Transcript
_______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Report Information from ProQuest 18 May 2012 06:02 _______________________________________________________ Table of Contents 1. Peer Mentoring and Action Learning................................................................................................................12. Bibliography......................................................................................................................................................817 May 2012ProQuest Document 1 of 1 Peer Mentoring and Action Learning .. Author: O'Neil, Judy; Marsick, Victoria J. .. Publication info: Adult Learning 20. 1/2 (Winter 2009): 19-24. .. ProQuest document link .. Abstract: [...] as Zachary's (2005) earlier mentoring description described, ALCs are learner centered. [...]although the groups are made up of peers, the diversity that is part of the process helps to open up thinking tonew points of view. .. Links: Linking Service , .. Full Text: Traditional MentoringMentoring has been defined in many different ways. Traditionally, mentoring is seen as a relationship betweenan older, more experienced mentor and a younger, less experienced protégé for the purpose of helping anddeveloping the protege's career (Ragins &Kram, 1997). Caffarella (1992) talks about a relationship, which isboth intense and caring, between persons who have differing levels of experience to promote professional andpersonal development. The relationships described here, between mentor and mentee, provide bothpsychosocial and career related support (Kram &Isabella, 1985).Zachary's (2005) description best fits the process we will discuss in this article: Mentoring is best described asa reciprocal and collaborative learning relationship between two (or more) individuals who share mutualresponsibility and accountability for helping a mentee work toward achievement of clear and mutually definedlearning goals (p. 3).Zachary's emphasis here on learning, and later references in her workto mentoring being a self-directedlearning relationship and the need for skillful coaching in the relationship, all have strong tie-ins to the conceptsof Action Learning (AL) and Action Learning Conversations (ALC). In the next section, we describe what AL and ALCs are to show how the role and actions taken speak to peer mentoring. Action Learning and Action Learning Conversations Action Learning (AL) is a leadership development process that can include processes useful for peer mentoring.In our practice, we define AL as:an approach to working with and developing people that uses work on an actual project or problem as the wayto learn. Participants work in small groups to take action to solve their problem and learn how to learn from thataction. Often a learning coach works with the group in order to help the members learn how to balance their work with the learning from that work (Yorks, O 'Neil, &Marsick, 1999, p. 3). An Action Learning Conversation (ALC) is a structured protocol that we have developed for use within ALprograms that can be used for peer coaching and mentoring. It is a criticaUy reflective practice that we believecan support transformative learning (Marsick &Maltbia, in press). ALCs combine insightful questions withreflection and critical reflection to produce a process of group mentoring that can be used within an AL programor as a separate learning activity. Critical reflection, that is, reflection that helps identify underlying values,beliefs, and assumptions, is especially powerful in the context of ALCs because it enables people to see howthey can change a situation by changing the way they frame it and act on it (Marsick &Maltbia, in press). ALCs involve working in peer groups (as small as three people, but preferably no larger than a group of six or seven) on a challenge or problem that is highly meaningful. While members of the group, either in an ALprogram or an independent group engaging in ALCs, are usually peers, diversity in the group is important. Froma mentoring viewpoint, diversity is particularly important to maximize different perspectives and to provide a 17 May 2012Page 1 of 8ProQuest broad network. The ALC process takes the problem-holder sequentially through recurring cycles of: (a) framingof the challenge as a question; (b) unpacking meaning through sharing information about the context and prior action; (c) peer questioning (to which the problem holder does not immediately respond) to unlock mentalmodels that make one blind to other points of view; (d) identifying assumptions that underlie current ways of framing the challenge; (e) reframing one's understanding of the situation; and (f) making more informeddecisions and taking informed action to address the challenge (Marsick &Maltbia, in press).Figure 1 shows how we have structured our general approach to ALCs in three phases: (1) framing/ engaging,(2) advancing, and (3) disengaging. A learning coach introduces the process, guides people through it, andenables learning (O 'Neil &Marsick, 2007). In its purest form, using the sequential ALC protocol to address oneperson's challenge takes about one hour, depending on the nature of the problem, the size and composition of the group, whether people are first working the challenge or if this is a continuation of prior work, and other contextual factors (Marsick &Maltbia, in press).We warn participants that it will feel unnatural to work through the protocol because it artificially channelsconversation. Peers are guided to ask questions or offer observations without giving advice about how toaddress the challenge. The person receiving the mentoring help does not respond to questions or observationsin the moment, but does write down what he/she hears. Each phase includes an opportunity for short, selectiveresponses by the person receiving the help, but remarks are held until that point in the protocol (Marsick&Maltbia, in press).Phase 1 - Framing and EngagingThe first step involves everyone writing about an important challenge or problem in the form of a question.Criteria are usually established to help people in the group determine an appropriate challenge. In general, thecriteria might include:* a complex challenge, with which you have been struggling, that has no obvious, or known, solution;* reasonable people could disagree about solutions to the challenge;* a challenge that crosses boundaries beyond your immediate responsibilities (O 'Neil &Marsick, 2007);* and in a mentoring situation, a challenge that could help promote the opportunity for help and support.Writing focuses attention. Members briefly share their challenge questions, after which the group picks a personwith whom to begin work. That person takes about 10 minutes to fill people in on the background. Peers help byasking what we call objective questions to clarify the context and surface essential background information(i.e., the facts about the situation, external reality, relatively direct observable data). Phase 1 concludes withthe challenge holder stating the support that would help in thinking about the presenting challenge (i.e., framing)(Marsick &Maltbia, in press).Phase 2 -AdvancingPhase 2 is the heart of the process. It is divided into four key steps, each of which takes a minimum of 10minutes. During each step the person receiving peer support listens and writes but does not respond. At the endof each step, one can then respond selectively to what they heard before moving to the next step. Phase 2begins with more questions. Questions have always been at the heart of AL in that they free people to think innew ways whereas advice giving can reinforce prior mental models that inhibit fresh solutions (Marsick&Maltbia, in press).We encourage the use of four kinds of questions: objective, reflective, interpretative, and decisional. Objectivequestions center on What is happening? Reflective questions probe How am I feeling/reacting? Interpretative questions seek to answer What does it mean? What are we learning? Decisional questionsfocus on What do I do? and How do I respond? (Spencer, 1989). Objective questions are introduced inPhase 1 when people share their challenges. In Phase 2, although some objective questions can still be asked,we focus learners on reflective and interpretative questions. We recommend refraining from decisionalquestions early in the process. Decisional questions become more important as people engage in iterative 17 May 2012Page 2 of 8ProQuest
