Multiple‐role mentoring: mentors’ conceptualisations, enactments and role conflicts

Abstract

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.

Between trust and control: Teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment

“…Although for some teachers the dual purpose of low‐stake assessment may continue to represent an unhappy marriage, our results showed that a role conflict is not necessary. Similar findings emerged in a study on multiple‐role mentoring in programmatic assessment . Conflicts in our study were reported only in relation to struggling and underperforming learners.…”

Where the rubber meets the road — An integrative review of programmatic assessment in health care professions education

“…Fourteen studies reported that programmatic assessment generated sufficient information to enable meaningful triangulation and high-stakes, robust decision-making [15,16,18,19,24,25,[29][30][31][32][37][38][39][40]. Arguments for this conclusion involved findings such as high levels of assessors' agreement [24,30,32,37]; the perceived fairness or acceptability by learners and teachers [23,24,30]; satisfactory reliability estimates [15, 23-25, 29, 31, 37]; the coherent nature of the program that ensured all competencies were considered [17, 18, 21, 22, 28-30, 34, 38]; and early detection of struggling learners [15,18,22,24,32,38], specifically of problematic progression on the domains of professionalism and communication, which went undetected prior to implementation [15,24].…”

The complexity of mentoring observed through engagement with programmatic assessment

“…The recent trend towards programmatic assessment in medical education offers an example of the dynamic nature of our field and reminds us of the challenges and opportunities that arise when trying to make sense of well-established concepts in ever-changing contexts. In this issue, Meeuwissen et al 3 describe mentors' experiences in the context of a change in curriculum from one that prioritised 'assessment of learning' to one designed to enable 'assessment for learning'. 4,5 After the transition, some mentors experienced role conflicts between the different paradigms of nurturing and assessment.…”

“…The question, therefore, of how mentoring can be practised and shaped to enable programmatic assessment is not sufficient. As Meeuwissen et al 3 imply, mentoring in programmatic assessment may need to evolve as mentoring becomes a practice in its own right, but, just as in clinical work, practice entails judicious fulfilment of different needs for different individuals. The consideration of a single fixed model of mentoring, developed within a certain population, does nothing to guarantee the successful use of programmatic assessment.…”