Thanks for coming to the CTE Faculty Discussion on Peer Mentoring, 3/24/2011

[Pictured: CTE Co-Chair Dan Wells leading discussion, while CTE TA coordinator Aymara Boggiano and Prof. David Shattuck listen]

Discussion began with CTE Co-Chair Dan Wells stating that the CTE was interested in developing a pool of faculty who would be interested in participating in a Peer Mentoring program and establishing guidelines for such a program.  Two draft documents were pre-circulated, to serve as the basis for discussion.

CTE_Mentoring_Process_Guidelines-1

Peer_Mentoring_A-1

Attendees then shared their previous experiences and expectations for a peer mentoring program.

–Some mentioned having extensive experience mentoring other faculty under different circumstances, such as being called upon by the Chair of the Department to act as mentor to a junior faculty. Others had participated in setting up mentoring and consultation programs at previous institutions. A few had experience mentoring TAs and Adjuncts. One person had informal experiences with colleagues requesting assistance and feedback on their teaching. Some had engaged in observation of classes and discussions of teaching methods. At least two people expressed that they had found that mentoring in research and scholarship was readily available, but none on teaching; so this initiative would be a good idea. It was mentioned that mentoring for teaching was not unlike mentoring for scholarship.

Several ideas came up in terms of what activities and services should be provided through a peer mentoring program.

• Producing not just evaluations of teaching but guidelines for consistent and fair evaluation.

• Providing a consultation service for individuals interested in improving their own teaching.

• Developing a handbook with very specific and practical information such as how to write exam questions, how many slides to have on a Power Point Presentation, or how to deal with issues of diversity.

• Organizing seminars to generate a “Community of Teaching,” starting from inside of each Department.

At the same time, some caveats and possible problems were mentioned about the proposed mentoring program:

• the mentoring and evaluation program should remain voluntary for participants; chairs or deans should not dictate who gets mentored .

• the name should be changed to something like “Consulting Program”

It was also mentioned that the program needs to be professionalized and organized; nonetheless, developing a Peer mentoring program had the potential to be a mutually rewarding experience for both the mentors and the mentees.

Two challenges for mentors were identified and will need to be addressed as we think about implementation of the program:

• Mentors need to become proactive and focus on helping mentees up front to plan and structure their courses, perhaps reviewing syllabi to avoid potential problems or difficulties.  Mentors could help mentees structure courses and syllabi to anticipate and resolve potential problems.

• Both mentors and mentees will need to arrange for specific times to meet regularly throughout the semester or the year.

It was also pointed out that existing mentoring programs in place at UH or at other institutions could provide resources for the establishment of the CTE’s program.  For example:

• The Math/Chemistry departments reportedly have strong mentoring program in place

• The Medical Center has a Cooperative Master Teaching Program

• There are funded professional sources of faculty who are doing this training. They can be called to come in and train local faculty (NSF Mentoring the Mentors Grant)

A few attendees came in the hopes of finding a mentor because they were having difficulties in their classes and thought that getting a mentor would be helpful. One had been assigned to teach a Hybrid course, but had no experience with teaching on-line courses, and was also interested in getting help with course development. They were told to contact CTE board members, and they would receive further informal assistance, while we set up more formal programs.

Conclusions:

• The mentoring program needs to be formative in nature, not quantitative but qualitative.

• CTE should encourage departments to form their own mentoring programs.

• The CTE will not engage in reporting on the mentoring activities to any departments, but will assist in setting up a program if requested.

• The program should be adaptable to particular needs of individuals or departments.

• There should be a commitment by all involved parties not to make mentoring or peer evaluation a punitive gesture.

Another suggestion was for the mentors to go with mentees to other classes, especially the classes of good teachers. Then they could arrange a follow up discussion about the class. Possibly even critique the course and have the instructor explain their goals and why they do things. May even be a good process for a larger group such as a group of new faculty.

Finally, the entire group reviewed CTE draft document. There was general consensus that the document was good, but still needed to make clear that “one size does not fit all.”  The CTE, departments, and mentees would need to adapt the process to each situation as it arose.

[notes taken by Aymara Boggiano, David Mazella, and Dan Wells; discussion facilitated by Dan Wells]

UPDATE: Lindsay Waters passed along the following very helpful links to webpages at the Baylor College of Medicine, overseen by Dr. Anne Gill:

Reference Materials

Web Links

Advertisements


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s