首页> 外文会议>American Society For Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition >EFFECTIVE FACULTY MENTORING FOR DIVERSITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PARADIGMS
【24h】

EFFECTIVE FACULTY MENTORING FOR DIVERSITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF MENTORING PARADIGMS

机译:多样性的有效教师:对指导范式的评估

获取原文

摘要

One of the difficulties facing smaller institutions is the limited number of faculty from which mentoring partnerships can be formed. This is problematic when changing institutional priorities can cause a generational difference in the faculty expectations of junior and senior faculty with respect to research production; this change in institutional priority is occurring at many predominantly undergraduate institutions (Kramer 2005). It becomes even more problematic when the issue of diversity is brought into play. Numerous paradigms for faculty mentoring exist; the question becomes, which mentoring models or combination of models are most effective in institutions with small numbers and changing expectations for faculty performance? In particular, what models prove effective for underrepresented faculty? A plethora of articles exist on mentoring and its importance in faculty development (Smith et al 2000). Faculty mentoring is predominantly based on a male model which fosters a challenging, competitive environment and stresses independence (Seymour and Hewitt 1997). However, women prefer inclusive, cooperative environments that provide a sense of belonging (Gilligan 1982). Chesler and Chesler (2002) discuss innovative mentoring strategies related to gender, including the "distributed mentorship." This approach breaks the traditional one-on-one, senior faculty as mentor model and includes alternative methods such as peer mentoring and electronic methods for distance mentoring. This model may be particularly well suited to an institution lacking critical mass of women faculty and/or geographically isolated from other institutions. While gender may be one criterion in choosing a mentor, it cannot be the only criterion, nor does it guarantee a successful mentoring relationship (Chessler and Chessler 2002, Smith et al 2000). At institutions where there are less than ten women faculty members in the science or engineering programs, gender-specific mentoring or networking programs are not likely to be to be practical. This is generally due to the lower number of senior female faculty when compared to junior faculty in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields (NSF 2007) as well as the fact that women faculty allocate a higher percentage of their time to teaching and service than their male counterparts (Bellas and Toutkoushian 1999). This paper will discuss the preliminary findings of a meta-analysis of a number of faculty mentoring programs at both large, research intensive institutions and predominantly undergraduate institutions to consider the question, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of different faculty mentoring paradigms, particularly with respect to diversity?"
机译:较小的机构面临的困难之一是可以形成指导伙伴关系的有限资料。当变化的制度优先事项可能导致初级和高级教师的教师差异涉及研究生产时,这是有问题的;这种体制优先事项的变化在许多主要的本科机构中发生(Kramer 2005)。当流行的多样性发挥作用时,它变得更加有问题。存在大量指导的范式;问题变成了,哪种辅导模型或模型组合在具有较小数量和对教师性能的期望不断变化的机构中最有效的?特别是,模特证明对不足的教师有效?在教师发展中的指导和重要性中存在过多的文章(Smith等人2000)。教师指导主要基于一个男性模型,促进了挑战性,竞争环境和强调独立(Seymour和Hewitt 1997)。然而,女性更喜欢提供归属感的包容性,合作环境(Gilligan 1982)。 Chesler和Chesler(2002)讨论与性别有关的创新辅导策略,包括“分布式指导”。这种方法突破了传统的一对一,高级教师作为导师模型,包括替代方法,如对距离指导的同伴指导和电子方法。该模型可能特别适合缺乏缺乏妇女教师和/或地理上与其他机构的地理位置的机构的机构。虽然性别可能是选择导师的一个标准,但它不能成为唯一的标准,也不能保证成功的指导关系(Chessler和Chessler 2002,Smith等人2000)。在科学或工程方案中有不到十名女性教师的机构,性别特定的指导或网络计划不太可能是实际的。这通常是由于科学,技术,工程和数学(Stem)领域(NSF 2007)的初级教师(NSF 2007)相比,高级女性教师数量较少,以及女性教师分配更高比例的教学百分比和服务比他们的男性同行(Bellas和Toutkoushian 1999)。本文将讨论大型,研究密集型机构的许多教师指导计划的META分析的初步调查结果,主要是本科院校来考虑问题,“不同的教师指导范式的优势和弱点是什么?尊重多样性?“

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号