Abstract

Graduate student staff (GSS) positions, commonly used in centers for teaching and learning (CTL) to expand capacity and extend disciplinary connections on campus, also offer the potential for a meaningful developmental experience for the students who fill them. Drawing on the literature on graduate student mentorship, we lay out goals and aligned practices to inform the mentoring of GSS in CTL aimed at advancing their pedagogical, professional, and personal development. Such deliberate attention to mentoring in a CTL context can enhance the experience and development of the GSS themselves, as well as improve the work of the CTL.

Keywords: graduate student development, leadership development, mentoring, professional development

Introduction

Graduate student staff (GSS) have become increasingly common features at centers for teaching and learning (CTL) around the country. Whether called “Graduate Teaching Consultants,” “Lead Teaching Assistants (TAs),” “Graduate Fellows,” or a variety of other titles, what unites these roles is the function of providing some form of peer leadership on teaching and learning to other graduate students (for our purposes, GSS refers to formal, paid positions that contribute to the substantive teaching and learning work of a CTL, i.e., not simply administrative assistance). As of 2011, GSS programs had been established at approximately 60 universities in North America, (Thomas & Border, 2011), with GSS working between 3 and 20 hours a week (Border, Kalish, Chandler, & Von Hoene, 2010, cited in Thomas & Border, 2011). The rise of GSS positions has occurred against the background of increasing professional development offerings for graduate students more generally (Palmer, 2011).

As advanced graduate students with greater experience and particular interest in teaching, GSS—with training, guidance, and support—provide a crucial mechanism for CTLs to reach more graduate students on campus. In most programs, GSS consult with TAs (84%), offer general pedagogy workshops (80%) and discipline specific workshops (73%), and perform classroom observations (68%) (Thomas & Border, 2011). Exactly what structure GSS responsibilities take varies quite a bit. At University of California Davis, for example, GSS help to facilitate the TA orientation, provide individual consultations, and facilitate workshops (Huntzinger, McPherron, & Rajagopal, 2011); while the GSS position at Ohio State constitutes a fuller, 20 hour a week position encapsulating similar activities, but also more substantive teaching duties, teaching center administrative responsibilities, and professionalization activities, such as conference attendance (Linder et al., 2011). Such capacity building might focus on the programs and services offered by the CTL, but may also help to develop departmental collaborations. For example, the GSS at the University of Chicago develop disciplinary teaching development projects, meant to address needs specific to a particular department, and one GSS program at Columbia is aimed specifically at this practice (Rudenga & Lampert, 2016).

While typically instituted for the purpose of advancing a CTL’s mission, a GSS position also offers the potential for an outstanding professional development and leadership opportunity for the graduate student who occupies it. With intentional mentoring, such an opportunity has the potential to be a transformative experience for the student while also improving CTL programming (see, e.g., Huntzinger et al., 2011; Linder et al., 2011).

To support such mentoring, we propose a framework for reflecting on the goals and aligned practices for the mentoring of GSS. The motivation for such a framework is based in part on a conclusion Thomas and Border (2011) draw in their analysis of GSS programs. They note that while GSS programs are instituted for the purpose of providing guidance and support to the broader graduate student teaching population, many of the actual “attained” benefits that program directors see in their GSS programs are unintended outcomes. Indeed, many of these attained benefits have to do with the development of the GSS themselves, including promoting cross disciplinary interaction, job market assistance, learning how a university works, and developing teaching and leadership skills (Thomas & Border, 2011, p. 46, graph 4). This survey based conclusion is supported by our own combined professional experience working with GSS at CTLs across four different universities and in the broader graduate student teaching development community (e.g., in the Graduate Student, Professional Student, and Postdoctoral Scholar Special Interest Group of the POD Network; see Rudenga & Lampert, 2016). We propose that careful reflection on and attention to mentoring GSS can expand and enhance the benefits reported by Thomas and Border for both the CTL and the GSS themselves.

In addition to work on graduate student mentorship, our contribution can also be situated within the literature on what might be called “educational development development.” Educational developers have investigated training, mentorship, and career pathways into educational development (Gosling, McDonald, & Stockley, 2007; McDonald & Stockley, 2010; Stefani, 1999), with some focused specifically on how GSS positions within CTLs might play a role in this process (Linder et al., 2011; Meizlish & Wright, 2009). While the exploration of and preparation for a possible career in educational development is one of several professional development goals we articulate below, our aim is to think expansively about the many kinds of developmental goals GSS positions are well positioned to advance.

To situate our discussion of mentoring GSS within the broader purpose of these programs, we (a) briefly lay out the rationale for these positions, from the perspective of both the CTL and the GSS themselves. We then (b) turn to the wider context of graduate student mentorship and consider how lessons from that literature translate to GSS in a CTL. Finally, informed by these reflections, we (c) offer a set of potential goals to frame these mentoring relationships, along with aligned practices aimed at advancing them. Our aim is to develop a framework to facilitate reflection, assessment, and improvement of graduate student staffing and mentoring practices at CTLs. Of course, particular goals and constraints vary considerably across institutions, and we expect readers will translate, contextualize, and revise this set of practices as appropriate to their unique situations.

Rationale for GSS

Before further discussion of mentorship, it is worth articulating what we take to be the primary goals for GSS programs in general—both from the perspective of CTLs and from that of GSS.

For CTLs

We identify three broad rationales for GSS programs from the CTL’s perspective: capacity building, contextualized pedagogical knowledge, and awareness of departmental and institutional norms and practices (i.e., institutional knowledge).

  • Capacity building. With the help of graduate students contributing just a few hours a week, a CTL can cost effectively expand and improve programming in a number of ways (Boye, Logan, & Tapp, 2011; Huntzinger et al., 2011). GSS can serve as individual teaching observers or consultants; offer previously developed workshops; develop their own workshops and projects; organize and manage programming such as certificates, orientations, forums, or other large events; maintain advertising and social media outlets; contribute content to websites, blogs, or newsletters; and more.

  • Contextualized pedagogical knowledge. As budding specialists within their fields, GSS are well situated to translate and apply the general pedagogical principles and discussions fostered by a CTL to the prior understandings and practices of their home disciplines. For example, a historian might support and enrich departmental discussions of the Tuning Project of the American Historical Association (American Historical Association, 2017) with reflection on learning objectives and constructive alignment. A chemist might contextualize the general principles of scientific teaching (Handelsman, Miller, & Pfund, 2007) into the chemistry classroom. GSS who are familiar with their own disciplinary conventions as well as with the basic principles and practices promoted by CTLs are well positioned to facilitate such conversations within their home departments.

  • Institutional knowledge. As graduate student citizens of particular departments, GSS are often well positioned to know how best to align with and take advantage of the existing institutional and programmatic landscape within their departments. For example, is there a regular department workshop series, a session of which might be devoted to a topic in teaching and learning? Are there existing programs to support graduate student teaching development that the staff member, with CTL support, could revise and improve? In short, with representation from multiple departments and disciplinary areas, CTLs can offer a wider range of specialized programming.

These three categories of rationale point to the potential benefits offered by GSS to CTLs. Such benefits are likely to be realized and enhanced to the degree that a CTL can have confidence in the budding professionals who represent it on campus. The framework of mentoring goals and practices we present below aims to facilitate the promotion of that development.

For Graduate Students

In addition to supporting CTLs and the broader pedagogical mission they advance on campus, GSS programs can also advance the individual goals of the graduate students who serve in them. From organizing programs to serving as a leader and/or consultant to their peers, GSS gain experience and skills that will serve them in future careers in academia, CTLs, alt ac positions, or the business and nonprofit sectors. Their GSS work can contribute not only to a CV and resume that will help them get a job, but also to their success, confidence, and engagement in graduate school.

GSS experience can complement or add entirely new dimensions to the training a graduate student may receive in their home department. For some graduate students, GSS work may be some of the only non research professional development they partake in during their degree programs, while for others it will offer an additional venue for such development. Regardless, GSS experience provides an excellent opportunity for community building and interaction across academic units (Thomas & Border, 2011), a best practice for graduate student engagement (Pontius & Harper, 2006). Research on graduate school attrition shows that most graduate students desire strong pedagogical development, more varied intellectual experience, and preparation for a variety of career options; and further that they were not finding such support in their home departments (Lovitts, 2001). GSS programs are a promising venue for pursuing such benefits.

Indeed, Thomas and Border (2011) report that CTL directors identify numerous benefits to GSS, including: cross disciplinary interaction, participation in a culture of collaboration, job market assistance, and learning how a university works (p. 46). Interestingly, only a third of those surveyed report that improving GSS’s own teaching is a benefit (p. 46). Some potential benefits that might prove quite useful on the job market—both within the academy and beyond—receive strikingly low mention from directors. Workshop presentation and facilitation, for example, is cited by only 12% as a benefit to GSS, and individual and team management by only 8%. We see more deliberate attention to mentoring as a way to recognize and extend benefits such as these by framing GSS work as a significant professional development opportunity, and highlighting for GSS how they can use their CTL experience to develop in a variety of ways.

This is not to say, of course, that a GSS program should be a panacea, addressing all possible professional development goals for staff. However, reflection on just what professional (and other) benefits might be realized for GSS would no doubt clarify just what it is that graduate students might get out of these roles. As part of that process of reflection, CTL staff should also attend to the mentoring practices that will help to promote those benefits, and intentionally build such practices into the training and ongoing support they offer to their GSS.

Principles of Graduate Student Mentorship

The benefits of quality mentoring for graduate students—including increased self efficacy and rate of degree completion, as well as improvements in graduate and subsequent faculty experience—have been well documented (e.g., Pruitt Logan & Gaff, 2004; Wright & Schram, 2011). A mentor, in the academic context, is someone who takes a special interest in helping someone else develop into a successful professional (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,, & Institute of Medicine, 1997; Zachary, 2011). Mentoring includes multiple forms of support, and may involve assistance with professional development, role modeling, and psychological support (Crisp & Cruz, 2009, p. 528). Academic mentors can fill a variety of roles, as famously described by Zelditch (1990, quoted in National Academy of Sciences et al., 1997):

Mentors are advisors, people with career experience willing to share their knowledge; supporters, people who give emotional and moral encouragement; tutors, people who give specific feedback on one’s performance; masters, in the sense of employers to who one is apprenticed; sponsors, sources of information about and aid in obtaining opportunities; models of identity, of the kind of person one should be to be an academic. (p. 2)

Zachary (2011) points out that the most satisfactory mentoring relationships are grounded in both interpersonal connection and the principles of learning.

Mentoring practices of course vary widely, and effective mentors tailor their specific methods to the context and needs of the specific graduate student (Pfund, Branchaw, & Handelsman, 2015; Zachary, 2011). A 2015 University of Michigan report consolidates recent research to suggest that effective mentors largely agree on a small set of basic best practices including (a) clarifying a set of realistic expectations, (b) meeting with the student regularly, (c) offering constructive feedback, (d) reflectively engaging with issues of diversity and inclusion, and (e) using an understanding of each individual’s goals and background to tailor mentoring to individuals when possible (University of Michigan, Rackham Graduate School, 2015). The importance of regular contact and feedback is echoed in studies of both faculty and graduate student mentoring (Barry, 2012; National Academy of Sciences et al., 1997; Yun & Sorcinelli, 2009).

We call particular attention to reflective engagement with issues related to diversity and inclusion. Just as an instructor’s influence on classroom climate sets the stage for student learning (Ambrose et al., 2010, chapter 6), so too does the mentor’s shaping of a professional environment impact the experience of the students being mentored. By being mindful of the potential for implicit biases, cultural communication differences, and the needs of individual mentees, mentors can promote an environment that welcomes and values a diverse group of students (Pfund et al., 2015). Such reflective attention to diversity when mentoring GSS can help to cultivate a more inclusive space within CTLs and model inclusive practices for campuses. This is both a worthy goal on its own and in keeping with the POD Network’s aim to promote diversity and inclusion within the work of educational development and the academy more broadly (POD Strategic Plan, 2012). While such considerations rightfully merit much more extensive treatment (as in Crutcher, 2007; Packard & Fortenberry, 2015; Turner, 2015), here we simply emphasize that they must be a part of any serious discussion of mentoring.

It is well documented that graduate students benefit from having a network of many mentors (Walker, Golde, Jones, Conklin Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008; National Academy of Sciences et al., 1997; and others). Such networks may include not only faculty members from within the student’s discipline, but also those who supervise them in roles such as teaching assistantships or other work on campus. In fact, mentors from outside their home department may provide added benefit (National Academy of Sciences et al., 1997). For students interested in teaching and learning, and in a variety of other professional paths, CTL staff can be important nodes of that mentoring network. Thomas and Border (2011), for instance, found that GSS receive substantial professional development, going beyond the skills necessary for the consulting and workshop facilitation tasks for which the GSS position was initially established to include leadership skills and broader pedagogical development (p. 49). We posit that much of this additional professional development value is made possible through the mentoring of more senior CTL staff.

The principles of good mentoring hold true in CTL settings—GSS, like other graduate students, benefit from clear expectations, regular meetings, feedback, inclusivity, and tailored mentoring (University of Michigan, Rackham Graduate School, 2015). Such careful mentoring requires effort, dedication, and reflection on the part of the mentor (Zachary, 2011; Linder et al., 2011). Fortunately, just as investment in mentoring for faculty can improve productivity and experiences for everyone involved (Barry, 2012; Yun & Sorcinelli, 2009), such effort can have rich rewards not only for the graduate students being mentored, but also for the CTL itself. In the spirit of promoting such mutual rewards, we discuss in the next section how mentorship within a CTL may distinctively contribute to the overall pedagogical, professional, and personal development of GSS.

Goals and Aligned Practices for Mentoring Graduate Student CTL Staff

Pfund, Branchaw, and Handelsman claim that effective mentoring can be learned but not taught (Pfund et al., 2015). They explain that such relationships can vary widely and that learning about mentoring is best achieved through experience with reflection. It is important to note, however, that effort invested in reflecting on one’s own practices and learning from others in similar positions can accelerate the process of developing into an effective mentor. This is the spirit with which we offer the framework of goals and aligned practices detailed below.

As the literature on mentoring suggests, successful mentoring is informed by understanding the goals of the individual mentee. While the aims of GSS no doubt vary quite a bit across individuals, it is worth articulating the distinctive goals that CTLs are in the position to help their GSS realize. Not only does such reflection help individual staff (and the CTL in which they work) make the most of their experience, it also helps to explain to prospective GSS why they might consider joining the CTL. These goals and practices are often discussed informally across CTLs and more formally at regional and national professional meetings (e.g., Rudenga & Lampert, 2016).

Here we assemble, synthesize, and expand on those discussions, laying out potential goals and aligned practices that may inform mentoring of graduate student CTL staff. We organize these using three broad categories: the pedagogical, the professional, and the personal. While any scheme of categorization inevitably suggests clear cut distinctions that may, in fact, be more fluid, such a scheme provides a starting place from which to begin reflecting on and revising mentoring goals.

The Pedagogical: Developing Teachers

Discussion of the goals that inform the pedagogical development of graduate students can be found across the teaching development literature (e.g., Border & Von Hoene, 2010; Palmer & Little, 2013; Schönwetter & Ellis, 2011; Walker et al., 2008). Our interest here is to focus specifically on the distinctively broad and deep pedagogical development that may be available to graduate students in their capacity as GSS. We propose four primary objectives, supported by concrete steps that mentors can take toward achieving those goals (Table 1).

Table 1. Pedagogical Goals and Aligned Practices
GoalsAligned Practices

Understand, explain, and apply key principles and practices of teaching and learning supported by the literature.

Devoting significant time to thinking about principles of teaching and learning and how to help others improve in them is an excellent metacognitive exercise to promote a scholarly approach to teaching and develop one’s own instructional abilities.

Hold a regular book group or journal club for discussion of pedagogical literature.
Provide opportunities to conduct the scholarship of teaching and learning or related research.
Task graduate student staff (GSS) with writing or contributing pedagogical content for the centers for teaching and learning (CTL)’s blog, web based resources, teaching guides, and/or newsletters.

Observe others teaching and provide effective feedback.

Observing others teach and providing constructive, formative feedback is both an important service to the university and an excellent way to reflect on one’s own teaching practice.

Train GSS in effective observation and consultation techniques.
As GSS learn to conduct consultations, encourage them to shadow you or other senior staff members.
Give GSS opportunities to observe and consult with their peers.
Provide support and opportunity for reflection on observations.

Reflect on their own teaching and learning.

In the course of supporting, observing, and discussing other graduate students’ teaching efforts—and through their interactions with other CTL staff—graduate student CTL staff often find opportunity to reflect on and update their own teaching.

Promote cross disciplinary discussions of teaching and learning as an opportunity to reflect more broadly on one’s own teaching.
Provide opportunities for regular critical reflection on teaching—for example, by devoting occasional staff meeting time to discussion of recent experiences and challenges that GSS have faced in their own classrooms.
In staff meetings, conversations, and other interactions with GSS, model a reflective approach to your own teaching.

Develop workshop facilitation skills and translate those techniques into their classroom teaching.

Workshop facilitation is often a key responsibility of GSS, and framing this as a teaching and learning experience can help them apply what they learn in their CTL work to their own classrooms.

Provide both immediate and ongoing training in the logistics and best practices of workshop facilitation.
Provide graduate students opportunities to lead events in diverse contexts and with diverse groups of participants.
Incorporate peer or CTL staff observations with feedback on workshop facilitation.
Devote time to discussing how workshop facilitation skills translate to the classroom.

The Professional: Development for Career Success

Frequently graduate students earn PhDs without ever having been anything but a student, perhaps working as a research assistant or TA along the way. Broader graduate student professional development programs address academic career development, but by nature focus on preparation specifically for the professoriate (see, e.g., Richlin & Essington, 2004; Schönwetter & Ellis, 2011; Palmer & Little, 2013). Working in a CTL, then, provides an opportunity not only to develop their pedagogical chops but also to become familiar with and acclimate themselves to the norms and practices of a professional work environment, gain leadership experience, and explore educational development and other higher education administration careers (see, e.g., Linder et al., 2011; Wright, Schram, & Gorman, 2015; Table 2).

Table 2. Professional Goals and Aligned Practices
GoalsAligned Practices

Develop familiarity with the norms and practices of a professional work environment.

It should not be overlooked that in addition to serving as workshop developers, consultants, and peer mentors, graduate student staff (GSS) are also employees, sometimes for the first time in their lives.

Provide formal training to ensure that graduate students are welcomed to the organization and adequately prepared for their work.
Lay out specific, realistic expectations regularly; on a weekly, monthly, or semesterly basis.
Hold regular staff meetings to check in on ongoing projects, promote collaboration and the exchange of ideas, and provide a venue for interacting with colleagues from different disciplines and roles on campus.
Provide GSS with experience in a widespread professional practice by meeting for semesterly or yearly one on one “performance reviews” to offer and solicit individual feedback.
Offer professional photos and a presence on the centers for teaching and learning (CTL) website.

Develop administrative and leadership competencies.

By developing programs, planning events, and perhaps serving in peer leadership roles, GSS may develop relevant professional experience, a deeper understanding of the functioning of a university, and a sense of agency and self efficacy. These experiences expose GSS to aspects of faculty work they are often unfamiliar with (such as university service responsibilities), and that may also prove useful in a wide variety of other career paths, in higher education administration and beyond.

Provide experience on the opposite side of the interview table by including current GSS in the hiring process for new GSS or full time CTL staff.
Provide the opportunity to lead regular staff meetings.
Create ongoing peer leadership roles for those demonstrating potential as leaders and a deeper interest in the teaching and learning field.
Form working groups organized around different projects (e.g., major event planning, social media strategy, etc.)
Provide information on and opportunities to engage with the organizational structure and functioning of the university, through explanations of the CTL’s position in the university’s organizational structure or visits from a dean or other senior leadership to talk with the staff about their role.

Explore career paths and opportunities in educational development.

Through their work and interactions with center staff, GSS may become interested in pursuing careers in the field of educational development. By devoting explicit attention to career exploration in this field specifically, we can provide support to this exploration and decision process and a launching pad for educational development careers.

Provide individualized guidance and support to GSS who express an interest in exploring this career path.
Intentionally plan for substantive interactions between GSS and other CTL staff beyond their direct supervisor.
Invite visitors from other universities, face to face or electronically, to provide a broader perspective on the field by discussing their work, their center, and what they look for in new hires.
Offer experience with as many facets of educational development work as possible.
Provide support for graduate student staff to attend relevant conferences, such as the POD Network conference.

The Personal: Developing Human Beings

Beyond the formal duties associated with graduate student CTL staff positions, the informal aspects of the role may often serve a variety of goals of a personal nature. For example, CTL directors report that GSS experience benefits including agency for change, friendship, and being part of a group of like minded colleagues (Thomas & Border, 2011), and former GSS report the benefits of connection with like minded peers in overcoming the isolating effects of graduate school (Huntzinger et al., 2011; Rudenga & Lampert, 2016; Table 3).

Table 3. Personal Goals and Aligned Practices
GoalsAligned Practices

Experience and contribute to a supportive environment during graduate school.

For many, working with the centers for teaching and learning (CTL) during graduate school offers a source of support and camaraderie, as well as a venue where discussions of teaching are welcome and encouraged, both of which may provide a welcome respite from the pressures of the home department or lab.

Include time in staff meetings for check ins and special announcements.
Promote and participate in staff social activities to build camaraderie and staff cohesion.
Build interpersonal connections by showing an interest in the student’s life beyond academic and professional concerns.
Encourage graduate student staff (GSS) to facilitate workshops and manage programming in pairs.
Cultivate GSS roles as positions of honor and leadership on campus.
Provide physical and digital space to connect with colleagues, away from one’s department and its particular pressures.

Create and participate in an intentionally inclusive organization.

CTL are often in a position to actively create inclusive spaces and promote inclusive teaching on campus. Intentionally modeling these practices may cultivate an appreciation of these values, as well as provide practical experience in creating an inclusive environment.

Use and be explicit about inclusive hiring practices, such as blind review of application materials, establishing diverse recruitment and hiring committees, and reaching out to departments and organizations on campus that can facilitate the recruitment of staff from underrepresented demographics and disciplines.
Maintain a balanced of experienced and new staff members, so that each graduate student has the opportunity to both mentor and be mentored by peers.
Actively promote collaboration across disciplines, for example, by having individuals from disparate disciplines work together to develop workshops and/or manage projects.
Create an archive of workshop and program materials to encourage and model collaboration and sharing of resources.

Conclusion

Our aim here has been to offer a framework to support CTLs’ reflection on their GSS mentoring practices. First we articulated what we take to be the rationale for GSS programs, for both CTLs and for graduate students themselves. We then situated the mentorship of GSS within the broader principles of graduate student mentorship. In light of this discussion, we then laid out a framework of goals and aligned practices to facilitate reflection on how to enhance mentorship within a CTL and assess for improvement.

Which practices are best aligned with a particular CTL’s priorities will, of course, vary from one institution to the next. Deciding on what particular mix of mentoring activities best serve the goals of a CTL and its GSS requires reflection on the CTL’s goals as well as those of the staff. We hope the framework we have laid out here helps to facilitate that process. A good first step in that process may be to devote time to discussing the pedagogical, professional, and personal development goals of GSS when they come aboard and at regular intervals thereafter. It is also of course important to close the assessment loop by getting feedback from former GSS as they end their CTL employment and after they have moved on from graduate school. Gathering data on the kinds of positions they land—whether as faculty; in teaching and learning; or in industry, government, the nonprofit sector, or other careers beyond the academy—and how their experience in the CTL contributed to the skills and knowledge relevant to their career can prove useful both for program improvement and as inspiration and guidance for subsequent GSS.

The initial rationale for instituting a part time GSS in a CTL may be to expand center capacity while drawing on the disciplinary and institutional knowledge of a diverse team of advanced graduate teachers. However, reflective attention to how these positions can advance the pedagogical, professional, and personal goals of the students in them can improve the services they provide to the CTL, while also enhancing their graduate experience and developing valuable professional skills. Additional study is needed to better understand the impact and benefits of serving as GSS and receiving mentorship within that context. In the meantime, we hope this framework of goals and aligned practices offers both inspiration and concrete guidance for improving the work of CTLs by enhancing the experience and outcomes for graduate student CTL staff and their mentors.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the lively and thoughtful contributions of those who attended the 2016 POD Network conference roundtable on this topic. We also offer our deepest gratitude to our own mentors from our formative years as GSS, whose guidance and steadfast support played an integral part in our lives and careers.

References

  • Ambrose, S.A., Lovett, M., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Norman, M.K. (2010). How Learning Works: seven research based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • American Historical Association. (2017). Tuning the history discipline in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.historians.org/teaching and learning/tuning the history discipline
  • Barry, N. (2012). The gentle art of mentoring in higher education: Facilitating success in the academic world. To Improve the Academy, 31, 102–114.
  • Border, L., Kalish, A., Chandler, E., & Von Hoene, L. (2010). Structured gateways for graduate and professional students: Looking deeper. Unpublished presentation at the 2010 POD Network Conference, St. Louis, MO.
  • Border, L. L. B., & Von Hoene, L. M. (2010). Graduate and professional student development programs. In K. J. Gillespie, & D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (Second ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • Boye, A., Logan, M. M., & Tapp, S. (2011). Learning from each other: Involving student in centers for teaching and learning. Journal for Centers on Teaching and Learning, 3, 65–82.
  • Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature between 1990 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50, 525–545.
  • Crutcher, B. N. (2007). Mentoring across cultures. Academe, 93, 44–48.
  • Gosling, D., McDonald, J., & Stockley, D. (2007). We did it our way! Narratives of pathways to the profession of educational development. Educational Development, 8, 1–6.
  • Handelsman, J., Miller, S., & Pfund, C. (2007). Scientific teaching. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  • Huntzinger, M., McPherron, P., & Rajagopal, M. (2011). The TA consultant program: Improving undergraduate instruction and graduate student professional development. To Improve the Academy, 29, 246–259.
  • Linder, K. E., Rohdieck, S. V., Kalish, A., Johnson, T. A., Plank, K. M., & Maynell, L. A. (2011). Graduate student internships as a pathway to the profession of educational development. To Improve the Academy, 30, 3–16.
  • Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • McDonald, J., & Stockley, D. (2010). New directions for teaching and learning: No. 122. Pathways to the profession of educational development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • Meizlish, D. S., & Wright, M. C. (2009). Preparing advocates for faculty development: Expanding the meaning of “growing our own”. To Improve the Academy, 27, 385–400.
  • National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (1997). Adviser, teacher, role model, friend: On being a mentor to students in science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Packard, B. W., & Fortenberry, N. L. (2015). Successful STEM mentoring initiatives for underrepresented students: A research based guide for faculty and administrators. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
  • Palmer, M. S. (2011). Graduate student professional development: A decade after calls for national reform. Studies in Graduate & Professional Student Development, 14, 1–17.
  • Palmer, M. S., & Little, D. (2013). Tomorrow’s professor today: Tracking perceptions of preparation for future faculty competencies. To Improve the Academy, 32, 251–268.
  • Pfund, C., Branchaw, J. L., & Handelsman, J. (2015). Entering mentoring. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
  • POD Strategic Plan. (2012). POD Network 5 year Strategic Plan 2013-2018. Retrieved from http://podnetwork.org/about us/mission/
  • Pontius, J. L., & Harper, S. R. (2006). Principles for good practice in graduate and professional student engagement. New Directions for Student Services, 2006(115), 47–58.
  • Pruitt Logan, A. S., & Gaff, J. G. (2004). Preparing future faculty: Changing the culture of doctoral education. In D. H. Wulff, & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • Richlin, L., & Essington, M. (2004). Faculty learning communities for preparing future faculty. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004(97), 149–157.
  • Rudenga, K., & Lampert, J. (2016). Mentoring relationships: Promoting professional transformation of graduate student CTL staff. Roundtable conducted at the 2016 POD Network Conference, Louisville, KY.
  • Schönwetter, D. J., & Ellis, D. (2011). Taking stock: Contemplating North American graduate student professional development programs and developers. To Improve the Academy, 29, 3–17.
  • Stefani, L. (1999). On becoming an academic developer: A personal journey. International Journal for Academic Development, 4, 102–110.
  • Thomas, D. V., & Border, L. L. B. (2011). Assessing graduate student consultant programs: Directors’ perceptions of rationales, content, activities, and benefits. Studies in Graduate & Professional Student Development, 14, 37–51.
  • Turner, C. (2015). Mentoring as transformative practice: Supporting student and faculty diversity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • University of Michigan, Rackham Graduate School. (2015). How to mentor graduate students: A guide for faculty. Retrieved from http://www.rackham.umich.edu/downloads/publications/Fmentoring.pdf
  • Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Conklin Bueschel, A., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • Wright, M. C., & Schram, L. N. (2011). Graduate student mentoring. Essays on Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy, 22(7). Retrieved from http://podnetwork.org/content/uploads/V22_N7_Wright__Schram.pdf
  • Wright, M. C., Schram, L. N., & Gorman, K. S. (2015). Developmental stages of new graduate student instructional consultants: Implications for professional growth. To Improve the Academy, 34, 117–155.
  • Yun, J. H., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2009). When mentoring is the medium: Lessons learned from a faculty development initiative. To Improve the Academy, 27, 365–384.
  • Zachary, L. J. (2011). The mentor’s guide: Facilitating effective learning relationships. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Zelditch, M. (1990). Mentor roles. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Western Association of Graduate Schools, Tempe, AZ.