Cybermentoring: The Relationship Between Preservice Teachers’ Use of Online Literacy Strategies and Student Achievement

Paula Boxie
Gerald H. Maring

Purpose of the Study

Many American universities are located in geographically isolated areas. Arranging and coordinating practicum experiences for preservice teachers, who must juggle course requirements and travel time to the practicum locations, may therefore pose a challenge. How can university faculty and school-based educators work together to help preservice teachers experience using instructional strategies and documenting their impact on student learning when the college campus is separated from the practicum location by a considerable distance?

Technology may hold an answer to this question. As early as 1994, Rose and Meyer posited that computer technology would play an increasingly important role in the teaching of reading and writing. In 1998, Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna asserted that the proliferation of techology would cause dramatic changes in levels of computer access, teacher preparation and staff development, and the delivery of reading and writing instruction.

This article describes a research study designed to explore how technology-rich classrooms can offer a “vehicle for enriching language through web-site communities and multiple perspective on content topics” (Bean, 2000, p. 642). Specifically, the study investigated whether preservice teachers can provide effective mentoring for students when the mentoring occurs in “cyberspace” -- that is, mediated through Internet technologies such as Web sites and e-mail. To date, research that deepens our understanding of the effect on student learning of literacy strategies implemented in cyberspace has been lacking. We wanted to determine whether and how online projects constructed to conform to the Washington state standards for content literacy learning (the Essential Academic Learning Requirements, or EALRs) enhanced the performance of students in an elementary, a middle school, and a high school classroom. Two questions were used to frame the purpose of this research, each carefully constructed to avoid a presupposition of efficacy:

1. How do students use content literacy strategies while writing in cyberspace?
   We wanted to know whether literacy strategies and technology were integrated in the classroom or treated more as “add-ons” -- that is, were they holistic components of teaching and learning, viewed by the teachers as natural parts of the curriculum? When such components were treated as add-ons to lessons, teachers were prompted to ask, “When or where will I have time to fit this in?” -- resulting in teachers’ finding strong objections to incorporating them.



2. Does the support for literacy strategies provided through cybermentoring affect student learning? If so, what is the nature of those effects?
   We wanted to determine if instruction in content literacy strategies and interactions with cybermentors had any positive effect on student learning. We wanted to investigate student outcomes that resulted from written interactions with cybermentors, all of whom were preservice teachers enrolled in a content literacy methods course.

Back to menu

Method of Investigation

Research methodology. The study followed a mixed-methods approach (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Traditional qualitative research strategies (see, e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lofland & Lofland, 1984) were used to study the construction, implementation, and effectiveness of online projects embedded with EALR-related literacy strategies in three classrooms. A qualitative approach was appropriate because of the lack of research on how these tools -- EALR-related literacy strategies and technology -- helped students achieve learning goals. Open-ended inquiry allowed us, a researcher (this article’s first author) and the professor of the course in which the preservice teachers were enrolled (the second author), to gain insight into the study participants’ viewpoints and experiences (Bogdan & Biklen; Lincoln & Guba; Seidman, 1991; Wolcott, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995).

In addition, traditional quantitative analyses were used to assess the effectiveness of online projects in terms of students’ ratings on holistic or analytical rubrics. The scoring criteria for both holistic and analytical rubrics focused on the three writing traits that had been adopted by the school district: content and ideas, style, and organization.

Sites and participants. All study participants were informed that their cooperation and participation were voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time.

The 15 participating preservice teachers were enrolled, along with 20 others, in an undergraduate-level content literacy course at Washington State University, a land grant institution in an isolated area of the U.S. northwest. All those enrolled in the course were assigned to small groups on the basis of shared majors. During the first 4 weeks of the college semester, the course focused on building a knowledge base of EALR-related literacy strategies and technology. The preservice teachers spent many hours reading and reviewing professional texts and articles in order to broaden their understanding about content literacy learning strategies. They also reviewed EALR benchmarks and viewed Web sites from previous courses that demonstrated how the World Wide Web had been used to place preservice projects online for the purpose of receiving feedback from the field (Maring, Wiseman, & Myers, 1997). This gave the preservice teachers insight into what was required as well as a sense of what others had accomplished.

Each small group of preservice teachers was then paired with an inservice teacher. For example, preservice teachers majoring in elementary education were paired with elementary teachers, and science majors were paired with science teachers. Throughout the 12 weeks of communication and collaboration between the inservice and preservice teachers, ideas were exchanged, suggestions were given, and support was provided as the online projects began to unfold.

The study itself focused on collaborative content literacy projects with an online component, undertaken at three school sites, where varying technological resources (hardware, software, Internet access, etc.) were available. The fifteen preservice teachers worked with three inservice teachers and twenty-five students at the following levels:

• Five 6- and 7-year-olds in a combined Grade 1/2 elementary school class, working on a project entitled “Journeying into the Rain Forests”
• Fifteen 13-year-olds in a Grade 8 middle school class, working on “Our Dynamic Earth”
• Five students from a class at an alternative high school, working on “Writing Miss Daisy”

Over the course of 10 weeks, the preservice teachers and students became “cyberlearning buddies.” Through their participation in electronic communities, information regarding the students’ understandings and their ability to use various literacy strategies was obtained.

Participating inservice teachers were chosen on the basis of their interest in collaborating on projects with a cyberspace component. All worked in a school district some 45 miles (approximately 70 kilometers) from the university campus, a distance that would have made a traditional preservice practicum arrangement difficult for the preservice teachers.

Data collection and analyses. Data were gathered through direct classroom observation and documents (the e-mail exchanges among participants) (Lofland & Lofland, 1984; Schatzman & Strauss, 1973), interviews, and surveys and assessment rubrics (Stiggins, 1997). Triangulation -- the use of multiple methods to study a single problem -- was employed to strengthen the study by reducing systematic bias in the data (Denzin, 1978).

Direct observation was undertaken by the doctoral candidate-researcher in each of the 3 classrooms for 4 hours on each of 3 days, for a total of 36 hours. Many additional hours of observation took place in the college classroom. During observation sessions, extensive field notes were taken.

Formal interviews were also arranged with the preservice and inservice teachers and (with parental consent) the participating students. The interviews included in-depth, open-ended questions that generated descriptive responses about participants’ backgrounds, interest in and use of literacy strategies and technology, and views on the integration of literacy strategies and technology as tools to enhance learning. Interviews ranged from 15 to 60 minutes and were conducted at the school sites. The interviews were audiotaped and then transcribed for analysis, with the transcriptions approved by the interview subjects.

Documentary data included the e-mail messages exchanged by students, preservice teachers, and inservice teachers. These were analyzed to reveal comments about interactions and feedback during the project.

Surveys were given to the preservice teachers and e-mailed to the inservice teachers at the end of the study. These requested feedback on their perspectives about incorporating literacy strategies into reading and online writing, and about the online interaction between students and their cybermentors.

Student writing was collected and analyzed using holistic or analytical assessment rubrics. Scoring guides were developed to judge the students’ overall performance in their written work. Each writing sample was typed using a word processor and submitted via e-mail or entered into a database (constructed with FileMaker Pro software) by the doctoral candidate-researcher.

Back to menu

The Three Projects

In each of the projects investigated, students communicated by e-mail with their preservice-teacher cybermentors, accessing e-mail links embedded in Web pages the preservice teachers constructed. Thus, the cybermentoring occurred in an asynchronous fashion. After a significant amount of e-mail communication had occurred, the preservice teachers created Web pages to document and archive their cybermentoring efforts.

Project A: “Journeying into the Rain Forests.” The elementary-level project demonstrated the application of several reading and writing strategies within the online community. Figure 1 shows the main index page for the Web site created for the rain forest project. Each participating first and second grader was asked to write a story about a rain forest animal or insect, and to include story grammar elements (characters, plot, setting, conflict, resolution). Before they began writing, the children used a semantic mapping strategy to build conceptual vocabulary. After generating an idea for writing, each student went through the five-part writing process of prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing, submitting their developing stories to their cybermentors and receiving feedback along the way. (Go to an example of the process and a writing sample.)

Project B: “Our Dynamic Earth.” This four-part middle school project explored earthquakes, volcanoes, and plate tectonics. It was designed to stimulate students’ scientific interest and broaden their understanding of the processes that have created and shaped the earth’s surface.

The 15 participating middle schoolers worked cooperatively in pairs or small groups of three or four. Early in the project, the preservice teachers selected a number of literacy strategies that could be incorporated into the unit. After researching and analyzing and synthesizing the information they discovered, the students wrote essays to convey their ideas and understanding of “Our Dynamic Earth.” (Click here for an example of how this process developed for one group of students who used the KWL strategy in researching and writing about volcanoes.) Figure 2 shows the main index page for the Web pages resulting from this project.

Project C: “Writing Miss Daisy.” In planning this project, the preservice considered the learning styles of the alternative high school (AHS) students who would be undertaking it, and the skills these students would need to enhance their learning from it. The established goals for the activities and assignments reflected the preservice teachers’ attempt to encourage and challenge the AHS students to achieve. The undergraduates also created an online time line, titled “Writing Miss Daisy Pit Stops,” which provided the students with a day-by-day overview of what was expected to happen in class (see Figure 3).

The overall assignment was to write a personal narrative. A prewriting activity prompted the students to think about their characteristics, favorite activities, and personal likes; one of these topics was then selected for expansion into a single-paragraph personal narrative. The preservice teachers felt that if students were asked to write about themselves or something of interest to them, they would be more likely to engage in the activity.

Once the AHS students composed the first draft of their personal narratives, they were ready to communicate with their cybermentors. As in Project B, this e-mail communication played the major role in providing opportunities for interaction between the preservice teachers and the students.

Project commonalities. Each of the projects was centered on established curricular content, congruent with the goals, objectives, and schedule of content topics each classroom teacher had planned for his or her class. In other words, these were not “add-on” endeavors. During the initial meeting between the preservice and inservice teachers, the content of the curriculum, goals, and state standards were discussed. For example, the eighth grade science curriculum included oceanography, meteorology, environmental issues, geology, and astronomy, so the Web-based writing and cybermentoring project was designed around these topics. When the preservice teachers asked about goals that had been set for the eighth grade students, the teacher responded,

My goals for the students in my class include: (a) understanding and using scientific concepts and principles, (b) conducting scientific investigations to expand the understanding of the natural world, (c) applying science knowledge and skills to solve problems or meet challenges, (d) using effective communication skills and tools to build and demonstrate an understanding of science, and (e) understanding how science knowledge and skills are connected to other subject areas and real-life situations.

As state standards were discussed, one teacher explained that “collaborative activities help to elicit student performance related to the EALRs. For example, these activities can aid in explaining how students demonstrate understanding and are able to apply knowledge.”

Each project also used interactive activities to teach about the use of particular literacy strategies. In the Grade 1/2 classroom, literacy strategies including semantic mapping and the writing process were embedded within an interactive story writing activity. The middle schoolers used KWL, outlining, and the writing process. In the AHS project, KWL, clustering, and the writing process contributed to students’ creation of their personal essays. Table 1 offers a complete list of the content literacy strategies selected and posted on the Web by the preservice teachers. Due to time constraints, however, not all strategies were used by the students.

The scoring criteria for both holistic and analytical rubrics for each project focused on the three writing traits that had been adopted by the school district -- content and ideas, style, and organization -- and were also part of the Washington Sate University Writing Portfolio Graduation Requirement. The inclusion of the assessment rubrics enabled us to address the study’s second research question -- namely, whether the literacy strategies carried out in a cybermentoring context had a positive impact on student learning.

In the holistic scoring guide (see Table 2), adapted to the EALRs for writing, a single score represents the entire performance task (Stiggins, 1997). For the Grade 1/2 students, for example, the researcher assigned a score ranging from 0 (not scorable) to 4 (above standards) to each student’s entire writing activity, beginning with the first steps of the writing process through to the final piece.

Analytical scoring guides developed by the preservice teachers were used to judge students’ overall performance in the middle and alternative high school. Analytic scales are grading guides that contain a list of qualities or features of writing, with a numerical rating for each item. The rated qualities are shared with students to provide them with the criteria to consider while writing. Figure 4 shows the scoring guide for the middle school project. A similar rubric was used with students in the AHS class.

Back to menu

Results and Discussion

Although baseline measures were not used in this study, the writing performance of the students, as measured by pre-established performance rubrics, indicated clearly that cybermentoring had a positive influence on student learning and literacy processes. Qualitative data also support this finding. The students in this study were able to perform their reading, writing, learning, and technology tasks because they were coached through the process by their cybermentors, and online interaction became a central dynamic in the learning environment. Despite their remote location, the cybermentors provided the scaffolding students needed to support learning within their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978).

The nature of the projects designed by the preservice teachers required the students to contextualize literacy strategies within each online activity as they worked to achieve success. As they made choices about writing topics, they took ownership of those topics and their self-confidence increased as they experienced success.

The literacy strategies employed in the online projects helped students understand the actions they took to develop their knowledge and understandings and to assess their learning. As the students worked closely with their cybermentors, they became more aware of the literacy strategies they used to construct meaning -- and the greater their metacognitive awareness, the more likely they were to use effective literacy strategies to meet classroom and content goals. Strategy use should be both specific and flexible (International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English, 1996; Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). In this study, the participating students had access to a variety of strategies as they sorted through large amounts of information. If one literacy strategy did not work, they used alternatives.

The data indicate that students were enthusiastic about interacting in cyberspace and receiving feedback from the preservice teachers. As the preservice teachers helped students carry out the various literacy strategies, changes in the students’ writing came about because of the process of inquiry in which they were engaged. E-mail feedback from the preservice teachers included advice on how best to begin an essay, how to organize ideas before writing, and how to use stronger vocabulary.

Quantitative indicators of student learning. The performance-based rubrics yielded scores at all levels suggesting that cybermentoring in the use of literacy strategies had a clear and impressive impact on student learning. In traditional quantitative research terminology, student performance, in light of pre-established scoring criteria, was the dependent variable. Table 3 gives the writing performance results of the students in the Grade 1/2 class (Site A) based on the holistic rubric shown in Table 2, while Table 4 shows the data for the middle and high school students (at Sites B and C, respectively) drawn from the scoring guide presented in Figure 4.

The doctoral candidate-researcher converted scoring guide data at each of the three sites into percentages in order to translate the students’ performance into terms more familiar. The average score for the elementary school students, based on the holistic rubric, was 3.8, or 95 percent. In corroboration of this indication of high achievement, the classroom teacher remarked, “It is so amazing to see most of my students accomplishing the task after their second write!” The middle schoolers scored an overall average of 24 out of 25, or 96 percent, based on the standards of the analytical rubric developed by the preservice teachers. In a final e-mail note to the preservice teachers, the middle school teacher wrote,

Hello Everyone,

The students have been enthused to work with you. They did a great job of researching their chosen topics! They have shown great interest in their topic and were very eager to write about it.

Finally, in regard to performance at the AHS setting, the students scored an overall average 22.8 out of 25, or 91 percent, according to the standards of the analytical rubric.

Qualitative indicators of student learning. The qualitative data showed that the cybermentoring efforts and literacy strategies were not in any fashion add-ons to the curriculum; instead, they were perceived by teachers, undergraduates, and students as integrated within it.

Allowing students to choose their own topics for research and writing increased their motivation to complete the assigned tasks. “I like the idea of using KWL strategy because it allowed me to analyze what I would like to learn without reviewing information repetitiously,” remarked one student. As projects developed, the students became more committed and enthusiastic, as reflected in the following statements:

• “I used the writing process the most because it was the pivotal point after research.”
• “Outlining really enabled me to chart information and to check for thoroughness.”
• “The strategies did improve my writing because the strategies helped me focus my writing and organize it. I usually have trouble concentrating on one specific topic as I research, but this time, I felt so much better about it.”

Analyses of students’, preservice teachers’, and classroom teachers’ e-mail messages revealed positive comments about the online interactions and feedback in general. Before the cybermentoring began, the preservice teachers were coached in Bonk, Malikowski, Angeli, and Supplee’s (1998) 12 forms of electronic feedback: social acknowledgment, questioning, direct instruction, modeling and examples, giving praise, cognitive task structuring, cognitive elaborations and explanations, pushing to explore, fostering reflection, dialogue prompting, scaffolding, and e-mail discussion. The e-mail exchanges revealed the use of five of these feedback forms, shown in the following examples.

1. Social (and cognitive) acknowledgement

Hi Mary, I'm Dorothy and I will be you cyber-buddy. I really liked your story and about the dragonfly and his friends. You're right, dragonflies do have huge eyes. I think it is neat that he can fly backwards, it would be a good skill to have when playing tag. I liked how you used capital letters at the beginning of your sentences and when using first names. You did a nice job with punctuation at the end of sentences. Great job!

2. Questioning

Sounds like you really know quite a bit about music. You taught me a few things already. It really looks like you can develop music into a topic to write about. What areas of music are you planning on covering? Music in general is a very broad topic. Maybe, you might want to consider focusing on one type of music and how it was developed. Or perhaps look at several kinds of music and what they stand for or represent.

3. Scaffolding (and suggestions)

I like how you have organized everything going from a large issue like types of volcanoes to all of the smaller facts that you have found. One thing that I saw however was that you had more than three body paragraphs. In the format we are asking for, we want three body paragraphs containing your information, and an introduction and conclusion. Thus, you will have to cut out two of your paragraphs. A recommendation that I would make, which you don't have to follow, is to combine your paragraphs into (1) Strato Volcanoes, (2) Strati volcanoes, and (3) Lava Flows.

4. Giving praise

Wow! That is a great story. You are very creative in your story writing. Your story has a valuable lesson in it. It doesn't help to make fun of someone for being different. Sageline proved to be even more beautiful than his friends. You are a very good writer, Laurie!!

5. Proposing elaborations

Hi Bill, I liked your story. You have a lot of great ideas running throughout it. What we can work on is separate out each event in the story and explain it just a little bit more. As a reader, I became confused when Cory was where and when. I like the idea of going back to the microwave. Lets work on separating out each scene. Just list it from your cereal story. Decide when and why your character goes to each scene. From this list we will work on adding detail to each scene. This story has a lot of good ideas that can be used for topic day with the butcher paper and library research day.

As these remarks reveal, the preservice teachers saw themselves as co-constructors of knowledge and were inspired to see that students took their advice to improve their assignments. As Johnny, one of the preservice teachers, commented,

I really enjoyed the authentic experience of being able to interact with a learning community through cyber. The students seemed very interested in the responses they received and really took what we said to heart. I could see the advancement of their skills as the project progressed.

Back to menu

Limitations of the Study

Qualitative findings cannot be generalized, though they do allow educators to consider constructing broader conceptual frameworks. The procedures and findings described here cannot be seen as conclusive, but they do suggest that cybermentoring of content literacy strategies should be pursued and investigated in additional studies, either qualitative or of mixed design.

Other limitations resulted from the challenges posed by reliance on technology. During the study, servers went down, hyperlinks did not work, and graphics occasionally disappeared unexpectedly from Web pages. At its current stage of development, the information superhighway is hard to drive on -- its use in research and in teacher preparation programs today makes us think about what it must have been like to travel by automobile on U.S. highways in the 1930s.

Other limitations involved lack of time, occasionally less than adequate communication among preservice teachers and between preservice and inservice teachers, and lack of effort by some students in preservice groups.

In light of these limitations, it is clear that preservice teachers, inservice teachers, professors, and students need preparation and ongoing support to engage in cybermentoring activities. The results of the study offer insights into the forms such support and preparation might take.

Back to menu

Implications

The success of the cybermentoring and school-university partnerships described in this article depends on numerous factors. In designing such a research study or project, the following must be considered:

1. Inservice teachers need to be consistent, committed, and supportive of both their own students and the preservice teachers.
2. Inservice teachers should be prompt in responding to preservice teachers’ e-mails. Conventions for exchanging messages and file attachments should be established to ensure that all parties can read the communications without being hampered by technical problems.
3. Preservice teachers must communicate face to face with students and the classroom teacher at least two or three times during the semester.
4. Preservice teachers must check e-mail regularly and give the students they are mentoring prompt feedback.
5. Preservice teachers should make the effort to find out about the students they are mentoring -- for example, discovering whether “Kris” is a boy or a girl. They should be supportive and positive in their contributions and feedback to the students and the group. Communication should be ongoing.
6. Before beginning the project, preservice teachers must have developed a knowledge base of literacy strategies, technology skills, and assessment rubrics.
7. Activities designed by the preservice teachers should be authentic and clearly described.
8. Flexibility is essential in finding ways to circumvent technological problems and other challenges related to preservice-inservice partnerships.

Back to menu

Recommendations for Future Research

As Cavanaugh (1999, online abstract) notes in her meta-analysis of the effectiveness of distance education technology, “few studies of effectiveness exist that center on the primary and secondary levels.” Even though many educators may not want to add the challenges and difficulties of cybermentoring or virtual practicums to their teacher preparation programs, those who do will be carrying out trailblazing work. We see a need particularly for research in the following areas:

1. Future research should challenge teacher educators to rethink their conception and delivery of teaching and learning. It should be designed to encourage preservice students to rethink their roles as they take their required education courses.
2. Follow-up studies of the preservice teachers in their first year of teaching are needed in order to gain a better understanding of what conditions may cause them to stop using literacy strategies and technology as tools for enhancing students’ learning. What do they need to keep going? What kind of support mechanisms should they be provided?
3. Comparative studies across cultural groups could add a component to this research and suggest other implications. For example, how might cybermentoring affect student learning in urban settings?
4. The impact of e-mail communication on literacy instruction needs to be investigated. At the core of such research is McKeon’s (1999) statement, “If we are to have a vested interest in the ‘new’ definitions of literacy that technology has to offer our students, we need to look closely at the learning that occurs in our very own classroom when students use it” (p. 705).
5. What impact might desktop video conferencing and interactive television have on the cybermentoring context? Would such additions foster more robust student learning than does the use of Web pages and e-mail alone? What barriers and difficulties might be encountered when video conferencing is added to cybermentoring?

Finally, an additional area of investigation, beyond the original scope of the study described, suggested itself in our analysis of the data we collected. It appeared to us that this research project helped build a learning community in the classrooms we observed. For example, one preservice teacher said,

Dorothy and I really felt a part of the learning community in Mrs. L.’s class. The teacher kept in close contact with us, always responding to our questions and concerns right away. It was great to be able to work collaboratively with this teacher to complete the unit.

Jane, another preservice teacher, expressed similar feelings:

It was very motivating for me. Being part of the classroom environment and being able to work with high school students with specific needs. My heart is for “at risk” students so that made my passion all the more intense and sent my enthusiasm through the ceiling.

Back to menu

References

Bean, T.W. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social constructivist dimensions. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III (pp. 629-644). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Back

Bonk, C.J., Malikowski, S., Angeli, C., & Supplee, L. (1998, April 13). Holy COW: Scaffolding cased-based “Conferencing on the Web” with preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Back

Cavanaugh, C.S. (1999, October). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 547). Abstract available: www.edrs.com/Webstore/Detail.CFM?Ednumber=ED430547
Back

Denzin, N. (1978). The research act (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Back

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Back

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discover of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Back

International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE, & Urbana, IL: Author.
Back

Labbo, L.D., Reinking, D., & McKenna, M.C. (1998). Technology and literacy education in the next century: Exploring the connection between work and schooling. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3/4), 273-289.
Back

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Back

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L.H.(1984). A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Maring, G.H., Wiseman, B.J., & Myers, K.S. (1997). Using the World Wide Web to build learning communities: Writing for genuine purposes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41, 196-208.
Back

McKeon, C.A. (1999). The nature of children’s e-mail in one classroom. Reading Teacher, 52(7), 698-706.
Back

Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 609-640). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Back

Rose, D.H., & Meyer, A. (1994). The role of technology in language arts instruction. Language Arts, 71(4), 290-294.
Back

Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A.L.(1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Back

Seidman, I.E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Back

Stiggins, R.J. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. New York: Macmillian.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodolgy: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Back

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Trans. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Back

Wolcott, H.F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Back

Wolcott, H.F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In M.D. LeCompte, W.L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 3-52). San Diego: CA: Academic.
Back

Wolcott, H.F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Back

Wolcott, H.F. (1995). The art of fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Back

Back to menu

About the Authors

		Paula Boxie is an assistant professor of literacy education at Miami University (Department of Teacher Education, Oxford, OH 45056, USA), where she teaches courses in early childhood reading methods and technology. She spent 12 years teaching in elementary classrooms, including 2 years as a reading resource teacher. Her research interests center on early childhood literacy, technology and reading, and literacy assessment. She can be contacted by e-mail at boxiep@muohio.edu.
		Gerald Maring teaches undergraduate courses in content literacy and graduate courses in literacy education in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Washington State University (Pullman, WA 99164, USA). He is a co-principal investigator for the Collaboration for Teacher Education Accountable to Children with High Needs/CO-TEACH project, which involves university faculty in education, liberal arts, and sciences, along with school-based educators from 41 districts and tribal schools across Washington state. His research interests include developing and evaluating the effectiveness of literacy strategies in the contexts of cyberpartnerships and of cybermentoring interactions involving pre- and inservice teachers, parents and community members, and pupils. He can be reached by e-mail at maring@wsu.edu.

Back to top

---

Authors’ note: Technical support in the preparation of this research and report was provided by the following grants:

Helmstetter, E.H., et al. (1994-2004). Collaboration for teacher education accountable to children with high needs/CO-TEACH [Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Smith, A. (1999-2001). The Washington state preservice teacher education consortium for contextual teaching and learning [CTL]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Special acknowledgement for contributions to building and maintaining technology infrastructures related to this research is given to Washington State University graduate student Erik Levy, Beau Wiseman of Intel, and Washington State University computer support specialists Nils Peterson and Sylvia Bodolay.

---

To print this article, point and click your mouse anywhere on the article's text; then use your browser's print command.

Citation: Boxie, P., & Maring, G.H. (2001, May). Cybermentoring: The relationship between preservice teachers’ use of online literacy strategies and student achievement. Reading Online, 4(10). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/boxie/index.html

---

Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted May 2001
© 2001 International Reading Association, Inc.   ISSN 1096-1232