Mentoring: Enhancing Values Development Through Intentional Relationships + Stephen P. Stratton + Instructor in Psychology Asbury College + James R. Owens + Professor of Broadcast Communication Asbury College In contemplating the topic of values development in undergraduate education, one's thoughts naturally turn to the structured environment of the college classroom. The authors easily recalled important developmental experiences that occurred as a result of involvement in classes. There were curricular strategies, teaching techniques, and fertile discussion and report topics that encourage and challenge students to confront, evaluate, and analyze their existing belief systems and subsequent value structures. Such academic interventions had significant impacts in our lives. With continued contemplation, it became apparent that these were not the only influences of our value structures in our undergraduate years. There were also developmental experiences that did not seem to be directly related to the planned interventions of the classroom. These experiences were not easily categorized, but they appeared to be related to our interactions and relationships with particular faculty members of the schools we attended. What made these individuals significant was their behavior and attitudes toward students. 1 The process of influence through these relationships was subtle and, for the most part, insidious. If we had been asked during our college years whether these relationships were influential in the development of our values, we would most probably have not seen them as being of long-lasting importance. We did remember feeling tutored, sponsored, encouraged, counseled, and/or befriended by these individuals at that time, but it was not until we had moved beyond the undergraduate years-gained a different perspective-that the impact was realized. These relational experiences are examples of "mentoring." Anderson (cited in Anderson & Shannon, 1988) more formally describes these types of experiences in the following way: a nurturing process in which a more skilled or more experienced person, serving as a role model, teaches, sponsors, encourages, counsels, and befriends a less skilled or less experienced person for the purpose of promoting the latter's professional and/or personal development. [It occurs] within the context of an on-going, caring relationship between the mentor and protégé (p. 40). Mentoring in History Mentoring is not a new concept, although it appears to have been rediscovered in the past 20 years. Sparked by the research of Levinson and his associates (1978) at Yale into the adult development of males, the professional literature of business, education, and psychology have developed a renewed interest in this concept, and large businesses and organizations such as AT&T, Federal Express, Merrill-Lynch, and the United States Army have embarked on extensive 2 programs to promote mentoring. They are drawn by the long-lasting, positive implications that seem to accompany those who have been mentored. For example, research has tended to confirm that mentoring in business results in higher salaries (and more equal salaries between men and women), quicker advancement, and greater job satisfaction (Roche, 1979, Kaufman, Harrel, Milam, Woolverton, & Miller, 1986). In the educational sector, there is evidence that supports the idea that mentoring is positively associated with retention and satisfaction of students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977, Terrell, Hassell, & Duggar, 1992). In the past, mentoring was an accepted part of maturation and appeared to be taken for granted (Engstrom, 1989, Davis, 1991). It occurred naturally in societies when the occupational training programs and educational systems were based upon apprenticeships and scholarships, respectively. A young person was taught a trade or was educated by a family member or by working alongside a craftsman or scholar. During this period, more was taught than simply occupational or educational skills. A way of living was "caught," as the old saying goes. Beliefs, values, and mores were transmitted from craftsman to apprentice and from scholar to student. The occupational and educational skills attained in this training period could not be divorced from the lessons of life that were learned through the mentor-protégé relationship. Even as educational opportunity was institutionalized 3 and offered more broadly, the philosophy of education emphasized educating the whole person. It was influenced by the English colonial system of education which was dedicated to the development of a community member-a citizen. In this environment, mentoring continued to remain a robust factor. With the industrialization and urbanization of culture, society appeared to drift away from the mentoring model. The extended family broke into smaller units as family members moved from a rural to a more urban perspective. Universities grew larger, and more seemed to assume a philosophy based upon the German system of education which emphasized technical research and the training of specialists. "The teacher in the [English] colonial college was responsible for the 'formation' of his students and the German university professor was responsible for the advancement of the discipline" (Boyer, 1987). In keeping with the spirit of the day, it became less efficient and was deemed antiquated to train or educate persons in a time-consuming mentoring model. Mass production became the mentality, and unfortunately, craftsmen and scholars could not be manufactured quickly enough. "Technicians" who performed only specialized duties could be trained much more efficiently. With this gradual shift of perspective, the activities of mentoring seemed to be a reduced priority. Whereas in the past mentoring had been taken for granted, it now required more intentional time and effort in education and 4 occupational training. In large institutions, professors who were rewarded to research and produce technical specialists had to add another responsibility to their overflowing schedules if they wanted to mentor a protégé. Smaller colleges offered the possibility of greater faculty-student interaction, but they vacillated in their commitment to community-building practices such as mentoring. They seemed to have trouble deciding whether they should model themselves after the powerful and prestigious large universities or accept a more distinctive mission. The Excellent Professor of Undergraduates In their indecision, Christian institutions of higher education have felt confusion as they have attempted to delineate the characteristics of an "excellent professor." For the most part, higher education in America is founded on the "German" assumption that exemplary research is the hallmark of being an excellent professor. Scholarly pursuits evidenced in the receipt of a lucrative grant or the publication of a well-received article or a noted book accrue the highest accolades. Other undergraduate duties such as lecturing, advising, sponsoring, and guiding appear to be honored less frequently. Boyer (1987) in his significant report on undergraduate education in America states that although faculty at small liberal arts colleges appeared to spend more time in the types of activities that bring them into contact with 5 students, they still live "in the shadow" of the research university. Promotion and tenure may not be granted solely on the basis of scholarly productivity as it often appears to be at the larger university, but certain advantages are connected with these activities even at the small college level. Faculty are certainly correct when they state that scholarly pursuits allow them to remain current in their field while also contributing to their respective disciplines. Such motivations are true and honorable. However, it must also be acknowledged that a certain amount of prestige and status is afforded not only the faculty member but the college as well when scholarly works are well-received. It is easy to see that faculty would be torn between scholarly productivity which has a definite role in higher education and other campus responsibilities and duties which also are important but often take a second (or lower) place. The problem with the reduced priority of these other campus responsibilities and duties is that most Christian liberal arts colleges assert that their classical mission is to educate the whole person. This appears at least to imply that one aspect of the mission is to influence certain values that are associated with the Christian faith. Christian colleges declare that it is not enough simply to advance knowledge. The goal moves beyond teaching students to be intelligent, but involves teaching them to be good as well (Bennett, 1988). Moreover, excellent teaching in this 6 setting by definition cannot leave uninfluenced or unmodified those tendencies for responsible, moral action (Wolterstorff, 1980). Trunfio and Lamport (1991) state the following: The truly excellent teacher is not one who simply acts as an impersonal and fragmented technician whose sole purpose is to transmit human knowledge. A most significant quality of an excellent teacher, but perhaps the most difficult to possess, is the ability to protect and extend the conditions for and commitment to the full human development of undergraduates. (p. 110) In other words, for those institutions that seek to promote learning within a Christian community it means "showing" students how to be intelligent and good. It involves a sobering emphasis on teaching in and out of the classroom in a manner that creates a context for the development of knowledge and values. Rokeach (1979) in his landmark discussions of values reports that in order to facilitate student contemplation and development of values, they must be encouraged to engage in a comparison process. This process is best fostered and is most genuine when undergraduates compare what they are finding out about themselves with what they are finding out about significant others. It seems reasonable to assume that the comparison has increased effectiveness when the individual used for this process is viewed as an important figure in students' lives. For the professor of undergraduates, being such a figure requires a relationship of some sort. Consequently, 7 if the development of values is the goal, an excellent professor cannot only be a knowledgeable, well-researched information disseminator. Knowledge of one's field is expected, and prestige in one's discipline is extremely beneficial. These qualities can certainly make an undergraduate professor attractive to students, but knowledge and prestige do not in and of themselves encourage values development. Even to teach about values does not necessarily seem to promote internalization of values. It is the actions of a professor, not the "preaching," that helps determine whether the message is internalized (Wolterstorff, 1980). In addition to teaching values, an excellent professor must then model the values that underlie both the educational and the spiritual mission of the Christian liberal arts college if values development is a goal. Modeling does not require perfect performance in relation to these values, but it does seem to necessitate an attitude that advertises respect for them. Unfortunately, advertising these values from a distance is less effective than advertising values in closer proximity to students. It is easy to understand that students are more influenced by esteemed models who appear to care for them and for whom they care. So, along with teaching and modeling values, an excellent professor should communicate concern and caring for students. These qualities produce a nurturing 8 environment that increases the likelihood that a professor's teaching and modeling will be considered. Furthermore, this type of environment is foundational for "inoculation" strategies that appear to be the most effective in strengthening students' defenses against ideas and beliefs that are contrary to the consensus of the community (Wolterstorff, 1980; refer also to the article in this issue by Waller-"The Case Against Value Indoctrination in Higher Education"). However, nurturing care-giving without the content of the teaching or the application of the modeling seems aimless if the goal is to develop and strengthen values. Mentoring infers a combination of each of these roles. A mentor is to some degree a teacher, a role model, and a nurturing care-giver. If one of these roles is removed, it ceases to be mentoring. When a professor has this type of relationship with a student, it is one of significance for both parties. The messages communicated verbally and behaviorally by the mentor become influential by the nature of the relationship. Comparison of one's value structure with another is accomplished naturally. The Elements of Mentoring Gehrke (1988) conceptualizes mentoring as having characteristics of other loving relationships in its mutuality, comprehensiveness, affection, and regard. She reports that it is similar to friendship, romantic love, and parental love. 9 Mentoring has elements of a friendship except that mentoring is not an equal relationship. The mentor is usually a person who is seen as more knowledgeable about or more experienced in certain areas of living. Due to this inequity, mentoring is difficult to maintain among actual peers, although some people in our interviews cited these experiences. It is a rare friendship that can deal effectively with the relational inequity over a long period of time. After a short time, it must be transformed into a more mutual relationship if the friendship is to continue. Mentoring has elements of romantic love except that it is not passionate. In fact, it may be the similarity to romantic love that results in the unfortunate intrusion of sexuality in the mentoring relationship. It is not unusual for "chemistry" to develop between a mentor and a protégé especially in cross-sex relationships, but it is vitally important that these feelings not be re-interpreted in a sexual manner. When sexuality is combined with mentoring, it typically results in negative implications for mentors and protégés (Haring-Hidore & Paludi, 1988). This issue can create a dilemma for women in particular. Mentoring appears to be vitally important for women, especially in traditionally male-dominated careers. And unfortunately, women mentors, as with any minority, are in short supply in business and academia (Roberts & Newton, 1987). Sheehy (1976) explains that tremendous confusion results when the needed tutoring and sponsorship becomes 10 entangled in sexual exploitation. It is not overstating the issue to assert that any combination of sexuality and mentoring are incompatible. Because of the differential power exhibited in the non-mutual mentoring relationship, it can only be viewed as abuse. Mentoring has elements of parental love except that it does not usually have the long mutual history. Mentors should be similar to parents in that they believe in the protégé; they share and encourage the protégé's dream for the future; and they assist in defining the emerging sense of self built around the dream (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978). A problem will occur, however, if a mentor becomes too parental. Levinson and his associates (1978) state that in these circumstances it is difficult to overcome the enforced generational differences and develop toward a non-hierarchal, collegial relationship which is the goal of mentoring. The result of a mentoring relationship is not one-sided. Although the mentor is looked upon as being more advanced, more knowledgeable, or more experienced in some area or areas, it is inaccurate and even problematic to assume that the mentor is always actively giving while the protégé is passively receiving. The mentor is not molding a protégé in his or her own image. The mentor is one who in an authentic, genuine manner provides certain functions to an active, discerning participant in the relationship. It is only in this way that a protégé can develop through the 11 idealism and dependency of the early "apprentice" stage of the relationship, through the negotiated independence of the middle stage, and move toward a more realistic, more equal relationship (Bravmann, as cited in Gehrke, 1988). The developmental process is similar to the natural stages of growth described by Covey (1989) in which a person developing character moves from dependence through independence to interdependence. A Model Of Mentoring The model that appears to explain the unstructured interview and survey information that we have collected in the course of investigating mentoring at Asbury College is adapted from Anderson and Shannon (1988). Mentoring appeared to be made up of the three roles discussed above. Mentors were role models in that they were perceived as having greater knowledge and experience in the personal/social, career, and/or spiritual areas of life. In the interviews it was as if protégés saw aspects of the mentor that they too wanted to develop. Their mentors provided them with a sense of what they could become (Anderson & Shannon, 1988). ____________________________________________________________ _ Insert Figure 1 here ____________________________________________________________ _ Mentors were teachers in that they were able to 12 communicate their knowledge and experience in personal/social, career, and/or spiritual areas of living to the protégé in a manner that challenged but also supported. In addition, they provided a sense of their willingness to be accessible and responsive to issues in students' lives. When the mentors were faculty members, this accessibility and responsiveness seemed to extend beyond the classroom. They provided clear cues that they were accessible for interaction both inside and outside of class through their style of teaching and classroom management (Wilson, Wood, & Gaff, 1974). Mentors were nurturing care-givers in that they encouraged a process of growth. In a manner not unlike "tough love," they provided the environment of caring accountability in which protégés could develop toward more mature standing in the personal/social, career, and/or spiritual areas. Much like a farmers in a "garden," mentors seemed most effective when they operated from the perspective that "the person being nurtured had the capacity to develop into fuller maturity" (Anderson & Shannon, 1988, p. 40), and they produced a harvest by encouraging that natural developmental process. As has been mentioned, the roles of role model, teacher, and nurturing care-giver seemed to be played out in three areas of living. Personal/Social mentoring seemed to encompass those aspects of living that involve identity and relationships. Career mentoring focused on those aspects of 13 living associated with occupational issues. Spiritual mentoring was often referred to as "discipleship." It emphasized the development of spiritual disciplines. There did not appear to be a "right way" to mentor in these areas. It seemed to vary with the personality of the one mentoring and the interaction style developed between the mentor and protégé. There did however appear to be certain functions that characterized mentoring even though they may have been acted out differently. Mentoring was shown in tutoring, sponsoring, encouraging, counseling, and befriending activities. In our interviews tutoring was displayed in activities such as discussing goals and providing information, modeling appropriate attitudes and behaviors toward a chosen field, acting as a resource, helping students to manage time, and assisting students in the planning of goals and objectives. Sponsoring activities included taking a student to professional conferences or on trips, going with students to difficult meetings, exposing students to various areas of their discipline, and creating strategies for students navigating the system. Encouraging activities included positive reinforcement, willingness not to dictate, supporting campus activities, and being present at events important to students. Counseling activities included responding to questions and listening, sharing ideas and attitudes, advising, guidance without intrusion, sharing relevant personal experiences, assisting in major and graduate school selection, and informal talks with 14 students regarding personal issues and career choices. Befriending activities included being non-judgmental, sharing and caring, including students in family activities, being willing to talk about personal matters, visiting dorm rooms, taking meals with students, and taking students shopping. All of the roles (role model, teacher, and nurturing care-giver) and the functions (tutoring, sponsoring, encouraging, counseling, and befriending) are founded on the openness of a caring and concerned mentor who can recognize where a protégé is in his or her development and lead a step at a time. In this environment, values are transmitted naturally and emphatically. They are lived out in front of the protégé in an influential manner. Presented in this way, values are not offensively introduced or dogmatically imposed. They are chosen, much as the mentor is chosen, because they are needed and wanted. Conclusions and Recommendations Mentoring can be a significant influence in higher education for the development of values in undergraduates. A positive mentoring relationship has extensive, broad impact far beyond the young adult years. It is a tremendous educational service to be able to encourage such a process with as many as want or need it. However, this is not a relationship that a professor can expect to have with all his or her students nor do all students want such a relationship. It requires intentional time and effort on 15 the part of the mentor and protégé. For both, it is one of a number of responsibilities and duties that must be balanced in an academic setting. Unfortunately, it appears that mentoring has gradually been relegated to a position of diminished importance in comparison with other more noticeable activities. Despite the positive influence of such activities, it seems more difficult to motivate professors to become involved in students' lives unless it fits in the daily work schedule. In light of the historic mission of Christian liberal arts colleges, it seems necessary to re-evaluate the priorities lived out in our faculties. In the situations when mentoring cannot be done because of re-evaluated time and effort constraints, faculty can concentrate on either teaching splendidly, modeling contentiously, or nurturing with care. It has been recently suggested that one remedy may be the establishment of structured mentoring programs or the adaptation of the faculty-student advising systems at Christian colleges. This is a beneficial response to a growing awareness of the importance of mentoring, but research is needed to discern the effectiveness of assigned mentoring relationships. It seems generally accepted that mentoring is more satisfactory when a protégé can select a mentor on the basis of his or her own needs. But at this point, especially in situations where little mentoring is occurring, such programs appear to be a worthwhile venture. 16 A joint program that would most probably facilitate and encourage student mentoring is faculty mentoring programs. Developing relationships between junior and senior faculty can positively influence career development and result in benefits to both parties (Wright & Wright, 1987), but it also seems to motivate "second generation" mentoring with students as well. In our survey of faculty at Asbury College, 64% stated that they had been mentored. Of those who had been mentored, 87% were involved in activities that would have characteristics of mentoring. Interestingly, of those who had not been mentored, only 33% were involved in such activities. More research is recommended on this finding, but it seems to suggest that mentoring breeds mentoring. In order to mentor effectively, Christian colleges must be more active in their recruitment of women and minorities. With our current focus on diversity in American education and the desire for increased multi-cultural enrollment, it is imperative that Christian colleges provide men and women of like race and social class for potential mentoring relationships. Colleges do a disservice to students by not attending to this companion issue. The reordering of our institutional priorities to build community and encourage mentoring will result in a strong commitment to the personal and pedagogical growth of faculty. Without this stance, mentoring activities can constitute a drain on the emotional and physical quality of 17 faculty life. In order to promote growth in these areas, personal growth leaves, development sabbaticals, teaching skills workshops, and family retreats should be given equal status with more "scholarly" requests. Resources should be allocated to communicate to faculty and students what we believe is valuable about education at an undergraduate level. Small colleges could also affirm a distinctive of liberal arts by concentrating on teaching and awarding examples of excellence in this area. Recognition and financial assistance to quality professors that contribute to areas of students' lives would certainly make a statement. By re-asserting the value of the professor-teacher, we can regain our balance in liberal arts education which has affirmed the large university ideal of the antecedence of the professor-researcher. If values development is the imperative that we insist that it is, then such a balance is long overdue. References Anderson, E. M. & Shannon, A. L. "Toward a Conceptualization of Mentoring." Journal of Teacher Education 38 (January-February 1988): 38-42. Bennett, W. Our Children and Our Country. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988. Boyer, E. L. College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. Covey, S. R. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989. Davis, R. L. Mentoring: The Strategy of the Master. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991. Engstrom, T. W. The Fine Art of Mentoring. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989. Gehrke, N. J. (1988). "On Preserving the Essence of 18 Mentoring as One Form of Teacher Leadership." Journal of Teacher Education (January-February 1988): 43-45. Haring-Hidore, M. & Paludi, M. A. (1988). "Sexuality and Sex in Mentoring and Tutoring: Implications for Women's Opportunities and Achievement." Peabody Journal of Education (1988):164-172. Kaufman, F. A., Harrel, G., Milam, C. P., Woolverton, N., & Miller, J. "The Nature, Role, and Influence of Mentors in the Lives of Gifted Adults." Journal of Counseling and Development 64 (1986): 576-578. Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. The Seasons of a Man's Life. New York: Ballentine Books, 1978. Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. "Patterns of Student-Faculty Informal Interaction Beyond the Classroom and Voluntary Freshman Attrition." Journal of Higher Education 48 (1977): 540-552. Roberts, P. & Newton, P. M. Levinsonian. "Studies of Women's Adult Development. Psychology and Aging 2 (1987): 154-163. Roche, G. R. "Much Ado About Mentors." Harvard Business Review 57 (1979): 14-28. Rokeach, M. Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal. New York: The Free Press, 1979. Sheehy, G. Passages. New York: Bantam Books, 1976. Terrell, M. C., Hassell, R. K., & Duggar, M. "Mentoring Programs: A Blueprint for Personal Growth and Academic Development." NASPA Journal 29 (1992): 199-206. Trunfio, E. J. & Lamport, M.A. "Knowledge Without Character: Balancing Perspectives in the Role of College Teaching." Faculty Dialogue 14 (Spring 1991): 107-122. Wilson, R., Wood, L., & Gaff, J. "Social-Psychological Accessibility and Faculty-Student Interactions Beyond the Classroom." Sociology of Education 47 (1974): 74-92. Wolterstorff, N. Educating for Responsible Action. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Schools International, 1980. Wright, C. A. & Wright, S. D. "The Role of Mentors in the Career Development of Young Professionals." Family Relations (January-April 1987): 204-208. 19