The document discusses the experiences of faculty and students with online mentoring, focusing on its methodologies and outcomes within an educational context. Key findings include effective mentoring strategies, challenges faced by both mentors and mentees, and the importance of clear communication and structured peer support. The study emphasizes implications for enhancing online programs, particularly in guiding dissertations and providing resources.

1. Faculty and Student Experiences
with Online Mentoring
Swapna Kumar & Catherine Coe
AERA 2015
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

2. Ed.D. Program Context
4/19/15Swapna Kumar
Dissertation
• Problem of practice
• Five chapters
• Rigor
• Advances practice, initiates change and impacts
educational environment

3. Ed.D. Program Context
• Professionals in K-12 (traditional/virtual), post-
secondary, corporate, and other educational settings.
• Geographically dispersed
• Cohort model – Peer Support
• Inquiry groups
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

4. Online Mentoring
• Online Mentoring
• Medical Education
• Business
• Mentoring relationships between student and graduate advisor
(Lee, 2008; Maher, Ford, & Thompson, 2004)
• Educational development, professional development and
psychosocial development (Hayes & Koro-Ljungberg, 2011)
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

5. Methodology
• 17 graduates from two cohorts (10 + 7)
• Four faculty who mentored those students
• Semi-structured interviews
• 30-45 minutes, online or in-person
• Member checking
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

6. Methodology
Questions
• Mentoring experience – What was it like? How
did it work?
• Strategies used by the mentor that were useful?
• Challenges faced? Addressed?
• Strategies used by the student that worked or
didn’t work?
• Suggestions for mentoring next cohort?
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

7. • Inductive coding process
• Faculty data and student data coded separately
• Two researchers: Independently coded, then discussed
• Third researcher
• Triangulation
Methodology
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

8. Results
• Mentoring strategies that helped students
• Challenges faced by students
• Strategies used by students termed essential
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

9. Results
Strategies used by mentors that helped students
• Choice of communication channels
• Timely feedback and timelines
• Types of feedback = specific / candid feedback
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

10. Results
Strategies used by mentors that helped students
• Structure
• Small group mentoring
• Structured peer interaction
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

11. Results
Challenges faced by students
• Time management, work-life balance, motivation
to continue writing
• Research implementation
• Handling / acting on feedback
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

12. Results
Challenges faced by mentors
• Workload – multiple mentees
• Giving feedback online
• PhD vs. EdD dissertations
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

13. Results
Strategies used by students that were valuable
• Establish consistent communication with mentor
• Ask questions and find communication channel
• Establish deadlines
• Establish peer group
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

14. Discussion / Implications
• Clear communication, honest feedback -> perceptions of
ideal mentor (Rose, 2003)
• Mentor Competences: Multiple modes of communication
in mentoring, managerial competence. Social or Online
developmental competence.
• Students prefer faculty to initiate structure (Johnson, Lee,
& Green, 2000)
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

15. Discussion / Implications
Implications for online programs
• Dissertation guiding principles
• On-campus resources (Library, IRB, EDT)
• Writing practice and feedback
• Structuring Peer support – students do not self-organize
• Documentation
4/19/15Swapna Kumar

16. References
• Bierema, L.L. & Merrian, S.B. (2002). E-mentoring: Using computer mediated
communication to enhance the mentoring process. Innovative Higher Education, 26(3),
211-227.
• Burnett, P.C. (1999). The supervision of doctoral dissertations using a collaborative cohort
model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39(1), 46-52.
• Ives, G. & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of
supervision: Ph.D. students progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30,
535-555.
• Johnson, L., Lee, A., & Green, B. (2000). The Ph.D. and the Autonomous Self: Gender,
rationality, and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 135-147.
• Kumar, S., Johnson, M. L., & Hardemon, T. (2013).
Dissertations at a Distance: Students’ perceptions of Online Mentoring in a Doctoral
Program. Journal of Distance Education, 27(1).
• Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research
supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281.
• Lyons, W., Scroggins, D., & Rule, P.B. (1990). The mentor in graduate education. Studies in
Higher Education, 15(3), 277-285.
• Rose, G.L. (2003). Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal mentor scale. Research
in Higher Education, 44(4), 473-494.
• Schichtel, M. (2010). Core-competence skills in e-mentoring for medical educators: A
conceptual exploration. Medical Teacher, 32(7), e248-e262.
• Warner, M. & Witzel, M. (2004). Managing in virtual organizations. London: Thomson
Learning.
4/19/15Swapna Kumar