DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 331 451 HE 024 516

AUTHOR Valadez, James R.; Duran, Richard P.TITLE Mentoring in Higher Education.PUB DATE 91NOTE 13p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association (Chicago,IL, April 1991).

PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -- InformationAnalyses (070)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Case Studies; Graduate Study; *Helping Relationship;

Higher Education; Interpersonal Relationship;*Mentors; *Professional Development; Research Skills;Significant Others; *Student Improvement; StudentResea.nch; *Teacher Student Relationship;Undergraduate Study

ABSTRACTThis paper describes a research project that examined

the impact a mentoring program had on college faculty and students.The program was designed to provide a -ollaborative researchexperience for faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate

.

students. The goals of the program were to assist graduate studentsin establishing mentoring relationships with faculty, develop theirresearch skills, and help them to select research topics for theirdoctoral dissertations. The program was intended to giveundergraduates exposure to research, provide them with an inside viewof life as a graduate student, and develop their aspirations forresearch careers. A case study method was used for examining theprocesses involved in mentoring relationships. Twenty-two mentorshipteams were studied involving a total of 22 faculty, 25 graduatestudents, and 38 undergraduates. By examining the major themes thatemerged from the data (commitment and teamwork, facultyparticipation, hands-on research, structure, and consistency), it wasdetermined that the research mentorships were providing an effectivemethod for developing students, including minority students, intoresearch scholars. Close interaction with faculty was viewed as aneffective way to teach students the skills necessary for research.Contains 19 references. (GLR)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

Mentoring in Higher Education

by

James R ValadezSchool of Education

University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill

Richard P. DuranGraduate School of Education

University of Californiaat Santa Barbara

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association

Chicago, 1991

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION(ffice ol I ducelionai Research and improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

1( This document has been reproduced SSreceived from the person or organizationoriginating itMinor changes have Peen made to Improvereproduction Quality

Points of view or opinionS slated in this document do not necessarily represent officialOE RI position or policy

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

gia.6a-

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC),"

This study examinw...4 a mentorship program designed toprovide a collaborative research experience for faculty,graduate students, and undergraduate students. The goals ofthe program were to assist graduate students in establishingmentoring relationships with faculty, develop their researchskills, and help them to select a research topic for theirdoctoral dissertations. For the undergraduates, the programwas intended to give them exposure to research, provide themwith an inside view of life as a graduate student, and todevelop their aspirations for research careers. The purposeof this study was to examine the impact the mentoring programhad on faculty and students.

Literature Review

A discussion of mentoring must begin with a workabledefinition. It is often unclear how the term mentoring isused and how it is differentiated from functions performed bypersons who are labeled advisors or sponsors. Blackwell(1983) stated succinctly that mentors enhance the totaldevelopment of students through a relationship that encouragesresponsibility, self-direction, and effective decision making.More recently, Healy and Welchert (1990) proposed a definitionthat incorporated developmental and contextual aspects. Intheir notion of mentoring, the development of the relationshipprogresses through a qualitatively distinct level oforganization. In addition, the context or setting in whichthe relationship was formed has an influence on itsdevelopment.

Studies on mentoring appear sporadically in thepsychological, educational, and business literature. Much ofthe early work on mentoring, before the mid 19701s, was notempirically based, and often methodologically weak (Merriam,1983). A common research strategy was to send out surveys tosuccessful faculty or business managers to seek their opinionson the value of mentoring. The low response rate of many ofthese surveys, and the lack of observational data left many ofthe findings in doubt.

From the late 1970's to the present, studies on mentoringhave provided some useful information on the role mentoringplays in the lives of graudate students and newcomeres to thebusines world. Levinson's (1977) work approached mentoring asa important stage in adult development. In Levinson's view,mentor support and guidance facilitated the protege'srealization of the "dream". He defined the dream as thevision each young man had about the kind of life he wanted asan adult. The mentor, through a sharing of his wisdom,introduction to colleagues, protection from harmfulsituations, and guidance, helped the protege achieve hisdream.

3

2

Some studies on mentoring have looked at the role of thementor and his or her effect on the protege's career. Collins& Scott (1979) and Rowe (1983) examined the protege's movementup the career ladder, and the effect the mentor had in guidingthe protege through the management hierarchy. Wilbur (1987)described mentoring relationships as helpful in socializingnewcomers and in enabling them to bypass the normal channelswhen necessary. Wilbur also found mentoring to be asignificant predictor of career success for both highlymotivated and less highly motivated employess. Zey's (1985)work examined mentoring programs in the corporate world. Hefound that mentoring programs were useful in adjustingnewcomers to the organization. Zey proposed that sinceminorities have more difficulties in finding a mentor, formalprograms would be useful in bringing mentors and minoritiestogether. Kram (1985) however, found that formal mentoringprograms were a high risk strategy. She discovered that insome instances mentors matched in these relationships resentedthe extra responsibility, while unmatched employees feltdeprived.

Although studies on the mentoring relationships betweenfaculty and graduate students are limited, Aguilar-Gaxiola,et. al. (1984) studied the complexity of the mentoringrelationship between graduate student and professor. In theiranalyses, four dominant roles of the mentor werecharacterized: role modeling, professional socialization,advocacy, and emotional support. Alleman and Newman (1984)studied the basis on which mentors select proteges. She foundno support for the common assertion that mentors pick protegeswho are like themselves, but she did find that protegesconsidered themselves to be more similar to their mentors thandid non-proteges. Carter (1982) suggested that the mostsuccessful mentor-protege relationships between faculty andgraduate students were based on participants sharing commongoals, perceptions, and views of the world.

There are only a few studies that examine the issue ofthe mentoring of minorities and women in business and highereducation. Goldstein's (1978) study provided evidence that amismatched (male-female) mentor relationship may impinge onthe productivity of the protege. Her findings suggest thatproteges who were the products of cross-gender mentoringrelationships were less productive in their academic careersthan same-gender participants. Morrison and Von Glinow (1990)found that cross-race and cross gender relationships wereharder to manage, and provided a narrower range of benefitesfor women and minorities. Fitt & Newton (1990) indicated thatthe possibility of gossip and innuendoes about sexualmisconduct discouraged the formation of cross-gender mentoringrelationships.

4

3

Not all studies however, emphasized the impact ofmentoring on the protege. Kram (1985) found that protegeswere not the sole beneficiaries of the mentoring relationship,but that mentors also gained from the experience. Krammaintained that senior executives who became mentors developedtheir sense of competency and self worth in their role. Theyfulfilled their generative needs by passing on wisdom, advice,and guidance to young managerial talent; and moved the mentorfrom a stage of preoccupation with their work to a drive tocreate and care for someone else (Erikson, cited in Healy andWelchert, 1990).

What appears to be lacking in the literature however, arestudies that examine the structure of the mentoringrelationship, and how the relationship functions in thedevelopment of the students' skills, values, attitudes, andaspirations for academic life. In other words, what role doesmentoring play in the retention and persistence of minoritystudents, and their socialization into academic culture? Thisquestion is particularly significant for minority students.

Theoretical Framework

The framework for studying the mentorship teams emergedfrom theories of cognitive development and activity theorydeveloped by Vygotsky and other Soviet psychologists of theearly 20th century (Wertsch, 1985). According to neo-Vygotskian theorists, learning occurs in social settings thatprovide the opportunity for the learner to acquire appropriateskills for accomplishing a task through joint problem solvingwith a more capable person. In the case of the researchmentorships examined in this study, the settings andactivities relative to the research project provided thecontext for the teaching and learning.

Within this framework, this study described how knowledgewas acquired in the research setting by graduate andundergraduate students through social interactions in aresearch activity setting. The activity settings includedmore than the physical place where the research was beingconducted. They comprised the events, the people, and theplaces where team interacted. Tharp and Gallimore (1988)defined the activity settings as the traditional who, what,when, where, and why (the 5 W's) of the events. The 5 W's areuseful as an outline for understanding the interrelationshipsof the various dimensions of the activity setting. The whodescribes the people present in an activity. The what is adescription of things that are done and how they are done.The when is the timing component of the activity with theactivities occuring as often and and for as long as necessary.

5

4

The where is where the activity takes place. The why is themotivation, or the property of being able to inspire allmembers of the team to move through a process of mutualunderstanding of the meaning of the task.

To analyze how the process of mutual understanding isdeveloped through activity it must be studied through thecontext of the culture that shapes the activity. Culture,whether it is a society or a research laboratory setting, hasa set of relevant activities that characterize its day-to-daylife. These ordinary practices are considered to be the"authentic activities" that comprise a culture (Brown, et al,1988). In this study, authentic activities were described asthose settings or activites used by researchers in theirpractice.

As in other cultures, the research setting has specificconceptual tools that must be mastered by the newcomer. Theacquisition of conceptual tools goes beyond learning how touse the appropriate research equipment, but includes knowinghow specific fields use particular concepts, instruments, orpractices. The culture of the research setting provides theauthentic activities that give the students the opportunity topractice using the tools necessary for acquiring theappropriate knowledge. In addition the close contact withfaculty places the student in a suitable setting to besocialized into academic life by giving him or her the chanceto acquire knowledge about the practices, values, andattitudes of the academic professlon.

Methods

The questions in this research call for explanations ofbehaviors, and informing and testing a theoretical frameworkfor describing learning in higher education. The case studymethod Is an ideal method for examining the processes involvedin mentoring relationships. and providing descriptions of thesettings, activities, and other relevant elements thatcharacterize the relationship and place the activities andbeliefs of the participants in context (Goetz and Lecompte,1984). The nature of this research gave the participants theopportunity to report their development as researchers intheir own words and through their own perspectives.

In the case studies of the mentorship teams, the goal wasto describe in detail the aspects of the mentoringrelationship and ensuing activities that contributed tostudent development as researchers. The theoretical frameworkthat guided the study propoaed that student learning isfacilitated in settings that gave students the opportunity towork on research while being guided by a mentor.

6

5

0

Subjects and Procedures

There were 22 mentorship teams in the study, eachconsisting of of at least 1 faculty member, 1 graduatestudent, and 1 undergraduate. A total of 22 faculty, 25graduate students, and 38 undergraduates were interviewed overa period of 2 years. Each of the subjects was interviewed forapproximately one hour. An interview guide was used to makesure key topics were explored with the subjects, but thequestions were otherwise open-ended, and made allowances tochange directions or adapt to new situations in the course ofthe interviews.

Data Analysis

The data for the study included taped interviews, fieldnotes, written student progress reports, and a questionnaire.The method for processing the data consisted of developing acoding system for organizing the data. Coding the datainvolved assigning descriptive terms to pieces of data, andplacing the data in appropriate categories. In addition tocoding the data, comments or research memeos were writtenabout sections of the data. The memos were written to providemore elaborate descriptions of the codes, and to interpretsegments of the data. The memos were also important in thedata reduction phase, and in identifying major themes. Thestrategy for data reduction, was to organize the data intolarger more conceptual codes or themes, using the memos as aguide for linking and categorizing the data.

Findings

Four major themes emerged from the data. The themesprovided descriptions of key elements that facilitatedstudents learning. They were: (1) commitment and teamwork,(2) faculty participation (3) hands-on research, (4) structureand consistency.

Commitment and Teamwork

Not surprisingly, the mentorship teams that were mostsuccessful in reaching their research goals and promotingstudent aspirations for academic careers were those groupsthat instilled feelings of teamwork and commitment to theresearch task. The promulgation of teamwork was most notableamong those groups that made efforts to draw all members ofthe team into all aspects of the research, includingconceptualization, design, implementation, and analyses of thestudy. A graduate student commented about her role indeveloping the team concept: "(I learned) organizationalskills the need for group interaction and feedback...how toorgani,e the group...how to pull everyone's ideas

7

6

together to make sure everyone's voice is heard and it'sbeing synthesized". Students who were not included in themore sophisticated aspects of the research, such as theconceptualization or analyses, often felt that theircontributions were not as valued as the other members of theteam. One of the undergraduates commented: "We were go-fers.I would have liked to have done some of the analyses".Without the promotion of teamwork, a hierarchy is formed basedon a division of labor. Faculty and graduate students performthe more sophisticated aspects of the study, whileundergraduates perform the more mundane tasks. Anundergraduate said: "I want to get a rh.D. in social work...Iwanted to learn about research... All we learned to do wascode...There were a lot more things they could have shown us".

Working as a team encouraged students to think as teammembers, and to work toward team goals. One male studentcommented: "I've been to the library and I checked out bookson feminism. Last month I went to a symposium on Blackwomen". Another student said: "On my own initiative I metwith MALDEF. When you meet with those people you really haveto think". In a sense the extra work performed by thestudents was primarily for the benefit of the team. There mayhave been some personal gain for the students, but thestudent's initiative was moving the team toward theachievement of the its goals.

An additional benefit from teamwork was that it helpedthe individuals develop a sense of social acceptance andintegration into the institution. The students were placed ina setting where they could interact with others both sociallyand intellectually. The project also contributed to thestudents developing a sense of belonging and purpose. Oneprofessor commented about a graduate student: "She waslost...she wasn't in anyone's lab. I took her in gave her ahome". The team concept brought social acceptance to thestudent, and contributed some of the necessary guidance,direction, and intellectual stimulation she needud to besuccessful in a research environment.

Hands-on Research

A goal of the program was to give the students researchexperience and to develop their aspirations to becomeacademics. Nearly all of the graduate students were able tomake progress toward their degrees. Some of the students wereable to identify their dissertation topics, while other laidgroundwork for future research. A graduate student reported:"The program gave me the opportunity to go down to SouthAmerica and make contacts with people...This will make thewhole process easier when I have to do fieldwork...I have been

8

7

able to cut (sic) one year of graduate school because of thework I've done".

Moreover, several professors commented that theexperience was important for developing the leardership skillsof the graduate students. An anthcpology professor stated:(The graduate student) is the director...I sit andlisten...I'm training him how to administer, how to be aleader". A psychology professor added: "I think this programis good for her...she has to supervise students...she isgaining confidence in herself". The development of leadershipskills would be useful to students who intended to pursuecareers as researchers. As researchers they will need to leadresearch projects, and train and supervise students. Agraduate student commented: "Teaching these things to her hashelped me...If I'm going to teach these things to her, thatmeans I have to know it". Being perceived as project leaderswas also beneficial to the student's career. A professorcommented: "They have the opportunity to be seen in the roleof project leaders by other members of the department".

Faculty Participation

The amount of participation varied and charged over thecourse of the project. In successful mentorship projectshowever, the constant was the availbility of the professor. Agraduate student said: "He's been a great mentor, he's alwaysbeen there when I've needed him". Several of the professorscommented that they spent the early stages of the projectinstructing and providing direction. As the researchprogressed, their involvement changed, and the project becamemore of a collaborative event with the students taking on moreresponsibility. Although constant monitoring of the studentswas not necessary at the latter stages of the research,faculty participation still was. The professor's role changedfrom one of teacher to that of colleague as both students andprofessors shared more, and learned from each other. Aprofessor said: "As we go on the hours are spent on workoperations".

The contact with a professor provides more than someoneto teach the students research skills. The professor is alsoproviding a model of the academician. A professor commented:"I am socializing them to the profession...! model the role ofthe academician through publication...I do it informally, andI work it in when it is appropriate".

The close contact with faculty contributed to adevelopment of a relationship between professor and students.It is important for the graduate student to develop a closeworking relationship with faculty, and it is important forundergraduates as well. Several undergraduates reported that

9

8

the experience in the mentoring program helped them to feelless intimidated by faculty. An undergraduated reported: "Ireally feel the gap has lessened. I call the professor by hisfirst name and I feel part of the team...It gave them a humanface. I realized thay are more than a voice behind a podium".

Being able to establish a relationship with faculty is animportant element in the mentoring program. An undergraduatesaid: "It's a good way to become close to a professor.Letters of recommendation are so important for graduateschool". Another undergraduate said: "I'd been in labsbefore, but the professor was not there very much. He wouldtell me what to do and I'd do it. Here I get to know theprofessor...I think it's great to work in the same lab for awhole year with a professor...I've gotten to know him...hegave me a ride home for Christmas...I met his family".

The contact between student and faculty gives the facultymember more time to observe the student conducting research,and provides him or her with a more substantial basis toevaluate the student. This may prove to be valuable if theprofessor is in a position to recommend the student forgraduate school or other academic positions.

Consistency and Structure

It was not necessary for mentorship teams to have highlystructured meeting and activities, but a consistency andregularity to their interactions contributed to the success oftheir projects. A professor commented: "I don't have any labmeetings...I don't have any office hours either...I talk tothem one-on-one...I sit out there in the lab... Whenever theywant to talk (I'm available)...I have a table in there andthat's where I do my work. Other teams were more formal andscheduled weekly conferences or lab meetings. The consistentelement for the teams was the opportunity for all members tointeract. At the meetings faculty could provide direction andfeedback to students, and ideas could be shared and modifiedby all present. The essential component was creating anenvironment that encouraged openness and a willingness toshare ideas.

The consistency and structure was also reflected in thegoals and direction of the research. If the purpose of theresearch was clearly defined and communicated to the team, thechance for success was improved. Students were more inclinedto feel part of the team if they understood the direction ofthe research, and what their role was in the overall scheme.The teams that did not nurture these elements were moreinclined to have disatisfaction on the part of students whowere felt left out of the more sophisticated aspects of theresearch.

10

9

Implications

Research mentorships appear to provide an effectivemethod for developing minority students into researchscholars. The close interaction with faculty is an effectiveway to teach students the skills necessary for research, andto give students a preview of academic life. Matchingstudents with faculty provides the setting for students andfaculty to work collaboratively on research, and to givestudents the opportunity to develop close workingrelationships with a professor. The present study indicatesthat mentorship programs may constitute a stable and desirablehigher education intervention for all studbnts aspiring forcareers as research scholars, and not just for minoritystudents with those aspirations.

1 1

10

References

Aguilar-Gaxiola, S. (1984). The role of mentors in the livesof graduate students. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Education Research Association, New Orleans.

Alleman, E. & Newman, I. (1984). Interpersonal perceptions inmentor relationships. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Blackwell, J.E. (1982). Networking and mentoring: A study ofcross generational experiences of Blacks in graduate andprofessional schools. Atlanta: Southern Education Foundati_on.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1938). Situatedcognition and the culture of learning. Palo Alto: Institutefor Research on Learning, Report No, IRL-88-0008.

Carter, H.M. (1982). Making it in academia: Gurus can get youthere. Pdper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New York.

Collins, E., & Scott, P, (1978) Everyone who makes it has amentor: Interview with F.J Lunding, G.L. Clements, and 0 S.Perkins. Harvard Business Review, 56(4), 89-101.

Fitt, L.W. & Newton, D.A. (1981). When thP mentor is a manand the protege is a women. Harvard Business Review, 2, 55-60.

Goetz, M. & LeCompte, A. (1984). Ethnography and qualitativein educational research. Orlando: Academic Press.

Goldstein, E. (1979). The effect of same-sex and cross-sexroiQ modclh upuh 7;;ubsequent academic productivity. AmericanPsychologist, 34(4), 407-410.

Healy C. H. & Welchert, A.J. (1990). Mentoring relations: Adefinition to advance research and practif;e. EducatitmalResearcher, 19(9), 17-21.

Kram, K E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview, Ill: Scott,Foresman.

Levinson, D. (1977) The season of a man's life. New York:Ballantine.

Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and proteges: A critical reviewof the literature. Adult Education Quarterly, 33, 161-173.

2

11

Morrison, A.M. & Von Glinow, M.A. (1990). Women andminorities in management. American Psychologist, 45(2); 200-208.

Rowe, M. (1978). Case of the valuable vendors. HarvardBusinesss Review, 56(5), 40-60.

Tharp, R. and Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life:Traching, learning, and schooling in social context. New

-k: Cambridge University Press.

Wertschoi.V. (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition:Vygotskian perspective. New (Drk: Cambr[dyo nnivecty

Wilbur, (3927). Does mentoring breed success. Training andDevelopment Journal, 41(2), 38-41.

7ey, M. (1985). Mentor programs: Making the right moves.Personnel Journal, 64(2), 5S-57.

1 3