CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR Volume 11, Number 2, 2008 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.

0052

E-mentoring for Youth with Special Needs: Preliminary Results

CARMIT-NOA SHPIGELMAN,1 SHUNIT REITER, Ph.D.,1 and PATRICE L. (TAMAR) WEISS, Ph.D.2

ABSTRACT Recently, a growing number of electronic mentoring (e-mentoring) Web sites have become available that provide vocational and career support. To date, few researchers have addressed the phenomenon of e-mentoring from a socioemotional perspective for populations with special needs. This paper presents a pilot study designed to test and evaluate an e-mentoring intervention program based on mutual self-disclosure and friendship for youth with special needs. Using qualitative methods, the study characterized the e-mentoring process and its contributions to this population. Results provided support for the socioemotional potential of computer-mediated communication for youth with special needs, although some barriers were found. Practical implications for implementing feasible e-mentoring programs for youth with special needs are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

LECTRONIC MENTORING (E-MENTORING) refers to a dyadic relationship in which a mentor, a senior person in age or experience, provides guidance and support to a less experienced or younger person, the protg, via computer-mediated communication (CMC).1 Mentors may perform three major functions for their protgs, including vocational or instrumental support; psychological support through counseling, friendship, and encouragement; and serving as a role model by demonstrating appropriate behavior.2 E-mentoring offers opportunities that are not offered by face-to-face (FTF) mentoring, especially for people with special needs. By using the Internet, e-mail, and online discussion groups, youth with special needs appear to be more willing to create written text, practice communication skills, and cultivate personal relationships without barriers of time and distance. For the first time, they have the

ability to communicate in a way that makes their disability invisible, to share experiences, and to trade practical suggestions with others who have disabilities as well as with those who do not.3,4 As occurs with other mentoring strategies, the relationships formed during e-mentoring appear to have reciprocal benefits for both the mentor and the protg.5,6 E-mentoring relationships may generate a sense of belonging and feelings of autonomy, satisfaction, and fulfillment, and may even transform into personal friendship.1,79 E-mentoring relationships between youth with special needs may help them cope with negative stereotypes, attitudinal biases, and social and physical exclusion.1017 To date, few e-mentoring programs have been designed especially for youth with special needs. Even fewer studies have empirically investigated the socioemotional aspect of CMC and the relationships developed during those e-mentoring programs.6,12 Finn18 analyzed messages sent by people with physical and mental disabilities to an online dis-

1Department 2Department

of Education, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Israel. of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Social Welfare & Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Israel.

196

E-MENTORING FOR YOUTH WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

197

cussion group over a 3-month period. He found that about half of the messages fell into socioemotional categories, such as expressing feelings, providing support, and offering empathy. Rousso17 evaluated a community-based project that sought to strengthen the educational, vocational, and social aspirations of adolescent girls with physical and sensory disabilities; most of the protgs were inspired by their mentors and began to take steps toward greater interdependence. The pilot study presented in this paper was carried out to explore the feasibility and relevance of the study paradigm and outcome measures of an ementoring intervention program, Electronic-Mediated Mentoring for All (EMM for All), for youth with special needs. Young adult students with special needs, referred to as mentors, tutored teenaged pupils with special needs, referred to as protgs, via asynchronous electronic communication (i.e., email). The goal was to reduce the social isolation of adolescents with special needs by providing channels of communication and socioemotional support by those who had previously experienced similar reactions to disability and with whom the protgs could identify.

Computer Usage Questionnaire) in order to identify compatible mentorprotg pairs. At its conclusion, they and the computer science school teacher completed the Mentoring Evaluation Questionnaire. The Mentoring Evaluation Questionnaire contained four open-ended questions that assessed the e-mentoring process and its contributions from the participants point of view. The use of multiple sources of data with a strategy of triangulation strengthens the internal validity and reliability of the study.1921 Due to the small sample size, only descriptive statistics were compiled and emphasis was placed on the use of qualitative analysis techniques. In order to substantiate a theory regarding the electronic socioemotional support for populations with special needs, we used a qualitative approach of inquiry, grounded theory.19 We employed four analysis phases following grounded theory procedures: open coding, categorizing the data into initial themes retrieved from the words of the participants; axial coding, building a hierarchical tree of themes by identifying relationships between the initial themes and recategorizing the data into new themes; selective coding, ingathering the themes into core themes and subthemes; and conditional matrix, constructing descriptions and theoretical insights of the studied phenomena.19,22

METHOD
The protgs were teenaged pupils (two girls and three boys, 12 to 18 years old) from two Israeli special education schools that cater to pupils with disabilities, such as mild to moderate mental retardation or physical, emotional, and/or behavioral disabilities. The mentors were three university students (two women and one man, 22 to 28 years old) with visual impairments who were enrolled in a bachelors degree program in a therapeutic discipline. The mentors were selected after a personal interview; two of the mentors tutored two pupils on a one-to-one basis, and one mentor tutored one pupil. The pilot intervention program was carried out over a 3-month period and was run by a computer science school teacher. During each computer session, the protgs checked and replied to e-mail messages from their mentors. In addition, each mentorprotg pair met FTF on either one or two occasions at the protgs school. We used qualitative instruments to document the electronic correspondence of each mentorprotg pair and to evaluate the open-ended questions retrieved from a mentoring evaluation questionnaire. Before the commencement of the intervention program, the mentors and the protgs completed two questionnaires (Personal Information Questionnaire,

RESULTS
Over the 3-month intervention program, 90 email messages were sent. Following the protocol requirements of the e-mentoring program, the mentors sent to each protg, on average, two messages per week. The protgs sent, on average, one message per week. The messages sent by the protgs were usually shorter (M 11.3 lines; M 71.0 words) than the message sent by the mentors (M 20.7 lines; M 172.6 words). Content analysis revealed some major themes as described below. E-mentoring process The content analysis of the electronic correspondence indicated that the development of the e-mentoring relationship paralleled the process typically found for FTF mentoring. The process commenced with the phase of personal acquaintance (self-presentation such as age, family, studies, hobbies), and then continued at the mentors initiative to exploring mutual interests. The mentors endeavored to establish realistic expectations for the e-mentoring process and to prepare a foundation for a more personal, intimate, informal, and longer-term relationship.

198

SHPIGELMAN ET AL.

The next phase consisted of a deepening of the relationship. Content analysis revealed three central themes: perceptions of the relationship, definition of the mentors roles, and developing and maintaining of the relationship. The e-mentoring relationship was perceived by the participants on a continuum ranging from a superficial relationship (having fun and meeting a new person) to a deeper relationship (mutual assistance and being friends). The mentors roles, achieved primarily by utterances as guided by the program coordinator, were categorized into two major themes: being a friend and being an adviser. Being a friend meant that the mentor and the protg corresponded informally and shared personal information. This was perceived by the protgs to be one of the mentors major roles, whereas the mentors perceived it to be minor, mainly as a means to achieve the role of being an adviser. Being an adviser was perceived as being a supportive role model for the protg through listening, advising, giving constructive feedback, and encouraging (i.e., providing emotional, instructional, and educational support). Developing and maintaining the relationship was driven primarily by the mentors and occurred at two levels. The first level was superficial and referred to the efforts made to ensure the protgs diligence and compliance with the targeted sequence of electronic correspondence. The second level referred to the efforts made by the mentors to promote a relationship based on social and emotional openness, trust, reflection, mutual consideration and regard, and the sharing of personal information, including the disability issue. Two out of the three mentors chose to raise the disability issue in the very first message. In contrast, the protgs did not refer to their disability, although they referred to their mentors disability by asking questions or making statements that indicated care and consideration. For example, a 12-year-old protg, who had intellectual deficits, wrote to his mentor: How can you see if you dont see in one eye; do you have special glasses? During the phase of a deepening of the e-mentoring relationship, the mentors, and especially the protgs, expressed a strong need for more tangible feedback such as visual and vocal interactions. Since, due to technical difficulties, most of the pairs had only one FTF meeting, they were encouraged to exchange photographs via e-mail and to speak occasionally by telephone. For example, a 13-yearold protg, who had intellectual deficits, wrote to his mentor: I cant wait anymore and I want to see you. The last phase of the e-mentoring process was termination of the relationship. The mentors had been instructed to end the relationship at as FTF

meeting and to then send a goodbye e-mail message. However, most of the pairs terminated the ementoring process only at the FTF meeting. Structure of the electronic correspondence The process of the electronic correspondence appeared to parallel the development of the e-mentoring relationship, from more formal writing at the commencement of the program (Good Morning, Y) to informal writing during the program (Bye X, I love you, Y). This tendency was revealed also in the content and format of the electronic correspondence, from informative and textual messages to designed messages (colored or bolded fonts, background colors, and symbols that indicate emotions [emoticons: A or K]). Most of the protgs chose to personalize their messages by adding colors, while the mentors chose to personalize their messages with emoticons. Evaluation of the e-mentoring program All five protgs reported that they enjoyed their participation in this program, particularly enjoyed the attention given by their mentors, as expressed by their words: I like you a lot; I miss you. The teachers commented that communicating via e-mail throughout the program was cognitively challenging for the protgs, it made their disability invisible and helped them feel that they are more like typical teenagers. With regard to contributions of the program, four of the five protgs reported that they learned to use a computer and the Internet, developed interpersonal communication skills, and gained a friend. The mentors also indicated that the program gave the protgs an opportunity to experience an accepting relationship without prejudice or criticism. The teachers added that the protgs started to develop more meaningful relationships with their classmates, developed sensitivity and consideration toward people with special needs, and the program appeared to lead to an increase of their self-image and self-esteem. Moreover, the program contributed to the mentors themselves. The mentors felt they had an opportunity to give and to assist others, and for the first time they felt as if they were not disabled. One mentor expressed this feeling: The participation was an experience. A relationship with a new person, who is so happy about it, is an amazing thing.

DISCUSSION
This pilot study demonstrated that a rapport developed between the mentorprotg pairs, becom-

E-MENTORING FOR YOUTH WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

199

ing a positive and supportive relationship for youth with special needs, even when the electronic communication was conducted during a relatively short 3-month period. Communicating via the program appeared to reduce the visibility of the participants disability, helping them feel that they are more like typical youth. The results supported models of FTF mentoring for youth, suggesting that populations with special needs may benefit from CMC programs.2327 By using electronic communication, youth with special needs may broaden their communication opportunities, acquire and internalize adaptive behavior skills, and cultivate personal relationships.3,17,18,2835 The protgs had language limitations (lack of reading comprehension, expressive written communication and typing skills).36 They also encountered some technical problems when they used the Internet, especially when the program commenced. Therefore, e-mentoring programs must take into account difficulties faced by novice Internet users, especially those with special needs, due to inappropriate and cognitively difficult Internet-access software and the amount of reading required.34 In addition, the protgs found it difficult to write about their disability and to accept the mentors disability. The school principal explained this attitude by the fact that not all the protgs were aware of their own disability. This result highlighted the need to deal first with the issue of self-acceptance, specifically awareness of ones own disability, and acceptance of ones self as a person with unique competencies.29,37 Finally, although the invisibility of the disability is an advantage for e-mentoring relationship, it seems that youth with disabilities, as others without disabilities, do also need visual and vocal cues when using CMC.34,38,39 With regard to the above limitations, the study reveals some valuable preliminary support for the future implementation of the program and the following research. In view of the theoretical and research review by McDonald et al.,12 pairing mentors and protgs who have special needs has considerable potential for meaningful relationships. The mentors may serve as adult role models for the protgs, sharing their life experiences and focusing on positive aspects of the disability. This pilot study resulted in several changes to the upcoming EMM for All program in order to enhance its potential for youth with special needs. A revised version of the program has now been designed and includes youth who can express themselves in written communication, synchronous text, audio and/or video online communication, psychological and technical support from professional

staff, and conducting the program during at least 6 months.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the protgs and the mentors who participated in the e-mentoring intervention program and cooperated in the accompanied study. We also acknowledge the professional school staff persons who assisted throughout the program. This pilot study was supported by a research grant from MISHAL, Israeli University Center for Disabilities, Prof. Shunit Reiter (director), Faculty of Education, University of Haifa.

REFERENCES
1. Single PB, Muller CB. (1999). Electronic mentoring: Issues to advanced research and practice. Paper presented at the 12th annual meeting of the International Mentoring Association, Atlanta, Georgia. www.mentornet.net/Documents/Files/ EmentoringIssues.doc (accessed July 2005). 2. Ensher EA, Heun C, Blanchard A. Online mentoring and computer-mediated communication: New directions in research. Journal of Vocational Behavior 2003; 63:26488. 3. Hasselbring TS, Williams Glaser CH. Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. The Future of Children: Children and Computer Technology 2000; 10:10222. 4. Rhodes JE. (2003). Online mentoring: the promise and pitfalls of an emerging approach. National Mentoring Partnership. www.mentoring.org/research_corner/ 11_03_online.adp (accessed August 2004). 5. Bierema LL, Meriam SB. E-mentoring: using computer mediated communication to enhance the mentoring process. Innovative Higher Education 2002; 26:21127. 6. Miller H, Griffiths M. (2005). E-mentoring. In DuBois DL, Karcher MJ, eds., Handbook of youth mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 30013. 7. Schwiebert VL. (2000). Mentoring: creating connected, empowered relationships. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. 8. Single PB, Muller CB. (2001). When e-mail and mentoring unit: the implementation of a nationwide electronic mentoring program. In Stromei LK, ed., Creating mentoring and coaching programs. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. 9. Wighton DJ. (1993). Telementoring: an examination of the potential for an educational network. USWEST Fellow and Telementoring. http:/ /mentor.creighton. edu/htm/telement.htm (accessed July 2005). 10. Buhrmester D. Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during preadolescence

200 and adolescence. Child Development 1990; 61:1101 11. Buhrmester D, Furman W, Wittenberg MT, Reis HT. Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1988; 55:9911008. McDonald KE, Balcazar FE, Keys CB. (2005) Youth with disabilities. In DuBois DL, Karcher MJ, eds., Handbook of youth mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 493507. National Center on Secondary Education and Transition & Transition Institute on Community Integration. (2003). Connecting to success: mentoring through technology to promote student achievementtraining manual. College of Education & Human Development, University of Minnesota. http:/ /ici.umn.edu/ementoring/ CTS_Training_Manual.pdf (accessed July 2005). Reiter S. (1997). Society and disability. Haifa: Ahva [In Hebrew]. Reiter S. (2003). Life skills versus the skills of living: the circle of internalization method for the enhancement of the skill for living. Inclusive education: a framework for reform. Proceedings of the International Conference of Inclusive Education (pp. 24154). Center for Special Needs and Studies in Inclusive Education, Hong Kong Institute of Education. Rhodes JE. (2002). Stand by me: the risks and rewards of mentoring todays youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rousso H. (2001). What do Frida Kahlo, Wilma Mankiller, and Harriet Tubman have in common? Providing role models for girls with (and without) disabilities. In Rousso H, Wehmeyer M, eds., Double jeopardy: addressing gender equity in special education Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 33760. Finn J. An exploration of helping process in an online self-help group focusing on issues of disability. Health & Social Work 1999; 24:22031. Creswell JW. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Merriam SB. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shkedi A. (2003). Words of meaning: qualitative research: theory and practice. Tel-Aviv: Ramot [In Hebrew]. Barak A. Emotional support and suicide prevention through the Internet: a field project report. Computers in Human Behavior 2007; 23:97184. Bargh JA, McKenna KYA. The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology 2004; 55:57390. Joinson AN. Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology 2001; 31:17792. Para GR, DuBois DL, Neville HA, Pugh-Lilly AO. Mentoring relationships for youth: investigation of a

SHPIGELMAN ET AL. process-oriented model. Journal of Community Psychology 2002; 30:36788. Rhodes JE. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In DuBois DL, Karcher MJ, eds., Handbook of youth mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 3043. Boardman J, Grove B, Perkins R, Shepherd G. Work and employment for people with psychiatric disabilities. British Journal of Psychiatry 2003; 182:46768. Crane L. (2002). Mental retardation: A community integration approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomson. Fels DI, Waalen JK, Zhai S, Weiss PL. (2001). Telepresence under exceptional circumstances: enriching the connection to school for sick children. Proceedings of Interact, Yokohama, Japan. www.ryerson.ca/clt/ publications/fu193v6.pdf (accessed July 2004). Neath J, Schriner K. Power to people with disabilities: Empowerment issues in employment programming. Disability & Society 1998; 13:21728. Reid PM, Bray A. Paid work and intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 1997; 22:8796. Rourke L, Anderson T, Garrison DR, Archer W. Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education 1999; 14:5170. Wehmeyer ML, Smith SJ, Palmer SB, Davis DK. Technology use by students with intellectual disabilities: an overview. Journal of Special Education Technology 2004; 19:133. Weiss PL, Whiteley CP, Treviranus J, Fels DI. PEBBLES: a personal technology for meeting educational, social and emotional needs of hospitalized children. Personal Ubiquitous Computing 2001; 5:15768. American Association on Mental Retardation. (2002). Mental retardation: definition, classification, and systems of supports (10th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Cravens J. Online mentoring: programs and suggested practices as of February 2001. Journal of Technology in Human Services 2003; 21:85109. Gunawardena CN. Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 1995; 1:14766. Leh ASC. Computer-mediated communication and social presence in a distance learning environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 2001; 7:10928.

11.

27.

28.

12.

29.

13.

30.

31.

14. 15.

32.

33.

16.

34.

17.

35.

18.

36.

19.

37.

20. 21.

38.

39.

22. 23.

24. 25.

Address reprint requests to: Carmit-Noa Shpigelman Faculty of Education University of Haifa Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel E-mail: carmits@univ.haifa.ac.il; carmitnoa@gmail.com

26.