5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mentoring is in the ‘I’ of the beholder: supporting mentors in reflecting on their actual and preferred way of mentoring

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          An important strategy to support the professional development of mentors in health professions education is to encourage critical reflection on what they do, why they do it, and how they do it. Not only the ‘how’ of mentoring should be covered, but also the implicit knowledge and beliefs fundamental to the mentoring practice (a mentor’s personal interpretative framework). This study analyzed the extent to which mentors perceive a difference between how they actually mentor and how they prefer to mentor.

          Methods

          The MERIT (MEntor Reflection InstrumenT) survey (distributed in 2020, N = 228), was used to ask mentors about the how, what, and why of their mentoring in two response modes: (1) regarding their actual mentoring practice and (2) regarding their preferred mentoring practice. With an analysis of covariance, it was explored whether potential discrepancies between these responses were influenced by experience, profession of the mentor, and curriculum-bound assessment requirements.

          Results

          The averaged total MERIT score and averaged scores for the subscales ‘Supporting Personal Development’ and ‘Monitoring Performance’ were significantly higher for preferred than for actual mentoring. In addition, mentors’ experience interacted significantly with these scores, such that the difference between actual and preferred scores became smaller with more years of experience.

          Conclusions

          Mentors can reflect on their actual and preferred approach to mentoring. This analysis and the potential discrepancy between actual and preferred mentoring can serve as input for individual professional development trajectories.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-022-03690-3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87

          In this AMEE Guide, we consider the design and development of self-administered surveys, commonly called questionnaires. Questionnaires are widely employed in medical education research. Unfortunately, the processes used to develop such questionnaires vary in quality and lack consistent, rigorous standards. Consequently, the quality of the questionnaires used in medical education research is highly variable. To address this problem, this AMEE Guide presents a systematic, seven-step process for designing high-quality questionnaires, with particular emphasis on developing survey scales. These seven steps do not address all aspects of survey design, nor do they represent the only way to develop a high-quality questionnaire. Instead, these steps synthesize multiple survey design techniques and organize them into a cohesive process for questionnaire developers of all levels. Addressing each of these steps systematically will improve the probabilities that survey designers will accurately measure what they intend to measure.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Summary Report of the AAPOR Task Force on Non-probability Sampling

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: A 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40.

              This review, which focused on faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness, synthesized findings related to intervention types, study characteristics, individual and organizational outcomes, key features, and community building.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                l.loosveld@maastrichtuniversity.nl
                Journal
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Medical Education
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6920
                23 August 2022
                23 August 2022
                2022
                : 22
                : 638
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.5012.6, ISNI 0000 0001 0481 6099, School of Health Professions Education, Department of Educational Development & Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, ; Universiteitssingel 60, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [2 ]GRID grid.5596.f, ISNI 0000 0001 0668 7884, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, , University of Leuven, ; Campus Kulak, Etienne Sabbelaan 51, P.O. Box 7654, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium
                [3 ]GRID grid.253615.6, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9510, Department of Health, Human Function, and Rehabilitation Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, , The George Washington University, ; 2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 104, Washington, DC, USA
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9844-3202
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8115-261X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0553-4258
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2661-7853
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8363-2534
                Article
                3690
                10.1186/s12909-022-03690-3
                9396759
                35999559
                07b8471e-3ce3-4858-af5d-778216c9b492
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 24 January 2022
                : 8 August 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Education
                mentoring,critical reflection,faculty development,personal interpretative framework
                Education
                mentoring, critical reflection, faculty development, personal interpretative framework

                Comments

                Comment on this article