Faculty Mentoring Models

Please cite this publication in the following format:
Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation. (2016). Faculty Mentoring for Teaching Report. Toronto: Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation, University of Toronto

In higher education, various models exist that highlight the increasing shift and multiple ways that faculty seek and receive guidance, advice, and coaching, in their academic positions and specifically, in their efforts to enhance their teaching. The next section addresses 3 models: dyad (one-to-one) mentoring; peer/group/mutual mentoring; and networks and broader community support of teaching. There is much fluidity within and between these models, as faculty members may be engaged in any or all of them simultaneously.

Dyad mentoring. The most widely known mentoring model is a one-to-one mentor-mentee/ protégé match (Lumpkin, 2011; Zellers et al., 2008). Lumpkin states that a mentor has historically been viewed as a senior, more experienced faculty but that junior mentors may be just as effective. Boyle and Boice (1998) discussed that it is not the match as much as what the mentor and mentee do in the relationship that counts. Mentees who have a greater input into the match selection report greater satisfaction with the experience, as their agenda will more likely be met (Allen, Eby & Lenz, 2006).

Carbone (2014) advocated a dyadic mentor model that engages both parties in “regular meetings, completion of a workbook, and peer review of each other’s teaching” (p. 139). Boice (1998) supported mentoring matches as early as possible in a new faculty’s hiring appointment, with brief, weekly mentor meetings as well as regular (monthly) group meetings between sets of mentored pairs across disciplines. The research on dyadic relationships is inconclusive regarding the characteristics of ‘best’ practice models. For example, Zellers et al.’s (2008) review of voluntary versus involuntary matches was indecisive. However, within the academic environment it was noted that a mandated program might serve to counter concerns that faculty who choose to participate in mentoring are not seeking remedial assistance. When all new and junior faculty are assigned mentors it is likely to become a norm that one can gain important and beneficial guidance, support and/ or insights from a more experienced mentor. Notably, Boyle and Boice (1998) demonstrated that one of the most beneficial aspects of systematic mentoring was the group meetings with other paired mentor-mentee matches in this program:

Group meetings provided the participants with a sense of campus involvement they did not find in their own departments, especially around the topic of teaching… fostered an openness in sharing experiences…and in providing possible solutions to problems. Also, it allowed mentors to observe (and subsequently attempt) alternative styles of mentoring. Thus, they broadened their roles as coaches and models. (p. 176)

Group and mutual peer mentoring models. Boyle and Boice (1998) discussed group meeting structures and provided insights into the reciprocal peer or mutual-mentoring (Sorcinelli & Yun, 2009) literature that described support beyond the more traditional dyadic mentoring model. Kinsella (1995) defined peer coaching/mentoring for teaching as:

A structured, formative process by which trained faculty voluntarily assist each other in enhancing their teaching repertoires within an atmosphere of collegial trust and candor through: a) development of individual instructional improvement goals and clear observation criteria; b) reciprocal, focused, non-evaluative classroom observations; and c) prompt, constructive feedback on those observations. (p. 111)

Similarly, Reder and Gallagher (2007) studied senior faculty engaged in a peer mentoring program that involved more senior faculty facilitating a year-long seminar for all incoming tenure-track faculty. Both the director of the teaching and learning centre as well as a senior faculty fellow played a broker role. Yun, Baldi and Sorcinelli (2016) described the “Mutual Mentoring Initiative” that currently is a “fully operational, campus- wide initiative” in which, their research findings demonstrated that faculty members who participated in networked mentoring via grants (either team or micro grants were awarded) achieved more career-enhancing and mutually beneficial mentoring relationships than non- participants. In one case an engineering faculty member chose to focus on pedagogical skills and built a network of support from senior faculty — many from within his own faculty, but also from outside the department.

Networks and broader community teaching support. Both de Janasz and Sullivan (2004) and Sorcinelli and Yun (2007) focused on a decentralized, flexible mentoring model that included broader networks of support:

No single person is expected to possess the expertise required to help someone navigate the shoals of a faculty career…. early-career faculty build robust networks by engaging multiple “mentoring partners” in non-hierarchical, collaborative, cross-cultural partnerships to address specific areas of faculty activity…benefit not only the person traditionally known as the “protégé” but also the person traditionally known as the “mentor,” since all members of an academic community have something to teach and learn from each other. (p. 58)

Rockquemore (2011) similarly reframed the notion of mentoring, and focused on “what do I need” and “how can I get my needs met”? This model shifts “from one that is centered around your ability to find a relationship with a senior faculty member on your campus to one that focuses on identifying your needs and getting them met.”(14) Calderwood and Klaf (2014) examined whether Centers for Teaching and Learning, acting as localized communities of practice for faculty development, help faculty to become more expert in teaching and scholars of their own teaching and learning. Their findings indicated that the teaching and learning community prompted dyadic mentoring via the “signature activities (workshops, consultations, learning communities, collaborations).” These shared practices fit a model of integrated mentoring within a community of practice (CoP) (Smith et al, 2013). Smith et al (2016) studied this CoP model in more depth in their examination of three CoPs, finding: “Our analyses indicate that CoP can be fruitful sites of mentoring for all faculty when members mutually engage in shared practices required by the institution.” Included here for example were faculty who met to discuss tenure dossier preparations. The roles of expert and novice were “fluid and shared among group members” (p. 16). Mårtensson, Olsson and Roxa (2006) and Roxå and Mårtensson (2009) presented a unique mentoring model description for teaching. They surveyed 106 faculty members from various disciplines.

[Participants] described situations where they had sincere and honest discussions about problems or ideas in relation to teaching. The number of reported conversational partners per study participant converged at around ten individuals. This parallels the observation in Becher and Trowler’s study (2001) about the typical size of the smaller research networks. (p.213)

Similar to Rockquemore’s work (2011), faculty in Roxå and Mårtensson’s (2009) study reported valuable conversations on teaching,

…almost anywhere: sometimes in the same department, or in the same discipline at another institution, sometimes in another discipline, or in spaces without any connection to academia at all…they find the particular person suited for the particular issue at hand. (p. 213)

Results from Roxå and Mårtensson’s study highlight that strong cultural or climate support within departments and institutions tended to increase the number of mentorship partners who engage in teaching and learning-focused discussions: “Having conversations with colleagues that are part of the local teaching culture is important, since the effect on a TLR [teaching and learning regime] probably increases if the conversation can address it from within” (p. 214). The authors’ phrase ‘significant networks’– whereby smaller networks engaged individual faculty having “sincere conversations about teaching and learning” included some core elements described in the previous section on mutual mentoring, but ultimately Roxå and Mårtensson referred to “networks”: “It is here that they put their teaching and learning experiences into words and it is here that they genuinely pay attention to the responses they receive” (p.214). Overall, despite the individualist and frequently competitive models and awards in higher education, Smith et al (2016) argue that efforts to promote collaborative mentoring and work run counter to these prevailing norms and values that characterize many
institutions.

Mentoring model framework. A useful framework from Dawson (2014) pulls from the three models presented above, providing insight and evidence-based guidance for any educator who is designing a mentoring program and must make important decisions about key components. His work is especially valuable in helping define the mentoring model(s) being developed or researched, based on specific evidence-based design elements. Dawson identified sixteen design elements in the literature and tested these with two different mentoring models, including Carbone’s (2014) Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme (PATS) mentoring model, piloted in the Faculty of Information Technology at Monash University, Australia that addressed low student satisfaction within units (courses). The peer-assisted model falls within a dyadic mentoring model, and focuses on improving the quality of units (courses) through mentoring partnerships between university teachers.

Dawson’s extensive list of design elements can be a reference point for any of the mentoring models listed in this section (e.g., one-to-one, peer/group/mutual mentoring, community of practice or network). Appendix A details his framework. It can be adapted for building a mentoring program. For example, it is essential that a mentoring model explicitly outline the objectives, aims or intentions of the program and/or approach. Such clarity is likely to ensure that other key design elements – such as stating the roles and responsibilities of each mentoring party – map onto the overall purposes of the model.

Further extensive research by Zellers et al (2008) succinctly lists core mentoring program success factors. Included in their list are,

visible support of senior administration; alignment with organizational goals and objectives…allocated sufficient resources; voluntary participation of mentors; criteria and process for qualifying mentors… formative evaluation for continuous improvement and summative evaluation to determine outcomes. (p.579)

While this list is quite extensive it is key to note that combining a range of mentoring models may meet many, if not all of these factors.

FOOTNOTES

(14) See the National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity (NCFDD) Mentoring Map (2011) for an excellent resource: https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/files/Mentoring%20Map[1](1).pdf