3.3 Mentoring doctoral students: the need for a pedagogy  (Page 5/10)

We suggest that with such high numbers of doctoral graduates pursuing positions in academe as research scholars, much more attention and emphasis must be given to the mentoring students early on with their research productivity.

A Conceptual Model

To better understand the components of effective mentoring and its difference from advising, we present a conceptual model in Figure 1.

With any endeavor, good planning is critical and increases the likelihood of success and effectiveness. It is a well-designed plan that shapes our specific practice and further helps to create an effective evaluation of the process. Our conceptual model is purposefully cyclical in nature since as evaluation occurs, we are likely to alter or adjust our continuing planning and practicing.

Though planning is situational to each faculty mentor and doctoral student, two common components should be included in any effective mentoring plan: frequency of contact and the monitoring of academic progress. Doctoral students continue to highlight frequency of contact as a factor most important to them. DuBois and Neville (1997) found length of relationship and average monthly contact accounted for 63% of the variance in ratings of perceived benefits from the mentor–student relationship. Faculty mentors will need to decide on what constitutes an appropriate frequency of contact based on the student’s point in program (e.g., coursework or dissertation stage) and her or his personal skills, knowledge, and dispositions. We suggest that mentor and student must decide up front a system of monitoring academic progress. They should agree on how often mentor and student will meet (e.g., monthly) and as importantly, what will be the expectancy for the student to return requested assignments or corrected/edited work. Where appropriate, we recommend a contractual agreement between student and mentor. Contractual agreements are helpful (and needed) in situations where the faculty member is new to the university or where the student and mentor do not know each other that well. In addition, in the event that a student becomes a procrastinator or fails to reach expectations, a contractual agreement serves as a reference point for determining the effectiveness of the relationship.

Practicing Effective Mentoring. There are many ways faculty mentors can practice good mentoring skills. Using our distinction between advising and mentoring, effective mentoring must include providing early and ongoing opportunities for doctoral students to become productive in research activities. The traditional measures of scholarly productivity have already been identified (i.e., publishing articles and book chapters and presenting papers at national conferences). In Nettles and Millett’s (2006) seminal study of 9,000 doctoral students, research productivity proved to be an important predictor of doctoral degree completion. Doctoral students in education with research productivity to their credit were nearly twice as likely (1.8 times) to complete their dissertations than those without. Further, doctoral students with mentors were more likely to present papers at national conferences than their peers without a mentor. Much emphasis has been placed on the importance of practice fields in both business and education (Creighton, 2002; Kim, 1999). To assume that faculty will be effective mentors without many opportunities to practice their skills is analogous to expecting the medical doctor, professional basketball player, or the symphony orchestra musician to perform without opportunities to practice. University administrators, department chairs, and program leaders must provide the support and encouragement for opportunities to practice good mentoring skills. Given the track record of academe in these kinds of changes, we are concerned that this will not occur easily or without a major shift in philosophical thought and commitment to improve the student mentor relationship.