As a teaching consultant, I benefit from the opportunity to examine and practice different methods of teaching. This means I am able to learn more about my teaching and the teaching of others. One of the processes which I value most in my learning is peer mentoring networks. This value is partly inherent in the networks' ability to foster dialectic dialogue.
Mentoring has been defined as "a process in which one person, usually of superior rank and outstanding achievement, guides the development of an entry-level individual" (Savage, Karp, & Logue, 2004, p. 22). In comparison to debate (where unaligned positions may remain fixed), dialectics involve resolution of different positions through logical discussion. Dialectics have a number of forms in teaching/learning settings, including the Socratic Method. The "dialectical character" of mentoring offers personal as well as academic development for participants.
Two alternatives to the "formal, hierarchical model of mentoring" are individual peer mentoring and peer networks (Osgood Smith et al., 2001, p. 198). Individual peer mentoring possesses dialectical characteristics, but constructs relationships between equals. Peer mentoring networks, comparatively, are collectives of people interested in learning something through conversation with others. "Looking more like a network or web than the traditional hierarchical ladder image" of mentoring, academic peer networks offer community within and across disciplines (Osgood Smith et al., 2001, p. 199).
In higher education institutions like mine, some peer networks are centrally-administered and programmatic in style. This means they offer reportable development opportunities as an institutional benefit in addition to the direct outcomes experienced by participants. Of the five networks I am currently involved in, three of these could be identified as peer mentoring programmes. In a review of general and new faculty mentoring literature, Lumpkin (2011) identifies four common characteristics of peer mentoring programmes, including connecting and preparing members, organising meetings, and evaluating processes. I have found that institutional support has neither hindered nor constrained the capacity for dialectic dialogue. I would be interested to research this issue further.
There are many resources available for supporting those who choose to learn through peer mentoring. Brown University, for example, offers specific support for "women faculty peer mentoring groups", whilst Yale has reviewed a number of individual mentoring programmes for "junior faculty". I will continue to add to this post, in order to extend the list of resources available.
Mentoring has been defined as "a process in which one person, usually of superior rank and outstanding achievement, guides the development of an entry-level individual" (Savage, Karp, & Logue, 2004, p. 22). In comparison to debate (where unaligned positions may remain fixed), dialectics involve resolution of different positions through logical discussion. Dialectics have a number of forms in teaching/learning settings, including the Socratic Method. The "dialectical character" of mentoring offers personal as well as academic development for participants.
Two alternatives to the "formal, hierarchical model of mentoring" are individual peer mentoring and peer networks (Osgood Smith et al., 2001, p. 198). Individual peer mentoring possesses dialectical characteristics, but constructs relationships between equals. Peer mentoring networks, comparatively, are collectives of people interested in learning something through conversation with others. "Looking more like a network or web than the traditional hierarchical ladder image" of mentoring, academic peer networks offer community within and across disciplines (Osgood Smith et al., 2001, p. 199).
In higher education institutions like mine, some peer networks are centrally-administered and programmatic in style. This means they offer reportable development opportunities as an institutional benefit in addition to the direct outcomes experienced by participants. Of the five networks I am currently involved in, three of these could be identified as peer mentoring programmes. In a review of general and new faculty mentoring literature, Lumpkin (2011) identifies four common characteristics of peer mentoring programmes, including connecting and preparing members, organising meetings, and evaluating processes. I have found that institutional support has neither hindered nor constrained the capacity for dialectic dialogue. I would be interested to research this issue further.
There are many resources available for supporting those who choose to learn through peer mentoring. Brown University, for example, offers specific support for "women faculty peer mentoring groups", whilst Yale has reviewed a number of individual mentoring programmes for "junior faculty". I will continue to add to this post, in order to extend the list of resources available.
Your feedback is appreciated.
References
Kaye, H. J. (2000). One professor's dialectic of mentoring. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(33). Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com
Lumpkin, A. (2011). A model for mentoring university faculty. The Educational Forum, 75(4), 357-368.
Osgood Smith, J., Whitman, J. S., Grant, P. A., Stanutz, A., Russett, J. A. , & Rankin, K. (2001). Peer networking as a dynamic approach to supporting new faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 25(3), 197-207.
Savage, H. E., Karp, R. S., & Logue, R. (2004). Faculty mentorship at colleges and universities. College Teaching, 52(1), 21-24.
