Faculty Mentoring at UM-Dearborn Experiences and Attitudes by lca18343

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 31

									Faculty Mentoring at UM-Dearborn: Experiences and Attitudes


               Approved by the Faculty Senate
                     February 9, 2004




       Faculty Senate Task Force on Faculty Mentoring



      Gabriella Eschrich, Associate Professor of French

        Paul Fossum, Associate Professor of Education

Tariq Shamim, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Patricia K. Smith, Professor of Economics and Committee Chair

Karen Standholm, Associate Professor of Management Studies
                                                                                          2




       Faculty Mentoring at UM-Dearborn: Experiences and Attitudes


                            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



In order to assess the current status of faculty mentoring on the UM-
Dearborn campus and to inform decisions regarding new mentoring policies,
the Faculty Mentoring Task force asked Deans about mentoring policies in
their units and surveyed full-time faculty members (tenured and tenure
track), regarding experiences with mentoring and preferences about possible
mentoring structures. Forty-one percent of full-time faculty (tenured or
tenure track) responded to the survey.

                                       Findings
   1. Informal mentoring is the typical form across campus. Even in the School of
      Education, the only unit with an active, formal faculty mentoring program, the
      mentor- mentee relationship is not heavily structured.

   2. One-fourth of faculty members reported that their department sponsored
      occasional mentoring activities.

   3. Only one-third of faculty members reported being satisfied or very satisfied with
      the mentoring they had received at UM-Dearborn. Thirty- four percent were
      neutral and 30% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the mentoring they had
      received on our campus.

   4. The majority of faculty members (86%) would be interested in participating if
      their department had a formal mentoring program.

   5. The majority prefers a voluntary program in which mentees select their own
      mentor or mentors.

   6. The majority express confidence that a mentoring program could: foster greater
      collegiality and create a greater sense of community on campus; help junior
      faculty become acclimated to the institution more quickly; help junior faculty
      better understand the promotion and tenure system; help junior faculty enhance
      their teaching skills; could enhance junior faculty’s prospects for promotion and
      tenure
                                                                                          3


7. The majority of faculty expressed a preference for an informal or lightly
   structured mentoring program. Many felt that the mentoring relationship needs to
   be flexible in order to best meet the needs of the mentee. Thus, they preferred
   programs that allowed mentors and mentees to determine the frequency and
   nature of their meetings.

                               Recommendations

1.     Each unit should develop a mentoring program to encourage and facilitate
       faculty development that meets the following guidelines.

       a. Participation is voluntary.

       b. Mentees choose their mentor or mentors.

       c. Mentees are given the option of joining a mentoring group.

       d. Units should consider methods for including participation in a mentoring
          relationship in merit raise and promotion reviews.

       e. Unit should review their mentoring program periodically to see if
          participants are satisfied with the current strategy and to solicit suggested
          improvements.

2.     The Office of the Provost should develop and maintain a faculty development
       website, part of which focuses on mentoring. The website would contain
       information and links to apprise faculty of the availab le career development
       and mentoring resources and opportunities. Appendix C lists some sample
       websites.

3.     The Office of the Provost should offer at least one faculty development
       workshop per year on a topic relevant to faculty in all units.

4.     Deans should offer at least one faculty development workshop per year on a
       topic relevant to their particular faculty.

5.     The University should send representatives to faculty development
       conferences, such as those sponsored by the POD Network (Professional and
       Organizational Development Network in Higher Learning) and the annual
       Lilly Conference on College Teaching.

6.     The University should initiate and support some Faculty Learning
       Communities in order to encourage interdisciplinary networking.
                                                                                          4


       Faculty Mentoring at UM-Dearborn: Experiences and Attitudes



                                     Introduction

       While most of us would agree that mentoring could contribute to the quality and
success of our faculty, we know very little about how much and what kind of faculty
mentoring is actually taking place on our campus. This report establishes a baseline of
knowledge about current mentoring practices across the four academic units, assesses the
general level of support for improving mentoring practices, and summarizes suggestions
from the faculty as to which mentoring structures and techniques would best serve the
campus.
       We find that informal mentoring is the typical form of mentoring across campus.
The Deans of the School of Education and CASL reported unit-wide mentoring policies,
however the CASL program is not actually active in all departments and many CASL
faculty members are unaware that it exists. In a survey of tenured and tenure-track
faculty, only thirty percent of respondents reported that their department had a formal
mentoring program. About one quarter reported that their department sponsored
occasional mentoring activities. Thirty-three percent reported being satisfied or very
satisfied with the mentoring they had received at UM-Dearborn, while a similar
proportion (30%) thirty-one percent of respondents reported being dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied. The School of Education exhibits highest rate of mentoring satisfaction
(62%, n=13), followed by CASL (35%, n=52), the School of Management (33%, n=9),
and the College of Engineering and Computer Science (16%, n=19).
       When asked if the University should take some action to improve faculty
mentoring the majority responded affirmatively. Respondents wrote in many
suggestions and expressed a variety of concerns about formal mentoring programs.
While the majority supported University action to improve mentoring, many expressed
concerns that a formal campus-wide program might be too restrictive and unresponsive to
mentees’ needs. In particular, many respondents questioned the merits of assigning
mentors to mentees; the majority prefers that mentees choose their mentor or mentors
                                                                                             5


based on information available about senior faculty.    While nearly half of respondents
indicated that they thought mentors and mentees should meet monthly, a significa nt
number indicated that mentoring participants should be free to set their own schedules,
meeting as they felt necessary.


                                     Methodology


       We constructed an online survey with all full time (tenured and tenure track)
faculty as the target population. The survey consisted of two sections, the first of which
asked questions about the respondent’s experiences with faculty mentoring while at UM-
Dearborn. The second section posed questions about attitudes and preferences regarding
possible mentoring structures and techniques, and the respondents’ interest in
participating in a mentoring program. The survey instrument was developed in the
consultation with Faculty Senate Council and several faculty members with expertise in
this type of data collection. Dr. Milt Cox, a mentoring consultant at Miami University in
Ohio also commented on the instrument (see appendix A).

       Faculty received both e- mail and hard copy memos explaining the study and
asking for their participation. The e-mail contained a link to the survey, while the hard
copy memo listed the survey’s web address. The mailing list contained 237 names and
we received responses from 96 faculty, for a response rate of 41%.



                                         Results

Experiences with Mentoring on the UM-Dearborn Campus

           Nearly 40% of respondents were tenured faculty members who had mentored
   junior colleagues, while 24% were tenured faculty members who had not mentored
   junior colleagues. About 19% of respondents were untenured faculty members who
   had been mentored and about 17% were untenured faculty members who had
   received no mentoring.
                                                                                            6



                          Respondent's Experience with Mentoring

                     45     39.6
                     40
                     35
                     30
                                          24
           Percent
                     25
                                                        18.8
                     20                                                 16.7
                     15
                     10
                      5                                                                     1
                      0




                                                      Junior, has




                                                                      Juinor, has




                                                                                      Response
                          mentored




                                      mentored
                          Tenured,




                                      Tenured,




                                                      mentored




                                                                      mentored
                                                                       not been
                                       hasn't




                                                        been
                            has




                                                                                         No
       The majority (69%) reported that they were either satisfied or very satisfied
with the level of professional support they received from their colleagues, only 9%
reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.   The School of Education had the
highest satisfaction rate with respect to collegial support (85%), followed by CASL
(72%), the School of Management (67%), and the College of Engineering and
Computer Science (53%).

       Sixty-six percent reported that information about the functioning of one’s
academic unit is communicated to junior faculty via a mix of formal and informal
processes. The majority was satisfied or very satisfied with how information is
communicated to junior faculty in their disciplines, but nearly 17% were either
dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The majority was also satisfied or very satisfied with
the clarity with which their department’s promotion and tenure expectations are
communicated to junior faculty, but a substantial minority (25%) were dissatisfied or
very dissatisfied. Forty- nine percent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied
with the clarity with which their department apprises them of their professional
progress, while nearly 20% were dissatisfied or very dissa tisfied.
                                                                                        7


   Thirty percent of respondents reported that their department has a formal
mentoring program and 25% reported that their department sponsors occasional
mentoring activities. The typical faculty respondent has 1.8 mentors in their
department, 0.55 mentors outside their department, and 1.8 mentors outside of UM-
Dearborn. Women reported having more mentors than men, on average.


                                          Number of Mentors
                                               Female                           Male
In department                                     2.06                          1.64
On campus, outside of                              .88                          .35
department
Off campus                                        2.44                          1.50


   Thirty-three percent reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the mentoring
they had received at UM-Dearborn. Thirty- four percent reported being neutral and
thirty percent reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The relative large share
of respondents who did not report satisfaction with the mentoring received (34% +
30% = 64%) suggests that UM-Dearborn has room to improve faculty mentoring.


                       Satisfaction with Mentoring Received at UM-D

                            40
                                                         34.4
                            35
                            30
                            25                                    21.9
          Percent




                            20             16.7
                                  13.5
                            15                                           11.5
                            10
                             5                                                    2.1
                             0
                                                         l




                                                                              d
                                                                             d
                                           d


                                           d




                                                                            se
                                                     tra




                                                                          fie
                                                                         fie
                                       fie


                                       fie




                                                                       on
                                                  eu




                                                                      tis
                                                                     tis
                                   tis


                                   tis




                                                                    sp
                                               N




                                                                   Sa
                                                                   Sa
                                sa


                                sa




                                                                 Re
                             is


                             is




                                                                ry
                       D


                           D




                                                               o
                                                             Ve
                      ry




                                                             N
                    Ve
                                                                                            8


   By unit, the School of Education -- the only unit with an active mentoring policy--
exhibits the highest rate of mentoring satisfaction (62%). CASL follows with 35%
reporting satisfaction, then the School of Management (33%) and the College of
Engineering and Computer Science (16%). The smallest ―neutral‖ response comes
from School of Education faculty (7.7%); most of their faculty members are satisfied
or very satisfied (61.6%), but a noticeable share (30.8%) report dissatisfaction. The
College of Engineering and Computer Sciences has the highest share of ―neutral‖
responses (42.1%). Among the non-neutral Engineering faculty, a larger share lies in
the dissatisfied end (42.1%) than in the satisfied end of the spectrum (15.8%).




                          Mentoring Satisfaction by Unit
                 50
                 40
       Percent




                 30
                 20
                                                                                            CASL
                 10
                                                                                            CECS
                  0
                                                                                            SOE
                         Very        Dissatisfied   Neutral   Satisfied   Very Satisfied
                      Dissatisfied                                                          SOM




   The plurality of CASL faculty is neutral with respect to mentoring satisfaction:
38.5% are neutral; 26.9% report dissatisfaction; and 34.6% report satisfaction. The
level of mentoring satisfaction among School of Management faculty is equally
distributed among the very dissatisfied, the neutral, and the satisfied or very satisfied
(33.3% each).
   Examining mentoring satisfaction by gender indicates that male faculty members
are more likely to report a neutral attitude, while women were more likely to report
both dissatisfaction and satisfaction.
                                                                                               9



                                 Mentoring Satisfaction by Gender

                   50
                   40
         Percent
                   30                                                                        Female
                   20                                                                        Male
                   10
                    0
                           Very        Dissatisfied   Neutral   Satisfied   Very Satisfied
                        dissatisfied




   What characterizes the faculty who report some level of dissatisfaction with the
mentoring they’ve received on the UM-Dearborn campus? Fifty- five percent of the
dissatisfied are male, while 44.8% are female. Females are somewhat over-
represented among the dissatisfied as they make up 38.5% of the entire sample.
Untenured faculty members are also over-represented, making up 44.8% of the
dissatisfied compared to 33.3% of the sample. CECS faculty make up 19.8% of the
sample, but 27.6% of those dissatisfied with they have received. Representation of
School of Management and School of Education faculty among the dissatisfied is
roughly proportional to their share of the sample, while CASL faculty members are
somewhat under-represented.


                    Characteristics of those Dissatisfied with Mentoring vs. Sample
                                       Dissatisfied                  Sample
Male                                   55.2%                         59.4%
Female                                 44.8%                         38.5%
Not Tenured                            44.8%                         33.3%
Tenured                                55.2%                         65.6%
CASL                                   48.3%                         55.2%
CECS                                   27.6%                         19.8%
SOE                                    13.8%                         13.5%
SOM                                    10.3%                         9.4%
                                                                                              10



Preferences Regarding Possible Mentoring Program


             The majority of respondents expressed interest in participating if their department
had a formal mentoring program (85%). Only 9% weren’t interested in participation and
4% didn’t answer this question.



                  Interested in Participating if Dept had Formal Mentoring
                                          Program?

             60         53.1
             50
             40                            33.3
   Percent




             30

             20
                                                               9.4
             10                                                                   4.2
              0
                  Tenured willing      Untenured        Not interested in    No Response
                  to be a mentor      willing to be a    participating
                                          mentee



                    The majority of tenured respondents in each unit are interested in
             participating in a formal mentoring program, with the exception of the School of
             Education (41.4%). Nearly 37% of untenured CASL faculty would be interested,
             with 33.3% each in the Schools of Education and Management, and 27.8% in the
             College of Engineering and Computer Science. The highest report of ―no interest
             in participation‖ comes from the School of Education (25%), followed by the
             College of Engineering and Computer Science and the School of Management
             (11.1%), and lastly CASL (5.8%).
                                                                                         11



                                  Interested in Participating in a Formal
                                           Mentoring Program?

           Percent in Unit   80
                             60                                         Tenured Yes
                             40                                         Untenured Yes
                             20                                         No

                              0
                                     CASL     CECS     SOE    SOM



       If their department had a formal mentoring program, the majority of respondents
preferred that mentees be free to choose their mentors based on information available
about senior faculty who were willing to participate in the program (64%). Some
respondents to this question reiterated their opposition to the idea of a formal mentoring
program, some emphasized that only junior faculty who wanted a mentor be involved,
and one suggested a formal assignment of a mentor for the first semester, later junior
faculty would have enough information upon which to base a good choice of mentors.



                                    Preferred Process of Matching Mentors and
                                                    Mentees

                             70                      63.5
                             60
                             50
           Percent




                             40
                             30
                             20        15.6                     14.6
                             10                                                 6.3
                             0
                                      Mentor      Mentee       Other     No Response
                                    assigned to   selects
                                      mentee      mentor
                                                                                                     12



        If mentors were to be assigned, 37% of respondents preferred that the department
chair make the assignment. Thirty percent preferred that the Promotion and Tenure
committee make the assignment and only 4% preferred the unit’s Dean make the
assignment. Several of the respondents who chose ―Other‖ again stated their belief that
assigning mentors is a bad approach and that mentees should be allowed to choose their
own mentors.

        Respondents generally agreed that mentors are best drawn from the mentee’s
discipline (47%) or department (41%). Forty-one percent expressed a preference for the
traditional model of one-to-one mentoring. Nearly 23% preferred a model in which each
mentee has a mentor from their department and one outside their department. About 15%
preferred a small group mentoring model (two mentors and two mentees in a group).
Note that this survey was conducted before Dr. Cox’s presentation on mentoring, which
may have increased faculty interest in group mentoring. 1


        Forty-nine percent of respondents reported that they thought mentors and mentees
should meet once a month, 16% favored meeting once a semester, and 25% preferred the
―Other‖ option. Many of those choosing ―Other‖ indicated that they thought the mentors
and mentees should be able to determine how often they should meet based on the
mentees needs. The majority thought mentoring relationship should be continued for the
duration of the probationary period, i.e. until the mentee has achieved tenure. Some
respondents felt this choice should be left to the discretion of the mentoring participants.

        The most frequently cited activity/topic for mentors and mentees is discussion of
promotion and tenure issues. Other popular activities and topics include discussion of
research and publication issues, sharing and discussing syllabi, and discussion of
institutional issues.



1
 On October 17, 2003 Dr. Co x, a mentoring consultant from Miami Un iversity in Ohio, p resented a
workshop on mentoring. His rev iew of the literature on one-to-one mentoring indicated very mixed
assessments of this model. He reported that many in the area of faculty development found group
mentoring to be a successful strategy.
                                                                                         13



                              Activities for Mentors & Mentees

         Discuss balancing work & family                    38.5
                  Discuss service issues                                62.5
             Attend conferences together          17.7
    Discuss research & publication issues                                       79.2
                     Discuss P&T issues                                           82.3
              Discuss institutional issues                                     76
   Share & discuss homework, exams, etc                                 63.5
                  Share & discuss syllabi                                      77.1
         Share & discuss tape of teaching                31.3
              Attend each other's classes                               61.5
                    Lunch/dinner meeting                                       76

                                             0   20       40       60          80        100
                                                            Percent



        Suggestions for others topics for mentors and mentees include: climate issues;
commenting on draft papers; and ―what really counts rather than the rhetoric.‖ Responses
to this question were fairly similar by gender.
        Respondents were generally confident that a mentoring program could foster
greater collegiality and a greater sense of community on our campus, with 78% reporting
some or high confidence.
                                                                                                        14



                            Foster Greater Sense of Community

                   60                                                 53.1
                   50
   Percent


                   40
                   30                                                                   25
                   20                                   9.4
                             6.3          5.2
                   10                                                                               1
                    0
                        ce




                                                       l
                                          e




                                                                                                e
                                                                                   ce
                                                                 ce
                                                    ra
                                       nc




                                                                                             ns
                       en




                                                               en



                                                                              en
                                                   t
                                                eu
                                      e




                                                                                           po
                    fid



                                   id




                                                              fid



                                                                             fid
                                                N




                                                                                         es
                                   f
                   on



                                on




                                                                           on
                                                           on




                                                                                        R
                  C



                             C




                                                        C



                                                                       C


                                                                                    o
              w



                            h




                                                                                   N
                                                       e



                                                                       h
                        uc




                                                    m



                                                                    ig
             Lo




                                                                H
                                                So
                       M
                    ot
                   N




             The majority (87%) expressed some or high confidence that a mentoring program
could help junior faculty become more comfortable with and knowledgeable about the
institution more quickly. Eighty percent reported some or high confidence that a
mentoring program could help junior faculty become more integrated into the campus
community more quickly and completely. Most (86%) also had some or high confidence
that a mentoring program could help junior faculty better understand the promotion and
tenure process. Sixty-nine percent had some or high confidence that a mentoring
program could help junior faculty enhance their teaching skills, and 68% expressed
similar confidence regarding helping junior faculty develop good research habits.


             Seventy-eight percent has some or high confidence a mentoring pro gram could
enhance junior faculty’s promotion and tenure prospects and 47% thought a mentoring
program could enhance associates’ chances of promotion. There seems to be less
confidence that a mentoring program could invigorate senior faculty’s teaching and /or
research, with 42% reporting some or high confidence.

             When asked what strategies and actions the respondent would recommend UM-
Dearborn undertake in order to encourage and improve faculty mentoring, only 20%
                                                                                          15


indicated they thought no action was needed . One quarter of respondents did not answer
this question. The majority (55%) indicated that the campus should take some action and
made suggestions. Some respondents recommended some type of formal mentoring,
while others stressed that informal mentoring worked best. Those favoring a formal
system expressed a desire to make sure no one was left out and that senior faculty
members receive some credit or reward for their contributions. Some respondents
suggested that the mentoring issue be put on the agenda of department and discipline
meetings. Several emphasized that mentoring works best among those interested in
participating. They thought making mentoring mandatory for either junior or senior
faculty would likely be unsuccessful and could be potentially harmful to mentees. A few
respondents suggested that more attention and support be offered to associates working
toward promotion to full professor. Appendix B presents all suggestions and comments.



                                  Recommendations

        Based on the information we have collected, the Task Force on Faculty Mentoring
offers the following recommendations:

     1.    Each unit should develop a mentoring program to encourage and facilitate
           faculty development that meets the following guidelines.

           a. Participation is voluntary.

           b. Mentees choose their mentor or mentors

           c. Mentees are given the option of joining a mentoring group.

           d. Unit should consider methods for including participation in a mentoring
              relationship in merit raise and promotion reviews.

           e. Unit should review their mentoring program periodically to see if
              participants are satisfied with the current strategy and to solicit suggested
              improvements.


   2. The Office of the Provost should develop and maintain a faculty development
      website, part of which focuses on mentoring. The website would contain
      information and links to apprise faculty of the available career development and
                                                                                    16


   mentoring resources and opportunities. Appendix C lists some sample websites
   and a proposed mentoring web site outline.

3. The Office of the Provost should offer at least one faculty development workshop
   per year on a topic relevant to faculty in all units.

4. Deans should offer at least one faculty development workshop per year on a topic
   relevant to their particular faculty.

5. The University should send representatives to faculty development conferences,
   such as those sponsored by the POD Network (Professional and Organizational
   Development Network in Higher Learning) and the annual Lilly Conference on
   College Teaching.

6. The University should initiate and support some Faculty Learning Communities
   in order to encourage interdisciplinary networking.
                                                                                       17


                             Appendix A: Survey Instrume nt



   Mentoring Survey for Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty at the University of
                             Michigan-Dearborn.


The University of Michigan-Dearborn is considering a program to enhance faculty
mentoring with the goal of helping faculty achieve promotion and tenure. Consequently,
the Faculty Senate is reviewing and assessing the current state of faculty mentoring.
Faculty mentoring involves relationships in which a more experienced senior faculty
member shares advice, offers guidance and support, and/or serves as a role model for a
junior faculty member. Our ultimate goal is to develop resources and programs to
facilitate and enhance faculty mentoring. Please help us in this effort by responding to
the attached survey. Your responses will remain anonymous. Thank you for your
assistance!


I. In this section we seek to learn a little about you and your expe riences with
mentoring on the UM-D campus.


1. Current Status: Tenured __________ Not Tenured_____________


2. Gender Female________ Male_________


3. In which UM-D college is your appointment?

   ______ CASL
   ______ College of Engineering and Computer Science
   ______ School of Education
   ______ School of Management


4. Which of the following best describes the bulk of your experiences with mentoring at
   UM-Dearborn?

   _____I am a tenured faculty who has mentored junior colleagues.
   _____I am a tenured faculty who has not mentored junior colleagues.
   _____I am a junior faculty who has been mentored by one or more senior
             colleagues.
   _____I am a junior faculty who has not been mentored by one or more senior
            colleagues.
                                                                                          18


5. How would you rate the general level of professional support you receive from your
   departmental colleagues?

   ___________5 = very supportive
   ___________4 = supportive
   ___________3 = neither supportive nor unsupportive
   ___________2 = unsupportive
   ___________1 = very unsupportive


6. What is the primary means of communicating basic information about the functioning
   of your discipline (e.g., course scheduling, new course proposals) to junior faculty?

   _____      Formal process (e.g., regular discipline meetings)

   _____      Informal process (e.g., occasional conversations with colleagues, e- mail
              announcements)

   _____      Mix of formal and informal processes

   _____      Other, please explain:


7. How satisfied are you with the process of communicating basic information about the
   functioning of your discipline to junior faculty?

   _________5 = Very satisfied
   _________4 = Satisfied
   _________3 = Neutral
   _________2 = Dissatisfied
   _________1 = Very Dissatisfied


8. How satisfied are you with the clarity with which your department’s expectations for
   promotion and tenure are communicated to faculty members?

   _________5 = Very satisfied
   _________4 = Satisfied
   _________3 = Neutral
   _________2 = Dissatisfied
   _________1 = Very Dissatisfied
                                                                                          19


9. How satisfied are you with the clarity with which your department apprises you of
   your professional progress?

   _________5 = Very satisfied
   _________4 = Satisfied
   _________3 = Neutral
   _________2 = Dissatisfied
   _________1 = Very Dissatisfied

10. As far as you know, does your department have a formal mentoring program?

   Yes _________ No __________


11. Does your department sponsor occasional mentoring activities (e.g., workshop on
    preparing one’s tenure portfolios)?

   Yes__________ No__________


12. How many colleagues in your department do you personally consider as mentors?


13. How frequently do you discuss professional issues (teaching, research, and service)
    with the departmental colleagues you consider as mentors?

   Weekly __________
   Monthly __________
   Each semester________
   Annually      __________
   Other, please explain:

14. How many colleagues on this campus outside of your department do you consider as
    mentors?


15. How many people not associated with this campus do you consider as mentors?

16. How satisfied are you with the mentoring you have received at UM-D?

   _________5 = Very satisfied
   _________4 = Satisfied
   _________3 = Neutral
   _________2 = Dissatisfied
   _________1 = Very Dissatisfied
                                                                                       20



II. In this section we ask about your thoughts and preferences regarding mentoring
and possible mentoring practices.

17. If your department had a formal mentoring program would you be interested in
    participating?

   Yes, I’m a tenured faculty member and would be willing to participate
   as a mentor. _______

   Yes, I’m an untenured faculty member and would be willing to participate as a
   mentee. ____________

    No, I’m not interested in participating __________

18. If your department were to have a formal mentoring program, which process would
    you prefer for matching mentees to mentors?

   ______     An experienced faculty mentor is assigned to the mentee by some person
              or process.

   _______    The mentee selects a mentor based on some information distributed about
              senior faculty who have volunteered to be mentors.

  ________    Some other process, please describe:


19. If a mentor were to be assigned to each mentee, who would you prefer make the
    assignment?

   _______    Dean
   _______    Department Chair
   _______    Department P&T Committee
   _______    Other, please explain:



20. In my opinion, mentors are best draw from which level of the academic hierarchy?

   _______ The mentee’s discipline
   _______ The mentee’s department, but not necessarily in his/her discipline.
   _______ Outside the mentee’s department, but in his/her college
   _______ Outside the mentee’s college
   _______ Other, please explain:
                                                                                           21


21. Which of the following models of mentoring do you think is best?

   ________ One-to-one (mentor-mentee pairs)

   ________ Two mentors for each mentee, one in the mentee’s department and one
            outside the mentee’s department.

   ________ Small group mentoring which combines 2 junior and 2 senior faculty
            members.

   ________ Other, please explain.


22. How often do you think mentors and mentees should meet?

   _____ Once every 2 weeks
   _____ Once a month
   _____ Once a semester
   _____ Other, please explain:

23. How long do you think the mentoring relationship should be continued formally?

   ______ One academic year
   ______ Two academic years
   ______ The duration of the probationary period
   ______ Other, please specify


24. Indicate all of the activities and topics in which you would like to see mentors and
    mentee’s engage:

   ___General lunch/dinner meeting.
   ___Attending each other’s classes at least once.
   ___Sharing and discussing videotape of their teaching.
   ___Sharing and discussing syllabi.
   ___Sharing and discussing homework assignments, exams, and papers.
   ___Discussion of institutional issues
   ___Discussion of promotion and tenure issues
   ___Discussion of research and publication issues
   ___ Attend conferences together
   ___Discussion of service issues
   ___Discussion of balancing work and family.
   ___ Other, please specify:
                                                                                        22


25. What level of confidence do you have that a mentoring program could achieve the
    following objectives:

   Foster greater collegiality and create a greater sense of community on our campus.

   5 = high confidence        _______
   4 = some confidence        _______
   3 = neutral                _______
   2 = not much confidence    _______
   1 = low confidence         _______

   Help junior faculty become comfortable with and knowledgeable about the institution
   more quickly.

   5 = high confidence        _______
   4 = some confidence        _______
   3 = neutral                _______
   2 = not much confidence    _______
   1 = low confidence         _______

   Help junior faculty become integrated into the campus community more quickly and
   completely.

   5 = high confidence        _______
   4 = some confidence        _______
   3 = neutral                _______
   2 = not much confidence    _______
   1 = low confidence         _______


   Help junior faculty better understand the promotion and tenure system.

   5 = high confidence        _______
   4 = some confidence        _______
   3 = neutral                _______
   2 = not much confidence    _______
   1 = low confidence         _______

   Help junior faculty enhance their teaching skills.

   5 = high confidence        ______
   4 = some confidence        ______
   3 = neutral                ______
   2 = not much confidence    ______
   1 = low confidence         ______
                                                                                      23



   Help junior faculty develop good research habits.

   5 = high confidence        ______
   4 = some confidence        ______
   3 = neutral                ______
   2 = not much confidence    ______
   1 = low confidence         ______


   Enhance junior faculty’s prospects for achieving promotion and tenure.

   5 = high confidence        ______
   4 = some confidence        ______
   3 = neutral                ______
   2 = not much confidence    ______
   1 = low confidence         ______


   Enhance associate professor’s prospects for achieving promotion.

   5 = high confidence        ______
   4 = some confidence        ______
   3 = neutral                ______
   2 = not much confidence    ______
   1 = low confidence         ______


   Invigorate the teaching and/or research activities of senior faculty.

   5 = high confidence        ______
   4 = some confidence        ______
   3 = neutral                ______
   2 = not much confidence    ______
   1 = low confidence         ______


26. At which universities and colleges are you aware of mentoring programs that are
    generally considered successful?
                                                                                  24


27. What strategies and actions would your recommend UM-D undertake in order to
    encourage and improve faculty mentoring on the UM-D campus?

   No actions need to be taken _________

   Suggested actions/ recommendations:




 Thank you for your participation. The results of the survey will be made public to
                                  the University
                                                                                         25


                                        Appendix B

 Question 27: What strategies and actions would you recommend UM -D undertake
   in orde r to encourage and improve faculty mentoring on the UM-D campus?


We should have a formal mentoring system. The mentors should receive some credit for
mentoring junior faculty.

Formal mentoring program.

Make this a formal process with assignments supervised so no one is left out
immediately.

Give pairs some suggestions on what to do and how to go about it. I’m really keen on
Robert Boice’s book ―Advice for New Faculty Members,‖ which discusses mentoring in
some detail.

If an annual review letter contains negative comments in one of the three areas of
research, teaching, or service a mentor should be appointed to help the faculty member
address the issues.

Encourage some type of mentoring group within each department—not necessarily a one-
to-one thing, but smaller groups 2-4 perhaps of mixed junior and senior faculty within a
department.

Solicit junior faculty opinions on the mentoring process. Have a Champion (such as the
Provost) for this program so that it has some Institutional backing. Benchmark other
institutions to learn how mentoring has worked/not worked.

Have each of the four units develop a mentoring program that fits their specific needs and
faculty.

Make it an item on a discipline and departmental faculty meeting.

Institute a formal mentoring program.

Some support for taking out mentees; some visible emotional support so it is recognized
as campus service of importance and some top down encouragement so that leadership is
visible.

Make it mandatory for senior faculty to mentor. Pay increase, monetary rewards.

Mentoring workshops with speakers who are well informed or have implemented a
mentoring program.
                                                                                              26


Question 27: What strategies and actions would you recommend UM -D undertake
in orde r to encourage and improve faculty mentoring on the UM -D campus?

The promotion from associate to full needs more clarification and mentoring support.

Make certain each new faculty member is assigned a mentor early on. There should be a
great deal of follow-up each semester.

Re-evaluate the process.

Encourage the department chairs to be more actively involved in the process.

I am in favor of the scholar/teacher model.

I like the mentoring process here at the School of Education. I’m unaware of what it’s
like elsewhere. But talking across colleges/schools/disciplines about what works best
would seem to be a good start.

Clear rewards for participating (recognition as service). Grants for producing scholarship
about the process or creating workshops/presentations, etc. Good spaces on campus for
informal, pleasant meetings. Some training or handbook for mentors.

Research, teaching, and balance need to be addressed in more formal relationships
between junior and senior faculty, consistent across departments and disciplines.

Raise awareness of the issue. Have department chairs and executive committees address
the issue and come up with department specific plans.

Regular meetings between mentor/mentee in each semester.

Get people who are generally interested involved. Often people who are not really
interested end up getting involved and they end up doing more harm than good.

Begin at the discipline level.

CASL has a mentoring system in place. I don’t think that it is used much or encouraged
by CASL administration. We could revive the existing system and see if it makes any
difference in CASL rather than inventing a new system.

I think pairing based on similarity of research and/or teaching topics is a better strategy
than department/discipline pairing. We should look broadly rather than narrowly for
mentor/mentee pairs.

Have Faculty Senate and Provost working through Council of Deans urge unit executive
committees to mandate mentoring for all unit departments.
                                                                                            27


Question 27: What strategies and actions would you recommend UM -D undertake
in orde r to encourage and improve faculty mentoring on the UM-D campus?

Perhaps it would be good to provide senior faculty with a ―credit-hour‖ bonus incentive
(cumulative) to ensure more participation in the program.

Make it mandatory.

Require each department/unit to develop a formal mentoring process accord ing to its own
culture and values. Regular assessment of satisfaction of each program by Provost’s
Office or Senate.

Give recognition to those who serve as mentors.

Find out what is done on other campuses such as ours. Adopt a relaxed version
(synthesizing what is found elsewhere). Implement a trial basis for 2-3 years, evaluate, go
to 1st step, rinse and repeat.

Take the mentoring in the consideration of service evaluation. Arrange relative seminars.
Match mentors and mentees very carefully.

Institute a program – build in rewards.

Regular meetings, informal and formal, of all junior faculty to discuss issues related to
promotion and tenure.

Assign 2 mentors, one in department and one outside, as described in this survey.

It has to be on a school, department, and discipline levels.

To establish formal mentoring relations would be simply to force a situation that must
instead arise naturally out of the faculty. Our entire culture needs to be changed.

This would have to be achieved at the departmental and unit level. I have little faith in
our department being able to achieve these goals in the foreseeable future.

Create an official mentoring program.

Institute a formal mentoring process staffed by voluntary senior faculty.

An overall renovation of the mentoring program is urgent.

Consider various successful models of mentoring and institute amore formal process of
mentoring where mentees are allowed some flexibility and choice.
                                                                                            28


Question 27: What strategies and actions would you recommend UM -D undertake
in orde r to encourage and improve faculty mentoring on the UM -D campus?

Programs should be designed to suit units, but there should be monitoring of success rate.
I would define success as a decrease in the number of failed promotions.

The School of Education has had a mentoring program for the past several years. I feel
the program works well as mentees choose their mentors. Our success rate for promotion
and tenure from the assistant to the associate level for those who remain in our SOE is
high.

Institute a mentoring program and strongly encourage participation of senior and junior
faculty.

Make it an important part of the review process. Make senior faculty more responsible
for the quality of our institution via faculty mentoring.

Provide faculty development on the mentoring process for those faculty who are
interested. Recognize mentoring as a valued form of service and encourage junior and
senior faculty to reach across disciplines – one may find a great mentor in another
discipline. Focus on the process as a mutually beneficial endeavor and encourage junior
faculty to seek out senior faculty who demonstrate skills, attitudes, or abilities they desire
to emulate.

It has been my experience that the success of a mentoring relationship is ver y dependent
on the particular people involved. I have not been shy about asking for help and as such
I’ve received lots of great mentoring from both the faculty member assigned to mentor
me and from others. However, some of my untenured colleagues (under the same
mentoring system as I am) feel they receive almost no mentoring. Mentors really need to
make sure not to wait until they are asked for help in these cases.

Really depends on interpersonal factors. Some mentor/mentee relationships will click and
will be quite effective no matter what strategy is used. For some people a mandatory
mentoring program might be a nightmare – what if you are expected to engage in
activities with someone who is unhelpful (or worse offers damaging advice)?

The key thing left out here is that some people may want or even need mentoring. But
some don’t. It should not be required! I have no objection to it being offered but people
must have the right to ignore it. I am much less confident of the value of any sort of
mentoring for tenured faculty. Mentoring can be very helpful for some people. But it can
also be very dangerous. I know senior colleagues who have very different views of the
―P&T system‖ (such as it is) than I do, some of which I think clearly are wrong; some
mentoring could do serious damage. Remember that new junior faculty are at the least in
their early to mid- 30s. They have been around the track already. There is something to
be said for letting people figure the system out by themselves. I know junior faculty
colleagues who I think are on the wrong track who have been told so in clear terms
                                                                                         29


several times but who persist. Mentoring will not help here and may make things worse.
Adults have the right to make their own decisions.

I am completely against a formal mentoring system and I would have been against it
when I was not tenured. I benefited from informal discussions with senior faculty when
untenured and now try to be receptive to answering questions asked by junior faculty.
That should be good enough. A formal system will destroy honest mentoring that senior
faculty can now give. Formalized mentoring will essentially place all conversations ―on
the record‖ and so will tend to stifle most candid remarks. I suspect a formal system will
generate documents with names like ―Guidelines of Mentors‖ and other nonsense. Also,
with a formal system in place we’re sure to see complaints of poor mentoring by faculty
denied tenure, such as ―the chair assigned me a poor mentor.‖ This is an absurd idea.
We’re talking about highly educated and intelligent people. If they want advice they can
figure out who to ask for it.

For new appointees assign someone in their unit to show them around campus and
introduce them. The person may or may not end up being a mentor. The point is to make
sure new people have some help getting acquainted with campus.

I am now a faculty member in ______________ at UMD. People in this department are
simply wonderful and I am so glad to be here. They are helping me in every possible way
to get me acquainted with the place, college, teaching and tenure process. I really love the
current setting and if you decide to formulate a formal mentoring program I would
sincerely hope that it will not take away anything that I already enjoy and benefit fro m
the informal mentoring in my department.

Have each department institute a formal mentoring program to guide junior faculty to
achieve their full potential. Associate professors do not need mentoring. By achieving
that status, associate professors are expected to be meritorious in teaching and
scholarship.

I would love to see the level of support given to Assistant Professors be given to
Associate Professors. (I had no mentors before I was tenured and I see no hope for being
promoted to Full Professor while I am covering service and teaching load of junior
faculty members – plus mentoring.)

Integrity of leadership is crucial. If a dean is unethical, attempting to tightly control
information and resources by whatever means possible for his own benefit, then
obviously the climate this creates fosters many negatives. Mentoring, along with other
aspects of a vibrant academic culture, does not flourish in such an environment. Of
course, a pay structure with the mentees receiving substantially more than the mentor
doesn’t help. UMD administration appears to have no desire to seriously address the pay
issue.
                                                                                     30



Question 27: What strategies and actions would you recommend UM -D undertake
in orde r to encourage and improve faculty mentoring on the UM -D campus?



Discuss input from faculty in departmental forums. Provide anecdotes and suggestions of
good mentoring techniques. Address ways to help associates progress to full professors.
DON’T standardize and mechanize this collegial process!! The power of mentoring is
embedded in the human qualities that come from doing it different ways for different
purposes (e.g., tenure and promotion, departmental politics, teaching issues, etc.).
Identify a few good mentors who can do a Provost’s Roundtable or short workshop.
                                                                           31


                        Appendix C: Sample Mentoring Websites



Stanford School of Medicine:

       http://www- med.stanford.edu/school/facultymentoring/


University of California – San Diego:

       http://academicaffairs.ucsd.edu/faculty/programs/fmp/default.htm


University of British Columbia:

       http://www.cstudies.ubc.ca/facdev/services/faculty/mentoring.html


Northern Illinois University:

       http://www3.niu.edu/facdev/development/mentoring.htm


University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh:

       http://www.uwosh.edu/mentoring/

Washington State University:

       http://provost.wsu.edu/faculty_mentoring/

Emory University:

       http://www.emory.edu/PROVOST/passages/passages_pg2.htm


University of Michigan:

       http://www.umich.edu/~provost/mentoring/index.html

								
To top