2.7.11

I'm a bit late, but I did do an earlier post between meetings, so I think that counts. I'm going to put up what I've written for my handout.

Dina Moskowitz

Scholars Work-in-Progress

2/7/11

Context:

I am the program manager of an education non-profit organization that connects Science, Technology, Engineering and Math professionals with 8^th graders for remote mentoring on science and math. The pairs meet up online once per week for an hour after school. We use a web-enabled white board and VOIP to connect the pairs.

Problem:

While the volunteer mentors are content experts and well intentioned, they often have little experience working with kids and generally have not learned algebra in the way our students are being taught. Our students choose to be in the program and over the course of the past 4 months have had about 10 kids drop out total. We currently have 42 pairs. The pairs receive support through session observations about once/six weeks—either done by myself or a mentor-coach (current/former teachers who receive a stipend to help with this project).

Questions:

What does a successful mentoring relationship look like? How do mentors improve over time?

Goals:

· Retain students

· Students grades, scores and general excitement around math/science increase

· Clear positive relationship between mentors and students

· Mentors are using constructivist practices

· Students are actively involved in the sessions

Some success so far:

· Impassioned mentor statement about how she has improved her mentoring based on feedback from her coach to slow down, increase wait-time and engage her student more. She then went back and watched some of her own sessions and now realizes that she’s talking to a real person.

· Conducted a workshop around the idea of relationship. Have emails from mentors stating that after the workshop they’ve changed their practice in small ways such as asking more questions of their students and using student names in problems, etc.

· Have noticed mentors being receptive to student feedback and after a January student survey have shifted practice a bit to do more of what the student is interested in/needs help with

Data:- 4 focal pairs

· Session observations

· Student surveys

· Mentor January survey

· Mentor weekly surveys

· Mentor beginning of the year check-ins and outs**

· Student rubrics of what they’re learning.

· Grades?

vD Doris and Shoshana

o Strong student, mentor seems to be just there as student does hw. Beginning to make a connection. Student is quite happy in progam.

:v Pranab and Sam

o Student originally started the program for help in math. Mom is volunteer for the program. Seems very keen to do it now. Quiet still but very positive. Need to see her most recent grades.

v PPriya C. and Clarissa

o Very strong student. Mentor very traditional. Recently had a bad session where she confused the student more. It happens, but student left kind of in tears. Had a conversation with the mentor. Hopefully Monday will be better.

v Helen and Jaci

o Was very confident in her abilities. Student has seemed really disengaged and not excited about the program lately. Technology problems have been very problematic.

Learning so far:

Ø Relationship is important

Ø Mentor-coaches and observations are helpful

Ø Workshops targeting specific topics are helpful

Ø Best relationships that I see are between motivated girls and female mentors

Ø Student involvement can make or break the relationship—the same mentor with a different kid—very different experience.

Ø Mentors need curriculum support

Ø Technology can really get in the way

Ø Each pair has such different needs.

Where to go from here:

v CContinue to watch sessions

v LLook for ways that each pair can improve

v Webinars focused on a specific skill