Communities of Practice: An Alaskan Native Model for Language Teaching and Learning

2. Mentoring: Engaging Communities of Practice

27 chapter two Mentoring Engaging Communities of Practice Joan Parker Webster and Sabine Siekmann In Chapter 1, we provided an overview of the Graduate Research Collaboratives (GRCs) model, which was a primary organizational framework for students’ research interests. Underscoring the concept of the GRCs was the goal of establishing relationships within a collaborative community of research and practice. In many graduate programs, faculty members are expected to engage in developing relationships with students to foster academic and professional growth. Typically, in the university context , mentoring is conceived of as a dyadic relationship that involves interaction between faculty and protégé-student. As with any relationship, interactions between people are framed by the social and cultural contexts and identities of the participants involved. In the university context, mentoring relationships are usually framed by the academic and organizational rules, norms, conventions, and practices (Chan 2008; Mullen 2005). But these interactions are also framed by cultural beliefs, values, norms, and protocols brought to the relationship by each participant. Although the academic focus often predominates in many faculty–student mentoring relationships, we knew that our approach had to bring together both the academic and cultural contexts to develop an effective mentoring component in the Second Language Acquisition Teacher Education (SLATE) program. In this chapter, we discuss the development of our approach to mentoring . We begin with an overview of relevant literature on mentoring, which is organized into two broad topic areas: (1) mentoring functions, characteristics , and models; and (2) ethical issues. We then turn to our theoreti- 28 • Webster and Siekmann cal framework for mentoring and describe how we conceptualize our approach to mentoring and the evolution of our design for mentoring within the GRC model. Finally, we discuss the themes that emerged from debriefing sessions with doctoral students about their perspectives on what mentoring means in Indigenous contexts, as well as their reflections as mentors. Overview of Relevant Literature Mentoring Functions, Characteristics, and Models In her seminal study on mentoring in the workplace, Kathy Kram (1985) identifies two primary mentoring functions: career-related functions (e.g., teaching, coaching, sponsorship, promoting visibility, advocating, and networking) and psychosocial functions (e.g., role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counseling, and friendship). These functions can also apply in the university context. However, it could be argued that the most common functions of mentoring in the university context are those related to career development, and these are closely aligned with functions related to academic advising. According to Lewis Schlosser and Charles Gelso (2001), university faculty can be advisers and not mentors and mentors can mentor without advising. In any case, faculty and student mentoring relationships have increasingly been described as more reciprocal, mutual, and personal (Mullen, Cox, Boettcher, & Adoue 2000). This trend toward mutuality and advocacy on both personal and professional levels is evident in W. Brad Johnson’s (2006) research, which identifies common components that characterize mentoring functions. These components include providing direct career assistance, serving as role models, developing enduring personal relationships, giving emotional support, and offering a safe environment for self-exploration. Johnson views mentoring as clearly distinct from other faculty roles, such as advising, such that the relationship is defined by intentional and developmentally generative career development. The notion of mutuality is further developed in Johnson’s (2008) rationale for a transformational model of mentorship, which is in contrast to a transactional model. In a transactional model, mentoring is more hierarchical and formal. The mentor performs certain functions, such as teaching , coaching, and advising; however, it is primarily a one-way, top-down relationship in which the mentor transmits knowledge to the passive prot égé or mentee. Carol Mullen (2005) refers to this as technical mentoring, Engaging Communities of Practice • 29 and Jennifer Walker (2006) calls it instrumental mentoring. In this kind of mentorship, the student is provided with resources when needed and given summative evaluations, but for the most part is left alone (Johnson 2008). In contrast, transformational mentoring is more collaborative, reciprocal , and focused on partnering with protégés to help them through the developmental transitions in both graduate school and their professional careers (Johnson 2008). Mullen (2005) calls this kind of mentoring collaborative , and Walker (2006) calls it relationally oriented. Thus, transformational mentoring emphasizes mutuality and reciprocity in learning and also challenges the assumptions about hierarchy, academic rank, and status (Johnson 2008). According to Johnson, it is common for most faculty– protégé relationships to start in a transactional framework...