Collaborative Development: Reflective Mentoring for GTAs

Abstract

This study examines the development of a graduate peer mentoring program in the Composition Program at Wayne State University. Responding to Reed’s (2008) call for a formal and structured program, we developed and implemented multiple nodes of informal and formal structures for new graduate teaching assistants. Extending notions of communities of practice, we describe what we call “third spaces” for teacher training. Our third spaces occur within the teaching practicum, writing center, teaching circles, teaching blogs, and peer observations. We end with a reflection on the limitations of our Graduate peer mentoring program and suggestions for change and program assessment.

Appendices

Postscript from the Editors

Complex Collaboration—In their description of building a collaborative mentoring community, the authors describe the three phases critical to developing a collaborative context: building commitment for the collaboration, then committing to the reality of it, and finally sustaining it (Kezar & Lester, 2009). The authors also call for a move from implicit to explicit development of mentors; thus, the collaborative new third space they describe becomes institutionalized and formalized. By establishing a path whereby new GTAs advance in their teaching to become seasoned GTAs, and whereby lecturers can also participate in the mentoring that takes place, the collaborative community at Wayne State makes effective use of the lateral skills of the peer network that is one of the resources used to sustain the collaboration (Cohen & Mankin, 2002).

Practical Implications—Wallis and Jankens offer a description of a mentoring plan now being put into place at writing programs across the country. The value in this chapter is the codification of the authors’ robust mentoring program and the clear connections they make between components of their “third spaces” plan and mentoring scholarship. The authors reflect upon the weaknesses in their mentoring approach—challenges facing most peer-GTA mentoring initiatives—and acknowledge the need to obtain IRB approval to assess ways to improve mentoring at their institution. While Wallis and Jankens do not specifically connect to or cite research on contingent faculty issues, the make-up of their teaching/tutoring staff and mentoring participants suggests that considering that body of literature may strengthen programs like theirs as well. Recent research on contingent faculty issues provides information for ways in which mentors/mentees can in novel ways report participation in these programs on annual reports and glean other professional development opportunities from (required) mentoring activities.

Note

• 1. In AY 2015–2016, the teaching circles for new GTAs were held bi-weekly during practicum meetings, to better acknowledge the pressing demands of GTAs’ busy academic schedules as well as to reinforce the professional value of these communities of practice, which GTAs may elect to join following their first-year teaching in the program.