Introduction Outcome‐based approaches to education and the inherent emphasis on programmatic assessment in particular, require models of mentoring in which mentors fulfil dual roles: coach and assessor. Fulfilling multiple roles could result in role confusion or even role conflicts, both of which may affect mentoring processes and outcomes. In this study, we explored how mentors conceptualise and enact their role in a multiple‐role mentoring system and to what extent they experience role conflicts. Methods We conducted a constructivist grounded theory study at one undergraduate medical school. A purposive sample of 12 physician‐mentors active in a programmatic assessment system was interviewed. Data analysis followed stages of open, axial and selective coding through which themes were constructed. Results Three predominant mentoring approaches were constructed: (i) empowering (a reflective and holistic approach to student development); (ii) checking (an observant approach to check whether formal requirements are met), and (iii) directing (an authoritative approach to guide students’ professional development). Each approach encompassed a corresponding type of mentor‐mentee relationship: (i) partnership; (ii) instrumental, and (iii) faculty‐centred. Furthermore, mentors’ strategies, focus, agency provided to students and perception of the assessment system characterised mentoring approaches and relationships. Role conflicts were mainly experienced by mentors with a directing mentoring approach. They used various coping mechanisms, including deviation from assessment guidelines. Conclusions In multiple‐role mentoring in the context of programmatic assessment, mentors adopted certain predominant mentoring approaches, which were characterised by different strategies for mentoring and resulted in different mentor–mentee relationships. Multiple‐role mentoring does not necessarily result in role conflict. Mentors who do experience role conflict seem to favour the directing approach, which is most at odds with key principles of competency‐based education and programmatic assessment. These findings build upon existing mentoring literature and offer practical suggestions for faculty development regarding approaches to mentoring in programmatic assessment systems.

Background: Students are ever more involved in the design of educational practices, which is reflected in the growing body of literature about approaches to student participation. Similarities and differences between these approaches often remain vague since the terms are used interchangeably. This confusing and fragmented body of literature hampers our understanding the process and outcomes of student participation and choosing the most suitable approach for it. Method: We identified the three most frequently used terms related to the design of learning and teachingdesign-based research (DBR), participatory design (PD), and co-creationand disentangled the terminology by focusing on relevant definitions, aims, involvement of students, outcomes, and related terminology. Results: Differences between the approaches to student participation can be found in the degree to which students are the central actors and the degree to which the design is informed by educational theory. Conclusion: It is important to align the level of student participation with the purpose of the approach.

Student participation in governance of education is of growing interest. However, it remains unclear what factors render this participation in institutional governance a success or a failure. Another question is: what are the perceived benefits for schools and students? We empirically explored experiences and perspectives of student representatives and program directors of all (8) medical and (1) veterinary schools in the Netherlands on factors that influence student participation in institutional governance and its values and challenges for schools and student representatives. A constructivist grounded theory study was performed. A theoretical sample of student representatives was invited to fill out an explorative, qualitative questionnaire. Next, focus groups with student representatives and interviews with all program directors were conducted. Data was analyzed using open, axial and selective coding by all authors. Experiences and perspectives of students and program directors were remarkably similar in both perceived influences and values. Four main categories of influences could be distinguished in student participation: (1) individual student characteristics, (2) individual staff characteristics, (3) the organization of student representatives and (4) the school’s organization, including its culture and policy regarding student participation. A cohesive, well-organized and independent student organization has crucial impact on student participation in educational governance processes. For representatives, major benefits of participation are personal and career development. Challenges are low effectiveness and efficiency of their actions. A clear school policy on student participation and better introduction, feedback and coaching of representatives should be provided to improve student participation in governance processes.

Purpose To explore team learning processes among interdisciplinary teacher teams in the development of integrated health professions education and to investigate students’ perspectives on the quality of the educational courses. Method Using an exploratory, sequential mixed-methods design, the first author conducted 17 vignette-guided, semistructured interviews with teachers originating from diverse disciplines. These teachers worked in different courses of integrated, undergraduate health professions programs at the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands. The interview guide and vignettes were based on team learning research. The interviews sought to establish how interdisciplinary teacher team members work together on integrated curricula. The vignettes reflected constructs of team learning processes: sharing, co-construction, and constructive conflict. Data were collected between November 2017 and March 2018 and analyzed using template analysis. Sequentially, course evaluation data were used to provide a descriptive analysis of students’ perspectives on educational quality (course organization, structure, learning effect, and alignment). Results Three team approaches were identified. In fragmented teams or “hangouts,” teachers individually worked on tasks that they were interested in, leaving their disciplinary mark. Framework-guided teams or “distribution centers” aimed to work within the given frameworks and organizational expectations, striving for disciplinary balance. Integrated teacher teams or “melting pots” used an interdisciplinary approach on all topics and put students at the center. Integrated teams reflected high-level team learning processes and were most satisfied with their (team)work. In contrast, fragmented and framework-guided teams mainly reflected low-level team learning processes. Students evaluated courses of integrated teacher teams highest on all investigated quality items (course organization, structure, learning effect, and alignment). Conclusions Successful interdisciplinary teacher teams are represented by an integrated approach with high-level team learning behavior and the best course evaluations. Therefore, health professions education management should actively encourage and facilitate integrated teacher teamwork.