Posted by Editor21C in Community Engagement, Directions in Education, Education Policy and Politics, Social Justice and Equity through Education.
from Associate Professor Carol Reid
Here, Carol Reid explores how questions of social and cultural diversity and difference impact upon schools and young people, and how they can be addressed through imaginative learning design.
Late last year in the Sydney Morning Herald, an article discussed where migrants liked to live in Sydney. Professor Ang, UWS Centre for Cultural Research, commented that it was vibrant areas that attract migrants, in particular ‘Asian’ migrants. However, this is only part of the story. Areas of Sydney where there are churches and very good schools are also a major pull factor. Some of these areas are very quiet indeed, although shopping strips have been reinvigorated in the ways Professor Ang discussed. Areas that were once largely ‘Anglo’ are now increasingly populated by migrants who, once established in Australia and ready to buy their first home, choose areas on the basis of local schools. In this respect, they are no different to other cultural groups but of course socio-economic factors play a major role in the capacity to choose, and more recently arrived skilled migrants are generally professional and more able to do so. Refugees on the other hand have less choice.
Responding to this article, Deborah Cameron on ABC702 on November 8th ran a discussion asking: “Are parts of Sydney too monocultural?” Reference was made to school composition and the benefits and dilemmas associated with diversity or the perceived lack of diversity in local schools. This is a hot topic whenever it occurs and I have been embroiled in many of these debates, both willingly and not so willingly. So what are the educational implications for learning in our schools and suburbs in what appears to be increasing heterogeneity on the one hand, and persistent homogeneity on the other?
I was forced to consider this question a few years back when we had the Cronulla riots and again when the UK riots exploded on our screens in 2011. To understand and respond to these vexed questions requires a brief overview of where we are at in the sociology of knowledge.
To begin, it is very hard in a blog piece to cover the intellectual terrain of the past 50 or so years but it is necessary to do so, however brief, to examine this issue, which seems to have so many tentacles. So here is what I will try to do. First, a brief explanation of where we are at in terms of ‘big ideas’ about social life and education more generally and then second, what this might mean for some of these concerns about diversity. This approach draws on French scholar Bourdieu (1988) who maintained that we need to provide a strong critique of the reasoning for what we do.
Mid 20th century we thought that progress (modernisation or modernism) of a particular kind – technological – would provide us with the ideal society. We set up schools to provide labour for this kind of society. The schools were well-ordered, taught mostly the same things to mostly different children and some made it to the top, while others became fodder for the factories. This ‘sifting and sorting’ (Parsons, 1961) disappeared for some time in the radical education movements of the 1970s and 1980s but came back with vengeance in the mid- 1990s and is still with us despite the factories not being there. The factory model of schooling broke down knowledge into small parts and the bits very often didn’t relate to the other bits or to the lives of the students.
At the turn of this century the theories that had seemingly replaced earlier modernist approaches promulgated a new direction. Postmodernism (Perry, 1998[1]) argued that there was no universal understanding about society (such as the earlier belief in progress through development and a utopian future) and we didn’t need to speak, think and do it all the same way because attending to difference could be productive. However, to understand difference required concrete responses. Our rich multicultural heritage and past strong policies in this regard attended to differences although not without critique and revision. The development of ethnic or language specific schools and the further development of religious schools other than Catholic and Protestant also demonstrated difference was a reality and beyond mere rhetoric. The proliferation of choice in public schooling is another dimension of these shifts.
So what does this mean for schools? At a broader level this does mean we are seeing increasing inequalities as those that ‘can’ choose, do. Those left in schools where capital in all its forms has been reduced or removed (social, cultural, intellectual, linguistic, economic) – either by processes of selectivity or parental choice – do suffer. For example, recent research points to the importance of peer effect (Webber and Butler, 2007; NSW Department of Education and Communities, 2011) on learning outcomes. These are major concerns for policy makers in education and will, without due attention, lead to social inequalities that will impact on society quite profoundly. They call for nothing short of a restructuring of education to provide new pathways, new ways of learning and a link to future work, such as the emergent ‘green’ industry. It is somewhat ironic that increasing diversification of choice in terms of where to go to school is not matched by real choice for these students in terms of learning.
Given the increasing division of students on the basis of a range of social categories, what can we do to intervene when things go wrong? A project I was involved, post-Cronulla riot, with six high schools in south-western Sydney, might provide some answers and is in part a reflection of what we have learned from the two theoretical movements discussed earlier. First, there was a wider context where it could be shown that discourses about particular Australians – young middle-Eastern males – had hit an all-time low. We had been through the war on terror, the Bali bombing and the refugee boat arrivals being painted as less than human. All this ‘big picture’ stuff, or metanarrative, had created a structure of feeling (Williams, 1977) towards difference and others. This was felt most intensely at the local level so, while this ‘big picture’ knowledge was critical our responses had to be local, something we have learned from postmodern theory.
In this instance, we discussed with students in these schools the context in which the riot occurred and asked them to go out to other schools and investigate the opinions of their peers about the issues that were local. Some of it was racism, some about violenc and safety, and other things were about all those things adolescents worry about – competition over girlfriends and family reputation among others. To be able to do this the students were taught ethics, learned how to conduct focus groups, construct questions and to analyse the materials they collected. They interviewed their teachers, parents and students in their own schools and other schools. Here they utilised a range of skills in meaningful ways. The result? They concluded that harmony or continual peace was a naive concept – an impossible destination given all their differences; that all you could do was work towards it and that this was about respect, avoiding assumptions, questioning the media analysis and speaking across difference. The students were entrusted with the capacity to know and to understand. They were given and produced really useful knowledge (Gramsci, 1971) with which to work, and turned them into narratives that were performed for their schools and local communities. The production of knowledge in this case was situated geographically in the local but very much connected to global forces.
The schools that participated in this project work with marginalised communities, in socio-economically less well off areas and have ethnically diverse student bodies. Pluralism and localism are important in working in these contexts but so is attention to structures that shape and bear down on these local practices in many ways. Choice about what school to attend is one dynamic shaking up traditional processes of learning to get along with difference. In these situated contexts really useful knowledge can make a difference to relationships among diverse young people and give youth a voice about what kind of education is meaningful. Opportunities to have conversations across difference can also develop a cosmopolitan imagination (Delanty, 2006) and enable transformation of the self and others.
[1] Perry found the origins of postmodernism in Hispanic literary circles from the 1930s but it didn’t hit its straps until the latter part of the 20th century.
References: Anderson, P. (1998) The origins of postmodernity, London: Verso. Bourdieu, P. (1988) Homo academicus, Cambridge: Polity Press. Delanty, G. (2006) The cosmopolitan imagination: critical cosmopolitanism and social theory, The British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 25-47. Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, London: Lawrence and Wishart. NSW Department of Education and Communities (2011) School Funding Arrangements Discussion Paper, https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/about-us/news-at-det/announcements/discussion-paper.pdf . Parsons, T. (1961) Theories of society: foundations of modern sociological theory, New York : Free Press. Webber, R. and Butler, T. (2007) Classifying Pupils by Where They Live: How Well Does This Predict Variations in Their GCSE Results? Journal of Urban Studies, 44 (7). Williams, R. (1977) Structures of feeling in Marxism and literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press (Chapter 9).
Carol Reid is a member of the Centre for Educational Research within the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney, Australia.
Posted by Editor21C in Uncategorized.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 21,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at the Sydney Opera House, it would take about 8 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
Click here to see the complete report.
Posted by Editor21C in Community Engagement, Early Childhood Education, Primary Education, Social Justice and Equity through Education.
from Dr Prathyusha Sanagavarapu
In her first post, Prathyusha explores the role that educators can play in understanding the impact of food allergies on children and their families, and how they can provide support when allergies are identified.
Food allergy in young children is a growing health issue in the 21st century. It is widely known as a medical issue with significant impacts on affected children’s safety and wellbeing. However, it is also a social issue with implications for children’s and their caregivers’ socio-emotional wellbeing, as indicated in recent medical research. In this context, it is timely to understand and consider the socio-emotional impacts of food allergy for educators’ practice, as the attendance of affected children is on the rise in early childhood settings.
Currently, one in 10 Australian children has food allergy (Osborne, Koplin, Martin, Gurrin, Lowe, Matheson, Ponsonby, Wake, Tang, Dharmage, Allen, 2011), whereas previously, one in 20 were reported to have this medical condition (Anaphylaxis Australia Inc: AAI). The attendance of young children with a diagnosed food allergy is also on the increase in Australian early childhood settings. For example, in the ACT alone, one in 30 children had nut allergy at the time of starting school (Kljakovic, Gatenby, Hawkins, Attewell, Ciszek, Kratochvil, Moreira & Ponsonby, 2009). Consequently, the management of food allergy has become an important issue for Australian educators in recent times.
Food allergy is the body’s adverse immune response to protein in some naturally occurring and nutritious foods such as milk, eggs, peanut, tree nuts (e.g. walnuts, cashews), sesame, fish, shell fish (e.g. prawn, lobster), wheat and soy. These nine foods are regarded as being responsible for 90% of allergic reactions in Australian children. An allergic reaction usually occurs immediately or with a delay after eating a food and in some cases, a reaction could possibly result in a fatality or a near fatality situation. Ingestion of affected foods even in very small amounts can result in either a mild, moderate or a very severe allergic reaction, known as anaphylaxis (AAI). A child needs immediate administration of the lifesaving adrenaline auto-injector (known as Epipen® or Anapen® in Australia) into the thigh muscle, in the case of anaphylaxis. The instructions on how to handle food allergy and anaphylaxis in a child are set out in an Action Plan for Anaphylaxis, prepared by a doctor. Currently, there is no cure for food allergy or anaphylaxis. Therefore, it needs to be managed by avoiding potentially dangerous food/s and by administering the adrenaline auto injector when needed (Bertine, Block & Dubois, 2009).
As food is integrated with peoples’ everyday activities, parents of young children have to be highly vigilant to totally eliminate affected foods, which requires them to scrutinise food labels to choose safe foods, avoid cross-contamination of foods in all meals served, and to prepare and carry home cooked or special meals while attending social events to prevent risks (e.g., Avery, King, Knight & Hourihane, 2003). A few parents also tend to restrict social activities and even travelling to avoid potential risks in out of home contexts, where risks may be unknown and the safety of children cannot be guaranteed (e.g., Primeau, Kagan, Joseph, Lim, Dufresne, Duffy, Prhcal & Clarke, 2000). The fear and anxiety around children’s health and safety are so predominant that some parents opt to home school their children (Bollinger, Dahiquist, Mudd, Sonntag, Dillinger & McKenna, 2006) and others may refuse to send their children to birthday parties or school excursions (Primeau, et al., 2000).
Other daily concerns of parents are related to children’s poor nutritional intake, sleep difficulties, and management of other health conditions and illnesses (diarrhoea; asthma, eczema and dermatitis and allergic rhinitis, eating problems and gastric disorders: Bertine et al., 2009; Bollinger, et al., 2006). These burdens further tend to intensify for mothers when they lack support from extended families and communities (Sanagavarapu, 2004).
Children were also noted to feel insecure, apprehensive, and fearful because of the safety risks (Lyons & Forde, 2004), and had other issues in regards to normalising their lives (e.g., Marklund, Wilde-Larsson, Ahlstedt & Nordström, 2007). Literature also suggested that children “may be at an increased risk of socio-emotional developmental difficulties” (Bollinger at al, 2006, p.15).
To put it simply, normal chores of sending children to school or child care, for a sleep over, or going to a beach or a restaurant, can be quite challenging and emotionally demanding for some parents, given the unique risks of food allergy. The anxieties around children’s safety, social restrictions, and adaptations were noted to have a significant impact on both parents’ and their children’s emotional wellbeing or quality of life (Cohen, Noone, Munoz-Furlong, & Sicherer 2004).
As research confirms the socio-emotional impacts of food allergy for children and their parents, it is imperative that educators understand and address the social issues of food allergy to manage it holistically. While the management of food allergy from a medical perspective requires educators to identify children with risks of food allergy and anaphylaxis, know the causes and symptoms of food allergy, identify allergic reactions and respond effectively to allergic reactions (as per the instructions in the Action Plan for Anaphylaxis, and the state education departments’ guidelines), the management of food allergy from a social perspective requires educators to:
- acknowledge the socio-emotional issues and minimise children’s and their parents’ anxiety by offering the support needed, providing information on support services such as Anaphylaxis Australia Inc (the only national organisation for people affected by food allergy and anaphylaxis) and/or assisting families and children to find coping strategies;
- ease their anxiety and provide reassurance through the development, communication, and implementation of the safety guidelines and policies at school or child care;
- work collaboratively with parents and children to know how food allergies are managed at home and develop specific strategies to prevent risks at school or child care and for specific situations and events such as meal times, field trips, school camps and so on, where adult supervision may be minimal and risks may be unknown;
- address the issues of inclusion and self-esteem that may arise when children cannot participate in curricular and extra-curricular activities involving affected foods;
- educate peers and other families about the seriousness of food allergies to elicit their cooperation in keeping affected children safe and to address their negative perceptions of and attitudes to food allergy, and negative labelling of affected parents as paranoid and overprotective;
- keep strategies in place to prevent possible peer pressure and victimisation of children with food allergy; and
- advocate for the rights of affected children and their families and so on-just to name a few.
By recognising food allergy as a significant socio-emotional issue, educators also need to approach the management of food allergy sensitively. As is evident, “sensitivity involves empathy and is built upon knowledge and understanding” (Royal Children’s Hospital, 2007, p.2). To this end, it is essential that educators have the knowledge and understanding of the lived experiences of food allergy to address children’s and their parents’ concerns and support needs, with an overall aim of promoting their psychosocial wellbeing, consequently their quality of life.
*Disclaimer: The information presented in this article on the management of food allergy does not replace medical advice from doctors and the training, guidelines or policy information on the management of food allergy in early childhood settings.
References: Anaphylaxis Australia Incorporated. Available from http://www.allergyfacts.org.au. Avery, N.J., King, R.M., Knight, S., Hourihane, J.O.B. (2003). Assessment of quality of life in children with peanut allergy. Paediatric Allergy Immunology, 14, 378-382. Bertine, M. J., Block, F., & Dubois, A.E.J. (2009). Quality of life in food allergy: valid scales for children and adults. Current Opinion in Clinical Immunology, 9 (3) 214-221. Bollinger, M. E., Dahiquist, L. M., Mudd, K., Sonntag, C., Dillinger , L., & McKenna , K. (2006). The impact of food allergy on the daily activities of children and their families. Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, 96 (3), 415-421. British Columbia ( 2005). Life threatening food allergies in school and child care settings. Avialble from www.gov.bc/mcf/. Cohen, B. L., Noone, S., Munoz-Furlong, A., Sicherer, S.H. (2004). Development of a questionnaire to measure quality of life in families with a child with food allergy. Journal of Allergy Clinical Immunology, 114(5), 1159-1163. Kljakovic, M., Gatenby, P., Hawkins, C., Attewell, R.G., Ciszek, K., Kratochvil, G., Moreira, A., Ponsonby, A. (2009). The parent-reported prevalence and management of peanut and nut allergy in school children in the Australian Capital Territory. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 45(3), 98-103. Lyons, A.C., & Forde, E.M.E. ( 2004). Food allergy in young adults: perceptions and psychological effects. Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 497-504. Marklund,B., Wilde-Larsson, B.M., Ahlstedt, S., & Nordström, G. (2007). Adolescents’ experiences of being food hypersentisitve: a qualitative study. BMC Nursing, 6:8.Available from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6955-6-8. Osborne, N.J., Koplin, J.J., Martin, P.E., Gurrin, L.C., Lowe, A.J., Matheson, M.C., Ponsonby, A., Wake, M., Tang, M.L.K., Dhramage, S.C., & Allen, K.J. (2011). Prevalence of challenge-proven IgE-mediated food allergy using population-based sampling and predetermined challenge criteria in infants. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 127 (3), 668-676. Royal Children’s Hospital (2007). Working with culturally and linguistically and diverse families. Child Care and Children’s health, 10 (1), 1-6. Date accessed on 12/09/11 from http://www.rch.org.au/emplibrary/ecconnections/CCH_Vol10_No1Mar2007.pdf. Primeau, M.N., Kagan, R., Joseph, L., Lim, H., Dufresne, C., Duffy, C., Prhcal, D., & Clarke, A. (2000). The psychological burden of peanut allergy as perceived by adults with peanut allergy and the parents of peanut allergic children . Clinical and Experimental Allergy, 30, 1135-1143. Sanagavarapu, P. (2004). Socio-cultural matrix of raising a child with food allergies: Experiences of a migrant mother. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 12 (1), 45-49.
Prathyusha Sanagavarapu is a Lecturer in early childhood education in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney, Australia. She has a particular research interest in the management of food allergies in young children.
Posted by Editor21C in Engaging Learning Environments, Primary Education, Secondary Education.
from Christina Curry
Christina Curry has previously posted one of our most popular contributions: Why public primary schools are desperate for specialised PE teachers. Here, she argues that through Game Sense, a different approach to teaching physical education, students can master intellectual as well as physical challenges.
In a climate of increasing accountability, expectations that teachers understand and demonstrate high quality teaching in Australia are reflected across a range of government initiatives. At a state level this includes the New South Wales (NSW) Quality Teaching Framework (QTF).
The NSW model of pedagogy embedded in the QTF focuses on the teaching practices that research studies indicates can make the most difference when it comes to improving student learning outcomes. The emphasis on providing intellectual quality, a quality learning environment and making the significance of learning explicit to students provides a valuable framework within which teachers can strive to deliver quality teaching. Many PDHPE teachers have struggled to deliver quality physical education teaching within this framework as the traditional model of teaching PE neglects the intellectual dimensions of games, sport and other movement (Light, 2002).
I suggest, as others have (Pearson, Webb, & McKeen, 2005), that a shift from traditional skill based, technique focused PE to a Game Sense pedagogy provides an ideal means through which PDHPE teachers can address the Quality Teaching Framework in the teaching of games and sport.
The Games Sense approach (see YouTube clip in the references below) is a student-centred, inquiry-based approach that allows students to develop their own skills and understandings while being actively involved in the game. It focuses on the game and not on the discrete skills or techniques that traditional approaches see as needing to be mastered before playing the game. All learning occurs within the authentic context of modified games or game-like activities to develop understanding, decision-making and skills that work within the context of a game. Skill development occurs at the same time as understanding, with the modified games reducing the technical demands on the students so that they can concentrate on the games as a whole. In this way Game Sense integrates physical, intellectual and social learning. Children can understand similarities between games and explore common principles.
Game Sense tends to use small sided, modified games that incorporate essential tactical structures but which are adapted to cater for different age, size, ability, inclination and motivation. This typically involves designing a series of modified, small-sided games that progressively move from simple to more complex games, culminating in the full game or modified version of it that the teacher expects the students to be able to play at the end of the unit. The games increase, not only in tactical complexity but also in the skills required to play them. The focus here is on students learning through engagement with the learning environment facilitated by the teacher who guides, shapes and enhances learning but does not determine it.
The inability to respond with suitably high quality teaching widens the gap between physical education and the ‘academic’ curriculum, reinforcing the perception of PE as a non-academic subject distant from the ‘real’ school curriculum. This then reduces physical education to justifying its place in the curriculum as a tool for fighting lifestyle diseases such as obesity, when research suggests its potential for realising valuable intellectual learning through movement when appropriate pedagogy is adopted (Light & Fawns, 2003).
As Australia moves towards a national curriculum there is a pressing need for high quality pedagogy that highlights the possibilities for learning through movement in physical education. PE teachers using the Game Sense approach will not only be able to meet the requirements of the NSW Quality Teaching Framework but will also be able to provide high quality learning experiences for students and make a start toward making physical education a truly valuable educational experience in NSW schools.
References Light, R. (2002). Engaging the body in learning: Promoting cognition in games through TGfU ACHPER Healthy Lifestyle Journal, 49(269-87). Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. Quest, 55, 161-177. Pearson, P., Webb, P., & McKeen, K. (2005). Linking Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) and Quality Teaching (QT). Game Sense youtube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKzAbB2Lg6U
Christina Curry is a Lecturer in Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE) in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney, Australia. She teaches and researches in K-12 PDHPE curriculum and pedagogy.
Posted by Editor21C in Early Childhood Education, Primary Education, Secondary Education, Educational Leadership, Teacher and Adult Education.
from Dr Maggie Clarke
In her first post, Maggie Clarke positions mentoring for teachers in a new light by focussing on the collaborative nature of schools and how new models and processes of mentoring need to be explored.
Can you remember your first day as a teacher? I clearly recall being told as I was given my classes, “let me know if you have any problems” and that was my support! Teaching can be an isolating profession where you are left on your own to get on with your teaching in your classroom. What many of us craved in our early teaching careers was someone who could be a “shepherding hand” who could help us in our workplace knowledge, our classroom practice and professional relationships. Emerging more recently in schools is the introduction of these ‘shepherding hands’, in the form of mentors. Mentoring is not a new concept but it has not been fully implemented in the teaching profession, unlike many other professions. If mentoring practices are evident in some schools, the models and types of mentoring have changed little over the last thirty years. In the schools of the 21st century there is a need to provide mentoring that is collegial and is based on a mutual relationship.
Raza and Mosca (2002) in their research explored ideas of changing employee-organisation relations. They posited that the ‘new age employee’ expects to be treated in a more equitable manner than previous generations. They believe that contemporary organizations need to provide opportunities for employees to have feedback on their progress and “proper tools to assist them achieve their goals” (p.2). Organisations, in an attempt to provide these opportunities, are turning to mentoring as one means of providing professional learning for their employees. Increasingly, managers in organisations are seeing mentoring as an important source of professional learning for less experienced employees. Many organisations are recognising that facilitation and support of a mentoring process is an effective strategy to build the organisation.
Over time there has been a plethora of definitions of mentoring and often these definitions have been defined in terms of the type or form of mentoring. Usually, mentoring has been defined in terms of either informal or formal mentoring. Mentoring can be recognised by the type of relationship that is evident in each mentoring process. It can be a formal or an informal relationship and within these boundaries the relationship can be reciprocal or non-reciprocal. It is the construct of the development of the relationships that is important in 21st century schools.
Formal mentoring relationships are generally designed for a predetermined length of time and are usually of short duration. Many managers implement formal mentoring programs as a strategy to induct new employees into their organisation (Douglas & McCauley, 1997). Within these programs the protégé is allocated to a mentor by the management of the organisation and usually, there is little or no involvement of staff in the selection process of matching the mentor and protégé by either party. These programs are purposefully developed, monitored and evaluated by the management in terms of expectations and goal attainment. There is an inequality of status in this relationship with communication often being one-way. The mentor directs and drives the communication down to the protégé with little opportunity for the protégé to have input or respond to the communication from the mentor. The one-way communication in formal mentoring can result in the protégé being unable to ‘connect’ with the mentor. This type of mentoring is probably one that some teachers have experienced in their own employment situations.
Informal mentoring relationships, on the other hand, are spontaneously formed through people getting to know each other in the work environment. The relationship is usually voluntary and is often based on mutual professional identity and respect. The relationship is of a more personal nature and while communication can often flow from the mentor to the protégé, it takes place in a more informal manner. This informality is derived from the fact that the management of the organisation does not initiate the relationship but rather the relationship often forms through social contexts such as meetings ‘over coffee’. The communication in this relationship is more relaxed and has little structure.
Evidence from the literature indicates that there are fewer limitations in informal mentoring than formal mentoring. The two major areas of difference between formal and informal mentoring are in the levels of career guidance and psychosocial support. Informal mentors usually provide a higher level of coaching and increase the protégé’s visibility in the organisation. They also provide counselling, social interaction, role modelling and friendship.
The co-mentoring relationship has been a development reported in the literature in the last ten years (Jipson & Paley, 2000; Mullen, 2000; Kochan & Trimble, 2000; McGuire & Reger, 2003). Terms such as “mutual mentoring” (Fritzberg & Alemayehu, 2004), ‘reciprocal mentoring” (Gabriel & Kaufield, 2007) and “synergistic mentoring” (Goodwin, 2004) are used interchangeably in the literature to describe the practice of co-mentoring. Co-mentoring recognises the contribution that each person brings to the relationship and is based on reciprocal benefit. In this relationship the status of each person is equal and the communication pathway is one of reciprocity with each person mutually benefiting from the relationship. What is important in this type of mentoring relationship is that the relationship is of mutual benefit.
As our experiences with mentoring develops and evolves in contemporary workplaces so too will the types of mentoring processes change and develop. A new model of mentoring that involves informal and co-mentoring experiences has emerged in the research. Clarke (2004) reported on a layered model of mentoring that involves three stages. These stages are:
- collegial friendship
- informal mentoring and
- co-mentoring.
This model is a new conceptualisation of mentoring and portrays mentoring as a series of overlapping experiences. This layered model does not conform to any previously documented form of mentoring. It is a new way of thinking which recognises the contribution each person brings to the mentoring relationship, and is based on reciprocal benefit. The process is not contrived by the organisation but develops somewhat serendipitously between the mentor and in essence, this approach to mentoring recognises the significance of friendship, the contributions and equal status of each involved and the mutual benefit inherent in such a partnership. It emphasises that personal, professional relationships form a vital part of mentoring.
Mentoring approaches vary and can have their place in different contexts and although many organisations use formal mentoring programs to achieve organisational and individual goals, it is evident that more informal mentoring practices such as a layered model of mentoring can achieve extraordinary professional development and growth. Organisations should set themselves the challenge to explore new styles and forms of mentoring that are conducive to the 21st century workplace!
References: Clarke, M. (2004). Reconceptualising mentoring: Reflections by an early career researcher. Issues in Educational Research, 14(2), 121-143. Douglas, C., & McCauley, C. (1997). A survey on the use of formal developmental relationships in organisations. Issues and Observations, 17(1B 2), 6-9. Fritzberg, G.J. and Alemayehu, A. (2004). Mutual mentoring: Co-narrating an educative friendship between an education professor and an urban youth. The Urban Review, 36(4), 293-308. Gabriel, M.A. and Kaufield, K.J. (2008). Reciprocal mentorship: an effective support for online instructors. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnerships in Learning, 16(3), 311-327. Goodwin, L. (2004). A synergistic approach to Faculty mentoring. Journal of Faculty Development, 19(3), 145-152. Jipson, J., and Paley, N. (2000). Because no one gets there alone: Collaboration as co-mentoring. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 36-42. Kochan, F. and Trimble, S. (2000). From mentoring to co-mentoring: Establishing collaborative relationships. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 20-28. McQuire, G., & Reger, J. (2003). Feminist co-mentoring: A model for academic professional development. NSWA Journal, Spring, 15. Mullen, C. (2000). Constructing co-mentoring partnerships: Walkways we must travel. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 4-11. Raza, A & Mosca, J. (2002). The new age employee: An exploration of changing employee-organisation relations. Public personnel Management 31(2) 187-201.
Maggie Clarke is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney, Australia. Her research interests are in professional learning particularly related to the practices of mentoring and reflective practice. Her research on mentoring has been acknowledged through publications in a number of published international and national journals.
