CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Programs = of graduate studies can be intense, content-knowledge focused learning environments where learners pursue their individual agendas of obtaining advanced credentials, licensure, and/or degrees by means of a single-focus determination in fulfilling their own scholarly destiny. Many graduate stud= ents can feel isolated, even when they are surrounded by other graduate students (Edwards & Gordon, 2006). As such, graduate studies can be “a time of both isolation and intense bonding” (Hager, 2003, p. ii). Many do not complete this mostly lonely, hectic, isol= ated path of scholarly activity.

Dorn and Papalewis (1997) noted that while the rate of non-completion varies from program to program, the average non-completion rate in graduate programs wa= s at least fifty percent across graduate education nationwide (p. 2). In additio= n, they found that less traditional graduate programs had an even higher rate = of non-completion due to the demands of work, home, and family. Less tradition= al was operationally defined as those programs with a higher percentage of old= er students who hold full-time jobs.

Graduate education tends to move beyond the traditional relationship of student to faculty into one of faculty mentorsh= ip (Hager, 2003). In this sense, faculty provide students with more than just = the content of their chosen field of study. Faculty may also provide profession= al guidance (Bean, Readence, Barone, & Sylvester, 2004; Diamond & Mull= en, 1996; Edwards & Gordon, 2006; Hager, 2003).

Bean et al. (2004) undertook a longitudinal case study over a three-year period involving doctoral students and faculty ment= ors from eight North American universities. Data collected consisted of on-camp= us individual interviews, on-campus observations of faculty mentor doctoral student interactions, off-campus written correspondence (including email), = and records of phone conversations. Bean et al. described the doctoral student’s perception of their experience as having been “fraught and unsatisfactory and was often experienced in terms of neglect, abandonme= nt, and indifference” on the part of their faculty mentor (p. 372). Hager (2003) described three attributes inherent in the traditional faculty/stude= nt mentoring paradigm that might contribute to these perceptions: lack of ment= or availability (time), mismatched research interests, and mismatched skills.<= /p>

Faculty Mentor= Availability

Of the attributes Hager (2003) found problematic = in graduate mentoring, faculty mentor availability in terms of time have conti= nued to be troublesome as enrollment and class sizes increased without a proportionate increase in faculty (Bean et al., 2004; Palincsar 1998). Beyo= nd the need to work with students, faculty workload may also include teaching, conducting research, publishing, serving on committees, initially advising students, and serving on masters’ and doctoral committee as students = near completion of their programs. Given the limitation of a 24 hour day, when faculty members are assigned more students with whom they must interact, without a concomitant decrease in any other portion of the current faculty workload, something will not be finished at the end of each day. As Hager (2003) and Bean et al. (2004) suggested, intense mentoring of doctoral stud= ents may be the portion of the workload that would not completed when the day en= ds.

Students notice the lack of availability of the faculty as they attempt to create the various graduate committees requiring= the presence of multiple faculty members (such as research, comps, thesis, proposal, and defense committees). Faculty/student ratios are difficult to compute. Any computation would be incomplete if the statistic did not take = into account part-time faculty, part-time students, faculty who did not teach graduate courses, faculty who taught only graduate courses, and departments that serviced only graduate programs (such as Schools of Law). Some colleges require extensive faculty training before allowing faculty to participate in doctoral committees. Therefore, not all faculty interact with doctoral students. Regardless of these issues, faculty time is a finite commodity. T= he more students in a program, the less time faculty spend with each student. =

In a study by Bean et al. (2004) one faculty memb= er addressed this issue directly:

I think when you’re working with one or = two students it’s one thing, but now that I’m going to be working w= ith ten, I don’t know how that will play. I’m nervous in how that p= lays out with time commitment and emotional commitment and intellectual commitme= nt. I mean I’ll still maintain the mentor role I know. I will, but how do= you do that with ten? I mean I’m not sure, and that’s what I’m trying to think through right now – how you can be fair to all of them but not kill yourself in the process? I think if you do mentoring really we= ll, it’s labor intensive and emotionally draining. For two, it’s ea= sy; for ten or 12, I’m not sure that I’ll be able to satisfy their needs in the doctoral program as well. Faculty Mentor Kathy. (p. 377)

Faculty themselves may need mentoring in how to mentor and advise doctoral students thereby reducing their available time to mentor/advise students due to the time requirements of receiving training of their own. As admission rates rise, faculty may be asked to mentor more students with no other lessening of their already overloaded schedules of teaching, research, and service in addition to their private needs to care = for home and family.

Beyond assistance from faculty, programs of suppo= rt for students have been implemented with varying degrees of success. The most common form of additional student assistance has been tutoring.

Tutoring

Students may have access to a myriad of peer supp= ort programs, such as tutoring. Tutoring has been implemented within classrooms; provided by campus organizations such as the writing center, career center, teaching & learning department, advising center, and women’s stud= ies center; and offered by off-campus businesses. Still, faculty mentoring and = all the peer-support programs available to graduate students do not seem to be enough for successful completion of graduate programs when faced with non-completion rates in these programs of more than 50% as noted by Dorn and Papalewis (1997). Sobral (2002) suggested that a next step in the acquisiti= on of knowledge for the learner can be mentoring.

Mentoring

While mentoring can occur in any setting, Milne= r and Bossers (2004) found strong agreement by both mentor and mentee on the role= of the mentor: guide, counsel, and sponsor the mentee. Through the process of being mentored, mentees might build self-confidence while assimilating the professional environment and navigating situations native to their domain. = In the current paradigm of mentoring, the mentor accomplished these feats thro= ugh knowledge and experience in and of the field along with personal and empath= etic connections with the mentee.

Reports of benefits to the mentor were sparse. Pullins & Fine (2002) noted the current mentoring research relies on self-report to elucidate the benefits of mentoring to the mentor. They suggested mentors may be so focused on the success of the mentee, any benef= its they received themselves could be over- or under-reported. In addition, men= tors may not have received benefits they reported on surveys and/or may have received benefits they did not even acknowledge.

Still, like peer-support programs, mentoring di= d not seem to be enough to stem the 50% non-completion rate in doctoral programs.= In the academic content realm, student supporting students were incorporated i= nto the teaching paradigm as tutors with much success for all involved. But, wh= en the idea of students supporting students in the tutoring paradigm was contrasted with the traditional mentoring paradigm, it appeared that an int= ermediary component in the mentoring paradigm might be appropriate. If so, what would they be called? To answer this question, I turned to the theory of learning= and development proposed by Lev Vygotsky (1962, 1978, 1987, 1997).

Theoretical Framework

This dissertation will rely on Vygotsky’s theory of learning and development, with particular attention being paid to= the zone of proximal development (ZPD) as a construct for understanding the mentor/novice relationship. Vygotsky (1962, 1978) proposed that learning wa= s an inherently social and historical process. Vygotsky’s work has been considered by recent scholars to be both a theory of psychological developm= ent (Moll, 1990) and at the same time a theory of education (Bruner, 1962). Cen= tral to Vygotsky’s theory was the reciprocal relationship of thinking and speech, with the use of language as a meditational tool for learning. Learn= ers used language to gain knowledge, and in turn used language to communicate t= hat knowledge to others. Vygotsky viewed language as both a tool and a psychological function. The relationship between thought and language was viewed as a developmental process in which thought was completed in the mea= ning of the word (Vygotsky, 1987).

Another central point in Vygotsky’s (1978) = work was that internalization of higher psychological functions was a process th= at consisted of various transformations. He proposed that functions that occur= red first on a social level were then reconstructed by the individual on an intrapsychological plane. This transformation took place as a “result= of a long series of developmental events” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57). Unlike other developmental theorists of his time, Vygotsky did not view developmen= t as stages, rather his view of development was one of a “progressive unfolding of the meaning inherent in language through the interaction of sp= eech and thought” (Bruner, 1987, p. 11).

As part of the progressive unfolding, Vygotsky (1= 978) postulated two developmental levels that

. . . would allow the researche= r to discover the actual relations of the developmental process to learning capabilities. . . . The actual developmental level character= izes mental development retrospectively = [italics added], while the zone of proximal development (ZPD) characterizes mental d= evelopment prospectively [italics added]. = (pp. 85-86)

In other words, the actual development level represented the current level of development of a learner’s mental functions. These levels could be measured by having the learner perform tas= ks that could be completed independently. However, Vygotsky (1987) noted that = to fully understand the learner’s developmental level, he would have to = test beyond independent completion through what he called the ZPD. The ZPD represented:

. . . those functions that have not = yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state. These functions could be termed the ‘buds’ or ‘flowers’ of development rather than the ‘fruits’ of development. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86)

According to Vygotsky, it was within the ZPD that learners, through the guidance of experts or more knowledgeable others, succeeded beyond their current level = of development. In the ZPD, the focus was on the learning that took place, not between two equal peers, but between novices and more experienced others through collaborative problem solving activities.

Vygotsky (1987) ter= med this relationship proximal in that t= he more experienced other assisted in learning problems that were proximal, or close to, the current level. Vygotsky also noted that at some point, problems could become too difficult, too distant from the pro= ximal level, for the learners to solve, even in collaboration with others. To Vygotsky, it was crucial for educators to understand the difference between= the actual level and the level at which a learner can succeed in collaboration = with others. As Vygotsky noted, the only instruction useful in learning was that which moved ahead [italics added] of, or lead, development.”

While Vygotsky’= s work focused on learning and development in children, various scholars have rela= ted his theory of the ZPD to adult learning. As noted by Mahn and John-Steiner (2002), it was appropriate to expand the understanding of the ZPD because of the “realization that human beings come into existence, attain consciousness and develop throughout their lives in relationship to others” (p. 48). Mahn and John-Steiner found the notion of learning in collaboration with more experienced others was of value, especially in term= s of building confidence among adult learners who are faced with learning new information in the form of a new language, theoretically complex concepts, = or engaging in other creative endeavors.

Notion of Proximal Mentoring

Building from the notion that proximal relates to the near or next level of development, in t= his dissertation I proposed the notion of a proximal other as someone who was at the nearest level of development above or beyond the actual level of the learne= r. A mentor, in the traditional sense, was an expert who had years of experience= in a discipline. While the mentor could be considered a more experienced other within the ZPD, the mentor’s years= of experience may have distanced them from the immediate experience of the nov= ice. This experiential distance might have resulted in the creation of a gap in providing the proximal guidance= a novice might have not even realized they needed. To distinguish between the= two aspects of mentoring assistance used in this study, the traditional mentor = was labeled distal mentor whereas t= he new construct was labeled Proximal Ment= or (PM). The notion of Proximal Mentoring was first explored in a pilot study to deter= mine the feasibility of conducting further research.

Exploring an Instructional Intervention - The= Pilot Study

The beginnings of most ideas are never really concrete or delineated. They tend to come as a series of progressively clos= er actions and thoughts (John-Steiner, 1987). It was in this way that the idea= of Proximal Mentoring began. I was lo= oking for a doctoral program that would meet my needs as a technology teacher. A = new doctoral degree in Learning & Technology had just been created. I met w= ith the graduate coordinator who invited me to apply and suggested that in the interim I enroll in a particular course: History and Philosophy of Educatio= nal Psychology.

I enrolled in the course and found my self half= -way through when I noticed I was totally overwhelmed with the content and the expectations. I changed to audit and reconsidered my doctoral program application. I was panicked about the idea of once graduated having to be the professor. I saw the depth = and breadth of the professor’s knowledge and knew that I was so far behind the curve; I felt I might never catch up. I submitted the application anywa= y, all the while ruminating over whether or not I was truly ready to pursue a doctorate. Even when I learned I was accepted to the program, I hesitated, waiting until the last day to pay without a late fee to enroll in my first semester as an actual doctoral student.

So, now I was taking classes, one of those bein= g the class I had changed to audit the year before. When I arrived the first nigh= t of class, I noticed a couple of other people re-taking the course because they= had not successfully completed it the year before either. I tried to warn the n= ew students that the old “memorize, flush, and regurgitate” strate= gy would not work in the course; but, many did not listen and ultimately did n= ot complete the course. I tried to get a study group together outside of class; but, most people were busy with work and beginning a doctoral program (as w= as I). I and most of the other repeat offenders managed to pass the course that semester, but it really was not good enough for me.

As I sat there watching the professor address q= uite challenging questions, I continued to reflect on the depth and breadth of t= he professor’s content knowledge. I knew I did not have that depth of knowledge, nor would I have that depth of knowledge without multiple exposu= res to the material (now understanding the concepts in learning). Yet, I was not sure how to go about obtaining that depth by myself.

The professor told a story about how when he wa= s a new doctoral student, he took a class similar to the one we were taking. He= talked about how previous students would return to sit through the class year after year. Little did I know how much this statement would influence my view of education as I progressed through the doctoral program.

Luckily for me, the professor was an unusual pe= rson. He asked the students at the end of each semester what they thought he coul= d do to improve the course. When he asked me, I told him I would get back to him after grades were posted, and I did. I met with him in the following January and we discussed ideas on how to better prepare the novice doctoral student= for the depth of knowledge they needed to obtain. He was truly and genuinely interested in what I had to say. This began a relationship with the profess= or that continued as I progressed through the final steps of my doctoral journ= ey.

In year 2, I participated in the course as a gr= aduate research assistant wherein I was enrolled in an independent study and atten= ded that very same course again. I worked on the presentations, digitized materials, created an interactive CD of the course materials, and helped re= vise the syllabus for the accreditation process under the guidance of the course professor and other professors in the department. This was the year I took a class that met the qualitative research requirement for my degree program. = It was also the year that I was introduced to the work of Lev Vygotsky. After reading Wink and Putney’s (2002) Vision of Vygotsky, I understood intrinsically that this was the key for learn= ing: help each other! I also realized that in order for knowledge to be meaningf= ul, it needed to be shared with others.

In year 3, I talked a couple of the students fr= om the previous year into sitting in the class again. While they participated in t= he groups, I expanded the digital nature of the course. To this end, students = were able to submit and receive work electronically and participate in online discussion groups. I also repeated two of my statistics classes, the first, basic graduate statistics, as an observer and the second, inferential statistics, as a practicum student, teaching part of the material. Over the summer, I participated in an advanced qualitative research course as an observer.

In year 4, I participated in the course again a= s a paid graduate assistant. There were a few students from the previous year repeating their participation in the course again, but not as many as I tho= ught there should have been for the amount of information packed into the course= . I was also looking for a dissertation topic, having recently completed my comprehensive exam. I participated in an online qualitative research class = as an observer while again being a practicum student in the inferential statis= tics course. In the fall, I performed a practicum in the online version of the b= asic graduate statistics course and taught a section of the online course in the second summer session.

As I participated in these courses at varying l= evels, my attention kept returning to the ideas that knowledge was meant to be sha= red, we needed to help each other learn, and we needed opportunities to sit thro= ugh classes again. The person who ultimately became the primary co-chair on my dissertation mentored me through understanding the theoretical perspective = of Vygotsky.

Finally, the light dawned! What was missing fro= m all my interactions was a degree of mentoring that was not regular mentoring. N= ot only did I want that overall guidance that mentors provide, enabling me to = see the bigger picture, per se, it = was that just past where I was guid= ance that understood where I was coming from and knew where I needed to get in t= he here and now. But, when I approach= ed my mentors with the germ of the idea for Proximal Mentoring, neither of them was going to allow me to get off that easily= . I had to provide a theoretical basis for my idea. I returned to Wink and Putn= ey (2002) working my way backwards through the literature to find VygotskyR= 17;s (1962, 1978, 1987) theory of learning and development and more specifically Vygotsky’s (1987) zone of proximal development (ZPD) was an appropria= te theoretical framework. From there, the construct of Proximal Mentor fell right into place. And, I had been trying t= o do it all along as I taught, guided, and mentored the students coming into the program.

Nevertheless, it was not enough to be doing som= ething like this informally. Many of the students enrolling in the doctoral progra= ms were non-traditional students. Like me, they were older, had jobs, families, and responsibilities that would keep them from participating in their docto= ral programs in the traditional ways such as being on campus all day, being graduate assistants, and being research assistants. Something more formal w= as needed for these students whose lives and responsibilities precluded the so= cial aspect of doctoral student and faculty interactions. Thus began the process= of defining and implementing the instructional practice of Proximal Mentoring into the courses in the graduate programs as well as making it a course unto itself.

In year 5, four doctoral students were selected= to participate in the pilot study of P= roximal Mentoring. I sat through the class again, this time in the role of researcher, observing, documenting, and listening. Although I knew the PMs = as fellow students, I focused my efforts on remaining outside the ongoing definition of the construct that had been created (Glesne, 1999). I had pri= vate time with the PMs after each class. I guided the discussion but did not gui= de the responses. At the end of the pilot study, I interviewed each PM in depth about their experiences. Each of them emphatically stated they would be a PM again if the opportunity arose.

Armed with the pilot study, a theoretical perspective, and a construct, the proposal was crafted for this dissertatio= n. My two primary mentors became my dissertation co-chairs. Together we invited three other professors to participate in the dissertation committee.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore the construct of Proximal Mentoring= as a unique way for mentoring graduate students to develop continuing expertise while providing an additional level of support to the educational process of the student-mentees based on Vygotsky’s ZPD (1978, 1987). The goal wa= s to obtain perceptions of Proximal Ment= oring from all the participants in order to clarify and define the role of the Proximal Mentor, to form a “balanced understanding” (Edwards & Gordon, 2006, p. 2). In this dissertation, I examined the perceptions of the PM experience from the triangulated perspectives of distal mentors (professors), PMs (more experie= nced graduate students), mentees (novice graduate students).

Research Questions

This study addressed four main questions about the PM model covering perceptions, PM r= ole, and PM outcomes. Participant perceptions were of primary interest in this r= esearch. Therefore, two of the four research questions addressed participant perceptions:

· What were the perceptions of the course professor regarding the role of the Proximal Mentor?

· What were the perceptions of the mentees regarding the role of the Proximal<= /i> Mentor?

The third research question addresses the formation of the role of PM:

·        How did the mentors come to negotiate, defin= e, and express the Proximal Mentoring<= /i> role?

The fourth question addresses outcomes for the PM:

·        What outcomes were obtained by the PMs after having participated in Proximal= Mentoring?

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This Chapter begins by setting the historical zeitgeist and a conceptual framework for this dissertation based on the research of Vygotsky. Next, Vygotsky’s theory of learning and develop= ment is discussed as both a theory of cognition as well as a theory of education. Then, the literature review examines the current research on tutoring and mentoring leading to the construct of Proximal Mentoring proposed in this dissertation.

Historical Zeitgeist

Lev Semonovich Vygotsky was born on November 5,= 1896 in the Russian town of Orscha<= /st1:City>. He was second eldest in a family of eight children. His father was an execu= tive for a bank. His mother, a teacher by training, stayed home to raise the children.

Vygotsky: Student - Educator – Collaborative Researcher

Vygotsky excelled as a student in many subjects= . To continue his education, he had to compete for one of the few available university seats allocated to Jewish people. He was chosen by lottery to at= tend Moscow University. He began studying medi= cine then switched to law, earning his law degree in 1917. He was concurrently enrolled at Shanyavsky Public University where he studied literature, psychology, and philosophy. The degrees he ach= ieved in these disciplines were not recognized by the government because Shanyavsky Public University was a progressive institution accepting everyone who had interest (Vygodska= ya, 1995).

After graduation, he returned to Gomel and taught provincial school lite= rature as well as psychology at the Gomel Teacher’s College from 1917 to 1924 where he began constructing lectures on teaching for his first book, Pedagogical Psychology. He married= Roza Smekhova in 1924 and they had two daughters, Gita and Asya. Vygotsky finish= ed his dissertation and was invited by K. N. Komilov to join him in reconstruc= ting a new psychology at the Psychological Institute of Moscow in 1925 where he remained until his untimely death from tuberculosis in 1934 (Vygodskaya, 19= 95).

Between bouts of illness from the tuberculosis, Vygotsky, working in collaboration with two of his students, Alexander Luria (1902-1977) and Alexei Leont’ev (1904-1979), produced over 270 pieces= of scientific work during his short 10 years of research at the Psychological Institute of Moscow University (Vygodskaya, 1995). Vygotsky, and his various collaborators, made reference to the research of their predecessors and contemporaries; however, while the research and findings are clearly presen= ted, references to other researchers were not included in these original manuscripts. Subsequent scholars have attempted to link these other researc= hers to the vague references in Vygotsky’s works to make them more accessi= ble to contemporary scholars.

Cole and Cole (1979) discovered that Stalin, th= rough the Central Committee on Communism, had banned all Vygotsky’s work in 1936 in an effort to specifically ban Vygotsky’s view of intelligence testing. Luria, along with Vygotsky’s wife and two daughters, hid Vyg= otsky’s original manuscripts so they would not be destroyed. In 1956, three years a= fter Stalin’s death, Vygotsky’s works were finally allowed to be published by the government. The first English translation was published in= America in 1962.

Conceptual Framework

Researchers in Vygotsky’s time created th= eories and investigated hypotheses on a variety of topics within the general spher= e of learning. Pavlov had researched stimulus and response, Wundt had researched introspection, and Piaget was researching child development while Vygotsky = was creating a theory of learning and development. It was important to understa= nd that the continuation of Pavlov’s 1904 Nobel Prize winning work was t= he accepted paradigm at the time. As a relatively young scholar, Vygotsky acknowledged Pavlov’s work, but then explained how his own research m= oved beyond Pavlov’s animal research into human learning and development. =

Vygotsky directly challenged the stage theories= of Piaget. Entire chapters of Vygotsky’s work were devoted to his differences of opinion with Piaget’s work (Vygotsky, 1962; 1978, 1987= ). By following Vygotsky’s theoretical pursuits, one discovers a rich history of thought/thinking and speech/language revealed within the works of Humboldt, Heger, Protebnya, and Shpet as well as in the works of the theori= sts that came before them, such as, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and Kant.

Vygotsky (1962) approached learning in a way different from the behavioral theorists and researchers. Vygotsky addressed= the schools of thought that placed speech independent of thought, such as Wundt’s Theory of Introspection, with the relationship between the tw= o as a mechanical, external connection, thereby precluding “any study of t= he intrinsic relations between language and thought” (p. 3).

Vygotsky (1962) noted that in historical, or generational, experiences humans have stores of information gathered and pa= ssed on through the generations in tangible form. These forms would include nume= ric systems and language represented in such artifacts as scrolls, cave drawing= s, books, records, tapes, and other storage media. Humans would interact with these historical artifacts and create learning situations through the use of them. In other words, through their historical experience, humans do not ha= ve to recreate forms of communication because they have been handed down, or reconstructed, through the cultures in which one participates over time.
In addition to the historical experiences, huma= ns also have social experiences and can learn from each other without ever hav= ing experienced a particular situation. For example, we know that outer space h= as virtually no gravity, is colder than any cold we have ever experienced, and= has no oxygen for breathing. Although we all know this, only a few humans have ever actually been in outer space. Vygotsky pointed out that the social environment provides novel experiences allowing= for the complexity of interactions that give rise to the variability of human behavior. As noted by Vygotsky (1962, 1978, 1987), humans are aware of thei= r thoughts and actively interact with the thoughts in relation to reality.

Learning Was Social

To Vygotsky (1962) a learner without consciousn= ess was a passive recipient of learning. The biological aspect of innate reacti= ons required for existence becomes tempered by the social experiences and man’s consciousness. Without the social environment, education cannot exist in any form (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 47).

Vygotsky (1962) began to reflect on the social = aspect of education in order to examine learning. He noticed that language was a common denominator in all social interactions. He postulated that without language, a symbol system, active, conscious, self-directed learning could = not happen. For Vygotsky, then, understanding the relationship between language= in use and thinking was crucial for understanding higher mental functions.

Word Meaning

Vygotsky (1962) proposed using the composite wo= rd meaning as the unit of analysis for research. Word meaning represented the point where thought and speech united into verbal thought. The study of ver= bal thought then became a semantic analysis – “the study of the development, the functioning, and the structure of this unit, which contains thought and speech interrelated” (p. 5). Vygotsky saw speech as neces= sary for interaction:

The primary function of speech, in both children and adults, was communication, social contact. The earliest speech of the child was therefore essentially social.= (p. 19)

He developed and inco= rporated a unit level of analysis as the basis of scientific inquiry into thought and language. A unit would represent the basic components of the whole without reduction to essential elements wherein the relationship was categorically altered.

Using speech to generate communicative language
Speech, when uttered by humans, conveys much mo= re than the simple emotions. Sounds lead to words. Words lead to sentences. Sentences lead to paragraphs. Paragraphs lead to manuscripts. One of Vygotsky’s primary assumptions was the “primary function of spe= ech was communication, social contact” (1962, p. 19). He uses the semantic analysis process to explore the relation of word meaning to communicative speech.

This analysis was “the study of the development, the functioning, and the structure of this unit, which contains thought and speech interrelated” (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 5). The process = of generating word meaning was complex and interactive. For children, this pro= cess beings simultaneously at the point their development where “thought becomes verbal and speech becomes rational” (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 44).<= /p>
Another component in the creation of word meani= ng was the relation of reality to perceptions, sensations, thoughts, and generalizations. Reality was reflected through perceptions and sensations. = If this were enough, there would be no more discussion on the matter. Obviousl= y, since the discussion continues, there must be more to life than the experie= nces of perception and sensation. Vygotsky (1987) saw thought as being the resul= t of a dialectic leap from sensations. To Vygotsky, thought was mediated by a generalized reflection of reality. When thought was expressed in speech, wo= rd meaning between the speaker and the listener was created. The resulting component was verbal thought, the communicative tool for language. Language, then, was based on the process of creating word meaning.

Social Interactions

Learners are not alone during these dynamic developmental and learning processes. They are supported, assisted, and gui= ded by others: parents, siblings, extended family, and friends. Vygotsky (1962) proposed that we learn through our interpersonal interactions with others a= nd then through internal processing of such interactions.

Home life, preschool, and formal schooling are = all different environments; yet, each of these environments leads to learning f= or the learner. It was acknowledged that during the physical process of biolog= ical maturation, some intervention, in terms of food, water, and shelter, must be provided or the biological entity will not survive (Bjorkland, 2005). Likew= ise, it must be acknowledged that children are learning from the time they are b= orn. Learners acquire much information informally in the home as well as in preschool and other social settings. To Vygotsky, the goal of formalized education in schools was “the creation of an adult who will look beyo= nd his own environment” (p. 51). In order for this to happen, he proclai= med that students needed to be actively involved in their learning.

This review of Vygotsky’s research has be= en useful to illustrate how his theories developed and how they differed from theorists of his time. Understanding his views on the relationship of think= ing and speech also helps us to understand the importance of the use of languag= e in collaboration with more experience others. This leads to the construct of t= he zone of proximal development and its utility as a construct in this dissertation.

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

When children are introduced to formal schoolin= g, they are also introduced to a more formalized and systematic method of learning. According to Vygotsky, the formalization and systematic nature of the learning process wa= s not quite sufficient in describing the process as to how we learn.

Palincsar (1998) claimed the ZPD was one of the= most used and least understood constructs in the literature. Newman and Holzman (1993) asserted that the ZPD could be considered a proper unit of study for understanding uniquely human activity. On the other hand, Moll (1990) cauti= oned against the use of the ZPD simply as an instructional tool because he recognized the ZPD as a key theoretical construct from Vygotsky’s work that allows us to view the individual within a concrete social situation of learning and development. The ZPD is a fluid concept that ebbs and flows wi= th the processes of learning and development (Wink & Putney, 2002). Vygots= ky (1997) proposed that the social environment of the learner and the internalization of the learning are both necessary and reciprocal. He postulated:

Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological), and then insi= de the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention= , to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. (1978, p. 57)

The information was t= hen taken back into the social setting where the process continues. This transformation process was dynamic and reciprocal.

As noted by John-Steiner (1997) when these collaborations are successful, novices develop fluency, and they learn how experienced others think and learn. However, not all such collaborations re= sult in immediate success. Tudge (1990) noted that progression in the ZPD was not equal or smooth for all involved. Vygotsky himself noted that development w= as discontinuous.

Transforming external experiences into internal knowledge depends on the character of the information. Some forms of knowle= dge have a prolonged development timeline, other forms of knowledge transform automatically. From a mind point of view, the ZPD can be envisioned as the space where the social and mental environments merge. Knowledge exists in t= he social environment (inter-space) that the learner does not yet have. When t= he social environment changes such that the unknown knowledge enters the ZPD, = the learner has access to the information. The learner can then process that information into the mental environment (intra-space) where the information= was moved into memory.

For Vygotsky, this movement was conscious and intentional and the process of internalization was an active one. Furthermo= re, the processes of internalization do not take place in isolation. As noted by John-Steiner (1997), they are “embedded in apprenticeships with paren= ts, mentors, and distant teachers” (p. xxiii). In other words, the Inter-space was the area in which the learner interacts with others. The Intra-space environment was wh= ere internal meaning-making happens (Putney, 2007).

Instructi= onal Implications of The ZPD

The focus of the ZPD was not on what the learner already knows but what the learner can come to know in collaboration with m= ore experienced others (Vygotsky, 1978). These more experienced others can be considered as anyone the learner comes in con= tact with in life who assists the learner to move beyond their actual development level in any way. In life, would include siblings, parents, guardians, and/= or other adults. In a classroom, the learner comes in contact with peers, classmates, teachers, and experts. An idealized version of the ZPD from a classroom perspective would have the more experienced others having the same experiences and background knowledge= as the learner (Figure 2-1).

<= /p>

Figure 2-1      &n= bsp; Ideal Concept of ZPD

Each of the more experienced others would be ab= le to bring to the learner to ZPD levels commensurate with their own experience a= nd knowledge. However, as noted by Putney, Green, Dixon, and Kelly (1999), learners do no= t lead standardized lives. Peers, classmates, teachers, and experts all have diffe= ring experiences and cumulative background knowledge. As such, their lives and learning are locally situated (Putney & Frank, 2008).

Part of what makes teachers good was the ability to reach back in their own memory and knowledge to approximate the actual developmental level of the learner (Cha= k, 2001). While most teachers are able to go back as far as most of their lear= ners need, they still have students who fail. This might not necessarily be a fa= ult that lies with the teacher. The fault may lie with society in that the experiences and background knowledge of the learner lies outside the teacher’s own ZPD. It may be the relationship of peers or other stude= nts (i.e., tutors) in conjunction with<= /i> the teacher that truly enables the learner to progress in their educational development. This may be one reason why peer interactions seem to be so pop= ular in education.

Vygotsky (1987) and Wertsch (1985) both claimed= the ZPD addresses only those developmental skills accessed through formal instruction in academics as opposed to motor skills acquired in a typing cl= ass. More recent research has successfully extended the ZPD to the child’s motor skills for block construction (Johnson-Pynn & Nisbet, 2002) and f= or management of children’s behavior disorders (Tournaki & Criscitel= lo, 2003).

Johnson-Pynn and Nisbet (2002) conducted a stud= y of 28 pairs of 3 to 5 year old students as they worked in pairs to construct a picture of a house from parquetry blocks. First, 14 expert students, those = who had experience with the block task, were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: same aged or mixed age. The second 14 students, those who had no experience with the block task, were randomly assigned within age to an exp= ert. The same age group was within 3 months of age. The mixed age group was 12 t= o 18 months difference with the older student being the expert and the younger student being the novice. The gender was counterbalanced across conditions (age) and across roles (expert/novice). Only one of the 28 expert children,= a female who was almost 5 years old, needed prompting to assist the paired novice. Even children as young as 3 years old spontaneously assisted the novice. Johnson-Pynn and Nisbet found age had no bearing on whether or not assistance was given.

Tournaki and Criscitello (2003) reversed the us= ual roles of tutor and tutee, assigning children with disabilities to tutors students who were not disabled to improve classroom behavior in first grade. The tutors were rated as functioning at grade levels. The tutees were rated= as functioning below grade level. Students were deliberately matched on academ= ic skills, pairing the highest scoring tutor with the highest scoring tutee, d= own to the lowest scoring of each being paired. Daily behaviors were determined= and these behaviors were the basis of the frequency and duration data collected over 20 days. Students had a no tutoring period followed by a behavior tuto= ring period. Both frequency and duration of target behaviors were reduced in the tutoring period. Tournaki and Criscitello provide empirical data on the role-reversal tutoring technique in managing classroom behavior of both disabled and non-disabled students.

Johnson-Pynn and Nisbet (2002) demonstrated the social nature of assistance. Only one out of 28 children had to be prompted= to assist another child. Even as 3 year olds, people want to assist others if = it is something they know how to do. Tournaki and Criscitello (2003) demonstra= ted that one does not need to be the expert. As long as they know slightly more than the person they are assisting, the assistance is useful. In both of th= ese studies, the person assisting only had slightly more experience; however, in both cases, the assistance was helpful.

Extending Vygotsky: Adult Learning In The ZPD

Vygotsky’s theory of learning and develop= ment focused primarily on the learning and developmental change of school-aged children. Current researchers have extended the construct of the ZPD into a= reas of which Vygotsky might have only dreamed. The ZPD has been used successful= ly as a framework by numerous scholars to explain the learning of language (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; Borthick, Jone= s, & Wakai, 2003; Kinginger, 1998; Kuschnir & Machado, 2003; Lund, 200= 3; McCafferty, 2002). Other scholars have examined the ZPD in the course of training of teachers (Bayer, 1996; Bell, 2005; Bocharie, 2002; Fields, 1999; Itterly, 1998). The ZPD has been studied in the realm of cooperative educat= ion (Nyikos & Hashimoto, 1997), as well as in problem-based learning (Harla= nd, 2003). A few studies have examined the ZPD in relation to testing (Kozulin & Falik, 1995), and as a means of school reform (Quate, 1997).

Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) initiated a study = with three students from a larger study they had conducted. These three students volunteered to participate in one extra tutorial each week for the 5 weeks = of the language course they were taking. These volunteers were told they were participating in a study of how language teachers can help learners. These three students were considered the ZPD group. They received feedback from t= he researcher in a one-on-one format lasting 30 to 45 minutes. Student compositions and requests for assistance were used as evidence of working w= ith a ZPD. They found error correction and language learning is effectively mediated by feedback through the tutorial process within the learner’s ZPD.

Nyikos and Hashimoto (1997) extended Aljaafreh = and Lantolf’s (1994) research by investigating the effect of the concept = of a group ZPD as the members of a group interacted on a critical thinking task = with 16 Foreign Language and Applied Linguistics program graduate students divid= ed into 3 groups of 3 students as they practiced the teaching approach they we= re studying. Data evaluated were a dialog journal, a self-report on the group process, and a self-report on the individual’s role within the group. When the project was brought to the group as a collaborative problem-solving effort, the group was successful in completing the project.

McCafferty (2002) investigated the role of gest= ure in conjunction with speech within the ZPD with one English language learner who was the only remaining member of a larger group study. Videotapes were revi= ewed for the use of gesture within the ZPD of the learner. These gestures became part of the shared language of the student and teacher. McCafferty proposed that both the learner and teacher imitated the respective gestures as a par= t of the process of creating the shared understanding that converted the shared gesture to word meaning. In this way, the ZPD was a collaborative space for shared learning.

Harland (2003) described how experts used the Z= PD to develop a problem-based learning curriculum for zoology over a three-year period. The goal in the project was to turn students into tutors for each o= ther within their continually evolving ZPD. Harlan found that when teachers with= drew from direct teaching students would have to begin to learn outside of the linear transmission of information model (Topping, 1995). Harland found adu= lt students resorted to assisting one another naturally in the less formal set= ting supporting Johnson-Pynn and Nisbet’s findings of even three year old children naturally assisting one another in collaborative problem-solving activities. Harland concludes that even adult “students are not expec= ted to be experienced teachers, but there is no reason why they should not star= t to develop a considered rationale for helping others learn as part of their own development” (p. 271).

Through these studi= es, the ZPD was demonstrated to be a viable construct for adult learning in these situations. The nature of the instruction is that of a collaborative mentor= ing process. Vygotsky’s theory of learning and development includes components of collaboration, instruction, and dialogic discourse. As noted = by Vygotsky’s daughter, Gita:

He suggested to me that I go and ask my classm= ate about what she didn’t understand, and try to patiently explain it to = her, and if I couldn’t do it so she would understand perfectly, then he wo= uld be glad to help me. ‘But here is the most important thing’, he added, ‘you must do all this so your friend be sure [sic] you really = want to help her, and really mean her well, and so it would not be unpleasant for her to accept your help’. (Vygodskaya, 1995, p. 115)

This quote from Gita Vygodskaya demonstrates the philosophy of her father, Lev Vygotsky, in terms of schooled learning. Vygo= tsky indicated that students could also be teachers for each other as long as th= ey took on a mentorship stance of being helpful but not domineering or overbea= ring in terms of their assistance (Wink & Putney, 2002). From this perspective, Vygotsky’s theory of learning and development was determined to be appropriate for providing the framework for the proximal mentoring study. In the literature review that follows, notions= of mentoring and tutoring are examined as they relate to the proximal mentoring = study.

Review of Relevant Literature

A literature search= in the information age using the technological advances in database compilation and search engines can produce hundreds of thousands of titles and the literatu= re search for this dissertation was no exception. Beginning with three seeming= ly simple words: tutoring, mentoring, and ZPD, thousands of articles were identified through the university’s available on-line databases such = as Eric, Dissertation Abstracts International, and EBSCO host. An immediate determination was made to increase the precision of the search terms as wel= l as limit the time frame for publication of articles to the past ten years in o= rder to reduce the number of potential articles for review. This limitation still produced many appropriate articles including a dissertation on mentoring in doctoral programs by Hager (2003).

From Hager’s = (2003) references, a search of author names was implemented, leading to the work of prominent researchers in the field of peer support such as Palincsar, Brown, O’Dell, Wang, and Greenw= ood. The articles procured were reviewed and categorized into empirical research, reviews, meta-analyses, opinions, and theoretical perspectives. Some articl= es had to be ordered through library services. Others were discovered by perus= ing the periodicals section of the university library.

The premises and the results of the data analyses for this dissertation were used to further ref= ine and focus of the literature review (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Based on= the results of the perceptions of all participants in the dissertation that the concept under exploration was not considered to be tutoring, a review of the mentoring literature was determined to be more informative for this review = than the tutoring literature, even though the tutoring literature was more substantive in amount of articles available for review. <= /p>
It was also determi= ned that the review of the tutoring literature would be more helpful in informing th= is study if the review were done from a conceptual perspective focusing on perceptions of the participants. Therefore, the meta analyses, reviews, and recent empirical studies = were evaluated based on whether there were reports of the perceptions of the participants. Two meta analyses (Topping, 1995; Cohen & Kulik, 1981) al= ong with four substantive reviews (Townsend & Mohr, 2002; Ward & Lee, 2= 005; Kalkowski, 1995; and Baillie, 1998) were conceptually analyzed producing a thematic review of the tutoring literature. Six articles addressed problema= tic outcomes of tutoring (Walker & Avis, 1999; Topping, 1995; Beasley, 1997; Fox & MacKeogh, 2003; Houston & Lazenblatt, 1996; Griffin & Griffin, 1997). Two studies were selected for a more in-depth critique (Beasley, 1997; Magin & Churches, 1995) due to their design similarity = to the current study.

Tutoring Literature Review

Tutoring has been an instructional practice sin= ce the time of the early Greeks (Topping, 1995). At that time, students who assist= ed other students were considered surr= ogate teachers. The focus of tutoring was transmission of academic content knowledge. Tutoring can be done by adults or other students. Tutoring perfo= rmed by adults (especially those with teacher training) was more effective than tutoring done by other students regardless of the age or grade level differential. Tutoring has practical significance in the world of education: adding tutors to a classroom does not detract from learning and may, in fac= t, enhance learning for everyone involved. For the purpose of this study, the = term tutor was operationally defined= as “the process by which a competent pupil, with minimal training and wi= th a teacher’s guidance, helps one or more students . . . learn a particul= ar skill or concept” (Thomas, 1993, p. 1).

In current research, a variety of terms to repr= esent the various ways in which tutoring is implemented: peer tutoring, cross age tutoring, peer teaching, peer education, partner learning, peer learning, child-teach-child, learning through teaching, peer resource programming, pe= er helping, peer mediation, peer leadership, cooperative learning, peer corporation, peer collaboration, mutual instruction (Kalkowski, 1995), surrogate teacher, peer assisted learning, cross-year small-group tutoring, personalized system of instruction, supplemental instruction (Topping); scaffolding, proctoring (Magin & Churches, 1995), peer instruction, reciprocal teaching, and peer mediation (Townsend & Mohr, 2002).

In the current educational paradigm, the role of tutor allows for some students to become a more active participant in the educational process while maintaining the integrity of the paradigm itself = as the “linear model of the transmission of knowledge” (Topping, 1= 995, p. 1). Tutors are provided the benefit of the teacher’s knowledge of pedagogy as well as more in-depth content knowledge enabling them to functi= on as a partial expert, imparting knowledge to fellow students in a more active manner. Topping summarized the act of tutoring as “learning by teaching” where “to teach was to learn twice” (p. 3). In addition, he noted “just preparing to be a peer tutor has been propos= ed to enhance cognitive processing in the tutor” (p. 3).

Cohen and Kulik (1981) and Topping (1995) reviewed more than 300 unique studies on peer tutoring in th= eir meta-analyses. The results of these meta-analyses showed the advanta= ges for the tutee were vast. Beyond the expected improvement in test scores, tu= tees reported increases in: self-esteem; self-confidence, social skills; locus of control; positive attitudes; ability to form friendship bonds; lowered anxi= ety; higher self-disclosure; more engaged time on task; improved retention; transference of knowledge to other domains; ability to empathize with other= s; aspirations, and reduced social isolation.

The reported advantages for the tutor were impr= essive as well. Many experienced improved test scores along with: a better understanding of the subject they tutored, better higher order conceptual understanding, improved attitudes, and higher self concept. In addition, all three meta-reviews reported impressive gains for: low achieving, limited English speaking, learning disabled, behaviorally disordered, and other at-= risk student populations who tutored in any subject.

The following studies were chosen for a more in= -depth review due to their design similarity to the proximal mentoring study. In the first study, Beasley (1997) collected data over a two-semester period. In the second semester, tutors f= rom the first semester volunteered to tutor again. In the second study, Magin a= nd Churches (1995) used second-year students who were successful in the first-= year course to tutor first-year students.

Beasley (1997) described the development and evaluation of a two-semester peer tutoring program for undergraduate course= s in law and accounting. Tutors received two hours of training, on-going support, book vouchers, and attended a final de-briefing workshop. In the first seme= ster of the program, twelve tutors were matched with 12 tutees. Tutoring commenc= ed halfway through the semester. In the second semester, 23 peer tutors (6 returning from the previous semester) were matched with 38 tutees. Beasley defined the role of the tutor as “help develop the students’ thinking and understanding of the course content, tasks, and lecturer’= ;s expectations, and . . . help students develop appropriate strategies” (p. 3). Tutor/tutee questionnaires were collected and analyzed. Beasley found that tutors perceived an increase in their academic achievement, had a greater sense of worth, increased their self-confidence, experienced enhanced communication skills, and had an improved perception of their teaching ability.

Magin and Churches (1995) described a case stud= y in which they used peer tutoring in a mechanical engineering course. Sixty second-year students were required to tutor 120 first-year students in using the specialty computer software over the first four weeks of the semester. = The Professional Development Centre of the university surveyed the participants= at the end of the course with a response rate of 57%. Magin and Churches found that tutors experienced an increased understanding of the computer system, developed an empathetic understanding for the tutee, experienced enhanced communication skills, reported increased interaction with the course conten= t, and experienced personal enjoyment through the process of tutoring.

From the teacher’s perspective, tutoring = was successful. Attributes contributing to the teacher’s perceptions of student success from being tutored were: improved quality and quantity of student work (Medcalf, Glynn, & Moore, 2004); increased time to model, monitor, and evaluate (Gut, Farmer, Bishop-Goforth, Hives, Aaron, & Jackson, 2004; Miller & Kohler, 1993; Lidren & Meier, 1991; Medcalf= et al., 2004; Miller & Kohler, 1993; Smith, 1997; Thomas, 1993); reduced conference time (Medcalf et al., 2004; Dolton & Klein, 1994); and stude= nts took less time to learn (Magin & Churches, 1995).

In the K-12 setting students received tutoring = in the classroom during the school day. Many adult students, on the other hand, we= re asked to participate in tutoring research conducted outside the classroom. A primary complaint of the adult student tutees was the need to use their outside-of-class time to participate in the tutoring. Adult tutees also complained about the lack of expertise on the part of the tutors and their perception of the tutors as having created confusion instead of clarificati= on (Griffin & Griffin, 1997; Houston & Lazenblatt, 1996).

When lack of adult tutee gains were reported, t= he reasons cited by the researchers were: lack of participation by students (Beasley, 1997; Fox & MacKeogh, 2003); lack of monitoring (Houston &= ; Lazenblatt, 1996); lack of training for the tutors (Beasley, 1997; Houston & Lazenb= latt, 1996); difficulty in coordinating schedules (Beasley, 1997) and tutor/tutee mismatch (Beasley, 1997).

Even with these shortcomings, the overall resul= ts of tutoring in adult education were consistent with the meta-reviews: the advantages that accrue to the tutor by engaging in a tutoring intervention = were impressive; pitfalls tended to be focused on the personal or social aspects= of tutoring; and when tutored students performed equivalently with the control group (i.e., expected gains of tutoring were not realized), having incorpor= ated tutoring into a class did not detract from the learning or cause harm to the students. Negative outcomes of adult tutoring were virtually non-existent w= ith tutor-tutee incompatibility as the most frequently cited negative outcome of tutoring.

Adding a tutoring component to a course will us= ually provide improved or enhanced abilities, skills, and knowledge to both tutees and tutors. In general, the more highly structured the component, the higher the achievement of the tutees. Although each study was designed differently= and investigated different aspects of the instructional practice of tutoring, w= hen combined all of these studies and meta-analyses show a clear and evident pattern of successful outcomes on behalf of tutees and tutors. Even when th= ere was no statistically significant difference in performance, students who we= re tutored “overwhelmingly perceived” that they benefited from the tutoring (Rittschof & Griffin, 2004, p. 325).

Tutoring Research= That Uses Vygotsky’s Theory As A Framework

Of the studies that included a theoretical fram= ework, many were based on Vygotsky’s theory of learning and development (explicated earlier in this Chapter). Rittschof & Griffin (2001) found their results supported both Vygotsky’s cognitive development theory = as well as the theory of self-regulation (Winne, Jamieson-Noel, & Muis, 20= 01).

In the theory of self-regulation (Winne, Jamieson-Noel, & Muis, 2001), the learner monitors and responds to the learning environment in an active way using a metacognitive control process. This process is active even when the learning appears to be extern= ally or automatically regulated. The mechanisms though which this occurs are internal. This internal process cannot be observed, even when the concept is operationalized. Therefore, self-regulated learning research relies heavily= on introspection and participant self-report. Ladyshewsky (2002) found his res= ults supported the theoretical framework of the ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987) where= as Rittschof & Griffin (2001) found their results supported both Vygotsky’s cognitive development theory as well as the theory of self-regulation. Both studies focused on the tutee whereas the proximal mentoring study places more emphasis on the PMs.

Collabora= tion models (Wells, 1999), such as peer-tutoring, are frequently found in the educational literature especially within an elementary school setting. In t= hese models, students are arranged into smaller learning communities of varying skill levels. While the collaboration model is in some respect similar to t= he premises of the proximal mentoring study, as learners progr= ess through the educational process, the focus shifts from the collaborative mo= del in elementary school to an individualized, content-knowledge learning model= by the time the student moves into graduate studies.

In additi= on, the need for tutoring declines as the academic knowledge and learning strategie= s of the learner develop and improve. By graduate school, most learners are high= ly adept at reading, writing, and math as evidenced by the criterion used to o= ffer acceptance to such students into the varied programs available to adult learners.

Reciprocal Teaching

In a seri= es of studies, Palincsar and Brown (1984) initiated a strategy of peer tutoring called reciprocal teaching in which students improve comprehension under an adult’s guidance. The comprehension strategy consisted of four key activities: summarizing, asking questions, clarifying, and predicting. After being taught the key activities of summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting, each student took a turn at performing the key activities in sm= all groups. Students were more able to answer comprehension questions on new pa= ssages after training and practice with the key activities. The study was extended= to 37 seventh-grade students, 24 of whom had reading problems. There were two control groups. The first had six students seen in groups of two who receiv= ed no intervention and took the same test. The second control group did not ta= ke the reading test. The third group was the reciprocal teaching group. The fo= urth group received training in locating information. All groups took the baseli= ne, maintenance, and pre- and post-tests. Reciprocal teaching showed steady improvement over all other methods studied.

Based on = the statistical success of the model, Palincsar and Brown (1984) replicated the study in a natural school setting with 4 classes of seventh- and eighth-graders. Two were regular classrooms and two were resource classroom= s. All students in these groups met decoding requirements for reading comprehension. As in the first two studies in the series, the reciprocal teaching group showed significant gains.

Palincsar= , Brown, and Martin (1987) conducted similar studies in which they measured process outcomes as well as product outcomes. In terms of process measures they fou= nd that peer tutors were effective in modeling for their peers, in giving prac= tice as well as specific feedback, and in adjusting the amount of support needed= by the tutees.

While the construct of reciprocal teaching is i= n some respect similar to the premises of the proximal mentoring study, the focus on reciprocal teaching has been on comprehension of the classroom content at t= he K-12 level. The proximal mentoring study placed more emphas= is on the role of the mentors and the mentoring aspect of guiding graduate studen= ts into the culture of graduate school.

Tutoring Summary

Tutoring is an instructional intervention where= the tutor acts as surrogate teacher (Thomas, 1993). There are three main participants in the tutoring paradigm: teacher, tutor, and student/tutee. T= he focus of tutoring is transmission of academic content knowledge. Adults or other students can do tutoring. Tutoring performed by adults is more effect= ive than tutoring done by other students. Tutoring has practical significance in the world of education: adding tutors to a classroom does not detract from learning and may, in fact, enhance learning for everyone involved.

In current educational theory students are expect= ed to work collaboratively. Research related to collaboration has generally vi= ewed student-to-student interactions in terms of peer-tutoring.

In the reviews that explained results in terms = of an overall theoretical framework, Self-Regulated Learning and Vygotsky’s theory of learning and development were there most cited frameworks. Within Vygotsky’s theory of learning and development, components of the ZPD, reciprocal teaching, and collaboration models were used to frame the result= s.

Adding a tutoring component to a course will us= ually provide improved or enhanced abilities, skills, and knowledge to both tutees and tutors. In general, the more highly structured the component, the highe= r the achievement of the tutees. Although each study was designed differently and investigated different aspects of the instructional practice of tutoring, w= hen combined all of these studies and meta-analyses show a clear and evident pattern of successful outcomes on behalf of tutees and tutors. Even when th= ere was no statistically significant difference in performance, students who we= re tutored overwhelmingly perceived that they benefited from the tutoring (Rittschof & Griffin, 2004). Therefore, tutors and tutees are not harme= d if the tutoring does not provide the anticipated gains.

Tutoring takes place primarily in an educational setting in which the tutor provides academic content knowledge to the tutee. Unfortunately, this additional level of support in the academic realm does = not fulfill the needs of all learners. As suggested by Sobral (2002) a next ste= p in the acquisition of knowledge for the learner can be mentoring.

Mentoring Literature Review

Mentoring is a more complex construct than tutori= ng. Whereas tutoring is relegated to the educational realm, mentoring expands beyond education into a wide variety of domains. This review begins with a brief history and definition of the role of mentoring. Research on mentorin= g in business domains is then discussed, followed by a discussion of research on mentoring in educational domains. Finally, pitfalls identified by these researchers will be explicated.

The mentoring literature was comprised of empir= ical studies, philosophies, theories, program evaluations, and opinions within a variety of settings from business to graduate studies. The main focus of the research in mentoring was mentee outcomes. The = number of articles available from the mentoring literature using doctoral students= as the focus of study was expectedly sparse. Therefore, the search of the mentoring literature was expanded to include empirical studies of mentoring= for adults as well as mentoring for K-12 students. A conceptual review of these articles for reports of participant perceptions was conducted.

Noddings = (2001) posed the idea that mentoring needed to come from a tradition of caring in which the benefit of the mentees was of primary importance. In this respect, mentors would provide encouragement, assistance, guidance, wisdom, chiding, scolding, and peacemaking, all while expecting mentees to be independent and bold during their quests. As such, mentors would attempt to provide a suppo= rt system to help mentees become successful. Vygotsky (1978, 1987, 1997), in h= is model of the ZPD, suggested support from peers through the use of collabora= tion might be implemented in such a way as to promote individual success.

The term Mentor was operationally defined as a person with many years of experience within a discipline who can guide, counsel, = and sponsor the mentee (Milner & Bossers, 2004), or novice, in learning the ropes of the professi= on (Hager, 2003). Although mentoring can occur in any setting, Milner and Boss= ers (2004) found strong agreement by both mentor and mentee on the role of the mentor: guide, counsel, and sponsor the mentee. Through the process of being mentored, mentees can build self-confidence while assimilating the professi= onal environment and navigating situations native to their domain. In the current paradigm of mentoring, the mentor accomplishes these feats through knowledge and experience in and of the field along with personal and empathetic connections with the mentee.

Mentori= ng in non-educational settings. In the discipline of Nursing, Milner and Boss= ers (2004) reported on a structured mentoring program utilized by an occupation= al therapy program in C= anada. Information on the structure and assignment of students to groups and mento= rs were not discussed. Groups met bi-weekly for their entire 2- or 4-year prog= rams and mentors rated students as pass or fail for each course. This report approached mentoring from an instructional intervention focus because the students were formally assigned to a mentoring group as part of their requi= red coursework. No theoretical framework was addressed. The research findings a= re based entirely on participant self-selection survey responses. Of the 124 mentees reported as participating in the study, only 14 mentees responded to the post-graduation survey. Approximately half of these reported experience= and knowledge as desired attributes in a mentor. A little less than half of the= se mentioned guidance and support as desired attributes in a mentor. Milner and Bossers’ found that there was strong agreement by both mentor and men= tee on the role of the mentor. This role was to

. . . facilitate professional development thro= ugh guidance and counsel . . . sponsorship, helping the mentee to identify the professional environment, navigate difficult situations, and to build self-confidence and well as creative and independent thinking. (Milner & Bossers, 2004, p. 107)

Milner and Bossers (2004) identified a componen= t of peer mentoring within the questionnaire responses. No mention was made of t= he mentor’s supervisory role of providing pass or fail ratings for each course in the student’s program. This power relationship may have had= an undue effect on the results for the first phase of the study. Students may = have provided responses they felt were more in line with the investigator’s goals because of this power disparity. In addition, because of the need to track respondents over time on multiple questionnaires, students may have f= elt true anonymity was not possible thereby providing another source of report = bias in the results. No mention was made of outcomes for the mentors in this stu= dy.

In the general business setting, Withers and St= ringer (1999) addressed the experiences of women in business who participated in a peer-mentoring program for women only. In this program, women were provided= 10 hours of training. In return, they agree to give 3 hours of mentoring time = per month. In addition, mentors were required to attend monthly meetings. The program was described as an intensive, highly structured story telling sess= ion in a ‘non-judgmental, confidential, and non-advice-giving environment” (p.59). In this model, each participant was a peer and e= ach participant was a mentor. Withers and Stringer identified benefits of this program as bonds of intimacy built on mutual respect and trust, freedom to discuss any issues of importance to an individual, assistance, validation of feelings, validate issues, access to a range of experiences, and solve problems. Withers and Stringer reported only their perceptions of the pheno= mena and did not attempt to provide a theoretical framework or empirical data to warrant their findings.

In the real estate sales setting, Pullins and F= ine (2002) surveyed 6.2% of 3,500 professional real estate agents about their experience with mentoring. Of these 215 surveys, 138 were classified as bei= ng mentors. They defined the peer relationship as “both salespeople occupy similar positions in the organizational hierarchy” (p. 259). Peer mentoring w= as defined as “when a more experienced salesperson (the mentor) takes responsibility for the development and guidance of a less experienced salesperson” (p. 259). This research investigated the benefits of mentoring to the mentor. Pullins and Fine found “it appears that teac= hing selling skills to a protégé benefits the mentor’s perfo= rmance in every way. Attention to this level of detail may result in improvements = in all areas” (p. 268). Pullins and Fine noted “the mentor gains a form of cultural capital, too, in developing an understanding of the realit= ies of the experiences of another person” (p. 268).

Pullins and Fine (2002) found the coaching and counseling aspects of mentoring did not seem to be of much perceived benefi= t to the mentors. They delineated the benefits of mentoring in real estate sales= as: increase spheres of influence; demonstrate managerial skills; show teamwork; pay back support he or she received earlier in his or her career; gain frie= nds in the business; improved satisfaction; rejuvenation; better performance; improved attitude; refresh and improve skills related to succeeding; provid= es a way to develop expertise; update skills; regenerate motivation; and increase satisfaction (p. 269). Pullins and Fine reported that a major limitation of this research was the self-report nature of the surveys. Mentors may have o= ver- or down-played their perceptions of benefit to themselves. In addition, men= tors may not have recognized received benefit. Although Pullins and Fine propose= to “test all possible relationships” (p. 260) they noted inherent problems in their survey methodology and scales.

Rymer (2002) proposed a model of co-mentoring w= ithin the Association for Business Communication and the collegial environment ba= sed on personal reflection. Rymer listed her perceptions of what the co-mentor = did in the relationship as close friends, nurturing, engage in dialog, communic= ate, network; and highly motivated to help. Rymer listed her perceptions of the potential benefits of co-mentoring as: enhance career development; give job feedback; give advice on manuscripts; provide quality information; fulfill = the need for academic companionship; alleviate the sense of isolation, enable scholarly projects, and provide “counsel and support we need to become more productive scholars” (p. 354). Rymer listed what she perceived as essential principles for co-mentoring as: establish trust, create emotional bonds, contribute altruistically, and communicate regularly and fully. Rymer presented the theoretical framework of Kram and colleagues’ social network theory for her model of co-mentoring.

Although mentoring was used extensively in the business world, empirical, peer-reviewed research in mentoring was educatio= nal in nature. It may be that in business, the bottom line, otherwise known as profits, depended on the successful implementation of strategies that improved the success of the business (profits, product, people) without having increased the cost of doing busin= ess. Strategies that were not successful were dropped as quickly as they were determined to be unsuccessful. Strategies that were successful were continu= ed and expanded. These implementation cycles occurred in as little time as a couple hours or as long as a few years.

Mentoring in Educational Domains

The bot= tom line in education is learner knowl= edge. In the accountability era of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), standardized test scores provide the bottom line measure of learner knowledge. Implementation and documentation of strategies and outcomes of strategies implemented in education was dependen= t on many personal, instructional, and/or institutional factors. Documenting implementations can take as little time as a few hours or as long as generations. Both successful and unsuccessful strategies continue to be use= d in educational settings for decades past the point at which they are empirical= ly determined to be ineffective. Hager (2003) found “mentoring has quick= ly come to be seen as a preventive measure or intervention for academic deficiencies and a proactive measure in the growth of successful academic careers” (p. 3).

Mentori= ng students in the k-12 setting. Barton-Arwood, Jolivette, and Massey (2000) report= ed elementary school mentors help mentees with learning and practicing new ski= lls, modeling behaviors, and social interactions. Barton-Arwood et al. noted men= tors stand to gain improved self-esteem and varied social opportunities. They further proposed creation of mentoring dyads between students with disabili= ties and students without disabilities. They cautioned that at the elementary sc= hool level, those peer mentoring programs that were most successful are highly structured and organized. Although Barton-Arwood et al. noted that both men= tor and mentee benefit from one another, the article lacked empirical evidence = for benefits and gains of peer mentoring.

Pyatt (2002) implemented a cross-school mentori= ng program for middle school girls by girls approximately five years older utilizing older pupils to provide a supportive framework for younger peers. Pyatt noted the reciprocal nature of the cross-school mentoring program in = that older students desired realistic experiences and younger students needed personal time for a variety of special circumstances ranging from dyspraxic= ia to attention seeking behaviors. Mentors received ongoing training in which = they were encouraged to share their experiences of mentoring. Pyatt reported that reciprocal benefits were experienced. Mentees gained confidence and mentors gained experience and training. In addition, the ongoing training assisted = the mentors in converting from a “controlling to contributing” focu= s (p. 176) focus. However, no empirical evidence was provided to support these claims. This article approached mentoring as an instructional intervention.=

Dopp and Block (2004) investigated peer mentori= ng in high school. The study focused on the ability of all students to become role models for others. Training in leadership, creativity, problem solving, sha= ring of ideas, and implementation of shared ideas was accomplished over a one day period. Benefits of peer support included improved social skills by peer te= achers, improvement in school climate, mentors facilitated learning in a variety of groups, immediate reinforcement, and acceptance by peers of tutoring by the identified mentors. A major weakness of this study was the looseness of the definition of peer mentor for this study. Dopp and Block switched between calling the participants peer mentors and peer leaders. The activities described by this study are more suitable for peer tutoring and peer mediat= ion activities as opposed to peer mentoring in the tradition of mentoring. As w= ith most of the studies in this genre, Dopp and Block’s study was an instructional intervention.

It was difficult to determine the difference be= tween tutoring and mentoring in not only these representative studies, but within= the K-12 literature as well. At the elementary and middle school levels, the description of the relationship between students was described as reciproca= l. Each of these studies provided organized training for the student-mentor followed by close supervision. It is difficult to determine the extent this close supervision had on the outcomes of the mentoring relationship.

Mentori= ng teachers in the k-12 setting. In an extensive critical review of mentoring literature on teacher mentoring, Wang and Odell (2002) analyzed over 135 studies, position papers, and documents on reform. However, their review was deemed beyond the scope of this study as they did not address educational contexts in general. As noted, “…instead, we deal specifically = with mentoring support for preservice and beginning teachers in learning standards-based teaching” (Wang & Odell, 2002, p. 481).

Mtetwa and Kwari (2003) investigated the potent= ial of resource teachers to become mentors to other teachers within the school setting. Mentoring was defined as dispensing information, organizing worksh= ops, and demonstrating instructional strategies. They further identified 11 aspe= cts of mentoring exemplified within their 9 case studies: information and resou= rce provision; teacher/coach; leader; feedback provider; emotional support; role model; networking; moral support; career advisor; provider of induction; and personal qualities of professionalism, service culture, willingness to shar= e, valuing learning and knowledge, development of expertise, commitment, humil= ity, and resourcefulness.

Mtetwa and Kwari (2003) further noted that the mentor’s primary role was peer tutoring with a one-to-many relationsh= ip (rather than the typical one-to-one mentoring relationship). As in Hager’s (2003) study, time was listed as a major constraint to the mentoring role. The focus was entirely on what the mentors gave to the ment= ees; there was no mention of what benefit the mentors perceived as coming from t= he mentoring, if, indeed the mentors perceived any personal benefit.

Boreen and Niday (2000) investigated a dyadic mentoring relationship between first year teachers and teachers with at lea= st 15 years of experience as well as the relationship between dyads of first y= ear teachers. Boreen and Niday mentioned a social constructivist theory of lear= ning based on the works of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, and Wertsch as the framework for t= his study.

Boreen and Niday (2000) enlisted the students i= n a pre-service English education course, assigned them mentors, manipulated the assignment of mentors and mentees to require electronic communication as we= ll as face-to-face meetings, structured the mentor-mentee communication requirements, and assigned pre-service teachers to peer dyad groups with assignments for the groups to complete. In addition, mentor-mentee relations were highly structured wherein each dyad was instructed on how many times during which phases of the project they needed to be in contact. Although 60 pre-service students participated, only data from two pre-service teachers = and one mentor were provided in this study because, according to Boreen and Nid= ay, they resulted in the most productive dyads that best illustrated assurance = and trust.

It was interesting to note that the two pre-ser= vice teachers who were in the same peer dyad had the same mentor for the mentor dyad. Boreen and Niday (2000), in their reflection on this instructional practice, make an important finding that “we may have been imposing an artificial relationship on some preservice teachers that did not meet their needs” (p. 162). However, no analysis was provided on the quality or quantity of the communications in which these students did partake. This observation could have been easily confirmed or disconfirmed with evidence provided by the students as course requirements.

Boreen and Niday (2000) are in agreement with Hager’s (2003) assessment of the one-to-many mentoring dyads reaching= a point where the number of mentees exceeds the limits of the mentor’s capabilities. Boreen and Niday note that they observed noticeable benefits; however, they provided no empirical data to substantiate this observation.<= /p>
Mentori= ng In Higher Education Settings. Treston (1999) discussed an eight-year-old p= eer mentoring program at a university in Australia from an instruction= al intervention focus. First year university students were matched with 2^=
nd and 3^rd year volunteers based on their program of study. Mentors were required to contact mentees in weeks 3, 6, and 9. Contact could be mad= e by phone, email, or in-person meetings consisting of one-on-one or small group. The mentor then reported to a paid advisor. No data were provided as to the extent of mentor contact with students. While Treston provided a list of benefits for mentors of satisfaction and self-worth, no empirical data were= provided to warrant the conclusions made.

Treston (1999) claimed that 77 students were me= ntors in 1999 and that these mentors reported to an appointed study skills adviso= r; however, none of this data was addressed in the program evaluation. Treston makes statements such as “mentors report great personal satisfaction” (pp. 239-240) but does not indicate, at a minimum, what percentage of the mentors expressed this sentiment. Treston mentioned recei= ving requests from mentees for a peer tutoring component to the mentoring progra= m. Treston reported on mentoring as an instructional intervention.

Chan (2000) and Murray (1999) both addressed the issue of mentoring in higher education. Unfortunately, neither of these stu= dies contains empirical evidence of peer mentoring. Murray’s study relegates mentors = to the position of tutors. Chan’s article makes assumptions that both mentor= and mentee receive benefit from a mentoring relationship but provides no empiri= cal evidence to support this claim. Neither study addresses a theoretical frame= work for mentoring.

Hager (2003) interviewed 10 exemplary faculty m= entors and 24 of their doctoral students about their mentoring experiences. Each participant was interviewed twice. The first interview elicited emic knowle= dge of mentoring from the participants. The interviews were transcribed, and th= en analyzed for recurring themes and relationships. This thematic analysis then was used to inform the process of the second interviews. Participants member-checked the thematic analysis at the beginning of the second intervi= ew, then the interviewer used guided questions to discover how each participant understood their mentoring relationships.

Hager (2003) found mentors and mentees agreed t= hat mismatched research interests and demands on mentor time were the most challenging aspects of faculty mentoring doctoral students. Mentees noted t= heir faculty mentor’s lack of skill and/or ability to fully mentor them in their chosen discipline. This mismatch forced the mentee to seek out other = faculty with expertise in the skill and/or ability that was lacking in their assign= ed mentor. Mentees also noted a power disparity in their mentoring relationshi= ps where the faculty mentor held power over their progress and success in their program.

Hager (2003) used Lave and Wenger’s (1991= ) LPP as the framework for his investigation of faculty mentoring doctoral studen= ts. These findings suggested that vocational career orientations of some earlier models appropriated from business into higher education could be replaced w= ith a theoretical framework based in learning. However, he found LPP did not address the “inability of mentors to be masters of the practices of t= he community” (p. 151). In addition, Hager’s findings recognize th= at “others were sometimes better qualified or suited to fulfill students’ needs” (p. 152) with the suggestion from one mentor t= hat doctoral students associate with assistant professors because that mentor h= ad not been at that level in a very long time. This suggested that the idea of= a mentor being proximal to where = the mentee is may be as appropriate as having a mentor who is the expert.

Pitfalls Identified from the Research on Mentoring

Pullins and Fine (2002) noted that a major limi= tation of their research was the self-report nature of the surveys used. They noted that mentors may have over-exaggerated or under-exaggerated their perceptio= ns of benefit to themselves. In addition, mentors may not have recognized rece= ived benefit or recognized benefit that was not received.

Boreen and Niday (2000) noted the resistance of mentees to having an assigned mentor. There appeared to be an expectation on the part of the mentee of either choosing the mentor themselves or having a serendipitous introduction to the chosen mentor as the appropriate method of mentor assignment. Barton-Arwood et al. (2000) cautioned that at the elemen= tary school level, those peer mentoring programs that are most successful are hi= ghly structured and organized. Pyatt (2002) noted the reciprocal nature of the cross-school mentoring program in that older students desired realistic experiences and younger students needed personal time for a variety of special circumstances ranging from dyspraxicia to attention seeking behaviors. Barton-Arwood et al. noted a reciprocal aspect= to mentoring wherein mentor and mentee provide benefit to each other. Pyatt (2= 002) also noted the ongoing mentor training assisted the mentors in converting f= rom a controlling to contributing focus.

Mtetwa and Kwari (2003) noted that the mentor&#= 8217;s primary role was peer tutoring with a one-to-many relationship (rather than= the typical one-to-one mentoring relationship). As in Hager’s (2003) stud= y, time was listed as a major constraint to the mentoring role. Rymer (2002) presented the theoretical framework of Kram and colleagues’ social network theory as a model of co-mentoring. Although Boreen and Niday (2000) mention a social constructivist theory of learning based on the works of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, and Wertsch as the framework for this study, the study i= tself was approached as an instructional practice and the results were presented = from this point of view.

Treston (1999) mentioned having received reques= ts from mentees for a peer tutoring component to the mentoring program. Milner= and Bossers (2004) identified, but did not expound upon, a component of peers mentoring each other within the questionnaire responses. Withers and String= er (1999) identified benefits of the women-only “mentors as peers” program as bonds of intimacy built on mutual respect and trust, freedom to discuss any issues of importance to an individual, assistance, validation of feelings, validate issues, access to a range of experiences, and problem solving.

Pullins and Fine (2002) defined the peer relati= onship as “both salespeople occupy similar positions in the organizational hierarchy” (p. 259). Peer mentoring was defined as “when a more experienced salesperson (the mentor) takes responsibility for the developme= nt and guidance of a less experienced salesperson” (p. 259). This resear= ch investigated the benefits of mentoring to the mentor. Pullins and Fine found “it appears that teaching selling skills to a protégé benefits the mentor’s performance in every way. Attention to this lev= el of detail may result in improvements in all areas” (p. 268). They not= ed “the mentor gains a form of cultural capital, too, in developing an understanding of the realities of the experiences of another person” = (p. 268). They found the coaching and counseling domains of mentoring did not s= eem to be of much perceived benefit to the mentors.

Current Theoretical Frameworks for Mentoring

Theoretical frameworks such as Dorn and Papalewis’ (1997) social model of peer-mentoring (SPMM) and Lave and Wenger’s (1991) legitimate peripheral participation theory (LPP) have been utilized for interpreting the phenomena of mentoring. This dissertation suggested another: Vygotsky’s ZPD related to his theory of learning a= nd development.

Social = Peer Mentoring Model (SPMM). Dorn and Papalewis (1997) proposed a model of peer-mentoring they called a Social Peer Mentoring Model (SPMM). New gradua= te students were assigned to an existing graduate student for mentoring. The mentoring relationship was social and collaborative in nature. Dorn and Papalewis found evidence for social and collaborative influences on the performance on graduate students within their programs of study. They recommended graduate programs include an emphasis on group dynamics and peer mentoring (p. 6). Their model includes only those mentoring relationships t= hat are social or collaborative in a setting outside of the classroom.

Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP). Lave and Wenger (1991) developed the th= eory of LPP as a way to “speak about the relations between newcomers and old-timers, and about activities, identifies, artifacts, and communities of knowledge and practice” (p. 29). LPP evolved as a response to notions= of apprenticeship and situated learning and advanced as a way to explain:

How apprentices might engage in a common, stru= ctured pattern of learning experiences without being taught, examined, or reduced = to mechanical copiers of everyday tailoring tasks, and of how they become, with remarkably few exceptions, skilled and respected master tailors. (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 30)

Lave and Wenger noted= when apprentices interact with one another knowledge was shared in a rapid and efficient manner. From this, Lave and Wenger suggested that “engaging= in practice, rather than being its object, may well be a condition for the effectiveness of learning” (p. 93). Lave and Wenger noted that the current paradigm of schooling in the U. S. might not allow for apprentice-style communication and learning. Beyond noting that apprentice-to-apprentice communication was quick and efficient, interactions beyond the traditional master-apprentice dyad are not central to this theor= y.

Lave and Wenger’s (1991) proposed that apprenticeship was a form of membership that was constantly evolving within= the community of practice. They continued

Legitimate peripheral participation refers bot= h to the development of knowledgeably skilled identities in practice and to the reproduction and transformation of communities of practice. It concerns the latter insofar as communities of practice consist of and depend on a membership, including its characteristic biographies/trajectories, relation= ships, and practices. (p. 55)

Hager (2003) used LPP theory to analyze the mentor/mentee relationship through extensive interviews of exemplar mentors= and their mentees. While Hager found that mentors provide professional socialization, collaborative participation in practices, professional communication, and guidance in becoming a successful member of the communit= y; LPP theory did not account for the difficulties experienced by the particip= ants in the mentoring program (p. 134).

Gap in the Literature

As noted by Pullins and Fine (2002), the current mentoring paradigm does not elucidate the benefits of mentoring to the ment= or. Mentors may be receiving benefits from the mentoring process that they do n= ot acknowledge or perceive. It may be that the mentor was so focused on the success of the mentee, any benefits are over (or under) looked.

Mentoring Summary

In mentoring, the mentee can be a student, lear= ner, or novice of either education or an occupation. When the mentee was a novic= e, mentoring did not:

. . . take place in isolation. = They are embedded in apprenticeships with parents, mentors, and distant teachers. . . . When these collaborations are successful, novices develop fluency, and learn how experienced artists and scientists think. At the same time, such collaborations offer renewal for the experien= ced individual and the use of shared knowledge for the novice’s developme= nt of self. From a Vygotskian point of view, these interactions are central to= the transformation of the novice into an experienced thinker. (John-Steiner, 19= 97, p. xxiii)

Mentoring has been implemented as an interventi= on without a solidifying theoretical foundation for the phenomena. This review= of the research indicated that mentoring had beneficial outcomes for mentees. =

As Topping (1995) pointed out, students who ass= ist other students are considered tutors. Indeed, using the current operational definition of mentoring as the expe= rt with many years of experience, peers may be excluded from being seen as able to hold a mentoring role.

Current learning paradigms include the learner (mentee or tutee/student), the expert (mentor/teacher), and a tutor. There seemed to be an element missing between the mentor= and mentee that would complement the teacher/tutor/tutee paradigm. That element= may be the construct of Proximal Mentor= ing.

New Construct - Proximal Mentoring

As the literature review indicated, many terms = have been used to describe the process of assisting novice learners. This resear= ch proposes the construct Proximal Men= toring to place the position within the theoretical framework of the ZPD as well a= s to more clearly identify the role of the more knowledgeable or more experienced other as opposed to the teacher, tutor, or distal (traditional or expert) mentor.

For the purpose of this dissertation, a PM was defined as someone who was slightly more advanced, or knowledgeable, than t= he novice learner and was invested in the novice’s learning needs. A PM = was not a peer in the traditional sense. A PM could be older, younger, or the s= ame age as the novice learner. A PM could hold the same job title or position as the novice learner. What separated the PM from the novice learner was recent knowledge or experience in the discipline.

The role of the PM was one who would be serving= as mentor providing both content-based and program-based guidance to students = new to the course and/or the program. As John-Steiner (1987) noted, “the strength required to face opposition and to tolerate anxiety was sustained = by support from mentors and peers” (p. 67). The PM construct might be easily pla= ced into the current mentoring paradigm in a position 2complimentary to that of= the tutor component in the education paradigm.

A pilot study was conducted where more knowledg= eable and more experienced doctoral students assisted the novice doctoral students throughout the course. Student feedback was solicited through a questionnai= re on the instructional practice at the end of the semester. When asked if the instructional practice of adding student mentors should continue, 100% of t= he 14 respondents recommended this form of mentoring continue for the course t= hey were currently taking.

The review of the literature showed mentees benefitted from mentor intervention. Therefore, improvement or lack thereof= , on the part of the students receiving the mentoring intervention was not addre= ssed in this research. The focus of this research was the perception of the Proximal Mentoring experience as perceived by the all participants.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY AND DATA DESCRIPTION

Design

“There are times when all researchers are= going to be interpretive, holistic, naturalistic, and uninterested in cause, and then, by definition, they will be qualitative inquirers” (Stake, 1995= , p. 46). This study employed an exploratory two-case, cross-case qualitative methodology framework espoused primarily by Yin (1989, 2003a, b). The works= of Creswell (1998, 2003), Stake (1995), Merriam (1998), Glesne (1999), Spradley (1980), and Marshall and Rossman (1999) were used to further enhance the rationale framing the design. The rationale of designing this dissertation = as a qualitative study was exemplified by Creswell (1998) when he noted that philosophical assumptions are inherent in the use of qualitative design for research (p. 19). Creswell identified these assumptions as:

Knowledge was within the meanings people make = of it; knowledge was gained through people talking about their meanings; knowledge= was laced with personal biases and values; knowledge was written in a personal, up-close way; and knowledge evolves, emerges, and was inextricably tied to = the context in which it was studied. (p. 19).

Merriam (= 1998) further refined qualitative research to one key assumption: .” .= . reality was constructed by individuals interacting with their social worlds. Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meaning people = have constructed” (p. 6). In this dissertation, the researcher first obtai= ned emic (insider’s perspective) knowledge of Proximal Mentoring from each participant to adequately answer t= he four research questions: (1) What w= ere the perceptions of the course professor regarding the role of the Proximal = Mentor? (2) What w= ere the perceptions of the mentees regarding the role of the Proximal Mentor? (3) How did the mentors come to negotiate, define, and express the Proximal Mentoring role? and (4) What outcomes were obtained by the PMs after having participated in Proximal Mentoring? Then the researcher compared and contrasted emic knowledge of each participant with each of the other participants through the process of triangulation. The most efficient method of accomplishing this task was to = use a multiple-case, case-study design (Yin, 2003a; Creswell, 1998, 2003; Merri= am, 1998).

Case study methodology was identified by Merriam (1998) as useful when the topic of st= udy was an educational innovation that could “affect and perhaps even improve” educational practices (p. 41). A case study was a unique met= hod of qualitative inquiry in that it was a bounded system (Creswell, 1998, p. = 37). First, this case study was bounded by time: participants were involved in Proximal Mentoring over one semest= er. Second, it was bounded by place: participants Proximal Mentored in only one course for the semester. Third, i= t was bounded by participants: PMs, course professor, and student-mentees. Merriam added a fourth dimension of particu= laristic meaning .” . . case studies focus on a particular situation, event, program, or phenomenon” (p. 29): the focus for this research p= roject was the experience of the phenomenon of Proximal Mentoring from the perspective of the participants. Marshall and Rossman (1999) reminded us “systematic inquiry must occur in a natural setting” (p. 7). The term par= ticipants, as opposed to subjects, was used because it reflected the “connotations of inclusion and willing cooperation” (Merriam, p. 132).

Given the= choice of multiple-case or single-case designs, Yin (2003a) advocated using more c= ases as “your chances of producing robust results will be better” (p. 135). According to Yin (1989) multiple-cases “should be considered li= ke multiple experiments” (p. 38) wherein replication could be claimed if= two or more cases support the same theory. Yin (2003a) pointed out generalizati= ons “are rarely based on single experiments; they are usually based on a multiple se= t of experiments that have replicated the same phenomenon under different conditions” (p. 10). The grouping of participants in each semester co= urse represented one case in this design. The experiences of the cases converged facilitating the exploration of the Proximal Mentoring role.

Marshall = and Rossman (1999) cautioned “design flexibility was a crucial feature of qualitative inquiry” (p. 17); however, this in no way inferred that s= ound methodology and planning be ignored. On the contrary, it was sound methodol= ogy and planning that allowed for flexibility in the design, allowing for the inclusion of events, themes, and issues not anticipated in the original des= ign. Due to the need to protect the anonymity of the PMs, the data were aggregat= ed. Data aggregation allowed for the expression of the findings without contributing to the ability to identify individual participants. Multiple cases, when triangulated, comprised a more complete picture of the construc= t of Proximal Mentoring, thereby enr= iching the findings of the study while leveraging the flexibility of the design inherent in the methodology.

Selection of Participants

Two courses were selected as cases in this study. The first = was an Adolescent Development Master’s level course offered in spring semester. The second was a History and Philosophy of Educational Psychology offered in fall semester. The cases for this study were purposefully select= ed because of their uniqueness (Merriam, 1998; Glesne, 1999) in that the each course was easily adapted for the inclusion of PMs and the professors were willing to incorporate Proximal Men= toring into their respective courses. Each case was bounded by time in that each semester became one case. Each case had three types of participants: profes= sor of the course, PMs, and student-mentees.

The first participants to be selected were the course professors. In Case 1, a professor who had many years of experience in instructional design, a vested interest in student success within the programs offered by the department, = and an ongoing involvement in research projects was approached about joining the research project. The Case 1 professor was provided with a copy of the prop= osal and asked to be the course professor for the project. The Case 1 professor accepted and volunteered an Adolescent Development class for participation = in the project. In Case 2, the same professor who participated in the pilot st= udy the previous fall was approached. The Case 2 professor whole heartedly agre= ed to continue with the project.

In collaboration with the course professors and the dissertation committee co-chairs, three initial selection criteria, based on the outcomes of the p= ilot study, were identified to assist in selecting PMs. First, participants need= ed to have experience with the course content in which they Proximal Mentored. Second, PMs needed to be accepted by the cou= rse professor. Third, all participants needed to sign an informed consent form acknowledging their willingness to participate. Upon acceptance, PMs were required to enroll in three graduate credits of either independent study or independent research.

Ten potential PMs were identified and their names provided to the Case 1 profes= sor. The Case 1 professor approved inviting all ten potential PMs. The potential= PMs included five people who were Proxi= mal Mentored during the pilot study in fall semester and five people who we= re not involved in Proximal Mentoring<= /i>. An email was sent to each person inviting them to participate in this resea= rch (see Appendix 1). The Proximal Ment= oring course was described as a three-credit independent study course. These cred= its would qualify as elective credits towards their degree program. To achieve credit, PMs would (a) moderate in-class discussion groups; (b) present 15 minutes of lecture on one to three course topic(s) with approval of the cou= rse professor; and (c) meet with the course professor each week (outside of the course times). The meetings with the course professor each week were descri= bed as assisting with design, administration, and review of in-class assignment= s, homework assignments, and course assessments.

In addition, participants were made aware that this offering was part of a research project and they would be asked to (a) participate in face-to-face research meetings; (b) participate in online discussions with the other mentoring research participants; (c) answer short questions each week online about their mentoring experiences; and (d) complete the pre- and post-mento= ring surveys.

After exchanging emails with each potential participant, three were identified as having (a) interest in the research project; (b) interest in the course content; and (c) ability to rearrange their schedules to accommodate both t= he independent study course and the implementation course meetings. Two of the potential PMs had participated as mentees in the pilot study. The third had experience as both a graduate assistant and a teaching assistant. It was interesting to note at this point that all five of the potential participan= ts who were mentored during the pilot study in the fall wanted to participate = in the research, but some could not due to scheduling conflicts. Only one of t= he five potential participants who had not been mentored showed an interest in participating. The other four declined participation because they needed to focus on their own studies.

Access

I had prior involvement and contact with the participants through my participation in various courses within the graduate program. As I progress= ed through my program, I met some of the selected PMs in different capacities: fellow student, graduate assistant (GA), research assistant (RA), practicum student, and teaching assistant.

While it was generally undesirable to do research in an area in which you were intimately involved (Creswell, 2003, p. 184; Glesne, 1999, p. 26), in this case, being a member of the group was helpful. My relationship to the participants was one of fellow researcher and peer. I was not in a supervis= ory position over them. They were more than acquaintances in that we had emailed each other in addition to participating in lunch, department social events, conferences, and other courses together. However, they were not close perso= nal friends in that we did not discuss or participate in much of anything outsi= de the realm of graduate student work. All participants in this research were adults ranging in age from 21 to approximately 70 years of age.

A major difficulty with doing research in an area in which one was intimately involved was having multiple roles within the setting. Glesne (1999) sugges= ted that one “participate but in a way that does not get you inextricably incorporated in a setting’s ongoing affairs. . . .” (= p. 62). However, Glesne continued that by not becoming involved one must:

Realize . . . in some situations you may alienate . . . participants by choosing to remain marginal . . . as participation increases, marginality decreases, and you begin to experience what others see, think, and feel. (p= p. 63-64)

Role of the Case Study Researcher

Merriam (= 1998) advocated “the researcher was the primary instrument for data collect= ion and analysis” (p. 7). My role in the research was one of observer as participant wherein my primary role was information gatherer and data analy= st.

Setting

The setting for this research project consisted of two courses offered by the Department of Educational Psychology within the = College of Education at a research unive= rsity in the desert southwest of the United States. The two courses were a spring semester Adolescent Development course with 17 Master’s students enro= lled (case 1) and a fall semester History and Philosophy of Educational Psycholo= gy course with 18 first-semester doctoral students enrolled (case 2). <= /span>

The Case 1 PM Independent Study course met in the College of Educatio= n building within the main office of the Center for Evaluation and Assessment after normal business hours. The Case 2 Proximal Mentor independent study course met in the offices of the Case 2 profes= sor one and one-half hours before the course was scheduled to meet.

The Case 1 professor noted that although small group activities were traditiona= lly used in the course, they could be eliminated on any given class night depen= ding on class progress through the course materials. For this study, she modified the structure of the course to ensure small group meetings were included for every class meeting while noting the PMs would serve as the group leaders. = In addition, the groups would meet in different locations (one in the classroo= m, one at the library, and one in another classroom) to reduce the effect of interactions between the groups during group time. The PMs would return and discuss the exams during student’s group time. The professor noted th= at all students were able to “discuss it individually with me” sho= uld the group discussion not meet the student’s individual needs concerni= ng the exams. This planned procedure represented a deviation from the usual procedure of handing back the exams followed by going over the exams as an entire class.

Participants

The Case 1 professor was an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychology. She received her Ph. D. in Instructional Design and Development under the guidance of Dr. Robert M. Gagné. She had extensive experie= nce in instructional design. Her research interests were program development and evaluation, assessment, and applications of learning principles to the desi= gn, and delivery of instruction. The Case 2 professor was a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology. He received his Ph. D. in Psychology under the guidance of Dr. Richard C. Anderson. He had extensive experience = in graduate instruction. His research interests were background knowledge, rea= ding comprehension, learning theory, philosophical foundations of learning, selective allocation of attention while reading, and comprehending figurati= ve language in text.

The Case 1 PMs were doctoral students in the Department of Educational Psycholo= gy. Two of the PMs were employed by the local school district full time and participated in the Proximal Mentor= ing pilot study as student-mentees. A third Proximal Mentor was a full-time graduate student who had recently completed her master’s degree and continued straight into the doctoral program. Dur= ing her time in the master’s program, she held positions as graduate assistant, and teaching assistant within the Department of Educational Psychology and research intern for the local school district through the Ce= nter for Evaluation and Assessment. The Case 2 PMs were also doctoral students in the Department of Educational Psychology. All three were Graduate Assistants (GA’s) in addition to their PM role.

Students selected to take on the PM role were selected, not because they understood everything from the course, but because they did NOT understand or because = they indicated they wanted more in-depth knowledge of the material. One of the P= Ms from the pilot study was shocked at being offered an opportunity to become a mentor sharing with the researcher “but I only made a B” in the course. Only one person, who was asked to be a PM, had a very high grade in= the novice doctoral course.

The student-mentees were from a variety of backgrounds. They enrolled in the co= urse for a variety of reasons. The usual reason it was required for my program was the least reason given for being in the course. Some of the more interesting reasons included: interest in the topi= c of adolescent development; the student had heard the course was good; the stud= ent had heard the professor was an excellent instructor; and some were parents whose children were getting ready to become adolescents so they wanted a heads up on what to expect. All student-mentees readily agreed to participate in the study. Two declined to= be videotaped on the informed consent protocol.

Data Collection

“A = case study involves the widest array of data collection as the researcher attemp= ts to build an in-depth picture of the case” (Creswell, 1998, p. 123). Merriam (1998) cautioned that “no single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective” (p. 137). Yin (2003a) identified six commonly used categories of data collection: “documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant-observation, and physical artifacts” (p. 85).

Glesne (1= 999) reminded us that secondary data should “provide both historical and contextual dimensions to your observations and interviews” (p. 59). Merriam (1998) noted that secondary data provides measures of actual behavi= or that can be analyzed for incidences and frequencies without modifying the behaviors of the participants as the measuring occurs after the data was collected. Marshall and Rossman (1999) pointed out that secondary data “provides another perspective on the phenomenon, elaborating its complexity” (p. 129). Therefore, historical artifacts from the mentor= ing course were used to augment the creditability, dependability, and confirmability of the analysis. Table 3-1 provides a matrix of the data categories and sources of data for this study.

Table 3-1      &nbs= p;   Types of Data Collected

Data Category

Data Source

Documentatio= n

Archival rec= ords

Interviews

Direct observation

Participant-= observation

Physical artifact

Primary data

Informed Consen= t

X

X

Mentor meetings

X

X

X

Mentor meetings with professor

X

X

X

Pre-mentoring Survey

X

X

X

X

Post-Mentoring Survey

X

X

X

X

Classroom Observation

X

X

X

X

Interview

X

X

X

X

Secondary data

Online Discussi= on Questions

X

X

X

Email

X

X

X

X

Both primary and secondary data were collected. Primary data consisted of observations, interviews, focus groups, and surveys. Secondary data were online discussion questions and email. The online discussion questions were available to the PMs twenty-four hours a d= ay, seven days a week over the entire semester.

There were structural differences between the two cases (illustrated in Table 3-2= ). Although Case 1 ended the discussion groups by the 8^th week of t= he semester, the PMs continued to attend the course. They listened to and chee= red on their student-mentees as the student-mentees gave their assigned presentations to the class.

Table 3-2      &nbs= p;   Structural Differences Between Case 1 and Case 2.

D= ifferences

Case 1

Case 2

PM Experience

1= ^st time PMs

2= ^nd time PMs

Time with PMs in group

8 weeks

14 weeks

Assessments

3 tests of multiple= choice and short answer essay

1 group presentatio= n

Final culminating p= aper

Content

Read 1 chapter per = class meeting

3-5 Empirical artic= les per week plus 1 page critique on each article

Nature of Course

Lecture

Seminar

Level of mentees

Master’s stud= ents

Novice Doctoral Stu= dents

In Case 2, two of the PMs who participated in t= he pilot study eagerly accepted being included in the dissertation research. In addition, one of the student-mentees from the pilot study also volunteered = to be a PM. These three students stated they were looking forward to working w= ith me again; however, there was a major difference. I did not attend the regul= ar course meetings. We also did not have the after course PM meetings, as the = PMs decided they no longer needed that level of support. After all, as they sta= ted, they had “already successfully completed one semester of being a PM” in the same course. They focused their time on meeting with the professor to discuss the course materials prior to discussing the materials with the student-mentees following that meeting. In addition, the Case 2 mentors met with the professor at a time when the researcher could not be in attendance.

This dissertation relied heavily on participant= introspection and participant self-report. Steps such as triangulation and member checking were taken to mitigate the reliance on introspection and self-report. In addition, multiple sources of information were collected (Creswell, 1998, Merriam, 1998, Yin 2003a) including both primary and secondary sources (Gle= sne, 1999; Merriam, 1998; Marshall & Rossman 1999) which were used to augment the triangulation and member checking.

= Mentor Face-to-Face Sessions

In the me= ntor meetings the researcher was “creating a supportive environment, asking focused questions, to encourage discussion and the expression of differing opinions and points of view” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p.114). Although the PMs were forthcoming with their experience, guiding questions = were available as talking points during the mentor meetings.

Guiding q= uestions for the interviews included 1) what has been the most/least challenging activity for Proximal Mentoring= to date; 2) what has been the most/least rewarding activity; 3) what has been = the most/least expected finding; and 4) what do you wish you had known about Proximal Mentoring? In addition, collegial socializing was encouraged. Only the researcher and the PMs were present for these sessions. The sessions were videotaped.

Pre- and Post-Mentoring Surveys=

“Re= searchers administer questionnaires to some sample of a population to learn about the distribution of characteristics, attitudes, or beliefs” (Marshall &am= p; Rossman, 1999, p. 129). Pre-mentoring and post-mentoring surveys (see Appendices 2 and 3) were administered to the PMs and their student-mentees.= The surveys were specifically developed for Proximal Mentoring and refined in the pilot study. The pre-mentoring survey was administered within the first two weeks of the semester. The post-mentoring surveys were administered within the last two weeks of the semester. Administration of the surveys depended on the professor’s schedule for the course.

Observations

“Ob= servation entails the systematic noting and recoding of events, behaviors, and artifa= cts (objects) in the social setting chosen for study” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 107). Systematic observations of the PMs were videotaped, field notes were taken and reviewed against the videotapes as a form of triangulation. Observations included PM meetings, meetings with the course professor, in-class interactions, and group interactions with the mentees.<= /p>
Interviews

Yin (2003= a) espoused interviews as “an essential source of case study evidence because most case studies are about human affairs” (p. 92). Stake (19= 95) noted that interviewing “seldom proceeds as a survey with the same questions asked of each respondent; rather, each interviewee was expected to have had unique experiences, special stories to tell” (p. 65). “Interviews will appear to be guided conversations rather than struct= ured queries. . . . although you will be pursuing a consistent li= ne of inquiry, your actual stream of questions in a case study interview was likely to be fluid rather than rigid” (Yin, 2003a, p. 89).The purpose= of each interview was to elicit the professors’ perceptions of Proximal Mentoring. Each interview= was videotaped and transcribed.

Historical artifact= s

Email, on= line discussion threads, and surveys administered during each semester were collected and analyzed both during and after the study.

Researchers supplement participant observation, interviewing, and observation with gathering and analyzing documents produc= ed in the course of everyday events . . . the review of documents wa= s an unobtrusive method, rich in portraying the values and beliefs of participan= ts in the setting. (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 116)

Although = these documents were analyzed during the data collection process, a review of the historical documents was “conducted without disturbing the setting in= any way” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 117). This allowed for auditing and triangulation of the analyzed perspectives without altering the percept= ions of the participants themselves.

Analysis

Lincoln and Guba (1985) note that sourc= es of qualitative data consisted of “interviews, observations, documents, unobtrusive measures, nonverbal cues, or any other qualitative or quantitat= ive information pools” (p. 202). The analysis of this information was an inductive process of “‘making sense’ of the data” (= p. 202). Data were coded, categorized, sorted, compared, and contrasted throug= h an inductive analysis process to produce an analyzed account of participants’ experiences, feelings, and actions.

Cross-Case

After eac= h case was analyzed, cross-case analyses were performed. Cross-case analyses “bring together the findings from individual case studies and were the most critical parts of a multiple-case study” (Yin, 2003b, p. 145). Cross-case analyses were performed to elicit an understanding of the Proximal Mentoring construct (Merr= iam, 1998, p. 38; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Attention was paid to differences= as well as similarities between and among participants (Spradley, 1980, p. 125= ).

Research question 1. What= were the perceptions of the course professor regarding the role of the Proximal Mentor? To answer this question, ethnographic interviews with t= he course professors were held to elicit the perceptions of the professors. Domains and taxonomies of the ideas and themes present for each case were produced. Then, a cross-case analysis was conducted on the domains. Attenti= on was paid to differences as well as similarities between participants (Sprad= ley, 1980).

Research question 2. What= were the perceptions of the mentees regarding the role of the Proximal Mentor? To= answer this question, student mentee surveys were analyzed. The mentoring survey w= as administered at the beginning of the semester, prior to the addition of PMs. The same mentoring survey was administered at the end of the semester. The = pre- and post-mentoring surveys were subjected to domain and taxonomic analysis.= A second post-survey was administered to elicit student perceptions of the instructional practice of including PMs as a source of student support in t= he course. Domains and taxonomies of the ideas and themes present for each case were produced. Then, a cross-case analysis was conducted on the domains. Attention was paid to differences as well as similarities between participa= nts (Spradley, 1980).

Researc= h question 3. How did the mentors come to negotiate, define, and express the Proximal Mentoring role? To answer= this research question, data was analyzed first by case, then by multiple-case u= sing cross-case analysis. Domains and taxonomies of the ideas and themes present= for each case were produced. Then, a cross-case analysis was conducted on the taxonomies where attention was paid to differences as well as similarities between participants (Spradley, 1980).

Researc= h question 4. What outcomes were obtained by the PMs= after having participated in Proximal Men= toring? Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002) stated:

Adding design features to case studies= , such as . . . pretreatment observations, clearly improves causal inference. . . . by melding case-study data collection metho= ds with experimental design. (p. 501)

Domain and taxono= mic analyses were performed using the online discussion questions and the pre- = and post-mentoring surveys (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 199= 4; Merriam, 1998; Spradley, 1980; Creswell, 2003 & 1998; Yin, 2003a). In a= ddition to the taxonomic analysis, historical artifacts for each mentor were examin= ed to assist in analyzing the data collected as it pertained to this research question.

Domain analysis

The search for patterns begins with categories = of meaning (Spradley, 1980) where semantic relationships were identified. Spra= dley (1980) stated:

Analysis . . . refers to the systema= tic examination of something to determine its parts, the relationship among par= ts, and their relationship to the whole. Analysis was a search for patterns. (p. 85)

Taxonomic analysis

Following the revealing of the semantic relationships, a taxonomic analysis provided the relationships between the identified categories. Spradley (1980) stated:

A taxonomy was a set of categories organized o= n the basis of a single semantic relationship. . . . a taxonomy sh= ows more of the relationship among the things inside the cultural domain. (p. 1= 12)

Spradley reminded us “= ;to recognize that taxonomies always approximate the cultural patterns you have observed” (p. 119). Glesne (1999) augments Spradley’s definitio= n of taxonomy noting that “the data was organized by central themes or topics” (p. 166). This was a process whereby the researcher “generates a typology of concepts, gives them names or uses ‘native’ labels, and then discusses them one by one, illustrati= ng with descriptive detail” (Glesne, p. 166). Glesne continued by noting that concepts and processes were stable descriptors whereas people and their actions/reactions were dynamic. Taxonomies were developed to analyze and display the data gathered from the data. Data for this research were displa= yed in conventional taxonomy and tabular formats (Spradley, 1980; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Trustworthiness -- issues of validity = or verification

Shadish et al. (2002) stated that in all resear= ch the researchers must take into account issues of validity (internal, external, reliability, and objectivity). Lincoln and Guba (1985) transformed these is= sues of validity into a new term: trustworthiness (p. 218). Creswell (1998) advo= cated for the use of “verification instead of validity because verification underscores qualitative research as a distinct approach, a legitimate mode = of inquiry” (p. 201). I chose to combined these three approaches into one cohesive test of trustworthiness with four components: Credibility (internal validity), Transferability (external validity), Dependability (reliability), and Confirmability (objectivity).

Establishing Credibility (Internal Val= idity)

Lincoln and Guba (1985) transformed the quantit= ative terminology into terms they propose have a better fit with naturalistic epistemology. The four transformations were (a) internal validity to credibility; (b) external validity to transferability; (c) reliability to dependability; and (d) objectivity to confirmability. Lincoln and Guba prov= ided nine verification procedures to enhance validity in qualitative research: (= a) prolonged engagement and persistent observation; (b) triangulation; (c) peer debriefing; (d) negative case analysis; (e) clarifying researcher bias; (f) member checking; (g) rich, thick description; (h) external audits; and (i) referential adequacy. Creswell (1998) modified peer debriefing, to include = peer review and debriefing. Miles and Huberman (1994) included multiple cases as= a method to enhance the confidence of a study wherein each case met the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability requirement= s on its own merits. The combined cases would then “strengthen the precisi= on, the validity, and the stability of the findings” (p. 29).

Prolonged engagement= and persistent observation. Merriam (1998) also recommended “gathering data over a period of time in order to increase the validity of the findings” (p. 204). The data for this research project was collected over a one-year peri= od beginning in January and concluding in December.

Triangulation. Stake (2006) defined triangulation as “a process of using multiple perceptions to clarify meaning, but it w= as also verifying the repeatability of an observation or interpretation”= (p. 37). Stake recommended that each primary finding have at least three confirmatory points supported by the data and readily seen by readers as belonging to the primary finding (p. 33). Glesne (1999) suggested that one “attempt to relate them [the data] so as to counteract the threats to validity identified in each” (p. 31). For this dissertation, analyses= of the mentor meetings, mentoring surveys, online discussions, interviews with= the course professor, and classroom observations all served as triangulation points. In addition, the cross-case analyses of the course professors, the student-mentees, and the PMs were triangulated that provided a more complete assessment of the construct of Prox= imal Mentoring.

Peer re= view or debriefing. Merriam (1998) suggested “asking colleagues to commen= t on the findings as they emerge” (p. 204). Because this research was a doctoral dissertation, the doctoral committee of five professors (two co-ch= airs and three members) served in place of asking colleagues to ensure the quali= ty of the analysis. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), the peer debriefing process enables the researcher to examine their own biases as well as to clarify meanings and interpretations of the data by the researcher (p. 308)= . In addition, Lincoln and Guba mentioned that the debriefing process allows the researcher a sense of “catharsis, thereby clearing the mind of emotio= ns and feelings that may be clouding good judgment or preventing emergence of sensible next steps” (p. 308).

Negativ= e case analysis. Lincoln and Guba (1985) stated that the negative case analysis process allows the researcher to continually refine the qualitative hypothe= sis “until it accounts for all kn= own cases without exception” (p. 309) so that no outliers exist and a= ll cases fit the hypothesis. Care was taken to ensure that non-corroborating evidence was included in the analysis.

Referen= tial adequacy. Lincoln and Guba (1985) used referential adequacy as the meth= od of verifying the qualitative analysis with video and audio records of the original data for accuracy (p. 313). Lincoln and Guba continued with the id= ea that referential adequacy was not limited to electronic recordings – = any representative, archived, and/or raw data could be used to verify the accur= acy of the analysis. Researcher interactions with participants were videotaped = and retained as digital files. These files were used for review and verificatio= n of findings as needed.

Clarify= ing researcher bias. As Glesne (1999) pointed out, one must be careful not = to have “reached my conclusions before I began my research” (p. 19= ). Merriam (1998) advocated for “clarifying the researcher’s assumptions, worldview, and theoretical orientation” at the beginning= of the research (p. 205). Throughout the writing of the proposal, I, as resear= cher, committed my assumptions, views, and theoretical orientation to paper. In addition, a permanent record of interactions among participants and between participants and the researcher in the form of videotapes and written respo= nses were collected. Through member-checking and auditing using the permanent artifacts, researcher’s bias was held in check.

Member checking. Merriam (1998) added participant collaboration using the term “collaborative modes of research” as another method of ensuring validity of a qualitative study by recommending involvement “in all phases of research from conceptualizing the study to writing up the findings” (p. 205). Because this study was conducted with graduate students who were interested in the research process, a part of their expectations were to be included in the tentative interpretation of the data collected from each of them. Wolcott (1990) regarded member checking as “an integral element of fieldwork” (p. 45). Member checks were utilized to ensure that the analysis was accurate and plausible from the participant’s perspective (Merriam, 1998, p. 204). The participants in this study were apprised of the research study progression. It was importan= t to note that “informants and participants may still disagree with an inv= estigator’s conclusions and interpretations, but these reviewers should not disagree ov= er the actual facts of the case” (Yin, 2003a, p. 159).

Establishing Transferability (External Validity)

Lincoln and Guba (1985) anticipated the dissona= nce between the qualitative and quantitative views of external validity. Shadis= h et al. (2002) used external validity as the degree of generalizability of the research. However, statistical generalizability was not appropriate for qualitative research. Merriam (1998) argued that qualitative research, by i= ts very nature, was not meant to generalize to other populations. Instead “working hypotheses, concrete universals, naturalistic generalization, and user or reader generalizability” (Merriam, 1998, p. 219) were use= d to convey external validity. Lincoln and Guba (1985) maintained that it was the rich, thick description that allows the reader to determine if their own setting will allow an attempt to replicate the research.

Rich, t= hick description. Merriam (1998) reiterated that one of the benefits of qualitative research was the ability to provide the reader with the ability= to experience the research setting vicariously as well as to assess the analys= is of the data. Merriam reminded us that “case studies allow us to exper= ience situations and individuals in our own settings that we would not normally h= ave access to” (p. 238).

Rich, t= hick description. Merriam (1998) reiterated that one of the benefits of qualitative research was the ability to provide the reader with the ability= to experience the research setting vicariously as well as to assess the analys= is of the data. Merriam reminded us that “case studies allow us to experience situations and individuals in our own settings that we would not normally have access to” (p. 238).

Establishing Dependability (Reliabilit= y) and Confirmability (Objectivity)

Lincoln and Guba (1985) tasked researchers to establish the dependability and confirmability by using people not involved= in the project at hand as auditors. The auditors would review the process (dependability) and the product (confirmability) of the research. To review= the process, auditors would review how the records and data were handled and ke= pt to reduce the possibility of fraud. To review the product, the auditors wou= ld review the data, findings, interpretations, and recommendations of the rese= arch to establish coherence between the raw data and the analysis performed on t= hat data. Auditors for this research project were the dissertation committee members.

External audits. Graduate students who were not involved in this study and who h= ad completed or were nearing completion of their comprehensive exams were aske= d to review the dissertation for dependability and confirmability. They provided grammatical editing and asked clarifying questions about the findings which assisted in solidifying the rational for the analytic results.

Reliabi= lity of email. Merriam (1998) pointed out a number of issues with using participants’ email records as data (pp. 128-129). First, the researc= her had no way of knowing that the emails provided by the participants represen= ted all of the email correspondence generated. Some of the correspondence may have been deleted (purposefully, habitually, or in error). Email lacked humanistic features (voice tone, inflection, and strength; emotional overtones; and bo= dy language). Email was not a synchronous activity, each responds in their own time frame. This effected the ability of the email data to reflect the participant’s feelings and actions of the moment. In addition, Merriam reminded us that skill in writing, computer applications, and keyboarding influence a participant’s usage of the computer as a method of communication. For this research project, email was used in conjunction with other sources of data, increasing the reliability of the email source.

Procedures

The PMs met before entering the course to discu= ss what to expect later that evening when they were introduced to the student-mentees. This was an informal discussion with the PMs asking and di= scussing questions related to the Proximal Mentoring role.

In Case 1, three business-sized cards were plac= ed in a container. One card had the number one, one card had the number two, and = the third card had the number three. The PMs reached in, one at a time, and dre= w a card to represent their Proximal Me= ntor group number for the student-mentees.

In Case 2, two of the three PMs were in the pil= ot study in the role of PM and readily agreed to return to work with the same professor in the same course. Group number assignments were not necessary. = The two PMs kept their same anonymous designation and a third was agreed upon f= or the new PM.

After the brief Proximal Mentor meeting, the PMs and I entered the classroom. The course profess= or introduced me to the class. I passed out the Proximal Mentoring consent form protocol, read the protocol, answered questions, and reassured the student-mentees that the focus of the research was not them, the focu= s was the PMs with whom they would be interacting. Students asked about obtaining= a copy of the final manuscript. They were told that there would be a sign-up = form available at the end of the course if they wanted to receive a copy of the final manuscript. Consent forms were then signed by participants and collec= ted by the researcher.

Plain 3 x 5 index cards and letter-sized, self-sealing, security envelopes were passed out. Student-mentees were aske= d to select a 4 to 8 character code to use on the surveys. This was explained as necessary to assure their anonymity for the research project. Once they wro= te their code on the 3 x 5 card, they were instructed to place the card inside= the security envelope, remove the tape strip from the glued flap, seal the envelope, and sign their name across the seal. They were told that they wou= ld receive the envelopes back at the end of the semester. This process enabled them to ensure they remembered the code they had selected and make sure no = one else knew their code because the card and envelope would be theirs to keep = or destroy at the end of the semester. The pre-mentoring survey was then passed out. Student-mentees were given approximately 15 minutes to respond to the survey. Most student-mentees were finished in less than 10 minutes. Students were then instructed to pass all the paperwork to the end of their row. I collected the paperwork from each row.

The student mentee envelopes were placed in a container. In a second container, I had placed business-sized cards. Six of= the cards had the number one printed on them, six had the number two, and six h= ad the number three. The number on the card represented the Proximal Mentor to whom they would be randomly assigned for mentoring over the semester. After mixing the contents of each container, a student mentee name was pulled along with a Proximal Mentor number and called out to the class. This procedure was followed until all student-mentees were randomly assigned to a Proximal Mentor. The course professor then instructed the stude= nts to meet in groups for introductions. Groups were given 15 minutes to make introductions. Then the course professor called the class to order and continued regular class instruction.

On the final night of data collection in the classroom, the security envelopes were handed back to the student-mentees. = The two post-mentoring surveys were passed out. Students were asked to use their code on the post-mentoring surveys to ensure the proper matching of the pre- and post-survey results. Students were given 20 minutes of time to finish t= he two surveys. Most took less than 15 minutes. The participants were thanked = for their part in the research study.

Classroom Observations

Classroom observations began with the researcher surreptitiously entering the location of each group’s chosen meeting place. If addressed, the researcher responded with an “ignore my presence” comment. The researcher observed the interactions of the gr= oup members for 5 to 10 minutes per group. At the conclusion of the observation time, the researcher quietly left the room.

PM Online Discussion Questions

During the semester, an online discussion forum= was available to PMs online. There were five domains of “most/least” questions asked of the mentors for each week of class. These five domains w= ere challenges, rewards, expectations, knowledge, and ways of mentoring. A gene= ric “comment” area was designated for PMs to include any other items they thought necessary to the data collection. If the PM neglected to compl= ete the PM questions within 48 hours of completion of that week’s attenda= nce in the implementation course, a gentle reminder was sent along with a direct link to the questions.

Professor Interviews

Each of the interviews began with a greeting to= the course professor. This was followed by asking the course professor probing questions about the Proximal Mentor= ing experience. The questions continued until the course professor indicated th= ey had said everything they intended to say during the interview. At the conclusion of the interview, the course professor was thanked for their continued participation.

PM Meetings With Processor

Each of the mentor meetings with the professor = began with an organization of materials and greetings among participants. This was followed by negotiation of course structure, timing, and assignments between the course professor and the PMs. At the conclusion of the meeting, participants stated their good-byes to one another.

PM Meetings With The Researcher

Each of the mentor meetings began with greetings among the participants. This was followed by the researcher asking probing questions about the Proximal Mentor= ing experience. Participants shared their experiences corroborating each other’s perceptions and discussing similarities and differences among their mentoring groups. The meeting concluded with good wishes and particip= ants departed.

=

=

=

CH= APTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

In this Chapter, cross-case analyses of the dat= a from Case 1 and Case 2 are presented. The purpose of this cross-case analysis wa= s to elicit themes common to, as well as divergent from, the participant’s perceptions of the role of the Prox= imal Mentor. This analysis can be conceptualized pictorially as a Venn diagr= am as illustrated in Figure 4-1. The analyses are presented first in research question order then by common themes followed by divergent themes.

	Data Category
Data Source	Documentatio= n	Archival rec= ords	Interviews	Direct observation	Participant-= observation	Physical artifact
Primary data
Informed Consen= t				X		X
Mentor meetings				X	X	X
Mentor meetings with professor				X	X	X
Pre-mentoring Survey	X			X	X	X
Post-Mentoring Survey	X			X	X	X
Classroom Observation	X			X	X	X
Interview			X	X	X	X
Secondary data
Online Discussi= on Questions	X	X				X
Email	X	X			X	X

D= ifferences	Case 1	Case 2
PM Experience	1= ^st time PMs	2= ^nd time PMs
Time with PMs in group	8 weeks	14 weeks
Assessments	3 tests of multiple= choice and short answer essay 1 group presentatio= n	Final culminating p= aper
Content	Read 1 chapter per = class meeting	3-5 Empirical artic= les per week plus 1 page critique on each article
Nature of Course	Lecture	Seminar
Level of mentees	Master’s stud= ents	Novice Doctoral Stu= dents