Hager (2003) notes
there is a dearth of research on the doctoral mentoring process. Hager used
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP) theory to
analyze the mentor/mentee relationship through extensive interviews of mentors
labeled as ‘exemplars’ and their mentees. Hager found the LPP theory did not
account for the difficulties experienced by the participants in the mentoring
program (p. 134). While Hager found that mentors provide professional
socialization, collaborative participation in practices, professional
communication, and guidance in becoming a successful member of the community,
it is important to note that there were attributes found to be lacking in the mentoring
process. These attributes include mentor availability (time), mismatched
research interests and/or mismatched skills.
Of the attributes
found to be lacking in mentoring that of mentor availability is one that
continues to be problematic as enrollment and class sizes continue to increase
without a proportionate increase in faculty in all aspects of education across
the country. This is especially noticeable in new doctoral programs where
admissions to the program outpace addition of new faculty. The question under
these circumstances becomes “How can we continue to provide exemplary mentoring
to our doctoral students when the mentor’s time is reduced while the mentoring
workload of students continues increase?” The answer is: Proximal-mentors.
Proximal-mentors combine the attributes of peer-tutoring with the apprenticeship
concept of mentoring to provide scaffolded mentoring from new doctoral student
to doctoral candidate.
In peer-tutoring, a
peer becomes the ‘teacher’ in assisting a fellow student to learn materials the
peer-tutor is also just learning. Peer-tutoring models have included models
such as “Big Buddy Little Buddy” (Brenno & Teaff 1997), ClassWide Peer
Tutoring (
In mentoring, an
expert other assists the novice in incorporating the ‘ways of being’ in their
chosen field or discipline (Hager, 2003). As Hager notes, the majority of
literature regarding mentoring is found in the area of business (see Hager, 2003
for a review of the mentoring literature). In general, when one thinks of
‘mentor’ one thinks of an apprenticeship where an experienced or expert other
assists a novice with learning the ins and outs of a particular discipline or
field. However, as Hager (2003) notes, if the distance between the mentor and
novice is too great, the mentoring relationship is less than optimal.
The purpose of this
research was to document the first semester in the creation of a scaffolded
model of proximal-mentoring within three new doctoral programs using Vygotsky’s
(1962, 1971, 1978, 1986, 1987, 1993, 1994, 2004) ZPD as the theoretical
framework. The proximal-mentor has already experienced the materials to which
new students are being exposed as well as has some experience in the ways of
being for the discipline. The primary role of proximal-mentor is service of the
public good through assisting fellow students in learning content as well as
discipline knowledge with a secondary benefit of increasing personal knowledge
for the proximal-mentor. Proximal-mentoring also assists in the preparation of
students in becoming teachers, researchers, colleagues, and collaborators who
perform service to the public good through working in the public interest.
A mixed-methods model
was used within a quasi-experimental design. Data from the control group was
collected the first year. Ten doctoral students were then invited to
participate in the proximal-mentoring program. Of these ten students, all were
interested but only five were able to fit the proximal-mentoring course into
their schedule. Over the sixteen-week history and philosophy course, the proximal-mentors
collectively created, defined, revised, and executed their proximal-mentoring role.
Proximal-mentors had
responsibilities within the course, the first of which was to work with
specific students over the semester to assist the students in expanding their
critical thinking skills. The first writing assignment was used to rank then
distribute new students to the proximal-mentors with each proximal-mentor
receiving an equal number of high, medium, and low ranked students.
Proximal-mentors worked with these same students throughout the semester
providing peer-reviewed feedback for writing, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and
content on the weekly writing assignments. The proximal-mentor feedback was
guided by a more advanced doctoral student and the course professor in
providing adequate, appropriate, and thorough feedback.
Proximal-mentors also
worked with groups of randomly assigned students over a two-week period, first
during in-class discussion groups then using online asynchronous discussion.
Proximal-mentors acted as moderators of these randomly assigned groups, keeping
the discussion on-topic and interjecting appropriate comments or questions over
the time the group met.
Proximal-mentors
presented one fifteen- to thirty-minute segment of the course lecture. The
proximal-mentors selected their topic from the list of topics to be covered in
the course in an open discussion during a pre-course meeting. Proximal-mentors
also re-wrote their original culminating paper to reflect their new knowledge
of the content developed over the semester through their interactions as a
proximal-mentor.
Data from the
experimental group as well as data from the proximal-mentors was collected the
second year. Data for the control and experimental groups consisted of WebCT
student tracking information (accesses, discussions, emails), student surveys,
discussion postings, student participation in mini in-class research projects, and
student work submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
semester-long course (weekly reflection papers, group critiques, and the
culminating paper). Data from the proximal-mentors consisted of meetings and interviews,
discussion threads, emails, and the re-write of their first culminating paper. Data
collected reflect authentic classroom practices as both the peers and the proximal-mentors
received credit for their courses to be applied to their respective programs of
study -- as in all doctoral-level study, failure is not an option.
Results indicate that
the interaction between peers and proximal-mentors moderated the implementation
of the mentoring process. The addition of proximal-mentors improved the critical
thinking and writing of new doctoral students when compared with the control
group. The addition of proximal-mentors increased student usage of WebCT as a
tool for collaboration, discussion, and knowledge creation. The proximal-mentors
helped to socialize the new students into a collaborative, collegial
relationship within the doctoral programs as evidenced through continued
interactions that extended beyond this one course resulting in collaborative
research projects across the programs. The addition of the proximal-mentors
helped to create a community of learners where new doctoral students did not
experience the isolation associated with beginning a new venture as experienced
by the control group. Vygotsky’s (1962, 1971, 1978, 1986, 1987, 1993, 1994, 2004)
ZPD adequately accounts for the proximal-mentor and novice student successes as
compared to the control with other factors held constant.
The proximal-mentors
benefited from the process of creating, defining, and executing their role.
They were active participants in the research process and helped to create and
define the proximal-mentoring construct. Proximal-mentors also benefited from
interacting with first-year students. Their personal knowledge of the content
increased as evidenced by their rewrite of the culminating paper to reflect the
new level of knowledge gained. Their interactions with the novice students
increased their social skills. They became more familiar with research projects
of interest to the novice researchers. They also became more familiar with
ongoing research projects of current faculty through the mentor/advisor
relationships of novices with professors.
Educational
implications of the concept of proximal-mentoring are vast. For example, programs
of learning in education should consider ZPD proximal-mentoring between levels,
grades, and/or years as appropriate. The results of this study indicate that
new teachers might benefit from a proximal-mentoring relationship with a
second- or third-year teacher in addition to the mentoring guidance from an
expert teacher. Children might also benefit from receiving proximal-mentoring
from the next higher year or level while also benefiting from being proximal-mentors
to the next lower year or level.
REFERENCES
Brenno. J., & Teaff, T. (1997). Big
buddy little buddy. Teaching PreK-8, 28(1), 82-83.
Gut, D. M., Farmer, T. W.,
Bishop-Goforth, J., Hives, J., Aaron, A.,
Hager, M. J. (2003). Mentoring
relationships in doctoral education: Doctoral students’ socialization into
communities of practice. (Doctoral Dissertation,
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).
Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Thrope, L., & Wood, K. (2000).
Cross-Age tutoring for young adolescents. Clearing House, 73(4), 239-243.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and
language. (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans. & Eds.).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The psychology of
art. (Scripta Technica, Trans.).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society:
the development of higher psychological processes.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and
language. ( A. Kozulin, Trans. & Ed.).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected
works of L. S. Vygotsky. (R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton Eds.). NY: Plenum
Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). Studies on the
history of beahivor: ape, primitive, and child. (V. I. Golod & J. E. Knox,
Trans. & Eds.).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The Vygotsky
reader. (R. Van Der Veer & J. Valsiner, Eds.).
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). The essential
Vygotsky. (R. W. Rieber & D. K. Robinson, Eds.). NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.