THEME 2: Mentoring Models and Approaches Experiences/Described
It was a challenge during the interview process to accurately capture mentoring numbers for each of formal, informal or no match, for a variety of reasons. For example, divisions included in the environmental scan may have reported that formal matches are made at the time of hire; however, interview participants from that particular division shared different accounts of these processes, which further clouds what matches are actually occurring. For example, one Assistant Professor, TS, recounted a formal match through the division (via letter) but they never met this assigned mentor and the Dean’s office never followed-up about the relationship (e.g., if they had met, the suitability of the match, and so forth). This participant did, however, develop a lengthy ‘informal’ mentoring relationship with a more senior faculty member in a more closely aligned disciplinary area.
Participants described their experiences in both formal and informal mentor models. Some faculty shared that no mentor match had been made for them, but this did not preclude these participants from describing other valuable informal mentoring matches that they initiated. Because several participants were not aware of formal mentoring for teaching activities and/or guidelines, they shared their current/recent ‘informal’ mentoring for teaching experiences and provided input on re-envisioning what an effective mentoring for teaching relationships might look like, in part based on gaps they experienced as new hires and/or as mentors.
Of note, two participants shared that mentors were to be assigned based on the assumed teaching ability of the new hire:
I had no match and I feel there may have been assumptions about my background in teaching and learning and an assumed competence – as another Assist Prof, TS, got one…in my first class with 200+ students I could have used a mentor for advice on a number of teaching topics. (Assoc Prof, TS, Phys Sc)
Similarly, an Assistant Professor, TS (UTM) had built up a strong reputation from numerous sessional teaching experiences and was deemed by the department to be ‘competent’ and therefore did not require a mentor for teaching. While this instructor felt quite confident in teaching-related matters, they felt it was important that formal mentoring for teaching be included for all new hires, given that being an effective instructor includes a complex array of factors.
Formal match. Approximately one half of the interviewees (both mentor and mentee) had been involved with a formal faculty mentoring match process. In most of these cases the formal match was initiated by a letter from their department that included the name of the faculty mentor and some very general guidelines to launch the meeting between both parties. For example, FAS and UTM included a faculty mentoring document in the letter of offer. As part of this research, several participants shared mentoring documents, and logistic-type teaching materials (e.g., instructor handbook). In a couple of cases participants provided emails that they received at hiring which included a mentor match.
Stream matches. Formal matches frequently occurred within streams: tenured faculty mentored tenure stream and Associate Professors, TS, mentored Assistant Professors, TS. For example, an Associate Professor, TS had sought feedback on her work from another Associate Professor, TS, emphasizing the key role teaching stream faculty play in promoting effective teaching strategies:
I see them as the ‘experts’ in teaching, or supposed to be and that they provide that service in the department; however, they are not a mentor for research stream. Traditionally the idea is that the mentoring for tenure stream will comment on, for example, NSERC proposals but this is a one-off thing. But this is the image people in our department have rather than the more in-depth coaching and support role (Assoc Prof, TS, Phys Sc, Mentor).
However, several tenure stream faculty members received one sole mentor to address all their needs (research, teaching, service) and a couple of these participants described this scenario as a poor mentoring for teaching experience.
Teaching and tenure stream matches were deemed successful in a case in which two teaching stream faculty shared very positive experiences in learning effective teaching approaches from their tenured mentor. Much of this particular success stemmed in large part to their mentor’s expertise in higher education educational approaches (Phys Sc mentees). In other cases an Assistant Professor, TS, was matched to a tenure stream faculty member to assist/guide them with in-class teaching strategies. Similarly a Chair in Physical Sciences asked an Associate Professor, TS, to discuss low course evaluation scores with an Assistant Professor. In the latter case, the Chair’s intentional prompting was the key for this match to occur; otherwise across-stream matches were uncommon, even though mentors generally perceived these as positive relationships.
Overall, the majority of participants shared that tenure stream mentees require guidance and insights on research-specific topics and in many (not all) cases a teaching stream faculty member may be limited in their capacity to advise on such research-focused matters. In one noteworthy case, an Associate Professor, TS (Phys Sc, TAM) firmly believed and advocated (alongside their Chair) that teaching stream faculty should receive research mentors to ensure they have options and guidance for both discipline and pedagogical research (SoTL). Similarly, an Associate Professor, TS, recalled that his own mentor prompted him to explore research on his classroom teaching:
He asked me, ‘What are you doing to evaluate what you are doing in class – how do you know that it’s good?’ So for me and what I discuss and encourage with my mentees is that SoTL research is, for me, my research. (Phys Sc, Mentor)
Discipline matches. While a few participants experienced within discipline matches, as one mentor noted: “Shared subject matter is key as it’s a shared language” (Assoc Prof, TS), far more participants described between discipline (interdisciplinary) matches. Such matches did occur due to small departments with too few mentors available. The following comment highlights one mentor’s introduction to between-discipline matching:
I mentor two faculty outside of my discipline and when I was first approached I said, ‘I don’t know anything about [social science dept name]’ but they responded that there are people in their department to talk about how to navigate their department and that my role is to conduct a very independent, truly separate perspective on being a teacher at [names dept]…where are there resources, etc. Most mentors now tend not to be in the same department, no official numbers on this though. (Assoc Prof, TS, Phys Sc)
Faculty matched outside their discipline cited positive benefits as they gained a different perspective from discussing teaching topics outside their own department: “In practice our fields were quite different but it was an advantage and he was teaching a course in an area that I would be taking on.” (Assoc Prof, Humanities, in mentee role). An added benefit was the enhanced sense of confidentiality in their meetings.
On a related topic, one Teaching Academy member – and mentees who utilized the CTSI ‘Open Doors’ program – spoke highly of their interdisciplinary relationship. They suggested that there are more similarities than differences when discussing and sharing teaching practices and strategies across disciplines (Assoc Prof, TS, Phys Sc, TAM, Mentor). More findings from ‘Open Doors’ will be discussed later in this report.
Informal Match. Participants were more likely to discuss the informal mentoring relationships that they have experienced and built over the course of their careers at U of T rather than formal mentoring relationships. Several participants (all from the teaching stream and across varied disciplines) indicated that a lack of mentor matches at hire meant they sought informal, supportive, relationships elsewhere. One Associate Professor, TS, observed that while it appeared that new hires were to be matched with a mentor, this did not transpire.
I recall that at the New Faculty Orientation and Back-to-School events it was emphasized that we [new hires] should have a mentor but I was never offered one…to my knowledge there have been three tenure track hires in the past three years with no mentor offered. (Phys Sc, UTSC)
One Associate Professor, TS had no mentor and this was a core reason he became one. Currently he informally mentors up to six new faculty (including a post doctorate) who are ’floundering’ in both the teaching and tenure stream (Life Sc), a feeling he had been all too familiar with when first hired.
Finally one participant described their departmental response to the availability of a faculty mentor:
There is no history of providing mentors and therefore none available to recommend… I looked for a mentor but couldn’t find one…[so] I began an informal mentoring relationship with another Associate Professor, TS, in my department and mainly because they were next door…came from a different discipline [within an interdisciplinary department].
Unfortunately, this informal mentoring for teaching was limited as the mentor had more expertise with graduate level seminar courses, while the mentee sought guidance on large class undergraduate teaching (Assoc Prof, TS, Life Sc).
For many faculty members who described receiving no formal mentor match at hire, they still shared beneficial informal mentoring experiences. These faculty can be best described as ‘initiators’ as they sought relationships with other faculty and opportunities to network with peers, in spite of non-existent formal mentoring. Within such relationships there is a greater likelihood that Associate Professors in the teaching stream provided teaching-specific guidance and support to tenure stream faculty (in comparison to the formal matches noted previously). One Associate Professor, TS, remarked: “As a teaching stream faculty the Chair reflexively refers people to me” (Life Sc, mentor).
Participants described informal mentorships both between and within disciplines. The following scenario illustrates a within-discipline match, although with a unique impetus for the match. Students prompted a tenure stream instructor to seek out what they perceived to be effective teaching strategies used by the department’s Associate Professor, TS. The tenure- stream instructor did informally seek assistance but in a ‘drop-in’ manner (Assoc Prof, TS, Phys Sc). This informal mentor had offered to take on a mentor leadership role and to formalize mentoring for teaching relationships in the department but has not been successful in launching this type of activity. In the meantime, this participant continues to offer mentoring/assistance with teaching-related matters. In a similar vein, an Associate Professor, TS, (Life Sc) served in an informal mentor capacity to a new teaching-stream faculty member in another department within the Life Sciences. Much of their focus centred on navigating teaching-stream expectations and what is required for teaching stream. For the mentor, they described the importance/reciprocity of learning that occurs as “[getting] a different perspective from outside my department.”
The majority of participants in this study described informal mentoring relationships. These reportedly are not overseen in any formalized manner. For example, one Assistant Professor, TS (Humanities, FAS) described the ‘formal’ mentor match made in accordance with the Divisional Mentoring Guidelines but a meeting never took place – it merely existed in a letter. However, this instructor quickly found an ’informal’ mentor from another division who has offered tremendous insights on a range of teaching- related questions/enquiries that emerged in the first couple of years of the faculty member’s appointment.
A few participants – self-described as mid-career – sought new ways to enhance their teaching approaches. These faculty members included teaching award winners who felt that there was much to be gained by observing other colleagues’ teaching and/or engaging in sharing course materials. This example illustrates such a relationship – the participant had reflected back on being a mentee throughout most of the interview but, when prompted, thought about what they had shared with others: “Yes, I have mentored. A senior colleague has asked me to discuss teaching activities – for example about discussion techniques – they had reviewed my file [for tenure] and saw the evidence and wanted to chat with me” (Assistant Prof, Soc Sc speaking in role as an informal mentor).
Positive one-to-one mentoring experiences. U of T divisions and departments primarily focus on one-to-one faculty mentoring matches. This section captures elements described as effective or positive for the development of new faculty at U of T.
1. Enthusiastic & committed mentor. Mentors spoke passionately about their commitment to teaching and support for new faculty who may be struggling to engage in teaching-focused discussions. The following comments illustrate important qualities in their mentoring relationships, “Being empathetic works well” (Assoc Prof, TS, Phys Sc, in mentee role), and:
I want to be available, free to meet and enthusiastic about meeting up with mentees…make them feel they can contact me anytime, contact me whenever they want – go for lunch, as simple as it sounds I took that away from my own experience as a mentee. Not just that I put up with it but I enjoy it. I don’t have a lot of people in my department to talk to about teaching –only one downtown – a couple of research stream that have an interest in teaching but they are not people with whom I’d have regular conversations on teaching. (Assoc Prof, TS, Phys Sc, Mentor)
A recent new arrival to Toronto shared the positive aspects of her formally matched mentor. The mentee arrived close to the start of the fall term and immediately received constructive feedback on her large-class teaching approaches and strategies:
My mentor focused on and stressed my own style, writing out all lecture notes in my own writing and focusing on reducing time to prep for lectures. Time demands of the mentoring relationship are high but worthwhile as it’s a wonderful opportunity. My mentor supported me when I did a good teaching practice. (Assistant Prof, Phys Sc, mentee)
2. Provided documentation to mentee. Several mentees and mentors spoke favourably of formal mentors who provided documentation of teaching activities. Mentors demonstrated a commitment to the mentoring relationship by including this formal component – one that identified a mentee’s ongoing efforts to enhance their teaching. In one case an Associate Professor, TS (Life Sc) ensured that her mentee received course feedback from two of the mentee’s guest lectures. She observed his second lecture and met to share feedback both verbally and in writing in which she provided formative comments that focused on (1) lecture notes (2) pacing and time management (3) volume, and (4) PowerPoint slide design.
In two other cases, an Associate Professor, TS, provided both an in-class observation letter and shared how to incorporate the Teaching Squares(19) activity, including guidelines for providing feedback to each instructor. In a similar vein, a formal mentor who primarily focuses on in-class teaching activities ensures that instructors receive detailed notes and that these are discussed fully at each lecture debrief meeting.
3. A structured mentoring format enhances relationships. Less mentioned, but of note, were those mentoring matches that allowed for alignment of mentor-mentee needs. In the first instance a participant described that the match process began with a mentor characteristic list circulated within a division and it included requests for mentor nominations. This step avoided receiving mentors who may not have these characteristics. Nominees would be informed and asked if they wanted to serve as a mentor, and what the position entailed. Mentors would then receive an orientation, mentor training, and then be randomly matched to someone outside their division to ensure mentees did not work alongside them. A few months into the match, both parties would be asked follow-up questions such as meeting frequency, and how the relationship was advancing. At this point this review could result in a “no fault divorce proceeding – if it didn’t work out they could contact me to connect with someone else” (Assoc Prof, Med, mentor).
In a second case a participant described trial and error formats/processes to determine mentor-mentee matches and that the most effective format engaged her in her role (as Dean) to meet with the new hire to solidify a “prime” mentor. This would launch a series of discussions between both of them,
To figure out who in their faculty would sort out who to work with. For example I connect two [names research area] faculty to others on campus – I watch their back. I don’t teach the same disciplinary area but they meet with me every 4-6 weeks. (Assoc Prof, Soc Sc, TAM)
Several participants spoke highly of structured meeting formats that ensured “dependability and predictability.” Formal processes were deemed to establish expectations between both parties. One participant met her mentor prior to the first lecture to review the course syllabus and focus in on delivering a solid first lecture and ensured that “I start off on the right foot.” They scheduled meetings before and after every lecture (Assistant Prof, Phys Sc, mentee). Finally an Associate Professor, TS, noted that the Department Chair provided the mentee funds to cover the lunchtime mentoring meeting: “What a nice idea and nice way to have some value for the mentoring but psychologically you have an hour and a half dedicated to this conversation” (Assoc Prof, TS, Phys Sc, mentor).
Challenges/limitations in one-to-one mentoring. This section identifies those matches in which the relationship – for any number of reasons – posed challenges for one or both parties, and in this climate, a beneficial relationship was not wholly realized.
1. Predominant focus on research. A few participants noted that a predominant focus on research production (at departmental and/or divisional levels) hinders the amount of discussion time spent on teaching-related matters during mentoring meetings. One faculty member’s formalized teaching role exposed them to such situations, noting, “we hear a lot of stuff where the Chair has said, ‘we don’t want to do teaching excellence… we need excellence in research’” which shifts how new faculty approach competing demands amongst research, teaching and service. In a similar vein, an Assistant Professor described an “awkward meeting” with her mentor (the Department Chair) that primarily focused on logistics and being told to “crank out my research.” Without mentoring guidelines she felt that there was limited time to discuss teaching and what really mattered from her vantage point. Fortunately this mentee did receive advice to seek out support from university teaching centres for more detailed teaching-focused workshops, although she expressed disappointment in not receiving some teaching support from an assigned mentor. Overall, this mentoring experience fell flat, especially when she sought to conduct inquiry into her teaching: “I have a ton of ideas that include SoTL work and how to make my classes better…I am jealous of some faculty who have a good mentor” (Assistant Prof, Life Sc, mentee).
A few participants were wary of mentor matches with tenured professors who had little teaching experience or expertise in teaching-related topics. For one Assistant Professor (Life Sc) more ‘hands-on’ mentoring and guidance would have gone far in avoiding teaching issues that stalled her progress and raised questions about her teaching20. She had not been provided guidance early enough in the term and suggested that the constant research focus in her department negatively impacted the time she could spend asking questions about her teaching (e.g., questions about student grading). Another participant who had been matched with a tenured professor noted: “I don’t respect this mentor as a teacher” (Assoc Prof, TS, Life Sc, in mentee role).
2. Lack of goal-setting. One participant described a key limitation in their mentorship relationship in that, “it was hard to tell if I had improved…there was no goal setting specifically.” (Assistant Prof, Phys Sc, mentee). Another mentee shared that in focusing too much on “nuts and bolts” there was little discussion of how to continually improve as an instructor in preparation for promotion processes. The participant’s Chair did conduct an in-class evaluation last year and met with her a couple of weeks later. She commented: “but this was not pedagogically sound advice in my opinion…I’m on a three-year contract and this places me in a precarious position. There is no time to talk about any teaching or faculty issues” (Assistant Prof, TS, Life Sc, mentee).
3. Mentee must initiate match. In several instances participants were wary of department mentoring approaches that lacked structure as those faculty who sought mentoring on teaching topics felt that if they admitted to needing teaching support they may be labelled as ‘incompetent’ or requiring remedial services. This theme also touched on ensuring confidentiality in the mentoring relationship. Matches that occurred in such a department or divisional climate were less likely to be fulfilling for the mentee, in particular.
4. Disinterested mentee. Mentoring relationships thrive under a range of situational factors. Participants noted that mentees who are either disinterested or lacking time can pose challenges to the success of the match. For example, one mentor had been strongly ‘forced’ to engage with a mentee that he did not initiate, and found that the mentee did not fully commit or see the benefit to spending valuable time on teaching matters. In a similar case an Associate Professor, TS, offered to observe a mentee’s lecture but was not taken up on this: “My mentee receives solid course evaluations and doesn’t feel he needs much guidance on his teaching, based only on these” (Phys Sc, mentor). Finally, within disciplines that have limited teaching (e.g., clinicians in health sciences) there is “some push back there…as they are so busy – teaching is a small part of what they do and in the big scope of things they are not prepared to spend a lot of time on this part of their academic position” (Assoc Prof, Med, mentor).
FOOTNOTES
(19) For a full description and sample Teaching Squares Program see: http://www.uwo.ca/tsc/faculty_programs/teaching_squares.html
(20) Progress here is in reference to her course evaluation results and also she had assigned student grades deemed to be too high.