Summary of Mentoring Model

Based on the results of the mentoring survey, conversations with new and establish faculty members, consideration of tenure track, tenured and untenured faculty, reviews of literature, and several conference presentations at AERA, a four-pronged approach to mentoring was proposed. This is a summary. 

Mentoring in Career Advancement

Responsibility: Division Chair or Dean
This mentoring relationship is one-on-one based on the relative seniority and experience of the mentor. The job of this mentor is to advise the junior faculty member on issues career advancement. In essence, the senior mentor is a knowledgeable career coach. 

Networking and Balance Mentoring

Responsibility: Mentoring committee chaired by Dr. Marak and Dr. Rajadhyaksha
A second type of mentoring is suggested to attend to more personal and individual needs. Attention, thought, and consideration of the whole employee may not be present in a mentor focused on career advancement. In addition, it is completely possible that this type of mentoring will be necessary long after tenure is gained.

Faculty Learning Communities

Responsibility: Faculty, managed by CTL
The following quotes by Milton Cox (2004) explain Faculty Learning Communities: Faculty learning communities create connections for isolated teachers, establish networks for those pursuing pedagogical issues, meet early-career faculty expectations for community, foster multidisciplinary curricula, and begin to bring community to higher education (page 5).

Induction Mentoring

Responsibility: Center for Teaching and Learning
The last aspect of the mentoring program is induction mentoring. This type of mentoring provides a general introduction to some important aspects of the University. It also involves specific programming designed to foster collegiality between new faculty members while providing both a forum for surfacing issues of concern to administration.

Works Cited:

Cox, M. D. (2004), Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004: 5–23. doi: 10.1002/tl.129