Stemming from the multitude of tasks, the precise description of a men-tor’s activity runs into diffi culties, similarly to that of a student assistant.
The des cription of Griffi ths (1997) is useful in this case, since it defi nes the characteristic mentoring roles and the related activities (Table 3.):
Griffi ths covers a wide spectrum of the mentoring activities taking place in higher education, carried out by educators. Our mentoring activity list is considerably narrower; it contains activities assigned to the skills development consultant in the above table, as well as activities that go with the study counsellor’s role.
To support the precise defi nition of the tasks and the documentation required by the action research, we compiled a handbook containing the following topics:
• The general description of the research, the responsibilities of the mentor
• Template for reminders
• Surveys related to the obstacles and problems students face, materials for the evaluation of these (see appendix)
• The summary of consultations with students
• Development plan
• A document for the evaluation of the mentoring process (written evaluation)
1 For a detailed description of the progammes: https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/mentho/english/index_eng.htm (Last download: 2011. 01. 06.);
2 https://www.absolventum.de/cas0004tw/teamworks.dll/webpage/webpage6/webpage001 (Last download 2010. 12. 09.)
3 http://www.tuwien.ac.at/dle/koostelle/mentoring/DE/ (Last download 2010. 12. 09.)
4 http://www.ou.edu/univcoll/home/Courses_for_Freshmen/Faculty_Mentoring/ (Last download 2010. 12. 09.)
Table 3: Possible mentorship roles and related activities
Role Related tasks
Bachelor training programme Master and doctoral training programme
Study counsellor
Motivational awareness
Establishing rapport with other students Awareness of professional goals
Support for bringing professional goals and studies in line Support for professional work experience, volunteering Support for basic research activity
Counselling for specialization and further studies
Assistance in choosing a counselling professor or thesis supervisor Awareness-raising and support in choosing training sub-programmes and a specialization tier
Counselling for study choices Support for choosing a research focus
In case of the doctoral programme, support in composing the committee Monitoring study progress
Support for professional development and networking Career counsellor Bringing goals and studies in line
Support for professional work experience, volunteering Professional networking
Skills development consultant
Time management, planning and organizational skills development Professional writing and communication skills development (proofreading ready texts, development coaching)
Professional speaking and communication skills development (assistance and counselling in presentation, for example)
Communication skills development (e.g. reviewing conference presentations) Support in grant applications
Personal development:
Developing social competence, counselling (e.g. team cooperation, confl ict management) Support in increasing creativity
Model Presentation of personal life course and activities
Based on Griffi ths (1997)
Looking back, we feel that perhaps it was a mistake to design a detailed documentation that included data-gathering purposes for the research within the early stages of the process. Given that it was a voluntary, unpaid task for teachers, it would have been practical to plan for less documentation.
It seems that the requirement for a written documentation scared many participants away.
To support the process, we organized group discussions with the mentors during both semesters. During these meetings we discussed the challenges and problems of the ongoing mentorship, which are presented in the below sections. The minutes of these meetings form a part of the monitoring process.
The mentors’ responsibilities consisted of the following during the fi rst phase in the spring of 20079:
• Individual assistance in study matters
• Regular consultation with students
• Monitoring and evaluation of the development
9 Student cohort of September 2006
In the second phase10 the duties of mentors were extended to include the support in preparing portfolios, since this was the year when the portfolio-type evaluation was introduced in the programme. We attempted to link mentoring to the portfolio process by organizing an event where the pairing process of mentors and mentees and the distribution of portfolio packages and information took place.
In the next section we will review what was implemented from the planned tasks, and how students and teachers evaluated these activities.
5. IMPLEMENTATION
5.1. Participation of mentors and mentees in the process
In the fi rst phase 26 teachers and 41 students participated in the draw, in the second 20 and 47, which is the total number of people involved in mentoring.
10 Student cohort of September 2006
Based on the teachers’ feedback, we have an interesting comparison between the two years. Both teachers and students were signifi cantly more active in the second phase: more students took up contact with the educators than in the fi rst phase, and we received more feedback forms as well (Figures 1 and 2). We explain this with the more successful information activity, and it seems that contact-making was experienced as being more important than the fi rst time.
Figure 1: Cooperation of students and mentors after the randomized draw (people)
Figure 2: Teachers’ feedback at the end of the process (pcs)
The results do not mean, however, that the intensity of the mentoring process itself or its ongoing activity levels had increased as well. When looking at
instances of successful mentorship according to the teachers’ feedback, we can conclude the following:
Figure 3: Changes in student activity during the mentoring process (results of second phase)
As Figure 3 indicates, contact-making and student feedback are both declining in numbers, and only in 13 cases was the mentoring process deemed fruitful by teachers – including those instances where mentoring continued over from the fi rst year (5 people). It seems obvious however;
that those teachers who were in contact with a mentee in other areas as well will participate more successfully in the mentoring of the student, the relationship they can develop is more intensive. This was also expressed by teachers, who additionally mention the lack of other points in common as the cause behind the failure to establish a relationship. I would once more refer to the randomized pairing process that caused this situation.
5.2. The activities and problems of mentoring
We asked the feedback of teachers on the themes and topics touched upon during their meetings with mentees.
Figure 4 illustrates the results of the two semesters. It clearly shows the difference in the weight of topics discussed. In the fi rst phase general information on the bachelor programme dominates, alongside study-related assistance and personal counselling. In the second phase we observe new content, such as the portfolio and specifi c subject-related support, while the topics of the fi rst semester decrease.
Figure 4: The themes of mentor-mentee meetings (number of mentions by mentors)11
The different phases posed different challenges, as evidenced by the minutes of meetings with teachers during the mentoring process. During the fi rst phase several questions were formulated related to the whole bachelor programme, which were more tangible in the context of the direct, personal relationship with students than during curriculum or accreditation meetings of staff members. First and foremost, as a result of questions related to the structure, build-up and continuation of the bachelor programme, mentors were required to further inform themselves and discuss certain aspects of the programme as well. It became apparent that several components of the bachelor programme were not clear for teachers, and that everybody is well-informed in the subjects of their organizational unit, department, fi eld, but less so in the overall picture of the programme. Students expressed criticism for the objectives of several sub-programmes, which generated further debates among teachers. In the second phase, questions related to the portfolios dominated the discussion, while the relevance of structural issues for teachers became secondary.
In the consultation meetings of mentors many sensitive topics were raised that could not be adequately resolved within the meetings. In the case of some of these the reason was that the questions raised pointed beyond the scope of mentoring or action research. One such topic was the initial objective of reducing the dropout rate: it was frequently mentioned in discussions, that dropping out was often the consequence of being underskilled or unsuited for higher education, leading to the need for career counselling instead of attempts to prevent the person from dropping out. This solution, however, as it turned out during the meetings, was foreign to the pedagogical thinking
11 Based on the analysis of 11 feedbacks in 2006 and 20 in 2007
of the teachers involved in mentoring, who approached students with the intention of support and remedial work.
Another recurring topic was the issue of students with serious psychological problems: the personal problems discussed during mentoring often fell beyond the scope of competence of the mentor, yet on many occasions they took the responsibility for handling such matters. Looking back, the research team believes it would have been worthwhile to get in contact with the available services of the Institute and the Faculty, by connecting the mentoring process with these services. In these cases the mentors should have chosen to direct the case to the appropriate support service instead of trying to handle it themselves.