To study the results of mentoring, we were provided with the following data sources:
• The database of responses from the complex student questionnaire of the BaBe research project (KH-4):12
- This data source made it possible to compare students’ views on mentoring with other data in the questionnaire. The data was studied using the SPSS software’s frequencies and cross-tabulation.
Students also provided us with a written evaluation of the mentor’s activities. This is summarized in the form of a mind map below.
• Written and verbal feedback by teachers:
- We used the method of document-analysis on the texts and summarized the results in a mind map.
In the section below we will review the results of the analysis of data sources.
Due to the low number of cases, we will mostly show frequencies. The review focuses on the following questions:
• In the case of student evaluations we focus on their opinion of mentoring, their self-perceived participation in the mentoring process, how their opinion correlated with other variables.
• In the case of teachers we focus on the elements of their written evaluations.
12 In total we received 22 and 27 student responses about mentoring.
6.1. Mentoring according to the teachers’ feedback
After reviewing the topics and main components of the teachers’ evaluations, we can conclude that it overlaps to a large extent with the themes touched
upon in the consultation meetings (Figure 4). This suggests that the time available was not suffi cient for fi nding satisfactory solutions to some of the problems.
Figure 5: The main elements of the teachers’ written evaluation
Figure 5 displays the topics of the written evaluations. In the section below some parts of these evaluations and feedback are quoted to illustrate the results:
Opinions:
• My mentees have disappeared; I have no contact with them currently.
• Actually they are adults, they can decide whether they need a mentor’s assistance or not. Perhaps they would more easily establish a relationship of trust with a senior student than with an unknown teaching
staff member. (I only teach them in the second year, therefore they don’t know me yet.) In other words, let’s give them the free choice, so that they can decide what to do with this possibility.
• For me mentoring turned out to be a failure, in a certain sense. All my mentees have turned up for the fi rst meeting, then disappeared.
Obviously one could do this more forcefully, but I’d like them to behave as adults, so I don’t pressure them particularly. The meetings were a rather formal experience. I had a few kind, assertive children assigned to me, who didn’t need mentoring but politely turned up for the meeting.
• X.Y.: I met this mentee in my capacity as mentor at least ten times outside of the lessons. S/he needs lots of mentoring; I believe that occasionally more serious assistance would be required in terms of mental health.
• This mentee didn’t feel in need of study counselling, but s/he asked me to assist in developing his future plans.
• This mentee normally asks questions via email, which are usually related to the studies, and require serious research on my side. I tend to turn to the study administration offi ce for information to resolve the issues.
• I have lost contact with all my mentees. I don’t teach at the department of Education, which makes keeping contact with students diffi cult.
Several critical remarks and problems were voiced related to the mentoring system on the whole: the establishment of the mentor-mentee relationship remained unanswered in both phases, as random pairing was not considered to be a good solution, and nothing better had been proposed. The integration of mentoring into the whole of the bachelor programme was permanently raised: possibilities for recognising mentoring with credits, or as an optional subject were mentioned as alternatives. Both of these proposals would have resulted in overlapping responsibilities with thesis consulting, so they didn’t receive support. Several questions were formulated related to the role and tasks of mentors, in both phases. Above all the personal relationship between mentor and mentee: many teachers found it diffi cult to establish a personal, direct relationship with students that they taught in other courses of the programme. The close personal relationship made it harder to objectively evaluate the performance of students in their courses. In many cases, the personal relationship raised challenges during mentoring as well: several mentors encountered a moral and professional dilemma in the face of having to give negative feedback to students on unrealistic life plans or further study intentions, just as with problems during the process of mentoring. Another regularly mentioned problem arose from the relationship of the mentee with other teachers, leading to a confl ict of roles.
6.2. Mentoring: results of the complex student questionnaire
Two questions were asked about mentoring in the questionnaire: a closed question on whether the work of a mentor was needed, and an open one for elaborating on the previous answer.
Figure 6: Do you believe that the mentor is needed?
(Student questionnaire SQ-4)
The results indicate that mentoring is generally accepted in each year, while among second year students there is a proportionate increase (Figure 6).
Figure 7: Correlation between the perception of the need for mentoring and the nature of the relationship with the mentor (Student questionnaire SQ-4) To achieve a more in-depth analysis, we examined whether there were any semantic clues in their written answers referring to the mentors that would indicate a more active relationship with them. The two opinions correlate:
if there was a semantic indication of an active relationship, it clearly led to the acceptance of mentoring, but the majority of those students who did not have an active relationship also support the mentoring system (Figure 7).
The activities of mentors and the expectations towards them were tackled by the questionnaire’s section on support systems.13 The responses to the questions14 mention the mentor on 8 counts in total. In the academic
13 Complex student questionnaire (SQ-4) Year 2006/2007, Section 4.2, Year 2007/2008, Section 4.3
14 “1. In what did I need support? 2. By whom was I supported? 3. Who did I expect to be supported by?”
year of 2006/2007, they are mentioned on three occasions as someone who helps with the compilation of the portfolio and choosing tasks, and in one case as someone whose help would have been expected. In the case of the 2007/2008 academic year, there are fi ve mentions related to self-refl ection, and to choosing a thesis topic and specialization tier.
Figure 8: Students’ written responses to the question “Do you consider the work of the mentor important?”
Figure 8 presents the responses according to their content. It is visible that when mentioned positively, the practical functions of the mentor as defi ned on a conceptual level are identifi able: information-provision and support.
Interestingly, while we have not emphasized the support role of the mentor among the responsibilities, this is clearly the most mentioned factor in favour of the mentor:
• “Assists with (choosing) learning methods, and additionally we can have a conversation about my daily worries (outside of university as well)”
• “The mentor would be necessary in the fi rst year so that one could get support and design a conscious university career”
• “It’s important to have someone we can turn to with our problems related to education.”
Controversial or negative opinions were driven by badly functioning mentor-mentee relationships, leading to the complete rejection of the mentoring system as a result of dissatisfaction. At the same time some respondents voice a similar critique to teachers about the way the mentoring system was set up. Yet there are others who regard the system redundant, claiming that university students can accomplish the tasks they face in higher education:
• “I think the mentor can provide help in many ways, but if they don’t know each other with the student, the relationship makes little sense.”
• “If the mentor is not familiar with the issue I want to resolve, it can’t be guaranteed s/he can help, even if teachers like to help.”
To shed light on the factors behind the data we also examined the correlation between some questionnaire items unrelated to mentoring and the perception of mentoring. First we compared the perception of mentoring with the diffi culties during the studies as named by students. It seems that students who found mentoring necessary also had a similar perception of diffi culties related to studying. To evaluate mentoring objectively, we fi nd it especially important to take into account that those who showed a heightened interest in educational sciences tended to consider mentoring more important.
Examining the results further, we studied the degree to which mentoring experiences and the choice of a specialization tier and the intention for further studies correlated. Among those students who could justify their choice of specialization, 51.4% (19 respondents) indicated an active relationship with the mentor, while among those who could not, only 10% had an active relationship. Among those who were uncertain whether they would continue their studies after the bachelor programme (14 respondents), only 10% (2 respondents) indicated an active relationship with the mentor, while among those who were certain to continue their studies this ratio is 80%. This comparison shows that a student’s conscious choice of specialization and the active relationship with the mentor positively correlate, which is also true of the plans for further studies.
The results suggest that the more involved someone is in terms of the studies, the more successful mentoring will be and it will be seen in a positive light by the mentees. In our mentoring programme the activity of the mentor was more successful for dedicated, motivated students rather than for students facing diffi culties.
SUMMARY
We can conclude the following about the mentoring programme implemented within the BaBe project:
We created this experimental programme in parallel to the introduction of the bachelor training programme in order to support students’ study performance. It operated for two consecutive student cohorts, before being replaced by a student mentoring system carried out by senior students within the “Katapult” mentoring programme. The teacher-based mentoring system
did not become institutionalized, although it indirectly continues its impact through the mentoring systems of certain specialization tiers.
We examined the effi ciency, success and shortcomings of the system we created based on the responses of students and teachers. We can observe that many elements of the original system were modifi ed during practice.
In the original concept the mentor was designed to undertake study counselling, whereas in practice personal support and counselling had become equally signifi cant. It seems that every mentoring programme needs to pay some attention to an organized response to the consequences of a personal relationship and the issues that this raises, even if the envisaged mentor-mentee relationship is not particularly encouraging an intimate relationship, as such a relationship will inevitably develop during the process.
The responses suggest that it facilitates greatly the operation of the mentoring system if the mentor and student know each other from another fi eld, as this creates rapport more easily. This solution, nevertheless, raises several other problems, especially in terms of the evaluation of the student’s work.
As far as mentoring systems within higher education are concerned, the relationship with the whole training programme and personal choice are important factors. It seems that with these factors in place, the system can assist motivated students to overcome challenges during their studies.
LIST OF REFERENCES
GRIFFITHS, PH. A. (1997): Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend. National Acad-emy of Sciences, National AcadAcad-emy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5789&page=R1 (Last download: 2007. 03. 11.)
JUHÁSZ, ZS. & KÁLMÁN, O. (2006): A patrónus. In: FALUS I. (ed.): Miért jó egy alternatív iskola? Gondolat Kiadó, Budapest. 223–239.
KOPP, E. (2007): A személyes segítô. Szakoktatás 10. 12–18.
M. NÁDASI M. (ed.) (2010): A mentorfelkészítés rendszere, próbája, a men-torképzés szakterületi elôkészítése. Manuscript
NEGOVAN, V. (2006): Mentoring – a Valuable Method of Practical Intervention in Need of Theoretical Grounding. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 2.
http://www.ejop.org/archives/2006/02/mentoring-%E2%80%93-a-val- uable-method-of-practical-intervention-in-need-of-theoretical-ground-ing.html (Retrieved on: 15 August 2006)
RHODES, J. (ed.) (2002): New directions for youth development: A critical view of youth mentoring. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
ZELTDITCH, M. (1997): Mentor Roles in Graduate Studies. In: FRIERSON, H. T.
(ed.): Mentoring and Diversity in Higher Education. JAI Press, Greenwich
In the present paper, the case study of the bachelor training programme development supported by the BaBe research is introduced: the analysis of situation and the process of innovation, the problems of using competencies in curriculum work, and fi nally, apart from some elements, the old and new version of the training programme are to be compared. During the reorganization of the training programme we relied on the results of the BaBe research, but it was also infl uenced by the experience and outcomes of a research done in 2010 supported by Tempus in our Institute, the so called LeO21 research (VÁMOS 2010), and the TÁMOP 4.1.3 project dealing with higher education validation also in 2010 by Mihály Kocsis, András Derényi and Éva Tót.
1. SITUATION ANALYSIS
In higher education describing, and especially connecting learning outcomes with given courses, modules and training programmes is found diffi cult (KENNEDY 2007; VÁMOS 2010). It is not easy to fi nd and apply expressions which orientate the trainer and the student alike in the organization and successful management of learning. At times, it is only a problem of wording that is, a task related to the use of professional language by which given knowledge, ability and attitude can be expressed on the level of activity-expectations.
At other times it is about paradigm change that is, about the emergence of a new approach when training institutions do not defi ne what they are willing to and going to teach, but what the student should reach at the end of
1 LeO2 (Learning outcomes 2) = In the research entitled Learning Outcomes in Teaching and Evaluation supported by Tempus members of the BaBe research team also participated. See the results of the research at: http://www.tpf.hu/pages/books/index.php?page_id=35&books_
id=229 (Retrieved on 4 February 2011)