3.3 Mentoring doctoral students: the need for a pedagogy  (Page 11/10)

Introduction

I came to the university to receive my master’s degree and transition seamlessly into K-12 education as a teacher. My career aspirations did not include a doctor of philosophy in educational administration. Plans changed midway through my first year because my mentor presented the idea of attaining my PhD. (Andy Kufel, Virginia Tech, 2006)

In this chapter we discuss the importance of mentoring doctoral students through completion of degree and preparing them for careers either in K-12 education or as university faculty. In the process we discuss the need for a clear distinction between mentoring and advising. We strongly recommend that university faculty and administration develop and implement a mentoring system by which each doctoral student is appointed an academic advisor (advising) upon entry and then after 1 year in the program, selects a research advisor (mentoring). Faculty members rarely possess effective mentoring skills upon entry to the professorate. Departments, program areas, and university administrators must come to the realization that good mentoring occurs through continuous planning, practicing, and evaluating. As we use the term pedagogy to describe the development of an educational methodology, we also borrow the term to describe the need for the development of a mentoring methodology.

One of the most pressing issues facing American universities is the number of students who fail to graduate (Creighton, 2006). Graduation statistics reveal that approximately 26% of students who enroll as freshman do not re-enroll as sophomores (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005); and further, approximately 52% of students who entered college actually completed their programs after 5 years (American College Test [ACT], 2002). In spite of all the programs and services to help retain students, according to a government source, only 50% of those who enter higher education actually earn a bachelor’s degree (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Digest of Educational Statistics (2004).

Though these alarming figures come from undergraduate programs, equally alarming figures surface from within doctoral programs in educational leadership. Smallwood (2004) poignantly indicated the attrition rate in doctoral programs could be as high as 50%. There is some evidence (Lage-Otera, 2006) suggesting women and minorities are leaving their doctoral programs in even higher numbers.

Based on their survey of 9,000 students from 21 doctorate-granting universities, Nettles and Millett (2006) indicated a substantive mentoring relationship with a faculty member positively affects progress toward the degree and more importantly significantly relates to completion of the PhD or EdD. Further, they reported that 70% of graduating doctoral students have a mentor.

Doctoral completion rates reveal more about what happens to students at the point of departure and much less about what happens to them along the way. More specifically, little is known about a doctoral student’s relationship with faculty. The literature on mentoring centers mostly on undergraduate students and junior faculty. Much less is available in the form of empirical studies devoted to doctoral programs and the mentoring of doctoral students. Nettles and Millett (2006), in their longitudinal study of graduate education (1996-2006), expressed surprise about the limited attention scholars and researchers have given to studying doctoral education. They found the few existing studies to focus mostly on either the front-end of doctoral study (GRE takers) or data from the back-end (earned doctorates). But there is very little in between (Papalewis&Dorn, 1996). It is our intent here in our roles of graduate student faculty and mentors to focus on the in-between, where we posit the problems lie. In light of dismal time-to-degree ratios and even more dismal doctoral completion rates, a careful analysis of effective mentoring in doctoral programs is imperative.