A Model for Mentoring University Faculty

Lumpkin, Angela

doi:10.1080/00131725.2011.602466

Cited by 84 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mentee-based problems were related to time, administration, planning, commitment, goal/content, motivation and personal characteristics; the mentor-based problems were related to time, experience and motivation; and the organizational/institutional problems were related to matching, time, infrastructure, technology and physical problems. Literature review shows that similar problems were expressed and experienced both in technology integration and TMP such as time, lack of technological tools or resources, lack of motivation, organization or institution, support, irregular mentor-mentee meetings, experience, personality factors, unclear goals and unsuitable matching (Bell & Hofer, 2003;Brinkerhof, 2006;Butler & Sellbom, 2002;Earle, 2002;Leh, 2005;Lumpkin, 2011;Pelgrum, 2001;Strudler et al 1995;Wisniewski, 2010). Also, Hew & Brush (2007) modeled the direct barriers include: (a) teachers' attitudes and beliefs towards using ICT, (b) teachers' knowledge and skills, (c) institution and (d) resources (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is stated that instructors generally experience problems such as organizational, administrative, pedagogical and personal constraints (Leh, 2005). Georgina (2007) cites the problems in technology integration as unwillingness to learn new approaches by many of the teachers, time, insufficiency of equipped classrooms, unequal access to technology, difficulty in technology integration without adequate support, not receiving one-to-one support and lack of belief on the part of the faculties on the importance of technology integration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implementation and Evaluation of Technology Mentoring Program Developed for Teacher Educators: A 6M-Framework

Günüç

2015

QRE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: ES; mso-fareast-language: ES; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">The purpose of this basic research is to determine the problems experienced in the Technology Mentoring Program (TMP), and the study discusses how these problems affect the process in general. The implementation was carried out with teacher educators in the education faculty. 8 doctorate students (mentors) provided technology mentoring implementation for one academic term to 9 teacher educators (mentees) employed in the Education Faculty. The data were collected via the mentee and the mentor interview form, mentor reflections and organization meeting reflections. As a result, the problems based on the mentor, on the mentee and on the organization/institution were determined. In order to carry out TMP more effectively and successfully, a 6M-framework (Modifying, Meeting, Matching, Managing, Mentoring - Monitoring) was suggested within the scope of this study. It could be stated that fewer problems will be encountered and that the process will be carried out more effectively and successfully when the structure in this framework is taken into consideration.</span></p>

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation and Evaluation of Technology Mentoring Program Developed for Teacher Educators: A 6M-Framework

Günüç

2015

QRE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Setting clear goals from the onset can help identify administrative support needed 55 and can be used to drive decisions regarding program content and outcome measurement indicative of success. Common programmatic goals for the programs assessed herein were improvement of scholarly activity (increased grant funding, publications), promotion and/or tenure, faculty retention rates, and faculty self-confidence and self-efficacy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Components of Success Within Health Sciences-Focused Mentoring Programs Through a Review of the Literature

McRae

Zimmerman

2019

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To identify programmatic components and structural features associated with success of mentoring programs within the health sciences. Findings. Thirty-eight manuscripts representing 34 individual programs were reviewed. Of the institutions represented, 68% were public. Sixty-eight percent of programs included single disciplines only, with four focused in pharmacy, 13 in medicine, and six in nursing. Of the 34 individual programs, all programs reporting participant confidence and self-efficacy reported success in that domain. Eighteen programs reported outcomes related to scholarly activity that included publications or funding/ grantsmanship; 16 reported success. Eleven of 16 programs reporting promotion/tenure and/or faculty retention rates reported success. Program components associated with successful programs included frequent meetings (at least monthly) and delivering content within formal curricula. Content categories common within programs reporting success were content related to research, funding/grantsmanship and networking/collaboration. In addition, specific for the promotion/retention domain, content related to curriculum/teaching was commonly found within successful programs. Summary. Although somewhat dependent on the program's specific goals, curriculum most commonly associated with success contained content on research, grantsmanship/funding, curriculum/ teaching, and networking/collaboration. Among many programs, the reporting lacked objective, standardized metrics and often included only generalized descriptions/categorization of course content. The incomplete and inconsistent reporting limited our ability to draw conclusions regarding individual topics important for each program component. Proper planning, execution, and assessment of faculty mentoring programs is critical to the identification of additional program characteristics for optimal faculty success.Keywords: faculty mentoring, health sciences, faculty, program development, faculty development INTRODUCTIONFaculty attrition is a significant concern within the health sciences. Poor attrition rates increase both direct and indirect costs to institutions. This includes cost of the lost opportunity, new faculty recruitment efforts, and the training of inexperienced faculty. Other intangible costs include loss of faculty continuity and faculty connectedness.1 In at least one study, 34% of medical faculty resigned within three years of hire.2 Of those faculty who remained active, an additional 48% reported they were considering leaving their positions within the next five years.2 In another survey of faculty across 26 U.S. medical schools, 35% of faculty reported they had seriously considered leaving their current position during the prior year.3 Faculty leave their positions for various reasons, including lack of professional development, inclusiveness, or institutional recognition and support.2 In one report, 34% of recent former faculty at a small, private research university cited lack of mentoring as a cause of their dissat...

show abstract

“…Faculty mentoring may be beneficial as a recruitment tool and as a way to increase faculty retention and collegiality among the professoriate (Lumpkin, 2011). New faculty members are particularly challenged by academic institutions that are undergoing dramatic priority reexamination and economic shifts that affect direction and resources, increasing diversity within the organization and the students who pass through it, and societal pressure to show evidence of effectiveness.…”

Section: Mentorship and Organizational Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Teaching, Research, and Service Expertise, Workload, Organizational Support, and Satisfaction among U.S. Faculty Members’ Intent to Stay in Tier 1 or Tier 2 Organizations: A Structural Equation Model

Gutierrez

Candela

2018

IJLTER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. All faculties in higher education are expected to be effective in their teaching and service activities. However, faculty in Tier 1 and Tier 2 academic organizations are further pressed to demonstrate productivity as researchers. The diverse demands of these faculty call attention to how they really view their work lives. Thus, we investigated the influence of perceptions of organizational processes and organizational support on work related factors among a national sample of faculty from different disciplines in Tier 1 and Tier 2 academic organizations. Participants were 539 faculty employees at academic organizations across the U.S. We used structural equation modeling to examine the direct effects of the aforementioned exogenous latent variables on various aspects of the academe and faculty members' intent to stay in the academic organization. Further, we explored whether characteristics of the organization mediated the structural relations among organizational processes and support and intent to stay. Results revealed organizational support and processes to have direct effects on several of the factors within the academe, including intent to stay. Additionally, research expertise, workload, and satisfaction with work partially mediated the structural relations among organizational processes and support and intent to stay. Implications for organizational behavior and practice are also discussed.

show abstract

A Model for Mentoring University Faculty

Cited by 84 publications

References 27 publications

Implementation and Evaluation of Technology Mentoring Program Developed for Teacher Educators: A 6M-Framework

Implementation and Evaluation of Technology Mentoring Program Developed for Teacher Educators: A 6M-Framework

Identifying Components of Success Within Health Sciences-Focused Mentoring Programs Through a Review of the Literature

Perceptions of Teaching, Research, and Service Expertise, Workload, Organizational Support, and Satisfaction among U.S. Faculty Members’ Intent to Stay in Tier 1 or Tier 2 Organizations: A Structural Equation Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About