Mentoring Teachers to Achieve Educational Excellence and Scholarship Sheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEd Director Office of Medical Education Research and Development,

Mentoring Teachers to Achieve Educational Excellence and Scholarship

Sheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEdDirector

Office of Medical Education Research and Development, School of MedicineAcademy for the Advancement of Educational Scholarship, LSU-New

OrleansProfessor

Department of Internal Medicine and School of Public Health

http://www.lsuhsc.edu/

http://www.musc.edu/


Learning Outcomes

Use a variety of supportive relationships within a mentoring framework

Define and promote excellence and scholarship in teaching and learning

Explore options for enhancing mentoring Sheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEd

(5/4/12)


Supportive Relationships

Role Model

Advisor

CoachSupervisor

True Mentor

Advising Relationships

Assigned, rather than self-selected Guided by program/organizational goals One direction from advisor to advisee Time limited Guided more by event and activities,

than processGlasser & Hook ,2008

Sheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEd (5/4/12)


Coaching Relationships

Similar to advising, but more focused Primary focus on action, performance Often work-related knowledge, skills Often most important when developing

new knowledge and abilities

International Public Management Association for Human Resources



Supervisory Relationships

Formal, for the record Evaluative Managerial Performance Policies and procedures Can include supportive and

developmental perspective



True Mentoring: A Working

Definition* Voluntary, not required Based on affinity

between mentee and mentor

Separate from formal mode of instructional delivery and/or evaluation

Personal, holistic Dynamic, reciprocal

Interactive and mutually beneficial

Negotiated commitment of time and energy by both parties

Driven by the personal and professional needs of the mentee, rather than an agenda set by mentor or institution

*LSUHSC-NO OMERAD TeamSheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEd

(5/4/12)


Key Concepts

Scholarship (Boyer, 1990)

Discovery

Integration

TeachingEngagement



Scholarship of Teaching

Overturns the perspective that “to be a scholar is to be a

researcher and publication is the primary yardstick by which

scholarly productivity is measured.”

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriateSheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEd (5/4/12)


Common Domains

Teaching

Instructional design, curriculum development, assessment of learning

Advising and mentoring

Educational leadership

Educational research



Scholarship Assessed (Glassick, et

al. 1997)

Clear goals

Adequate preparation

Appropriate methods

Significant results

Effective presentation

Reflective critique

Research Teaching



5 P’s of Scholarship(Adapted from Shulman and

others)

Pertinent Public Peer review

Applied intellect; informed and disciplined manner

Quality and impact Glassick, et al. criteria

Permanent – enduring products Platform that is reproducible and can be

built upon Sheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEd (5/4/12)


Scholarship

Innovative

Results from creative, disciplined work

Public and shared – permanent products

Advances the field Contributes new knowledge, insights, questions,

directions Generalizable, reproducible, can be built upon



Tenure and Promotion Reviews

Dissemination “We mostly consider if faculty members are moving

the field forward, whatever the field is.”

Key Elements: Creativity, development, and dissemination of transferable products

“What defines a university is the development of products that can be shared…”

Simpson, et al., 2004Sheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEd

(5/4/12)


Building Consensus

AAMC

2006 Consensus Conference Concepts

Criteria

Evidence

Career advancement



Publication Formats

Traditional abstract or poster presentation

Articles, chapters, monographs, books

Workshops, demonstrations

Digital formats, websites, multi-media

Educational materials Sheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEd

(5/4/12)



Conceptual Framework

Activities in Teaching

Effective Teaching

Excellent Teaching

Scholarly Teaching

Scholarship in Teaching


Keys to Effective Mentors

(and Effective Mentees)

Development

Education about mentoring processes Expectations Skills (e.g., communication) Strategies Professional boundaries, issues of

gender, culture, generational differences



Recognition

Academic recognition

Institutional priority and support

Protected time

Financial and non-financial rewards



Support

Administrative infrastructure Peer support group Mentors for mentors Consultative referrals and resources



Keys to Effective Mentoring Processes

Mentoring Agreement

• SMART Goals – start with an end in mind• Specific, Measurable, Action-oriented, Realistic, Timely

• Success – clear, observable• Relationship

• Commitment, expectations and responsibilities

• Ground rules• Stages, monitoring, feedback, adjustments

Benefits of putting it in writingSheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEd

(5/4/12)


Action/Work Plan

SMARTGoal Strategy Action Item(s) Target

DateOutcome/Evidence

A Mentoring Agreement is necessary, but not sufficient. You also need a plan. . . . in writing and actively used.



• Networking• Advocacy, introductions• Observation of exemplary teaching• Faculty development

Role Modeling

• Peer review of teaching• Wide range of levels and strategies for coaching• Educational consultation• Collaborative learning groups• Professional learning communities (e.g., Academies)

Coaching

• Academic advancement• Alignment of individual-organization priorities• Performance/work expectations• Professional development plans

Advising/Supervising

• Personal strategic planning• Educator and career development (i.e., action plans)

• Portfolio development• Professional learning communities (e.g., Academies)

MentoringSheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEd

(5/4/12)

Mentoring Options

1-1 traditional model (e.g., expert-novice) Peer, near-peer Group

Mentee – multiple mentors Mentor – multiple mentees Multiple mentors – multiple mentees

Constellation (e.g., layered, pyramid, rolling) Professional learning community



Mentoring Relationship: 5 Stages

Preparation (initiation, interaction)

Negotiation (investment, cultivation)

Facilitation (maturation, enabling)

Separation (adaptation)

Closure (redefinition)

Sources: Johnson, 2007; Kram, 1983, 1985;Luna & Cullen, 1995; Rodenhauser, et al., 2000; Zachary, 2000



Daloz’s Mentor-Protégé Interactions (1986)

Regression Growth

Stasis Validation

Challe

ng

e

Support

Vision

Levels of Candor

Mirroring—report what observer saw Alternative—focus on effective

behaviors; withhold subjective and/or negative comments

Analyzing—focus on less-effective aspects; comment on perceived effect, positive or negative; offer advice; explore cause and effect; include “plain talk”

The Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (1985). Peer support groups (Videotape). Aurora, CO: Author.


Summary

Mentoring Range of supportive relationships Various options Importance of development, recognition,

and support for mentors and mentees Stages that evolve over time Role of challenge, support, and vision Mentoring agreement, SMART goals,

action plan


Summary

Educational excellence and scholarship Multiple domains Range of teaching and educator roles Effectiveness, excellence, scholarly,

scholarship Glassick criteria and the 5 P’s Evidence-based Reflective practice Innovation


Questions and Comments

Sheila W. Chauvin, PhD, [email protected]


http://www.musc.edu/


Documents

Mentoring Teachers to Achieve Educational Excellence and Scholarship Sheila W. Chauvin, PhD, MEd Director Office of Medical Education Research and Development,