“At a superficial level, everyone ‘knows’ what mentoring is. But closer examination indicates [such wide variation . . .] that the concept is devalued, because everyone is using it loosely, without precision, and it may become a short-term fad” (p. 3). That observation was made in 1981, and although it’s clear by now that mentoring is not a fad, loose thinking about what it is continues. In this well-referenced, well-organized, and thoughtful analysis of mentoring, Elizabeth McKinsey cites reviews of the literature on mentoring that offer as many as 50 different definitions. She opts for a simple description: “To mentor . . . is to provide wise advice and instruction” (p. 2).
But McKinsey also hastens to point out that mentoring is not the same as teaching, even though much of the literature on undergraduate mentoring conflates the two, thereby missing “mentorship’s distinctive elements that range beyond what we normally expect from classroom teaching, both in form and content” (p. 2). Mentoring is more personal than teaching, in that the mentor cares about an individual student. However, the personal natural of the relationship has clearly defined professional boundaries. In mentoring relationships, the teacher and the student reveal themselves to each other, and this is what makes the relationship particularly powerful for students. They are looking for teachers who are “role models of integrity and wholeness.” As one student wisely observed, “part of being a great teacher is being a great person” (McKinsey 2016, 9).
Mentoring can be formal or informal, planned or natural. Mentoring programs with assigned mentors and designated activities fall into the formal and planned category. “In contrast, ‘natural’ mentoring is less intentional on the institution’s part, more organic or spontaneous, and certainly not assigned” (p. 4). Natural mentoring often grows out of teaching. Some believe natural mentoring is the most effective kind of mentoring. As one source noted, “you cannot assign mentors any more than you can mandate friends” (p. 4).
McKinsey’s study of undergraduate mentoring brings together some interesting data sources. First, she looked at the tenure files of 12 faculty members at her institution “whose praise as mentors was robust and salient” in comments made by students on their rating forms (p. 3). She also examined the professional statements made by these faculty for their tenure review. Then she reviewed the literature on mentoring (of which there is plenty), although much of it focuses on graduate student mentoring. “My goal is to advance understanding of best practices in mentoring traditional-age undergraduate students from both student and faculty perspectives . . . ” (p. 3).
McKinsey includes a variety of useful material in her article. For example, she identifies three time-based stages of mentoring that determine the “timing of mentorship as well as the content of ‘what’s on the table’ in mentoring interactions” (p. 4).
• Mentoring in – This is the mentoring that helps new college students get oriented. It may focus on college life in general or on a particular subject or activity. Often, this mentoring is provided via more formal mentoring programs.
• Mentoring through – Here the goal is helping students acquire more advanced skills, building their confidence, and moving them in the direction of more autonomy in their work. It may involve students doing a research project for or with faculty or undertaking an independent study. This mentoring often happens in faculty–student exchanges outside of class. Sometimes in the moment, it’s not even recognized as mentoring; only later does the student realize the significance of something the teacher said. Student comments frequently equate this kind of mentoring with coaching, where the teacher offers advice and guidance that helps students in challenging courses, with new learning experiences, or during a rough personal time.
• Mentoring onward – Later in students’ academic careers, they need “forward-looking” mentoring as they confront “dilemmas about the future” (p. 5). The role of the good mentor here involves asking questions that “can help students untangle their thinking, set priorities, and achieve a tentative sense of comfort with their decisions” (p.6). Students benefit from being able to talk with someone older and more experienced as they reflect on career and life choices.
Alongside these different types of mentoring, McKinsey describes how mentoring relationships unfold, often along the same time trajectory. They start with a connection through which the student feels a certain admiration, respect, or interest in a faculty member. The student wants to talk with these teachers to learn more about them and their interests. Faculty foster these connections when they make themselves available and accessible to students, such as through holding office hours and spending time on campus. They are approachable, recognizing students when they see them outside of class. They answer e-mail and show interest in students in a variety of ways.
After the connection phase, mentoring relationships start to involve collaboration. Learning becomes a partnership. Again, the collaboration may be around a research project or an independent study, or even a class project that the student wishes to take into an area of interest to the faculty member. Faculty members can show students their interest in collaboration by presenting themselves as learners in the classroom—by asking questions they are trying to answer, or posing problems they still can’t solve.
The final phase in mentoring relationships involves a sense of mutual commitment. The commitments required by faculty at this stage are significant and often time-consuming. They write letters of recommendation, explore subsequent educational opportunities with students, and are willing to talk at length with students they are mentoring. Sometimes friendships actually develop at this point, with the teacher and the students establishing a relationship that continues after graduation.
The article also identifies risks involved with mentoring undergraduates: the relationship can move into areas where faculty are not qualified to offer the professional guidance a student may need; the relationship can be so important to the student that an offhanded mentor remark can unduly influence the student; or the relationship, if seen by other students, may appear to imply favoritism. Mentoring relationships have potentially serious consequences on many levels, but at the same time, they are relationships that can promote profound learning experiences for students and are sources of great satisfaction for teachers.
This outstanding piece of scholarship would be great summer reading for faculty members who aspire to mentor students. McKinsey does not believe mentoring is a gift, but sees it as a skill that can be cultivated. Her article is full of wise insights and helpful strategies for defining and managing these relationships. Best of all, it’s in an open-access journal.
Reference:
McKinsey, Elizabeth. 2016. “Faculty Mentoring Undergraduates: The Nature, Development, and Benefits of Mentoring Relationships.” Teaching and Learning Inquiry 4 (1): 1–15.
