Strategies for Mentoring Online Graduate Students

Introduction

As online graduate programs proliferate, research has focused on various aspects of formal online courses and programs. However, the online mentoring of projects, independent work, and research supervision in online Masters and doctoral programs is an area less explored (Erichsen et al, 2014; Kumar et al, 2013), although information and communication technologies are increasingly used in both online and on-campus education for research and project supervision. The purpose of this research was to conduct a review of existing research on online mentoring in graduate education in the last 20 years. As faculty and graduate students increasingly interact in online and blended environments, it is important to study the ways in which mentoring relationships, strategies, and processes change.

Research Questions

1. What strategies are reported in investigations of online mentoring in graduate education?

2. What factors are reported as influencing the nature and quality of the mentoring relationship in an online medium?

3. What methodological approaches have been used to study online mentoring in graduate education?

Method          

We focused on peer-reviewed publications between 1998 and 2018 directly addressing the individual mentoring of online graduate students at master’s and doctoral levels by faculty advisors. Sources were restricted to refereed online and print journals and ERIC documents. The following terms were combined to ensure maximum possible results: online, graduate student, virtual, distance, e-learning, web-based, e-mentoring, supervision, telementoring, cybermentoring, advising, supervising, mentoring, doctoral, PhD, and Master’s. The final results contained thirty-five articles from thirty journals.

Findings

Approaches and Strategies

Some of the most important strategies for effective e-mentoring revolve around fostering the interpersonal aspects of the relationship, such as trust, connection, respect, and confidence (Bender et al, 2018; Deshpande, 2016). Common behaviors of good advisors included treating advisees as individuals, taking the advising process seriously, and maintaining high availability for advisee needs (Kumar & Johnson, 2017; Schroeder & Terras, 2015). The strategy for online mentoring with the strongest ties to student perceptions of satisfaction with the relationship is mentors’ responsiveness, concern, and care for the well-being of the student as an individual (Jacobs et al, 2015; Kumar & Coe, 2017; Stein & Glazer, 2003; Welch, 2017).

Frequent communication has been identified as critical to the online mentoring relationship (Broome et al, 2011; de Janasz & Godshalk, 2013; Jacobs et al, 2015; Kumar & Coe, 2017), reducing the problem of spatial and temporal distance creating difficulties in the relationship (Nasiri & Mafakheri, 2015). Communicating encouragement as well as constructive feedback can also serve to improve the relationship by reducing transactional distance between mentor and mentee (Kumar et al, 2013). Students required timely, clear feedback (Erichsen et al, 2014; Kumar et al, 2013) at the same time that issues with understanding this feedback were identified (Erichsen et al, 2014).

Factors

Several factors such as online mentor competencies, technologies used, consistency of interaction, cultural similarities, and small group mentoring were factors identified in the research as contributing to the quality of online mentoring relationships.

Online communication competencies in order to provide usable feedback were identified as important (Kumar et al, 2013; Schichtel, 2010), along with the mentors’ ability to be flexible and engage a variety of technological options for communication and the provision of feedback (Doyle et al, 2016; Welch 2017; Jacobs et al, 2015; Kumar & Johnson, 2017; Nasiri & Mafakheri, 2015). There was an emphasis on utilizing synchronous interaction, as it is a close approximation to face-to-face interaction and fosters connection better than other methods (Bender et al 2018; Doyle et al, 2016). Maintaining consistency of mentoring interactions, as well as frequency, is also important (Rademaker et al, 2016).

There is some evidence that mentor-mentee pairs should be “matched” across value or cultural similarity (Berg, 2016; de Janasz & Godshalk, 2013), and, in other cases, that cultural sensitivity be maintained during communications with mentees who may experience communication and social norms differently (Berg, 2016; Nasiri & Mafakheri, 2015; Sussex, 2008). Awareness of “netiquette” decreases the potential for miscommunication due to the reduction of information exchanged (Bierema & Merriam, 2002), such as body language, vocal intonation, and facial expression. Many studies indicated online graduate student preference for the use of peer mentoring groups, and a sense of community positively influenced the experience of being an online graduate student (Broome et al, 2011; Byrd, 2016; Jacobs et al, 2015; Kumar & Coe, 2017; Welch, 2017).

Methodological approaches

Existing literature takes a variety of approaches to explore the relationship between mentor and mentee online, including where the focus of the investigation lay (i.e., on the relationship, the methods of interaction, the perceptions of mentor and/or mentee, etc), the theoretical and/or conceptual foundations, the method of study, and conclusions drawn from findings. The research methods used were largely qualitative and mixed methods, with a few survey-based articles.

Discussion and Implications

Bierema and Merriam (2002) asserted that e-mentoring is qualitatively different than traditional mentoring in the same ways that writing online is qualitatively different than writing on paper. The nature of the activity, and its meanings and effects, changes online. Online technologies afford flexibility in more ways than time/space/convenience; they provide a means to communicate differently, both more multi-faceted and more immediately at the same time. Implications from the research will be discussed as “a new framework, model, and theory are needed in order to give purpose and direction to the transformational potential offered by the infusion of technology into the advising process” (Ambrose & Williamson Ambrose, 2013, p. 79).

References

Ambrose, A. G., & Williamson Ambrose, L. (2013). The blended advising model: Transforming advising with ePortfolios. International Journal of ePortfolio, 3(1), 75-89.

Bender, S., Rubel, D. J., & Dykeman, C. (2018). An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis of Doctoral Counselor Education Students’ Experience of Receiving Cybersupervision. Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 11(1).

Berg, G. (2016). The Dissertation Process and Mentor Relationships for African American and Latina/o Students in an Online Program. American Journal of Distance Education, 30:4, 225-236. DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2016.1227191

Bierema, L. L., & Merriam, S. B. (2002). E-mentoring: Using computer mediated communication to enhance the mentoring process. Innovative Higher Education, 26(3), 211-227.

Broome, M. E., Halstead, J. A., Pesut, D. J., Rawl, S. M., & Boland, D. L. (2011). Evaluating the Outcomes of a Distance-Accessible PhD Program. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27(2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.09.011

Byrd, J. C. (2016). Understanding the Online Doctoral Learning Experience: Factors That Contribute to Students' Sense of Community. Journal of Educators Online, 13(2), 102-135. Columbaro, N. L. (2009). e-Mentoring possibilities for online doctoral students: A literature review. Adult Learning, 20(3-4), 9-15.

de Janasz, S. C., & Godshalk, V. M. (2013). The role of e-mentoring in protégés’ learning and satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 38(6), 743–774.

Deshpande, A. (2016). A Qualitative Examination of Challenges Influencing Doctoral Students in an Online Doctoral Program. International Education Studies, 9(6), 139.

Doyle, N., Jacobs, K., & Ryan, C. (2016). Faculty Mentors’ Perspectives on E-Mentoring Post-Professional Occupational Therapy Doctoral Students: Faculty Mentors’ Perspectives on E-Mentoring. Occupational Therapy International, 23(4), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.1431

Erichsen, Elizabeth Anne, Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2014). Student satisfaction with graduate supervision in doctoral programs primarily delivered in distance education settings. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709496

Jacobs, K., Doyle, N., & Ryan, C. (2015). The Nature, Perception, and Impact of e-Mentoring on Post-Professional Occupational Therapy Doctoral Students. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 29(2), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.3109/07380577.2015.1006752

Kumar, S., & Coe, C. (2017). Mentoring and Student Support in Online Doctoral Programs. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(2), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1300464

Kumar, S., & Johnson, M. (2017). Mentoring doctoral students online: mentor strategies and challenges. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 25(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2017.1326693

Kumar, S., Johnson, M., & Hardemon, T. (2013). Dissertations at a Distance: Students’ Perceptions of Online Mentoring in a Doctoral Program. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 27(1). Retrieved from http://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/835

Nasiri, F., & Mafakheri, F. (2015). Postgraduate research supervision at a distance: a review of challenges and strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 40(10), 1962–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.914906

Rademaker, L. (2016). Chair Perceptions of Trust between Mentor and Mentee in Online Doctoral Dissertation Mentoring. Online Learning, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i1.605

Schichtel, M. (2010). Core-competence skills in e-mentoring for medical educators: A conceptual exploration. Medical Teacher, 32(7), e248–e262. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.489126

Schroeder, S. M., & Terras, K. L. (2015). Advising experiences and needs of online, cohort, and classroom adult graduate learners. NACADA Journal, 35(1), 42-55. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-13-044

Stein, D., & Glazer, H. R. (2003). Mentoring the Adult Learner in Academic Midlife at a Distance Education University. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1701_2

Sussex, R. (2008). Technological options in supervising remote research students. Higher Education, 55(1), 121-137.

Welch, S. (2017). Virtual Mentoring Program within an Online Doctoral Nursing Education Program: A Phenomenological Study. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2016-0049