01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
The Power of Students on Practice Placements: Discursively Uncovering Power Dynamics in Mentoring Dyads
Hannelore van der Kloot1, Erik Driessen2, Eline Vanassche1
1KU Leuven, Kulak, Belgium; 2Maastricht University, the Netherlands
Presenting Author: van der Kloot, Hannelore
Mentoring practice is a widely established practice in preparing students for professional practice in various professions (Peiser et al., 2018). This is translated into extended placements in the field setting with formal mentorship opportunities; providing the integration of theory and practice (Orland-Barak, 2010). Mentoring practice typically has set roles: the mentor as the experienced expert whose role is to support the student’s development, and the student as inexperienced professional who needs to build her/his professional and personal skills (Kram, 1985). Mentoring practice is therefore inherently hierarchical, with the mentor as powerful and the student as less powerful.
In uncertain times with changing roles, the roles of mentor and student, respectively, are also at a tipping point. It is true that the mentor exercises power, but, what is often overlooked is that the student also can exercise power: that in and by his/her speaking and acting s/he also directs the conversation and thereby influences the learning. In line with recent work (e.g., Ben-Harush & Orland-Barak, 2018; Mullen & Klimaitis, 2021) that urges to redefine mentoring, focusing on a more dynamic relationship and bidirectional learning; the purpose of this study is to uncover if and how students can (also) be powerful in mentoring practices and influence the focus of their learning.
To explore this, power was discursively conceptualized. This means that power is viewed as the effect of how actors interact with each other (Martín Rojo, 2001). Actors do power, resulting in a continuous flux of power in interactions (Hayward, 1998). Power is thus not conceptualized as something that an individual possesses (or lacks), but rather as something that is performed relationally. It is about 'power to' rather than 'power over' someone (Hayward, 1998).
Such a discursive approach to power is operationalized further using a combination of positioning theory (PT) (van Langenhove & Harré, 1999) and frame analysis (FA) (Dumay, 2014). Central to PT is the idea that actors continuously position themselves and others in interaction (van Langenhove & Harré, 1999). ‘Positioning’ entails a continuous dynamic, relational process wherein the actors assign specific rights and duties to themselves and others (van Langenhove & Harré, 1999). These positionings are then interpreted from the frame on which they are looking at the placement. Frames are defined as cognitive structures that actors bring to a situation but always evolve and develop in interaction with others (Dumay, 2014). Actors’ frames are linked to their prior experiences, informed by their beliefs and expectations for (mentoring) practice, and help them to explain and make sense of the situation they find themselves in. FA provides the tools to see how frames over time emerge, gain meaning, adapt, merge or clash. As such, the combination of PT and FA results in a better understanding of the flow of power dynamics.
This resulted in following research question: (How) Do students exercise power based on the confluence of positionings and frames, and how does this influence the focus of their learning?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedEmpirically, the study draws on extensive observation of two mentoring dyads (mentor-student) in medical education during their six-week placement period. These students were in their third and final year of their master’s prgramme in medical education, doing their final elective placement in general practice before specializing. The context of mentoring in medical education in many ways mirrors the ‘standard’ practice emerging from the literature: an experienced professional with several years of experience as a doctor, supervising a junior colleague on placement.
Central to the research design were weekly non-participant observations of workplace practice (Jerolmack & Khan, 2014). We observed interactions during workplace practice (i.e., a mentor interrupting a mentee or inquiring his/her mentee’s decision-making process while s/he is performing) as well as their interactions away from or about workplace practice (i.e., feedback and evaluation meetings). Repeated observations afforded insight in the development of mentoring relations over time, as well as shifts in the nature and focus of the mentoring activities and conversations (cfr. positionings). The observations were supported through extensive field note writing, used to document (non-)verbal language use and important contextual information (Montgomery & Bailey, 2007). Periodic, focused ethnographic interviews with both mentors and students focused on building a better understanding of their developing expectations and goals for mentoring practice (cfr. frames) and communicatively validating preliminary insights and reflections from the analysis (Reeves et al., 2013). Participants were further invited to make sense of their experiences by asking them to document critical incidents that occurred in the absence of the researcher in an audio diary shared before each interview (see e.g., Wijbenga et al., 2021).
For the analysis, field notes, interviews and audio diaries were first thoroughly read through and memos on initial interpretations and power dynamics (positionings; frames) were written (Miles et al., 2014). A detailed analysis of the positionings (field notes) followed later in the analysis by identifying micro-identities as positionings (Kayı-Aydar, 2019). These specific positionings were then clustered and deepened in dialogue with the larger dataset over time. The interviews were inductively coded to identify expectations and goals of the individual actors, resulting in identified frames. These frames were subsequently re-ordered and interpreted over time. The final step in the analysis specifically related the identified positionings and frames to the focus of learning, starting from the interviews.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn the first dyad, the student was allowed to do consultations largely independently from the beginning, with the mentor insisting on discussing the diagnosis and treatment each time. This allowed the student to practice indepentenly while the mentor maintained control over what happens to “his patients” (frame). However, in order to gain self-confidence, the student experessed the wish to complete consultations completely independent (frame). At some stage in the placement, the student starts enacting this frame by not calling up on the mentor for confirming the diagnosis and treatment. Increasingly, the student positions the mentor as a supporter (or supplement) rather than a supervisor: she decides when to call on the mentor for help. Learning eventually focuses more on personal (self-confidence) rather than academic development (perfecting her content knowledge), consistent with the student's frame.
In the second dyad, the student indicates from the beginning the importance of getting along with the mentor in order to achieve good results (frame), positioning the mentor as a friend. During placement, the student increasingly initates informal conversations, replacing more case-driven or substantive conversations. As a result, feedback and information on the student’s performance diminishes over the course the placement; in line with the student’s framing of the placement as about good grades and enjoyment rather than learning.
These cases show that students can effectively exercise power in the mentoring dyad, directing their learning. This highligths that the interplay between the mentor and student within the specific time-spatial context determines how mentoring practice takes shape and thus what is learned, more than the capacities of the individuals involved. These results imply that, beyond existing research in which power is a fixed characteristic, the roles of mentors and students should be viewed critically and dynamically.
ReferencesBen-Harush, A., & Orland-Barak, L. (2019). Triadic mentoring in early childhood teacher education: The role of relational agency. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 8(3), 182-196. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-10-2018-0055
Dumay, X. (2014). How do teachers coordinate their work? A framing approach. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27, 88-91. http://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.737045
Hayward, C. R. (1998). De-facing power. Polity, 31(1), 1-22.
Jerolmack, C., & Khan, S. (2014). Talk is cheap: Ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(2), 178-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114523396
Kayı-Aydar, H. (2019). Classroom discourse for positioning research. In: Positioning Theory in Applied Linguistics. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97337-1_5
Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Scott Foresman.
Martín Rojo, L. (2001). New developments in discourse analysis: Discourse as social practice. Folia Linguistica, 35(1-2), 41-78. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2001.35.1-2.41
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
Montgomery, P., & Bailey, P. H. (2007). Field notes and theoretical memos in grounded theory. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 29(1), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945906292557
Mullen, C. A., & Klimaitis, C. C. (2021). Defining mentoring: A literature review of issues, types, and applications. New York Academy of Sciences, 1483, 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14176
Orland-Barak, L. (2010). Learning to Mentor-as-Praxis: Toward a conceptual framework. Learning to Mentor-as-Praxis, 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0582-6
Peiser, G., Ambrose, J., Burke, B., & Davenport, J. (2018). The role of the mentor in professional knowledge development across four professions. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 7(1), 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-07-2017-0052
Reeves, S., Peller, J., Goldman, J., & Kitto, S. (2013). Ethnography in qualitative educational research: AMEE Guide No. 80. Medical Teacher, 35(8), e1365-e1379. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.804977
van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 14-31). Blackwell Publishers.
Wijbenga, M. H., Teunissen, P. W., Ramaekers, S. P. J., Driessen, E. W., & Duvivier, R. J. (2021). Initiation of student participation in practice: An audio diary study of international clinical placements. Medical Teacher, 43(10), 1179-1185. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2021.1921133
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Growing Through Mentoring – The Professional Development of Mentors in Sweden
Sally Windsor, Irma Brkovic, Ali Yildirim, Ilona Rinne, Anna Maria Hipkiss
Gothenburg University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Windsor, Sally
The purpose of this research project, a three-year study funded by the Swedish Research Council (2022-2024), is to investigate how the mentoring of student teachers can contribute to the professional development of the mentor teachers themselves. Professional development in this study refers to teachers´ perceived experiences of growth in professional knowledge, skills and dispositions in connection to the mentorship activities they carry out with student teachers.
We conducted a large-scale survey study, through a questionnaire design based on the previous literature on mentoring, explorative interviews with mentors, and the thematic areas proposed in Activity Theory (Engeström, 1999). The participants include a nationwide sample of teachers who mentor student teachers enrolled in teacher education programs at the primary school level (Grades 4-6) in Sweden. Through the analysis of the data, we have built a model that demonstrates how mentoring activities and mentor teachers´ characteristics can be potential predictors of their professional development.
We conducted a number of analyses of the survey data:
- We investigated the individual and contextual factors determining mentor teachers´ self-efficacy (SE) beliefs in their role mentoring role. Self-efficacy as a concept is derived from Social Cognitive Theory and is defined as “beliefs in one´s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997). There is much research on teacher SE, yet SE in mentoring is little researched. High SE is found to be predictive for educators’ increased sense of identity, shared perspectives and job satisfaction (Andreasen et. al., 2019). However, because the determinants that contribute to higher mentoring self-efficacy beliefs remain unclear the data could provide us with some insights specifically about the SE of those who take on the role of mentoring.
- Drawing on concepts from Legitimation Code Theory (LCT- Maton, 2014) which is concerned with how mentor teachers respond to the relations between who one is (being a mentor) and what one knows (having certain knowledge). LCT has provided insights into the dichotomy of tacit and explicit knowledge (or knowledge for-in-on practice).
- We have identified mentors that have received formal training in mentoring and compared different variables to see how and what aspects of training has enhanced mentor perceptions of their own professional development.
- Model development and testing – Our model was built drawing upon aspects of activity theory which enabled us to test our hypotheses in the data. Our model includes: independent variables such as mentoring activities, mentoring resources (i.e., tools such as curriculum documents, observation forms, discussion with university teachers); and, dependent variables such as professional development, school improvement and student development. Correlational and regression analysis were carried out to test the size and significance of the relations among these variables.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe preliminary phase of this study involved two parts: a) an extensive review of the mentoring literature with a focus on the mentoring of pre-service teachers, and b) exploratory interviews with 6 teachers who were either currently mentoring student teachers or have done so within the six months that preceded data collection. The findings from the interview phase, together with a review of the mentoring in education literature, and the thematic areas posited in Activity Theory (Engström, 1999) guided the construction of the (pilot and final) questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to identify the relations between concepts related to the mentoring context, activities, processes, and the possible professional knowledge developed as an outcome. A valid and reliable measurement of the key concepts primarily depends on development of a conceptual framework that has both content and construct validity, and so we used the conceptual elements of Engeström´s (1999) Activity theory, (i.e., tools, rules, contexts/conditions, community and division of labour), to represent the central components of mentoring.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFindings
The presentation will share the overall findings of the project which are related to: mentoring self efficacy, mentor knowledge and attributes, mentor training, professional development, reasons for starting to mentor student teachers, challenges mentors face, and various background factors (eg. gender, school type, location, no of mentees, hours of mentoring)
ReferencesAndreasen, J., Bjørndal, C., & Kovač, V. (2019). Being a teacher and teacher educator: The antecedents of teacher educator identity among mentor teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 281-291.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman, NY.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punämaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lopez‐Real, F., & Kwan, T. (2005). Mentors' perceptions of their own professional development during mentoring, Journal of Education for Teaching, 31(1), 15-24.
Maton, K., (2014). Knowledge and knowers. Towards a realist sociology of education. Routledge.
|
