities and a
possible mentoring program would enable a much broader reach across the country
for the program and provide for broad dissemination of the project’s curricula. Conclusions This analysis indicates that the
most cost effective follow-up programs for MatEd would be to build it on the
professional development workshops with regional support groups and on-line peer mentoring based
initially on a listserv system to facilitate interactions among participants
and experts. The resulting mentoring
programs would provide the experience base for MatEd to proceed to develop a
broader mentoring program that could provide one means of further dissemination
of the project. Specific recommendations
include
The timetable for these activities
could begin with pilot programs in year 3 and further development in year 4 of
the grant program, but would primarily be a focus during years 5 and 6. Acknowledgments We acknowledge useful input from
community college instructors Len Booth, James Curiel and James Shimel, and ASM
Teachers Camp master teacher Andrew Nydam in the formulation of these
recommendations. References S. Feiman-Nemser, 1996, Teacher
Mentoring: A critical review,
available at http://www.islandnet.com/~rcarr/teachermentors.html Curiel, James, Don Bosco Technical
Institute, private communication Nydam, Andrew, Olympia High
School, private communication Bibliography of Useful Web Sites eMSS, 2007, e-Mentoring for Student Success, Education World, 2006, “On-Line Mentoring: Teachers Buddy-Up to Learn!” www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin139.shtml Electronic Emissary Project, Murray, Corey, 2001,
“Free online mentoring program targets teachers, tech professionals,” www.eschoolnews.com/news/showstory.cfm?ArticleID=3373 Holloway, John H., 2001, “The Benefits of Mentoring,” www.nea.org/mentoring/resbene050603.html Mentor Net (overview), www.mentornet.net/Documents/About/Programs/one_on_one.aspx Zachary, Lois J, 2006, “Mentoring Matters: Creating a Mentoring
Culture,” http://www.mentornet.net/documents/files/Mentoring.Matters.Handout.pdf Appendix Mentoring Definition and Types* Mentoring is a “personal relationship
characterized by conscious effort on behalf of one individual to assist the
career development of another.* Formal
mentoring—“mentor and
protégé are brought together through a formalized program or series of
activities.” * Types of Formal Mentoring: 1 = Dyad mentoring—traditional
hierarchical, one-on-one, on-going, and reciprocal relationship
(teacher/student; industry representative/student), usually between people in
the same or related fields. 2 = Cascading mentors—more than two mentors on different experiential
or educational levels, so that at most levels, the mentor for a lower level is
him- or herself mentored by someone at a higher level. (For example, faculty members mentor undergraduates
who in turn mentor high school students.) 3 = Tiered mentoring—mentors from several educational levels mentor a
younger group. 4 = Network mentoring—“a group of individuals of different experience
levels (Bauer, 1999; Higgins & Kram, 2001)” 1 in which a student
may have more than one mentor for different purposes (or functions). 5 = E-mail mentoring—“a mentoring arrangement in which mentor and
protégé may be separated by distance and communicate via the internet
(especially email) (Wadia-Fascetti & Leventman, 2000)” 1. 6 = Peer mentoring— “individuals of mutual interest and stature form
dyads or triads to provide each other with developmental assistance (Angelique
et al., 2002)” 1. 7 = Modified peer mentoring—students on a higher educational level
mentor one or more students at a lower educational level. 8 = Organized cross-generational mentoring—the mentor is older than the
person being mentored, but is not necessarily in the same field. * References: Armstrong, Allinson, & Hayes,
2002; Kram, 1985; Higgins & Kram, 2001, quoted in Assessing Women in
Engineering (AWE) Project. (2005d). Overview: Mentoring and women in
engineering. AWE Research Overviews.
Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.aweonline.org . |
NSF Grant (DUE ATE 0501971) This grant is sponsored by the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technology Education Program under Award No. 0501971