Cheryl Halliburton-Beatty Long Island University/C. W. Post Impact & Influence of Mentors & Leaders on First Year Doctoral Students Cheryl Halliburton-Beatty Long Island University/C. W. Post

Purpose & Research Questions Purpose of the study: To determine whether having mentors impacted these doctoral students, and, if so, in what way? Research questions: How important was the mentor/protégé relationship in developing doctoral students? How important was mentoring to prepare the students for the doctoral program? Is there a correlation between positive mentoring as an encouragement to pursuing doctoral studies for the first year students? What is the relationship between mentorship and leadership? To what extent, if any, did the mentor/mentee relationship enable and encourage this cohort of students to pursue this Ed.D. Program? Assumed there was an impact by mentors, then developed the research questions

Methodology Used Case Study – allows for in-depth scrutiny of a complex issue Participant Selection – convenience sampling of classmates; also purposive (acknowledged the shared common purposes and experiences of being first year doctoral students). Data Collection – questionnaire distributed to all participants in the class. (See next slide) Reliability and Validity – Strengths: participants are typical & representative Limitations: small sampling; possible bias of researcher because she knows all participants and is immersed in the case Validity: well chosen participants with a shared viewpoint and goal (Creswell, 2007); consistency of findings among participants, and corroborated by observations/discussions in and outside of class.

System of Data Collection First: I went through all questionnaires and found and listed the significant statements and/or sentiments expressed by each participant. I listed these and marked each time the statement or word was repeated by the various participants, making chart of the how many times it was used (e.g., “empathetic”-used by 3 students; “share common goals”-used by 5. Second: I randomly assigned a number to each participant, went through question by question, listing the answers to each by each student. For example, question #1: participant #1 identified being mentored during student teaching; it was a formal relationship and was deemed satisfactory. This process was repeated by each participant for each question and charted. Third: I pulled out and highlighted statements and feelings that seemed significant to the participant’s interpretation of the circumstances. For example, question #2, participant #5 thought he knew he had been well-mentored because he was allowed to “reflect on my own practice.” Finally: I used information from both charts to complete my study.

Findings All of the participants were mentored either formally or informally and most (seven out of nine) had a positive experience. Despite whether it was a positive or negative experience, ALL participants recognized they were impacted by their mentors. The more successful mentoring experiences shared consistent, and often daily, interpersonal contact so that relationships were formed and allowed to grow. The more individual, in-depth, and nurturing the contact between mentor and mentee, the more successful the evaluation and learning experience for the protégé. The most important characteristics of a good mentor are that they should be: Knowledgeable; Supportive; Have high expectations of mentee; Empathetic, selfless, and a good listener; Offering constructive criticism.

Summary, Conclusions & More Questions All participants gained insight into their lives and professions through the experience of mentorship. They were encouraged, supported, and/or emboldened by their mentors, or were inspired despite their inadequate mentoring experience. There is no proven benefit of positive mentoring over negative mentoring; the importance appears to be in the process of mentoring itself. The participants recognized the differences between mentoring and leadership. Mentors – support and guide individuals. Leaders – support, guide, and lead an organization. Leaders direct; mentors guide. Leaders may or may not be good mentors. This study was inconclusive in determining how the mentor/mentee relationship enabled and/or encouraged this group of students to pursue the doctoral program. Further studies are needed to determine the extent and type of mentorship that encourage students to pursue a doctoral program. Further studies are also needed to distinguish between whether mentorship can work for all students, or if there is an innate personality characteristic that makes each of this group of doctoral students a doctoral student.

Literary Review Allen and Eby (2007) defined mentoring as “fulfilling the need to belong”(Allen & Eby, 2007, p. 397). Mentoring develops over time and collaborates toward a common goal. Moir, Barlin, Gless, & Miles (2009) discussed the importance of selecting the right people to be mentors, and of matching mentor/mentees by subject matter whenever possible. Office of Personnel Management (2011) discussed the benefits of mentoring as multifaceted, including recruitment, training, and retention. They also wrote about distinction between formal (structured & set by employer) and informal (less structured and initiated by employee and/or employer) mentoring. Rowe and Guerrero (2011) wrote about leadership as a group function and the distinction between assigned leadership (the “boss”) and emergent leadership (influencer). Each may or may not involve mentoring. Scaffidi and Berman (2011) wrote specifically about doctoral students and the importance of mentoring as a crucial factor in a positive postdoctoral experience. Trubowitz and Robins (2003) described the process of building a successful mentoring relationship through recounting their own relationship building experience. Vasgird and Hyman-Browne (2004) defined a mentor as a committed tutor, counselor, and guide for the mentee. All of the literature I read supported the use of mentoring as integral to any successful goal oriented endeavor. The authors all suggested that a successful mentorship includes effective communication, supportive guidance, and appropriate advisement.

References Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2007). Common bonds: An integrative view of mentoring relationships. In T. D. Allen, & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook (pp. 397-419). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2010). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Moir, E., Barlin, D., Gless, J., & Miles, J. (2009). New teacher mentoring: Hopes and promise for improving teacher effectiveness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Obialor, I. U. (2010). You are a leader – For great leadership. Canada: Poetic Voices, Inc., WSIC EBooks. OPM. (2011). Mentoring. Washington, DC: U. S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved from http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/mentoring.asp Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2011). Cases in leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Scaffidi, A. K., & Berman, J. E. (2011). A positive postdoctoral experience is related to quality supervision and career mentoring, collaborations, networking and a nurturing research environment. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 62(6), 685-698. Abstract retrieved from http://cwplib.proxy.liu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=eric&AN=EJ942329&site=ehost-live Student handbook. (2011). Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Interdisciplinary Educational Studies. Brookville, NY: C. W. Post, Long Island University. Vasgird, D. R., & Hyman-Browne, E. (2004). Description of mentoring: The complexity of the role and the many forms it takes. New York: Columbia University. Retrieved from http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/rpjects/rcr/rcr_mentoring/foundation/index.html#2