On Mentoring Mentoring requires the development of an extended deliberate involvement between faculty mentors and doctoral students through and around an acacemic discipline. It is our contention that good mentoring emerges from a climate where mentoring is highly valued and recongized rather than adminstratively prescribed. Yet good mentoring can be supported adminstratively e.g. through a smaller academic workload, less formal teaching requirements and the availability of research assistantship to foster close working relationships between students and faculty. Our mentoring award is one way to showcase good mentoring. Peer-mentoing is another way to support students. In each department we pair incoming students with a more advanced student. We also have a buddy (peer) mentoring program matching intenrational students with American peers in order to encourage both academic and social integration. Below you will find links to a snapshot highlighting our mentor award as well as example 'initial contact' letters from the international 'buddy' mentor program. We also have provided a video of one international student discussing her experiences with peer mentorship. Step Mentoring Program Handout

Summary Description Each of our 17 programs post their advising sheets on the web for students, using a uniform format. Second, program secretaries prepare an advising file for each new student that the assigned faculty advisor uses when meeting with a student. Third, after the first year of study the student has to select an advisory committee consisting of two faculty members from the major and one from the minor area of study. Each of the three members of the advisory committee as well as the Department Chair has to sign off on the program of study. Fourth, the Graduate Office receives the completed advising sheet as the official program of study. This is checked by the Graduate Office’s designated Controller (?) to ascertain compliance with university and program requirements. Thus, there is an academic and an administrative mechanism in place to guarantee consistent advising. The oral qualifying examination, conducted by the advisory committee, includes a final check on completion of all requirements before a student can continue with a dissertation proposal. Large programs and programs with disproportionate numbers of part-time students have one designated faculty advisor for the program (in addition to individual faculty advisors) to guarantee consistency. Step-Mentoring Program Handout

Tools and Resources Below you will find a few useful links. Special Education Portfolio Review The Special Education program developed a clear annual review process in order to insure that their students were meeting research milestones and to institutionalize advising for all students. IST program overview The Instructional Systems Technology program, a very large program with a number of international students, developed a clear annual review process in response to a large number of students failing the qualifying exam and to students expressing the need to have clear milestones. Final Checklist for Ph.D. students

Goals for Advising Effective advising leads to more efficient degree completion while taking into account student interests and deficiencies. Effective advising requires of faculty advisors knowledge of programmatic and university requirements, of course offerings in their own and other departments, of research and expertise by faculty members in relevant programs. Importantly, good advising is based on knowing a student's background, her academic interests and career plans. Effective advising is often the starting point for building a professional mentoring relationship with a student. Students are encouraged to develop relationships with several faculty members, including outside their program area. This takes place when they take courses in their first and second year of study. Students will require faculty members to serve on their advisory committee and their dissertation committee. They need to select a faculty member from their minor area of study and/or from research methodology

Program Context Our tradition of having an academic advisor in the program and an administrative controller in the Graduate Office attempts to relieve faculty from some administrative burdens while providing for students to consult with another person who is expert on requirements. It also allows students to have several advocates who can address their individual needs and concerns from different perspectives. The Graduate Office and their staff also have the important function of educating both faculty (new and old) and students about program and university requirements by holding regular workshops, distributing advising manuals and making presentations at faculty meetings when changes occur.

Reflections Below you will find the reflection from a doctoral student in Counseling Psychology who is also completing a Ph.D. in Health (which is in a different school at the University). She compares the two experiences. I have had a very positive menoring experience in the Counseling & Educational Psychology department. My advisor is Dr. Rex Stockton. He is always willing to meet with me to discuss any questions or concerns I may have. He has mentord me on issues related to which courses to take, how to conduct research, overcoming any uncertainties I may have, obtaining an internship, dissertation topics...the list goes on and on. Basically, he is there whenever and for whatever reason I may need to talk to him about. If he is busy at the time I need to speak to him, he makes sure to clear time in his schedule to meet with me. Overall, I have been very pleased with my mentoring experience. In HPER, my experience has been a little different. My advisor is still willing to help and answer any questions I may have. However, this advisor is very busy and is frequently out of the country conducting his own research and programs. Consequently, it is more difficult to schedule time to meet. Though, when we do meet, we get alot accomplished in a short period of time!

How Do We Know? How do you know the department and program promotes effective advising? How do you know the advising is effective? How are advisers evaluated? What tools do you use? In General: One indicator is number of or lack of complaints from students to department chair or Graduate Office. Second, the Controller works with a faculty member and reports to department chair if errors in advising occur. Third, our study of years to degree is another indicator of effective advising. Last, our introducing an annual review is the most important innovation to promote effective advising and good mentoring since it stipulates that several faculty members engage with the student in a conversation about past progress and future plans. This creates accountability for the individual faculty advisor as well as the student. In terms of mentoring: We have no formal, annual process of evaluating advisors or mentors at this stage. However, we have attempted to create an environment in which mentoring is highly valued. We encourage students to have multiple mentors. Secondly, particularly female faculty members, are modeling excellent mentoring and are being recognized officially through the mentoring award. We have data from the mentoring study about student satisfaction with advising and mentoring. Results revealed problems of mentoring in programs where faculty turnover is high, and with female students. The link to this study is below. Finally, we have irregularly collected data. For example, random student letters are solicited by the department for the faculty tenure and promotion process to reveal potential problems in advising and mentoring by those faculty members. Program reviews, e.g. for accreditation, are also conducted every five or so in some programs that include alumni and current students' questionnaires about advising and mentoring.