Developing Web-based Tutorial Modules to Support Training for

Group-based Mentoring

Sharon Locke

, Georgia Bracey

and Stephen Marlette

Center for STEM Research, Education, and Outreach, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville,

PO Box 2224, Edwardsville, Illinois, U.S.A.

Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, Illinois, U.S.A.

Keywords: Mentoring, Blended Learning, Web-based Learning, Self-Efficacy, STEM, Robotics.

Abstract: This paper describes the development and implementation of a series of interactive online modules that

serve as the core component of a mentor training program for middle school teachers in the Botball®

Educational Robotics Program. Botball is an international team-based robotics competition for secondary

students. Over the course of a season, students work together to design, build, and program a robot that will

meet a particular challenge. Teachers play a critical role in this process as team mentors, but there is

currently no mentor training available that is easily accessible to teachers in a variety of geographic

locations. To meet this need, and as part of a larger research study, three STEM educators at a US

Midwestern university created five Web-based modules designed to introduce users to the fundamentals of

group mentoring. These research-based tutorials provide on-demand distance training that is engaging and

reflective. We will discuss formative evaluation of the training gleaned from responses to open-ended

survey questions given to the initial group of 33 teachers who piloted the modules as well as from

interactive webinars offered throughout the training.

1 INTRODUCTION

Mentoring plays a critical role in youth STEM

(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)

activities. The relationship between student and

mentor has been shown to have an impact on the

success of the activity as well as the attitudes,

interests, and learning of the participants. Moreover,

students with positive perceptions regarding their

mentor's effectiveness tend to have increased

positive perceptions towards STEM careers

(Weinberg et al., 2007). It is clear that adults who

are effective mentors are more likely to produce

positive outcomes from their students.

Unfortunately, most adults do not have specific

training in the practice of mentoring, and there are

few training programs available that are easily

accessible to those who may live miles away from

the nearest university or training center.

As part of a university study examining

components of effective mentor training for after-

school robotics programs, five Web-based tutorials

were developed as one piece of a larger training

program. The larger program consisted of interactive

webinars, a daylong face-to-face meeting, and the

Web-based modules. As study participants moved

through the program, they had opportunities to

engage in activities with university faculty and staff

to reinforce and reflect on the content presented in

the modules. While many of these activities focused

on mentoring in the context of Botball, the modules

were designed to be tutorials that could stand on

their own and be useful in any group-mentoring

situation.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Two principles guided the content development of

the Web-based modules. First, general best practices

in mentoring--taken from theory and from empirical

evidence--formed the basis of two of the five

modules. These modules focused on team-building

theory (Tuckman, 1965) plus practical issues such as

formation of team members' roles, goal-setting, and

creating cohesion. The content for a second pair of

modules was developed around the theory of self-

efficacy and its four components: mastery

192

Locke S., Bracey G. and Marlette S..

Developing Web-based Tutorial Modules to Support Training for Group-based Mentoring.

DOI: 10.5220/0004847901920196

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2014), pages 192-196

ISBN: 978-989-758-021-5

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion,

and physiological reaction (Bandura, 1977, 1997).

Pedagogy for the modules took a constructivist

approach. Constructivism states that learners "learn

actively and construct new knowledge based on their

prior knowledge" (Huang, 2002). With this in mind,

the modules were designed to be interactive and to

encourage the learners to connect the content to their

own experience and understanding. Thoughtful,

open-response questions throughout the modules

provided opportunity to interact with and reflect on

the content.

3 MODULE DESIGN

The purpose of the Web-based modules was to

present concepts of mentoring best practices and

mentoring for self-efficacy in a self-paced format.

The modules served as an introduction to mentoring

that was later reinforced through a face-to-face

workshop and webinars. Since mentors would

complete the modules individually, the design

incorporated engaging elements such as video clips

and reflective questions that supplemented a

narrative text. Summative questions at the end of the

module checked participants’ understanding of the

content.

The team selected the Moodle development

platform because it has an intuitive interface and is

free to use. An outside consultant familiar with

Moodle transferred the content into Moodle and

developed the navigation features. The project team

provided feedback on the graphic design and

reviewed the online version of the module for

accuracy.

3.1 Multimedia Presentation

The module narrative integrated images and videos

to enhance interest and provide opportunities for

participants to apply their knowledge (Figure 1).

Video clips and images were selected from freely

available content on the Internet and imported into

the module platform. Reflective questions were

embedded throughout the module.

After a concept was introduced using narrative or

a video clip, participants responded to a prompt in

an open form field (Figure 2). The reflective

questions asked participants to draw on their own

previous experiences in mentoring and often

required application of new concepts presented in

the module.

At the end of each module participants also

completed a set of summative questions that served

as a review of the material (Figure 3).

Figure 1: Module video interface.

Figure 2: Example of reflective question.

Figure 3: Example of summative question.

4 DATA COLLECTION

The modules include embedded reflective questions

for participants to complete as they progress through

the mentor training. The purpose of the questions is

to help mentors identify and recall previous

experiences with mentoring and reflect on the

relevance of that prior experience to the new

context. Researchers were able to access

participants’ answers in a database and use the

DevelopingWeb-basedTutorialModulestoSupportTrainingforGroup-basedMentoring

193

information to determine participants’ prior

mentoring experience, views on mentoring, and

degree of engagement with the module content.

The open-ended answers provided detailed

information about participants’ previous mentoring

experience and opinions about the mentoring

process. In some cases participants were able to

make meaningful connections between the module

content and their own personal experiences, as

shown in this response:

Adolescents love social interaction. The students

in my class love anything that is hands-on where

they can work with peers and socially interact.

In a group mentoring program students must

work together as a team. They get the chance to

socially interact and make decisions together.

They are forced to listen to each other’s ideas

and work together.

The responses also served as a basis for preparing

the webinar presentations, with example responses

anonymously shown during the webinar.

Participants were invited to explain their response in

more detail if it appeared during the webinar and

they were comfortable revealing their identity.

Multiple-choice questions at the end of each

module are designed to reinforce the content and

serve as a check for understanding; for example, the

following question occurs at the end of the basic

self-efficacy module: Which one of the sources of

self-efficacy is operating when a parent points out

the positive and negative aspects of a child’s work?

Participants receive feedback if they choose an

incorrect answer and can go back to change their

answer. After a participant finishes all the questions,

the module is recorded as “Completed” in the

system.

Participant responses to the embedded

assessments in the modules also serve as data for the

research study. Qualitative textual analysis of the

open-ended responses can reveal themes for

participants’ views about mentoring that may

influence how they respond to training. For example,

many participants used mentoring examples from

their own classroom teaching and some considered

themselves to be experienced mentors. Participants

who identify themselves as “experts” before the

training may be less engaged with the ideas

presented in the modules.

5 MODULE IMPLEMENTATION

The research project required that thirty-three

middle-school teachers complete the online

modules. Every teacher received a webinar

introduction to the modules from the three STEM

educators, and then completed the modules on their

own time. The introductory presentation described

the goals of the mentor training, provided the web

link and login instructions for the Moodle site, and

demonstrated how to navigate through the site to

complete the assignment. Participants had ten days

to complete their assigned modules. Technical

assistance was available via email or phone.

The timing of the mentor training was planned

so that mentors were adequately prepared to use the

mentoring strategies to support their teams during

the competition season. Mentors also participate in a

Botball technical workshop seven weeks prior to the

final Botball tournament. The following timeline

illustrates the format, content, and delivery of

mentor training:

6 weeks prior to Botball technical workshop

(January): Mentors participated in a one-hour

webinar that introduced the project goals, schedule,

Moodle platform, and online modules.

5 weeks prior to Botball technical workshop: On

their own, mentors completed online tutorials on

mentoring best practices and/or self-efficacy.

Available modules include an introductory module

on theories, models, and benefits of mentoring; two

best practices modules (basic and advanced) on

research-based best practices in mentoring; and two

self-efficacy modules (basic and advanced) on

mentoring for self-efficacy.

4.5 weeks prior to Botball technical workshop:

Mentors attended a one-hour webinar that reviewed

the content presented in the online modules.

3 weeks prior to Botball technical workshop:

Mentors participated in 8 hours of on-site training at

their location. The workshop provided time for

small-group activities and discussion and reflection

on potential mentoring scenarios. The face-to-face

workshop closely followed the content of the online

modules.

Botball technical workshop (February): Mentors

received the two-day Botball technical training,

including practice with the robotics kits, design

challenge, scoring, and rules and begin the

mentoring process.

6 weeks prior to Botball tournament: Mentors

participated in a two-hour webinar that reviewed and

reinforced the key principles of mentoring (best

practices and/or self-efficacy) and addressed mentor

questions.

3 weeks prior to Botball tournament: Mentors

participated in a two-hour webinar that addressed

mentor questions or problems as related to best

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

194

practices and/or self-efficacy and reminded mentors

of goals for implementation.

Week 7 of competition season (April): Botball

tournament

6 MODULE EVALUATION

The developers had multiple avenues for evaluating

the quality and impact of the online modules. The

embedded questions provided insights into the level

of engagement of the participant, e.g. through the

length and quality of responses to open-ended

questions. In addition, three webinars were

conducted after the mentors had completed the

modules. The second webinar provided a review and

discussion of the module content, giving mentors a

chance to ask questions and the STEM educators an

opportunity to clarify concepts. The third and fourth

webinars prompted mentors to reflect on how well

they were able to apply the mentoring strategies

presented in the modules during their robotics team

meetings. All webinars were recorded, enabling

researchers to transcribe and review the

conversations and determine how well the module

content was being transferred into practice. Lastly, a

survey with open-ended questions about the mentor

training was administered after the Botball robotics

season had ended.

Data analysis for the preliminary evaluation

focused on participants’ responses to three open-

ended survey questions: 1) What aspects of the

mentor training did you find to be least helpful? 2)

Did you encounter barriers or challenges to

implementing the mentoring strategies? If so, please

explain, and 3) Would you want to be a Botball

mentor again? Please explain. Four members of the

research team used open and analytical coding to

look for emerging themes in the response text. Forty

percent of respondents indicated that all of the

training was useful, while less frequent themes

included not enough time to complete all activities,

repetition of the content across the three modes of

delivery (online modules, webinars, face-to-face

workshop), and duplication with content previously

learned. Ninety percent of respondents indicated that

they would want to be a Botball mentor again.

7 DISCUSSION

Evaluation findings revealed that there were no

major concerns about the module content and

format. Responding to the question “What aspects of

the mentor training did you find to be least helpful?”

forty percent of the participants responded that all of

the training was useful:

I thought it was all useful. The training and

modules had great information.

A few participants characterized the mentor training

overall as “repetitive,” suggesting that delivering the

same content in the modules, the face-to-face

meeting, and the webinars may have been

unnecessary for some participants:

The mentor training was useful, but often

repetitive. More free-form discussion between

the mentors would have been helpful.

In contrast, one participant acknowledged the value

in repeating content:

I had had experience with mentoring before, but

the topics really solidified it and helped it

become second nature. Although at times

repetitive, it was all useful.

Taken as a group, the responses did not identify one

aspect of the blended learning environment as being

more helpful than another. While some participants

found it beneficial to interact with other mentors

during the webinars, a small number did not. The

face-to-face workshop was mentioned by only one

participant in the open-ended response; this

individual did not think the workshop was

important. However, evaluation surveys

administered to participants immediately following

the face-to-face workshops were overwhelmingly

positive.

These preliminary data suggest that the mentors

viewed the blended learning environment as a

positive experience. Many participants considered

the web-based learning through modules or

webinars to be effective for them. The mentors were

comfortable with the online module format and

offered meaningful responses to the embedded

open-ended questions. The webinars enabled

mentors to form a community of learners, where

successful strategies were shared and struggling

mentors could ask questions.

There is an extensive literature on learners’

experiences in a blended environment (e.g., Bluic et

al., 2007). Ausburn (2004) found that adult learners

in a blended environment value options,

personalization, self direction, variety, and a

learning community. In a study of a university

accounting course, Cottrell & Robinson (2003)

found that students preferred blended learning to the

traditional format and classroom time was reduced.

Our study used a blended format for adult mentor

DevelopingWeb-basedTutorialModulestoSupportTrainingforGroup-basedMentoring

195

training in order to reduce the amount of face-to-

face time required. Also, because half of the

participants were located on the West Coast of the

U.S., and all participants were from different

schools, web-based learning was the only practical

solution for delivering the content and facilitating

ongoing dialogue between the trainers and the

participants.

The evaluation to date has uncovered

participants’ perceptions of the value of different

components of the training, but further study is

needed to determine possible areas for improvement

of the module content and pedagogy. The

researchers are planning a focus group to further

probe participants’ opinions about the value of the

modules and to solicit feedback on the design. The

feedback will inform revision and refinement of the

modules before a public version is made available.

The online module development described in this

paper was a part of a larger research study to

determine the best approach to mentoring in STEM.

The study uses an experimental design to determine

if one of three mentoring approaches is more

effective in improving STEM-related outcomes for

middle school students: mentoring for best practice,

mentoring for self-efficacy, or mentoring using a

combination of best practices and self-efficacy. The

online modules are one component of the

intervention being tested, which is fully outlined in

Section 5 of this paper. Quantitative analysis of

pre/post surveys of mentors and students in the three

treatment groups and the control group is in progress

and will be reported in a future paper.

8 CONCLUSIONS

The modules described in this paper were designed

for a research project focusing on middle school

teachers’ mentoring skills for student robotics teams.

The modules use a research-based approach to train

mentors in the theory and practice of group

mentoring. The first module is an introduction to

group mentoring. Two of the modules focus on best

practices in mentoring, including Tuckman’s theory

of group development. Two additional modules

focus on the importance of self-efficacy for student

outcomes. They describe the four sources of self-

efficacy identified in the research literature and

mentoring strategies that support students’ self-

efficacy. The module content is not specific to grade

level or robotics, and instead has broad application

for any situation where group mentoring is taking

place. This new resource could serve as a valuable

tool in other types of academic competitions such as

Olympiads.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge project team

members Profs. Gary Mayer, Susan Thomas, Jerry

Weinberg, and Maja Matarić, Mr. Brad White, and

Mr. Ross Mead, who provided review comments on

early versions of the modules. Ms. Deb Greaney

created the interface design in Moodle. Ms. Molly

Brooks, Leann Henderson, and Rosemary Morr

assisted with coding of open-ended responses. This

material is based upon work supported by the U.S.

National Science Foundation under Grant No.

1139400. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or

recommendations expressed in this material are

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

the views of the National Science Foundation.

REFERENCES

Ausburn, L. J., 2004. Course design elements most valued

by adult learners in a blended online learning

environment: An American perspective. Educational

Media International, 41(4), pp.327-337.

Bandura, A., 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying

theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review,

84(2), pp.191-215.

Bandura, A., 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control.

Freeman. New York.

Bluic, A.-M., Goodyear, P. and Ellis, R. A., 2007.

Research focus and Methodological choices in Studies

into students’ experiences of blended learning in

higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 10,

pp.231-244.

Cottrell, D. M. and Robinson, R. A., 2003. Blended

learning in an accounting course. The Quarterly

Review of Distance Education, 4(3), pp.261-269.

Huang, H., 2002. Toward constructivism for adult learners

in online learning environments. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 33(1), pp.27-37.

Tuckman, B. W., 1965. Developmental sequence in small

groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, pp.384-399.

Weinberg, J. B, Pettibone, J. C., Thomas, S. L., Stephen,

M. L. and Stein, C., `2007. The impact of robot

projects on girls’ attitudes toward science and

engineering. Robotics Science and Systems (RSS)

Workshop on Research in Robots for Education,

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, June 30,

2007. Available at http://www.roboteducation.org/rss-

2007/,

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

196