According to Feldon, the main reason why faculty mentors can’t accurately assess their students’ skills is because time is a limited resource.
“Much early mentee skill development may occur while the mentee is not under the watchful eye of the mentor…it is also possible that the many demands on faculty members’ time lead them to rely on abstract impressions of individual students,” says the report.
Another reason faculty mentors are not able to accurately assess student skill is because many faculty assign solitary work that is utility-based, not merit-based. That work is then assessed non-specifically, with terms such as “unfocused,” “aggressive” or “hard working.”
“It’s about the need to produce,” explained Feldon. “Direct state funding has dropped dramatically over the last 30 years, with research grants now paying most of the bills. Research faculty are now under incredible pressure to produce, since the only way the university can grow is through reputation and grants; these grants also help support expenses, such as salaries and student services.”
“Producing now takes up most research faculty time, which doesn’t always leave much for mentoring their graduate students—that’s why they’re being assigned tasks for utility [not for skill exercise], getting non-specific feedback, and working alone without much guidance,” he continued.
Solutions: It’s complicated
Though the report indicates that many STEM graduate mentors are not able to accurately assess students’ skills, the intent of the analysis is not to discount the necessity of the mentor-mentee relationship.
“Many graduate students need faculty mentors to define the way forward to professional accomplishment,” says the report. “Likewise, faculty mentors, as stewards of their disciplines, need graduate student mentees to sustain and advance their fields.”
When asked if there were any institutional guidelines available concerning mentorship, Feldon said it’s a guessing game.
“There are some guidelines available at the Center for Teaching Excellence, et cetera, but the empirical evidence for these guidelines is weak,” he said. “It’s hard to tease apart which specific tasks as part of a mentorship effect performance, since, as the study recently highlighted, perceptions of whether or not a student is learning required skills are flawed. Much more performance-based data would be needed to develop meaningful guidelines, and that’s where future research comes in.”
However, Feldon emphasized that obtaining performance-based data on student skills development may be a hard task to accomplish considering student privacy concerns, as student performance data is often confidential and sensitive.
For now, though, colleges and universities can take two steps to better mentorship—both concerning cultural attitudes, rather than rules and regulations:
Focus on teaching: Research institutions can place a greater emphasis on the importance of teaching, not just research, Feldon explained. “In other words, don’t just be a Tier 1 research institution, be a Tier 1 teaching institution!”
He suggested that one way to allow for a better teaching focus is for institutions to shift the emphasis from quantity to quality in faculty production for tenure review. “That way, faculty can take their time on research and better mentor their students for a larger overall study and not need to race to break up their research into tiny publishable chunks; an articulated value could lead to a slackening of pace.”
Clearly articulate expectations and criteria: The study notes that specifically articulated quality benchmarks for performance within the context of academic research could help students’ ability to self-assess and monitor their skills development.
“Increasing the specificity of the learning objectives and the extent to which they are identified explicitly for STEM graduate students may enhance efficacy and precision of feedback…further, increased emphasis on anchoring assessments of skill to discrete task performance may enable faculty to more effectively steer students toward resources and experiences that will enhance necessary scholarly skills,” concluded the report.
To read the full report in the American Educational Research Journal, titled “Faculty Mentors’, Graduate Students’, and Performance-Based Assessments of Students’ Research Skill Development,” click here.
Read more on STEM graduates’ skills here.
- 25 education trends for 2018 - January 1, 2018
- IT #1: 6 essential technologies on the higher ed horizon - December 27, 2017
- #3: 3 big ways today’s college students are different from just a decade ago - December 27, 2017