Mentoring doctoral students through scholastic engagement: adult learning principles in action

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 25 November 2014, At: 01:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Further and HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Mentoring doctoral students throughscholastic engagement: adult learningprinciples in actionCarol A. Mullen a , Valorie L. Fish b & Janice L. Hutinger ca Department of Educational Leadership & Cultural Foundations,School of Education , University of North Carolina at Greensboro ,Greensboro, NC, USAb Lockhart Elementary School , Tampa, FL, USAc University of South Florida , Department of Special Education ,Land O’Lakes, FL, USAPublished online: 13 May 2010.

To cite this article: Carol A. Mullen , Valorie L. Fish & Janice L. Hutinger (2010) Mentoring doctoralstudents through scholastic engagement: adult learning principles in action, Journal of Further andHigher Education, 34:2, 179-197, DOI: 10.1080/03098771003695452

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098771003695452

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03098771003695452

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098771003695452

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Further and Higher EducationVol. 34, No. 2, May 2010, 179–197

ISSN 0309-877X print/ISSN 1469-9486 online© 2010 UCUDOI: 10.1080/03098771003695452http://www.informaworld.com

Mentoring doctoral students through scholastic engagement: adult learning principles in action

Carol A. Mullena*, with Valorie L. Fishb and Janice L. Hutingerc

aDepartment of Educational Leadership & Cultural Foundations, School of Education, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA; bLockhart Elementary School, Tampa, FL, USA; cUniversity of South Florida, Department of Special Education, Land O’Lakes, FL, USATaylor and FrancisCJFH_A_470067.sgm10.1080/03098771003695452Journal of Further and Higher Education0309-877X (print)/1469-9486 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis3420000002010Professor and Chair [email protected]

The purpose of this discussion is to explore a graduate intervention that wasaimed at promoting the understanding, empowerment, and skills buildingof doctoral students in education. Addressed are mentoring and learningframeworks, background issues, the pedagogical context, study details,thematic results, and implications. The authors offer a perspective onmentoring as a feminist process of collaborative learning and scholasticengagement. Adult learning principles are illustrated through an innovative,curricular approach to student mentoring, leadership, and learning. Issuesof power and learning in mentoring relationships and structures are exploredand the perspectives of female doctoral students are incorporated. Five datasources were collected and analysed: electronic interviews; audio-tapedconversations; reflection journals; email communications; and writtenassignments. Insight is provided into the major challenges, potentialbreakthroughs, and learning experiences for the students involved. Benefitsfor the participants included understanding of productive scholarly habitsand graduate school norms. It is concluded that reciprocal learning andgroup learning are vital to the scholarly and professional learning of adultlearners.

Keywords: mentoring; adult learning

This discussion of a co-mentoring project addresses adult learning issuesthrough feminist pedagogical lenses. We frame a problem – inadequatementoring and preparation of doctoral students for academe – and examine itthrough the literature on the mentoring of adult learners and the dynamics ofa doctoral course. We view mentoring as a process of mutual learning andscholastic engagement in graduate studies, echoing Galbraith’s (2003) claimthat coursework is indispensable for aiding students’ development as capableand confident learners as well as leaders.

The first author, Carol A. Mullen (instructor), designed an experientiallearning situation where doctoral students were required to take ownership of

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

180 C.A. Mullen et al.

their scholarly and professional development. Research questions that guidedthis study are: What challenges and potential breakthroughs did students expe-rience in a doctoral course on mentoring? What experiences of scholastic andcommunal growth were suggested by student feedback? Results indicate thatintentional mentoring can occur through the co-mentoring (reciprocal learn-ing) of female students. Benefits for participants included insight into produc-tive scholarly habits and graduate school norms.

Background and rationaleFemale protégés are socialised to be uncritically accepting of the androcentric,power-laden politics of academies they often find oppressive (Hansman2002). One has to wonder to what extent issues of hierarchy play into thedissatisfaction, lack of motivation, and dropout rate of doctoral students. AsLovitts observes, ‘persistence outcomes’ are affected by what happens tostudents in their programmes (2001, 2). Although the average dropout rate ofdoctoral students across disciplines in the United States and Canada is murkierthan it should be, it appears to be approximately 50% to 60%. While cumula-tive PhD completion rates for men are currently 58%, compared with 55% forwomen, attrition from doctoral programs of minority (Hispanic American,Asian American and African American) and women students remains consis-tently higher than for White males, who are also more likely to complete theirdoctorates within a 10-year period; additionally, Americans leave US institu-tions at a higher rate than international students. A general struggle thatdoctoral students share across their different demographics and disciplines isthe successful transition from completed coursework to the dissertation,meaning that high attrition typically occurs at this point of students’programmes (CGS 2008;1 National Education Association 2007).

Internationally, researchers confirm that mentoring influences doctoralstudent retention, degree completion, and overall satisfaction, and that it canhelp close significant gaps across demographic groups and academic disci-plines (Nyquist and Woodford 2000; Dinham and Scott 2001; CGS 2008).Mentoring can foster viable relationships between faculty and students,increase engagement with research and scholarship, facilitate peer support,and enhance success in terms of retention, persistence and graduation (Mayo2009). However, greater transparency about ideologies of graduate mentoringand effective practice is needed (Johnson 2006).

Literature on mentoring adult learnersFeminist educators view mentoring as essential for the development andsuccess of adult learners (e.g. Davis 2008; Mullen 2009). Mentoring thattargets learning, networking and career building creatively addresses thespecial academic needs and challenges of females.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Further and Higher Education 181

The mentoring mosaic model

A significant alternative conception of mentoring (Head, Reiman, andThies-Sprinthall 1992; Allen and Eby 2007) is Kram’s (1985/1988) ‘rela-tionship constellation’, also known as a ‘mentoring mosaic’. The mosaicmodel can be organised informally or formally (Head, Reiman, and Thies-Sprinthall 1992), with students joined in a deeply relational, mutual processof learning and leading that enhances their overall performance (Kram andHiggins 2008; Mullen 2009). Mosaics can be created as a primary orsecondary system of mentorship; they function as a network, a community,and simply a resource. Thus, mosaics play a practical role in helpingprotégés optimise the effects of mentoring (Kram and Higgins 2008). Insuch mentorships, students interact with peers to explore shared interestsand provide ongoing support. Individuals tap into the strengths and quali-ties of their partners, interchanging roles as mentors and protégés and spon-soring the learning of all parties through a synergistic, flexible structure.This kind of network is indispensable for cultivating peer mentors, compen-sating for the dissatisfactions of traditional mentoring relations, facilitatingteam-oriented projects, and expanding academic and career opportunities(Head, Reiman, and Thies-Sprinthall 1992). Indeed, if mentoring is seenmore as a process than as an activity assigned to individual facultymembers, then a group shoulders the work of nurturing, advising, befriend-ing and instructing, and members serve as advocates, advisors, promotersand so forth.

Practised in a way that is reciprocal, holistic, nonhierarchical and attunedto the differences that female students and minorities represent, mentoringthat challenges the norm is countercultural (Hansman 2003). Such tradition-ally underrepresented groups tend to especially benefit from mentoringmosaics that enable them to learn from others while growing as writers andscholars, learners and leaders. Co-mentoring is key to creating scholarlythink-tanks that foster growth mindsets dependent on disciplined habits,authentic sharing, and positive synergy (Mullen 2009). The learning envi-ronment itself can be fostered through peer collaboration and networking, aswell as through discussions of graduate student life focused on the self-regulation of skills development in research, writing, speaking and present-ing. The camaraderie that arises is vital to many students’ ability to makethe expected progress. How people learn and what they become in relationto one another underscores the fact that the process of how mastery isachieved should be given more attention than mastery itself (Galbraith2003). Adapting the outlook of faculty and students towards a philosophyof interdependence is a goal that mentoring experiments should support(Easterly 2008; Mullen 2008). Because doctoral students differ in so manyways, in group contexts they can more readily confront their mindsets anddifferences.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


The co-mentoring relationship strategy

Co-mentorship or collaborative mentoring promotes reciprocal learning,power sharing, turn taking, co-leading, dialogue, constructive feedback, andauthenticity in learning. This type of relationship is one in which mentorsfunction as adult educators and mentees as adult learners (Cohen 2002), inpart to help students develop critical independent thinking (Galbraith 2003)and in part to diffuse the power of mentors and organisations (Hansman2003).

Co-mentorship occurs where mentors and mentees (or students) proactivelyteach each other in ways that are completely respectful while being criticallysupportive (Mullen 2006, 2009). The co-mentoring relationship strategycomplements mentoring mosaics as a form of engagement that groups anddyads activate. It is another type of design strategy through which collectiveawareness and human synergy are enhanced. In this context, principles of relat-edness (e.g. mutuality, respect, appreciation, constructive critique) are fosteredthrough communication, creativity and consciousness raising. ‘Dialogueconversation’ provides a medium for emotional, cognitive and cultural change(Jenlink and Banathy 2008). Learning strategies include power sharing, turntaking, co-leading, dialogue and constructive feedback, as well as transparencyand authenticity.

Beyond individual and group learning, co-mentoring is a catalyst for regu-lating learning and enhancing intrinsic motivation. Through reciprocal learningpractices, hierarchical systems and homogeneous environments that character-ise most academic cultures can be changed (Easterly 2008). Diversity is favour-able when women and minorities are brought into a network or culture (Darwin2000) that models egalitarian treatment, peer modelling and mastery learningvia such activities as self-monitoring towards scholarly goals. Traditional anddysfunctional mentoring relationships reify hierarchy. These establish thementor as somehow separate from or above the group that follows one’s charge(Johnson-Bailey and Cervero 2004). Mentors and organisations have ‘inherentpower’ over students. Unethical power moves include silencing, prejudice,sexualisation and infantisation (Hansman 2003). Learning among adults makespower lording counterproductive to the goal of enhancing adult students’ self-efficacy, motivation and perseverance. In contrast, as Galbraith (2003) attests,mentors who share their power stimulate student development within a frame-work of professional ethics.

Pedagogical contextCarol A. Mullen, a researcher in mentoring, believes that doctoral coursesshould facilitate students in developing their dissertation or thesis, throughsuch means as idea exploration, literature review and instrument design. Thisoverriding objective of the course under study was articulated with thestudents at the first session. We guided the students to pursue scholarly topics

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


that were the same as their dissertations and to tailor the course assignmentsto meet their academic goals, in addition to producing healthy alternatives toany problematic dynamics influencing their learning. Because this approach tolearning was new for the students, continual reinforcement proved necessary.At the same time, this practical orientation to adult learning resonated, as onestudent wrote: ‘I’ve learned that as you work toward finishing your disserta-tion, you don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Everything you do in your studiesshould be a part of the final product.’ However, some students struggled tomesh their coursework and inquiry topic, exhibiting disbelief that this was,indeed, a curricular goal. This adult learning philosophy shaped the courseactivities, including the ‘facilitation’ assignment that guided the students tolead an active discussion from an assigned reading.

Consistent with this philosophy and the goals for the course, students readmaterials about mentoring in higher education and schools, including books onreflective mentoring (Hunter and Kiernan 2005) and graduate student devel-opment (Mullen 2006), and supplementary works. Students also deconstructedthe university’s policies and expectations governing their graduate programmes.For example, they had assumed that the faculty advisors assigned to them uponentry were permanent mentors who had unilateral control over theirprogrammes. Because they had not previously read the policies relevant to theireducation or deciphered their meaning, they lacked knowledge of the subtextsgoverning their programmes, including knowledge about their own rights. Asanother example of adult learning principles in action, students wrote duringevery class and discussed their dissertations, which is countercultural, given thatwriting is viewed as a private act (Mullen 2006). Such interventions supportedmaking progress not only on one’s writing but also in learning about the influ-ence of context on one’s writing.

Study contextContext and participants

This study was carried out in a Florida research institution through the profes-sor’s department in a college of education. Twelve education students partici-pated in this pedagogical project (pseudonyms are used). The 10 females and2 males – 10 White, 1 African American, and 1 Hispanic – were Americanborn except for two members. A student with a physical disability was accom-modated. Eleven of the students were experienced classroom teachers, and twowere new assistant principals, and they were distributed across elementary,middle, and secondary levels. They varied in degree programme and skills.

Research methods

Subsequent to Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval,2 at the first sessionthe professor covered the course details. Once the instructor left the room, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


teaching assistant (TA) explained the study. She was known to most of thestudents, which facilitated comfort. Later, the TA later reflected in her jour-nal, ‘I don’t think the students saw my research/teaching position as one ofpower, as we’re on the same playing field. We felt comfortable discussing thestudy and they seemed excited.’ Students were given the IRB-approved proto-col and assured confidential treatment of any data. It was clarified that theirresearch exchanges would be with the TA – the professor took such measuresto separate her research role from her teaching role. Because graduate schoolis no exception to teaching that is rooted in authority, power and control(Walker and Warhurst 2000), she sought to monitor power dynamics withinthe group.

Five data sources were collected and analysed: electronic interviews;audio-taped conversations; reflection journals; email communications; andwritten assignments (see Table 1). The generation of multiple data sourcescontributed to the convergence of numerous sources. Peer facilitation of thecourse and debriefing contributed to a feminist approach to research.

Using the research questions as a guide, we analysed the challenges andbreakthroughs students experienced, in addition to their experiences of scho-lastic and communal growth. The TA assisted with data collection andrendered all electronic interview responses nonidentifying. Incorporating athird party (a doctoral student researcher) provided greater leverage with thedata analysis. Using a basic qualitative study design (Miles and Huberman1994), the three researchers coded the data, developed categories usingconstant comparison, and generated themes (Gall, Gall, and Borg 2005). Foreach source, we independently and then jointly highlighted key words,phrases, and quotes. The coded responses were placed in separate tables; Table1 shows the relationship of the five data sources to the themes that formed.

Interview protocols were administered electronically to students twiceduring the course. The midpoint assessment (see Table 2) was circulated inFebruary 2007. Students completed the final assessment (see Table 3) in April2007.

The professor created the interview protocols on the basis of her knowl-edge of student learning and mentoring processes, and the research assistantsimproved upon them. We chose the electronic interview in lieu of face-to-faceinterviews to ensure objectivity and honesty, and to circumvent dynamics ofpower, authority and control. The TA assigned each student the same numberfor both sets of responses so that we could compare responses to questionsfrom the midpoint and the final protocols. Major challenges and breakthroughswere then identified.

Audio-taped conversations

All class sessions were recorded using a digital recorder and transcribedverbatim.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


Tabl

e 1.

Five

dat

a so

urce

s an

d th

eir

rela

tion

ship

to

them

es, s

ubth

emes

, and

exa

mpl

es (

Mul

len,

Fis

h, a

nd H

utin

ger

2007

).

The

mes

Subt

hem

esE

xam

ples

in

Dat

aD

ata

Sour

ces

Fre

quen

cy

Bui

ldin

g an

aut

hent

ic

men

tori

ng m

osai

c (c

omm

unit

y)

thro

ugh

mut

ual

lear

ning

(r

ecip

roci

ty)

New

und

erst

andi

ng o

f po

stgr

adua

te d

egre

eA

dopt

ing

owne

rshi

p ap

proa

ch

to g

radu

ate

cour

sew

ork

Gro

wth

as

a sc

hola

rly

wri

ter

Lea

rnin

g va

lue

of m

ento

ring

mos

aics

See

king

too

ls f

or s

elf-

refl

ecti

on

Ele

ctro

nic

inte

rvie

ws

(mid

poin

t an

d fi

nal)

, au

dio-

tape

d co

nver

sati

ons

11/1

2

12/1

212

/12

11/1

2

Gro

up’s

sch

olar

ly w

riti

ng

and

surv

ival

ski

lls

assi

sted

thro

ugh

vari

ous

form

al e

xerc

ises

Stu

dent

com

ento

ring

in

wri

tten

and

ora

l w

ork

and

skil

ls b

uild

ing

Stu

dent

vie

w o

f sy

llab

us a

s re

sour

ce

tool

kit

Ele

ctro

nic

inte

rvie

ws,

au

dio-

tape

d co

nver

sati

ons,

em

ail

com

mun

icat

ions

12/1

2

App

reci

atio

n fo

r pe

er

men

tori

ngM

ore

tim

e re

ques

ted

wit

h pe

erm

ento

ring

Mid

poin

t el

ectr

onic

in

terv

iew

s, T

A’s

re

flec

tive

jou

rnal

, em

ail c

omm

unic

atio

ns

3/12

Com

fort

able

and

saf

e le

arni

ng e

nvir

onm

ent

Info

rmal

dis

cour

se s

tyle

con

duci

ve t

o bu

ildi

ng c

olle

gial

ity

Ele

ctro

nic

inte

rvie

ws

12/1

2

Fee

ling

s of

em

pow

erm

ent

and

incr

ease

d co

nfid

ence

Impo

rtan

ce o

f ca

taly

sts

(pro

fess

or’s

in

sigh

t, op

en d

iscu

ssio

n)G

uida

nce

soug

ht f

rom

pee

rs a

nd m

ulti

ple

men

tors

Fin

al e

lect

roni

c in

terv

iew

s, a

udio

-ta

ped

conv

ersa

tion

s

11/1

2

Cat

alys

ts f

acil

itat

ed

lear

ning

and

co

men

tori

ng

Wri

ter’

s w

orks

hop

Inst

ruct

or’s

fee

dbac

kC

omen

tori

ng e

xper

ienc

esP

eer

disc

ours

e st

ruct

ure

Stu

dent

-led

cla

ss d

iscu

ssio

nsS

tude

nt o

wne

rshi

p of

cou

rse

mat

eria

l

Fin

al e

lect

roni

c in

terv

iew

s, r

efle

ctiv

e jo

urna

ls (

prof

esso

r an

d T

A)

12/1

211

/12

11/1

212

/12

12/1

211

/12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


Tabl

e 1.

(Con

tinu

ed).

The

mes

Subt

hem

esE

xam

ples

in

Dat

aD

ata

Sour

ces

Fre

quen

cy

Tea

chin

g st

rate

gies

co

nsul

ted

for

assi

stin

g m

ulti

disc

ipli

nary

gr

oups

Stu

dent

que

stio

ns a

nd r

espo

nses

Tal

king

poi

nts

to c

over

wit

h T

A a

nd

acad

emic

ski

lls

to f

oste

r

Pro

fess

or’s

ref

lect

ive

jour

nal

Pro

fess

or

Com

ento

ring

dyn

amic

s ex

plor

ed w

ith

prof

esso

r an

d pe

ers

Lea

rnin

g ex

chan

ges

wit

h pr

ofes

sor

Exc

hang

es w

ith

stud

ents

and

pee

r tu

tori

ng o

f w

riti

ng

TA

’s r

efle

ctiv

e jo

urna

lT

A

Gro

wth

of s

tude

nts

as

wri

ters

, sch

olar

s,

lear

ners

, lea

ders

, an

d pa

rtne

rs

Dev

elop

men

t of

pr

ofes

sion

alis

mV

alid

atio

n of

pro

fess

iona

l w

ork

in t

he

fiel

dS

tim

ulat

ion

of n

ew i

deas

Exp

ande

d no

tion

of

men

tori

ng a

nd i

ts

hum

an c

apac

itie

s

Ele

ctro

nic

inte

rvie

ws,

au

dio-

tape

d co

nver

sati

ons

11/1

2

Rel

evan

ce o

f gr

adua

te

lear

ning

Rou

tini

sati

on o

f w

rite

r’s

wor

ksho

p an

d ta

rget

ed s

tude

nt l

earn

ing

Ass

ignm

ents

gea

red

tow

ards

edu

cati

onal

gr

owth

Men

tori

ng a

s pa

rt o

f sc

hool

ad

min

istr

ator

s’ r

eper

toir

e of

un

ders

tand

ing

Ele

ctro

nic

inte

rvie

ws,

au

dio-

tape

d co

nver

sati

ons,

em

ail

com

mun

icat

ions

12/1

2

Ass

ista

nce

tow

ards

deg

ree

com

plet

ion

Qua

lity

pro

duct

s ta

ke t

ime

and

mod

elli

ngD

edic

atio

n of

pro

fess

or/l

eade

rE

lect

roni

c in

terv

iew

s11

/12

Gro

wth

as

a w

rite

rU

sefu

lnes

s of

cou

rse

Foc

us o

n to

pic

of s

tudy

Incr

ease

d re

sear

ch a

nd w

riti

ng

capa

bili

ties

Fin

al e

lect

roni

c in

terv

iew

s, a

udio

-ta

ped

conv

ersa

tion

s,

emai

l com

mun

icat

ions

12/1

2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


Tabl

e 1.

(Con

tinu

ed).

The

mes

Subt

hem

esE

xam

ples

in

Dat

aD

ata

Sour

ces

Fre

quen

cy

Com

man

d ov

er g

radu

ate

rese

arch

er r

ole

Acq

uisi

tion

of

vari

ous

skil

lsB

ette

r re

sear

cher

and

wri

ter

Und

erst

andi

ng o

f gr

adua

te s

choo

l as

‘c

ultu

re’

Fin

al e

lect

roni

c in

terv

iew

s, a

udio

-ta

ped

conv

ersa

tion

s

11/1

2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


Reflection journals

The professor and TA each maintained a journal. The professor’s journalfocused on the building of a mentoring mosaic and on developing co-mentoringrelationships within a multidisciplinary group characterised by varying levelsof readiness and preparation. The TA’s journal explored interpersonal learningdynamics that arose in addition to the scholarly process.

Table 2. Student assessment of the mentoring course and personal growth: midpointreflection (C.A. Mullen 2007).

Dear class members: Please briefly address the questions listed and submit your responses via email this week to me, the teaching assistant. You can type in the spaces provided – the allotted spaces will expand. Your responses are being collected anonymously, so please do not provide identifiers.

(1) How clear, explanatory, in-depth, and/or resourceful is the syllabus for thiscourse?

(2) What might you be learning in this new doctoral course that is intriguing oruseful to your educational goals?

(3) Describe any strategies, methods, or processes that are being used to facilitateyour development (e.g. intellectual, professional, personal).

(4) If your development (e.g. intellectual, professional, personal) can be betterassisted through this course, please explain how.

(5) Identify any obstacles to your development or growth presented by this coursethat should be addressed either for the second part of the semester or for itsnext offering.

(6) Would you recommend this course to other students? Please specify withreference to anything you may find relevant (e.g. classroom format, writer’sworkshop, pedagogy, discourse style).

Table 3. Student assessment of the mentoring course and personal growth: finalreflection (C.A. Mullen 2007).

Dear class members: Please briefly address the questions listed and submit your responses via email this week to me, the teaching assistant. You can type in the spaces provided – the allotted spaces will expand. Your responses are being collected anonymously, so please do not provide identifiers.

(1) What have you learned that you can build on for your program of study, thesis/dissertation, and/or other academic goals?

(2) Describe any strategies, methods, or processes that were especially helpful infacilitating your development (e.g. intellectual, professional, personal).

(3) If your development (e.g. intellectual, professional, personal) in this coursecould have been better assisted, please explain how.

(4) Identify any obstacles to your development or growth that the professor shouldaddress to benefit other students who enroll in this course.

(5) Would you recommend this course to other students? Please specify withreference to anything you may find relevant (e.g. classroom format, writer’sworkshop, pedagogy, discourse style).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


Electronic communications

Students’ electronic communications chronicled queries, struggles and break-throughs. The professor, the TA and the students were in daily contact, and theformal writing time was heavily supplemented through email – the instructorprovided extensive feedback on assignments (i.e. literature reviews) andtracked changes on document files. All students sought feedback on their writ-ing – their learning contracts for the course included self-assigned percentagesfor each draft. The electronic data (288 total messages) were also organisedinto thematic units.

Thematic analysisThe proliferating categories of learning, community and development unifiedthe data sets. To further differentiate, we developed subcodes; in the case oflearning, these were linked to feedback on writing, decoded cultural norms,and leadership development. Community was linked to shared scholarlygoals, interdependent learning, paired learning, and the writer’s workshop.Development was associated with cognitive and affective areas of develop-ment, in addition to graduate student life, policies and politics.

Two salient themes we identified were the building of an authentic mentor-ing mosaic through mutual learning and the growth of graduate students aswriters, learners, leaders and partners. Eight subthemes emerged in associationwith the first theme, and five subthemes with the second (see Table 1). Eachsubtheme is clarified with examples from the data sets, with data sources, andwith frequency in the data. The two themes overlapped somewhat in the anal-ysis (and discussion that follows), but to ease readability, they are treated sepa-rately in Table 1. The results ‘story’ student challenges and breakthroughs, aswell as scholastic and communal growth. The discussion that follows is orga-nised around the midpoint and summation of the course.

Midpoint of the course

Partway through the course, students’ evolving understanding of the postgrad-uate degree ranged from adopting an ownership approach to graduate course-work, to launching their own growth as scholarly writers, to learning the valueof group learning, to seeking tools for self-reflection. (They referred to the sylla-bus as a ‘resource toolkit’.) Joan commented: ‘I am becoming a prolific writer,which will serve my future endeavors’; and Rita wrote: ‘I’m being given theopportunity to reflect on my life in relation to my mentors and the importanceof those relationships.’ Even though only five weeks had passed at this point,students were immersed in multifaceted aspects of their scholastic development.

Various exercises (e.g. facilitation of assigned readings, weekly writer’sworkshop) catapulted individuals’ scholarly writing and survival skills, as did

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


the diversity of the group itself. Sue remarked: ‘This diverse group lends itselfto the mentoring of each other in a plethora of areas, such as the IRB process,dissertation proposal, and defenses of our work.’ Students also reportedpersonal professional growth: ‘The course is validating what you’re currentlydoing in your field and providing fresh ideas to implement.’

When prompted to think about how the course could better assist their learn-ing, the majority responded that it was already meeting their needs. This is notto suggest that the course was less than challenging or that the mosaic was with-out glitches, as this excerpt suggests: ‘Joan prefers to speak in side conversa-tions, and she lacks confidence with her academic skills. I’ve recorded only onecomment from Paula – Rita is dominating her. Rita is so active in our discoursethat she clarifies other people’s points!’ (TA journal). Hence, peer mentoringis not always enacted as a seamless, reciprocal relationship where all voicesare heard and power sharing is equal. Clara, Joan and Ling suggested that moretime was needed with peer mentoring around the facilitation and critique ofideas, implying the desire for more practice applying such tenets of mentoringtheory. As Jovita added, ‘It would be nice to have a permanent graduate schoolbuddy’; this underscored the need these students had for peer mentoring.

When asked about obstacles encountered, the majority responded ‘none’.However, two students expressed confusion about how to write a literaturereview and conduct searches after these topics had been explored. Theprofessor responded by giving more elaborate lessons and organising alibrary session. Others referred to the challenge of compressed coursesoffered in this department (fewer overall classes and longer sessions). Also,the mentoring dyads in the course were successful to varying degrees, andseveral faced obstacles. To explain, in the third week, students were pairedfor peer-review exercises based on topic areas and on who could mostproductively mentor whom. Some of the partnerships flourished, as in thedyad that had publishing plans under way. In several other cases, however,the mentoring was one-sided. These peer mentors, while frustrated, surpris-ingly reported benefits, indicating that while they had struggled to derivevalue, they nonetheless ‘found creative ways to engage another person in richprofessional dialogue’.

Students especially felt positive about the routinised writer’s workshop andtargeted scholarly learning: ‘The assignments are geared toward your educa-tional growth, with the student in command of his or her learning’; and‘Mentoring is a crucial part of K–12 education and higher education, and itneeds to be part of every administrator’s repertoire.’ About the learning envi-ronment, one student commented, ‘The informal discourse style is a morecomfortable environment in which to build collegiality.’ Concerning degreecompletion and assistance towards that goal, students responded, ‘This class isa must for students needing to finish their program’ and ‘A solid product takestime and this is being modelled for us.’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


Summation of the course

Summative responses were similar but more insightful and ‘authoritative’.Students narrated their growth as writers rising to the demands of postgradu-ate education. Anne reflected, ‘I wonder how I would have gotten throughdissertation writing without this course.’ All found themselves better focusedon their inquiry topics and more capable of tackling the many aspects of theirdissertations: ‘I learned something about methodology, including how to inte-grate different resources on my topic.’ Increased confidence was apparent, asin: ‘I have a better feel for what I should be expecting from myself and nowseek guidance from peers, faculty, and university resources.’

Importantly, through the various kinds of mentoring experienced in thiscourse, the group established some command over the role of graduateresearcher: ‘I acquired new approaches, principles, and skills for exploring themysterious research world of uncertainty and controversy.’ Analysis of thecomplete data suggests that participants saw value in advanced courseworkmade applicable to dissertation writing and the graduate school context.

Concerning what facilitated learning in the course, all students identifiedthe writer’s workshop, the instructor’s feedback, and co-mentoring experi-ences. About the writer’s workshop, Pam wrote, ‘Having [Dr X] present whiletyping was beneficial to overcoming my writer’s block and for airing ideas.’Students liked being able to draft ideas in a safe space but with constructiveassistance: ‘[The professor’s] style of providing feedback on writing hasenabled a nurturing environment, allowing me to feel comfortable exposingmy weak writing skills while attempting drastic improvements.’ Also, thequality of feedback provided during the discourse portion of each class wasaddressed: ‘There was never judgement, only honest insight, which inspiredintellectual, professional, and personal growth.’

Regarding the co-mentoring structure, the students appreciated the oppor-tunity to learn from one another: ‘[Dr X] mentors us, the class format allowsus to mentor each other, and we developed a reciprocal mentoring relationship(individual–classmates–instructor).’ The oral facilitations that the students ledprecipitated whole-group learning: ‘We were guided to connect key ideas inthe texts to our educational practices.’ The peer discourse structure assistedstudents not only in developing their writing abilities but also in understandingthe impact of mentoring on one’s career: ‘Mentoring is important in almostevery job and life in general and, in the field of education, mentoring is essen-tial for survival and growth.’ Someone else offered, ‘Mentors should be activ-ists who make a difference in their environments.’

When asked how they might have been better assisted, the students onlylisted ways they had been helped – notably: ‘I was able to learn from the expe-riences of other school leaders, which will help me become a better leader’ and‘The texts have helped me become a wiser student.’ Someone wished she hadreached out for more help.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


Regarding obstacles, two students identified noise during the writer’sworkshop. But most echoed the sentiment, ‘If this professor thought you werefacing any obstacles she would have worked with you to get the most out ofthe course.’ On the basis of previous writing-studio experiments, the professoranticipated noise and so reserved alternate private workspaces.

Finally, all students reported they would recommend this course:‘Regardless of content area, anyone who is a practitioner in education shouldbe required to take this course’; ‘This is a doctoral course where teachablemoments still occur.’ They also suggested that graduate programmes ingeneral adopt the intentional mentoring approaches that had been demon-strated.

Class discussions revolved around multifaceted ideas that were oftenstudent led, with framing and reframing provided by the professor throughconversation starters, provocative questions and summative insights. Themesthat were investigated (outlined in the syllabus) covered the following topics:graduate school; student resources; mentoring and adult learning concepts;lessons from mentoring participants; power hierarchies; and gender andminority issues.

DiscussionThe evolution of this graduate course into a genuine mentoring mosaic wasenabled through guided reciprocal learning (Head, Reiman, and Thies-Sprinthall1992). A feminist perspective on developmental learning was integrated throughassistive learning-in-action commensurate with communal power-sharingprocesses (Bona, Rinehart, and Volbrecht 1995; Ragins and Scandura 1997;Hansman 2002, 2003). Jarvis (1992) and Cranton and Carusetta (2004) viewpeople as authentic when they aspire to help others develop through dialogueand other relational means. These dynamics spurred an interdependent and inter-personal orientation to learning (Keller and Werchan 2006). Ragins andScandura (1997) note the struggle of promoting interdependence and indepen-dence among female protégés, referring to the dependency of many in mentor-ships; however, the degree to which this ‘finding’ is rooted in reality is unknown.Another example of this transformation involved the students’ changing attitudetowards textual forms of authority: they learned to balance somewhat strict reli-ance on authoritative sources with interdependent and experiential learning.Adult learners tend to take greater risks in their learning when coursework isdesigned around problems of interest, and with explicit support for their devel-opment of relevant writing, communication and presentation skills (Nightingaleand O’Neil 1994).

Further, our probing of the hidden curriculum disrupted the prevailing,mistaken idea that writing, learning and problem solving occur in a vacuum.We also interrogated the ideas that graduate coursework should be separatedfrom thesis writing and that a single mentor (e.g. the dissertation chair) is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


sufficient when the academic, psychological and career needs of adult learnersare complex. In fact, researchers indicate that benefits in such areas asincreased confidence and improved performance occur where women andminorities have access to multiple mentors and robust mentoring networks(Darwin 2000; Mullen 2006, 2009). Because women are thought to be ‘at adefinite disadvantage in the development of multiple mentoring relationships’(Ragins and Scandura 1997, 945; see also Darwin 2000; Hansman 2002,2003), female graduate students should be strongly encouraged to proactivelyseek out, join and lead such networks.

On the basis of insights produced from this study, students benefited fromthe variety of instructional strategies geared towards their learning, ownershipand empowerment. A major learning curve became discernible with respect tothe almost exclusive focus they had on feedback and validation from theprofessor. After the midpoint of the course, the group members gained clarityabout the importance of relocating themselves within the power base of theirgraduate studies, in effect shifting the power base of learning from student–professor to student–student.

Specifically, the scheduled writing installments, peer and instructorreviews of writing, and accommodations for dialogic exchanges during andabout writing were valued. Students gained deeper understandings about thedissertation research process and viable mentoring processes via the stories ofoutside visitors.3 The concern with meeting the professor’s expectations forcourse assignments consumed less ‘worry space’ once getting thoughts ontopaper became a habit – an intellectual capacity Dewey (1938) recognises ascritical to learning.

Initially, students sought personal mentoring that targeted their scholarlyand professional goals. Some classmates were former students of the profes-sor’s and sought her out, knowing what to expect; others, having acknowl-edged the struggle to become competent social science writers, approached thecourse as their ‘refuge’. Through immersion in the group, the students becameenriched as scholars, learners and leaders, with comments such as: ‘The coursepromoted mentoring through direct practice’ and ‘My leadership capacitydeveloped through the challenges of facilitating readings and critiquing writ-ings.’ Facilitating learning in a dialogic fashion was modelled for the group.

The capacity building generated from the outset stimulated the conditionsnot only for new learning but also for collaboration and higher self-efficacy.Students took ownership of their learning at different rates and they assistedone another in their growth. The TA reflected: ‘The course papers read likestudent–professor conversations, which to me exemplifies what mentoringrelationships can look like when novice writers openly struggle to overcometheir academic problems.’ At the last session, participants discussed how theyplanned on disseminating their papers. Responses varied from preparing thework (e.g. literature reviews) for their dissertation chair to sharing it withschool committees to presenting it at a conference.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


Final thoughtsWhile adult learners yearn to be self-directing, many rely on proactive assis-tance for confronting academic issues and overcoming conditioning (Knowles1975; Bash 2003). In this course, students openly lamented the teacher-directed goals and low-interest assignments that they thought had character-ised much of their education. Their scholarly selves unfolded in ‘a socialdialogic context’ nurtured by ‘a collaboratively supportive and challengingmentoring relationship’ (Fletcher 2007, 76). Transformation in the thinking ofdoctoral students towards a philosophy of interdependence and ownership inlearning is a goal that such educational experiments support. Even thoughadult learners differ in many ways, they can be empowered to learn aboutlearning and confront challenges to their mindsets, their writing and theirgoals. Reciprocal mentoring and mentoring mosaics can penetrate barriersto scholarly writing and expedite authentic learning. An illustration wasprovided in this article of how faculty members can be responsive to adultlearners, a rapidly growing segment of the higher education population. Suchefforts help advance the identity and mission of our institutions (Bash 2003).

AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by a grant from the US Department of Education, Office ofSpecial Education Programs (Kleinhammer-Tramill, J., and J.L. Tramill, co-principalinvestigators. 2006. Leadership in teacher education for special education [#H325D060069]). Dr C.A. Mullen was a faculty team member on this funded project.

Notes1. More than 480 higher education institutions in North America belong to the CGS.

This organisation’s PhD Completion Project is a seminal source on doctoralstudent completion and attrition, providing detailed demographic and statisticalbreakdowns of the findings cited herein.

2. In 2007 participants gave permission for confidential use of all student-generatedcourse materials.

3. Guest speakers included recent doctoral graduates and mentoring programmecoordinators.

Notes on contributorsCarol A. Mullen, PhD, is professor and chair in the Educational Leadership andCultural Foundations Department at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro,North Carolina. Dr. Mullen specializes in social justice approaches to mentoring andleadership within K–12 and higher education. She is editor of the Mentoring & Tutor-ing: Partnership in Learning journal (Routledge). Her authorships include more than160 articles, 15 special issues of refereed journals, in addition to 14 books, mostrecently The Handbook of Leadership and Professional Learning Communities(edited volume, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). She received the Excellence in Teachingand Research Award from the Florida Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment, in addition to mentoring and scholarship awards from other profes-sional associations and universities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


Valorie L. Fish completed a educational specialist degree in educational leadershipand policy studies at the University of South Florida. She was a full-time elementaryteacher in Tampa, Florida, and is pursuing her dream of doctoral studies and district-level leadership.

Janice L. Hutinger is supervisor of Exceptional Student Education at the DistrictSchool Board of Pasco County in Florida, doctoral student at The University of SouthFlorida in the Department of Special Education, and former editorial assistant of theMentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning journal (Routledge Publishers). Shehas coauthored articles and book chapters with Dr. Carol Mullen on such topics asfostering collaborative learning communities through faculty study group develop-ment (Theory Into Practice), investigating formal faculty mentoring in changinguniversity research cultures (Journal of In-service Education), and supporting teacherleadership in the book, Teaching leaders to lead teachers: Educational administrationin the era of constant crisis (Elsevier/JAI Press).

ReferencesAllen, T.D., and L.T. Eby, eds. 2007. The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multi-

ple perspectives approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Bash, L. 2003. Adult learners in the academy. Bolton, MA: Anker.Bona, M.J., J. Rinehart, and R.M. Volbrecht. 1995. Show me how to do like you:

Comentoring as feminist pedagogy. Feminist Teacher 9, no. 3: 116–24.Cohen, N.H. 2002. The journey of the Principles of Adult Mentoring Inventory.

Adult Learning 14, no. 1: 4–7.Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). 2008. PhD completion and attrition: Analysis of

baseline demographic data from the PhD completion project. Washington, DC.http://www.phdcompletion.org/information/book2.asp. [accessed 4 September2009]

Cranton, P., and E. Carusetta. 2004. Perspectives on authenticity in teaching. AdultEducation Quarterly 55, no. 1: 5–22.

Darwin, A. 2000. Critical reflections on mentoring in work settings. Adult EducationQuarterly 50, no. 3: 197–211.

Davis, D.J. 2008. The mentorship of a sharecropper’s daughter: Being young,gifted, and black in academe. In The handbook of formal mentoring in highereducation: A case study approach, ed. C.A. Mullen, 73–83. Norwood, MA:Christopher-Gordon.

Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Dinham, S., and C. Scott. 2001. The experience of disseminating the results of

doctoral research. Journal of Further and Higher Education 25, no. 1: 45–55.Easterly, D. 2008. Women’s ways of collaboration: A case study in proposal devel-

opment. Journal of Research Administration 39, no. 1: 48–57.Fletcher, S. 2007. Mentoring adult learners: Realizing possible selves. New Directions

for Adult and Continuing Education 114: 75–86.Galbraith, M.W. 2003. The adult education professor as mentor: A means to enhance

teaching and learning. Perspectives: The New York Journal of Adult Learning 1,no. 1: 9–20.

Gall, J., M. Gall, and W. Borg. 2005. Applying educational research: A practiceguide, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Hansman, C.A., ed. 2002. Diversity and power in mentoring relationships. In Criti-cal perspectives on mentoring: Trends and issues, ed. C.A. Hansman, 39–48.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


Information series no. 388. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Voca-tional Education (ED99CO0013).

Hansman, C.A. 2003. Power and learning in mentoring relationships. InGlobal perspectives, vol. 3, ed. R. Cervero, B. Courtenay, and M. Hixson,102–22. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. http://www.coe.uga.edu/hsp/pdf/year3/hansman.pdf. [accessed 4 September 2009]

Head, F.A., A.J. Reiman, and L. Thies-Sprinthall. 1992. The reality of mentoring:Complexity in its process and function. In Mentoring: Contemporary principlesand issues, ed. T.M. Bey and C.T. Holmes, 5–34. Reston, VA: Association ofTeacher Educators.

Hunter, A., and H. Kiernan, eds. 2005. The reflective mentor: Case studies in creat-ing learning partnerships. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Jarvis, P. 1992. Paradoxes of learning: On becoming an individual in society. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jenlink, P.M., and B.H. Banathy, eds. 2008. Dialogue as a collective means of designconversation, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.

Johnson, W.B. 2006. On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johnson-Bailey, J., and R.M. Cervero. 2004. Mentoring in black and white: The intri-cacies of cross-cultural mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning12, no. 1: 7–21.

Keller, K., and A. Werchan. 2006. Culture, learning, and adult development. InHandbook of adult development and learning, ed. C. Hoare, 407–32. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Knowles, M.S. 1975. Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. NewYork: Cambridge Books.

Kram, K.E. 1985/1988. Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organi-zational life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Kram, K.E., and M.C. Higgins. 2008. A new approach to mentoring. Wall StreetJournal, 22 September, R10–R11.

Lovitts, B. 2001. Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departurefrom doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Mayo, R., A. Mayfield-Clarke, and C. Mayo. 2009. Enhancing success of students ofcolor through research mentoring. Paper presented at the Annual Conference ofthe Academic Chairpersons Conference, Orlando, FL.

Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expandedsourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mullen, C.A. 2006. A graduate student guide: Making the most of mentoring.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Mullen, C.A. 2008. Mentoring as a doctoral cohort initiative: A 7-year programmaticretrospective. In The handbook of formal mentoring in higher education: A casestudy approach, ed. C.A. Mullen, 271–295. Norwood, MA: Christopher-GordonPublishers.

Mullen, C.A. 2009. Re-imagining the human dimension of mentoring: A frameworkfor research administration and the academy. Journal of Research Administration40, no. 1: 10–31.

National Education Association. 2007. Speaking out: Support campus equity week.Advocate online. Washington, DC: National Education Association. http://www2.nea.org/he/advo01/advo0108/speaking.html. [accessed 1 September 2009]

Nightingale, P., and M. O’Neil. 1994 [reprinted 1997]. Achieving quality learning inhigher education. London: Kogan Page.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


Nyquist, J.D., and B.J. Woodford. 2000. Re-envisioning the PhD: What concerns dowe have? Seattle: Center for Instructional Development and Research/Universityof Washington.

Ragins, B.R., and T.A. Scandura. 1997. The way we were: Gender and the termina-tion of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology 82, no. 6: 945–53.

Walker, M., and C. Warhurst. 2000. ‘In most classes you sit around very quietly at atable and get lectured at …’: Debates, assessment and student learning. Teachingin Higher Education 5, no. 1: 33–49.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

13 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Mentoring doctoral students through scholastic engagement: adult learning principles in action