E‐mentoring and pedagogy: a useful nexus for evaluating online mentoring programs for small...

E-mentoring and pedagogy 1

Running head: E-MENTORING AND PEDAGOGY: A USEFUL NEXUS FOR EVALUATING ONLINE

MENTORING PROGRAMS FOR SMALL BUSINESS?

E-mentoring and Pedagogy: a useful nexus for evaluating online mentoring programs for small business?

Kim Rickard

Victoria University of Technology

Telephone: +613 9695 8842

Facsimile: +613 9696 9320

Email: [email protected]


Abstract

As a group, entrepreneurs and small business managers require training which is specific to their skills gaps, and

takes into account that they are geographically dispersed with limited time for such activities. They also require

training which is integrated with their business activities and sufficiently flexible to incorporate into their busy and

changing schedules. Email potentially provides a means of delivering a training intervention which suits the

particular training and learning needs of this growing group.

In spite of the growth of development and delivery of e-mentoring programs, there is limited academic

research around structured e-mentoring generally and, in particular, around the evaluation of online programs for

professionals in the micro-business and small to medium enterprise sector. Given this lag in the academic literature,

this paper aims to explore how e-mentoring programs for this target group might be usefully evaluated by drawing on

pedagogical discourse. Specifically, this paper proposes an adaptation to a model for evaluating computer-based

education programs and applies this intepretative framework to an e-mentoring scheme called Mentors Online with

reference to other programs aimed at similar target groups. The adaptation provides a possible framework for

grounding the evaluation of e-mentoring programs and making explicit the theoretical and pedagogical basis of much

of the literature to date.

The Mentors Online program was developed and delivered in 2002 by an Australian employee association

with a membership of around 25,000 professionals. The Mentors Online website is available at

www.apesma.asn.au/mentorsonline.


Background

A 2001 Productivity Commission report “Self-employed Contractors in Australia”1 documented the growth

of the contingent workforce in Australia over the previous two decades. Unpublished data arising from this study

confirmed the growing proportion of professionals operating as part of the contingent workforce compared with

other occupational groups:

The share of self-employed contractors in the Professionals workforce, 10 per cent, was high relative to

contractors’ share in most other occupational groups.2

The rising incidence of professionals operating as self-employed contractors was reflected in the growth in

membership of Connect – a special-interest group for independent contractors and consultants established within the

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA). Out of a total membership of

around 25,000, the Connect membership grew by over 60 per cent between August 2001 and January 2004 (from

1,475 to 2,379). Representing and servicing this segment of the membership became a strategic priority for the

Association which had, until this time, focused on servicing employees in standard employment relationships.

A program of services for independent contractors was launched by APESMA at the end of 2001. The

program included assistance with business startup, profession-specific contractor hourly rates information, referral to

discounted professional indemnity insurance, information on business structures and how to set up a business or

consultancy operation, taxation advice, guidance on writing contracts for service, regular targeted newsletters and

networking opportunities via seminars and an online networking tool.

In response to an Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training (ACIRRT) report which

suggested that contingent workers potentially experience differential access to training and professional

development3, the Connect program also included an online mentoring program targeted at self-employed

professionals. This program was called Mentors Online.

Definition of key terms

The APESMA Connect membership is comprised of independent contractors and self-employed contractors. The

Australian Bureau of Statistics defines these terms as follows:

Independent contractors

Persons engaged on a commercial contract and with work arrangements inconsistent with them being an employee.

Self-employed contractors


Employed persons who operate their own business without employees and supply labour services to clients on an

explicit or implicit commercial contract basis.

These terms are used interchangeably in this report. The business operations of the contractors may or may

not have employees.

Connect members are drawn from the general APESMA membership. The Australian Standard

Classification of Occupations (ASCO) definitions covered by APESMA and the breakdown of each classification for

the Connect membership can be summarised as follows:

Figure 1 – Summary of ASCO minor group occupations eligible for APESMA Connect membership

ASCO minor group classification Profession Percentage of Connect membership

2111, 2113, 2114 & 2119 Scientists 10

2121 Architects 2

2122 Surveyors 0

2124, 2125, 2126, 2127 & 2129 Professional Engineers 78

2231 Computing Professionals 2

2382 Pharmacists 2

2392 Veterinarians 1

Other 5

This breakdown generally reflects the participation of the various professions in the Mentors Online program which

was as follows:

Figure 2 – Mentee participation in 2002 Mentors Online program

Occupation Number Percentage

Professional Engineer 13 57

Professional Scientist 4 17

Pharmacist 1 4

Architect 2 9


IT Professional 3 13

The term small to medium enterprise (SME) is defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as an enterprise having

between 5 and 20 employees. Micro-businesses are defined as having fewer than 5 or no employees.4

Dr. Peg Boyle-Single and Dr. Carol Muller are involved in a large-scale e-mentoring program for women

studying engineering in the United States of America. In “When email and mentoring unite”, (2001) Single and

Muller define e-mentoring as follows:

E-mentoring is a naturally occurring relationship or paired relationship within a programme that is set up

between a more senior/experienced individual (the mentor) and a lesser skilled individual (the mentee),

primarily using electronic communications, and is intended to develop and grow the skills, knowledge and

confidence of the lesser skilled individual to help him or her succeed …”

They go on to define structured e-mentoring as follows:

Structured e-mentoring is e-mentoring that occurs within a formalised programme environment, provides

training, coaching and structure to increase the likelihood of engagement in the e-mentoring process,

evaluates the results of the programme to determine the impact on the participants, and identifies

improvements for future programmes.”5

Mentors Online was designed as a structured e-mentoring program in Single and Muller’s terms. The terms e-

mentoring and telementoring are used interchangeably in this report.

Project description and methodology

The three-month Mentors Online program was structured around a series of web-based learning tools. With previous

research confirming the importance of regular email contact between host/facilitator and mentoring partners (Single,

P. and Muller, C., 2001)6 the program was based on fortnightly contact from APESMA as the host/facilitator and

weekly contact between mentoring partners. The program matched e-mentoring partners on the basis of “skills gaps”

nominated by mentees and “areas of expertise” identified by mentors who were experienced professionals active in

small business for over three years. The program aimed to develop the business skills of mentees in the areas they

nominated as skills gaps. The mentee participants were professionals whose businesses had been in operation for less

than three years. Both mentees and mentors were required to undertake pre-program training in the form of online


training tutorials on the basis that online training has been shown to be effective in preparing e-mentoring

participants in a control group design (Kasprisin, C.A., Single, P.B., Single, R.M. and Muller, C.B., 2003).7

Data collection on mentee and mentor experience was by way of post-program survey questionnaire and

case study. Subsequent analysis was in the form of qualitative and quantitative analysis of survey responses,

qualitative thematic content analysis of messages alongside consideration of the structure of the program against

existing peer-reviewed literature (further detail available in a separate report, Rickard, K.M. 2003).8 Measurement

of program effectiveness was undertaken with reference to an E-mentoring Effectiveness Index (see Appendix 2)

which was developed in conjunction with the program. Using the Index as an evaluation tool and these methods of

data collection did not solve the methodological difficulties involved in self-reporting via survey, nor the lack of a

control population but did provide rich qualitative data from a range of sources and a standardised tool by which

claims of effectiveness could be substantiated or otherwise. The Index also provided a benchmark for the conduct of

future Mentors Online programs and for a project being established in the UK in 2003.9

Introduction

It is widely acknowledged that current e-mentoring practice in the SME sector is moving well ahead of systematic

evaluation and that peer-reviewed evaluation of such programs is lagging behind practice (Bisk, 2002; Perren,

2002).10 Business imperatives combined with widely available internet access has meant that those developing,

delivering, marketing and promoting e-mentoring programs may not necessarily invest in appropriate program

evaluation.

The academic literature available around evaluation of e-mentoring programs for the SME sector varies

widely in approach. What do these approaches contribute to our understanding of how program structures can be

evaluated in meaningful ways, and what discourses to they explicitly or implicitly draw from. What does the

literature offer beyond the anecdotal or descriptive and how can we unpack e-mentoring programs for micro-

businesses and SME’s with some sophistication?

In his “Evaluating what really matters in computer-based education” (Reeves, 2000),11 Dr. Tom Reeves

uses fourteen pedagogical dimensions (PD’s) as evaluative criteria. While obviously cautious of any approach which

represents itself as the most authoritative view on any subject, the analysis in this paper builds on Reeves’ work

which privileges or foregrounds the discourse of pedagogy in evaluating computer-based education. It considers the

potential application of such an approach to the evaluation of e-mentoring for the SME sector.


In charting or profiling an online mentoring program such as Mentors Online as a form of computer-based education

against Reeves’ criteria, it is possible to look at where the approach is useful as well as where it might be revised to

better describe an online mentoring program. This article sets out an adaptation to Reeves’ model for e-mentoring by

weighting, expanding and/or collapsing the dimensions according to the Mentors Online case experience.

Reeves lists the following pedagogical dimensions (PD’s) for consideration:

(1) epistemology;

(2) pedagogical philosophy;

(3) underlying psychology;

(4) goal orientation;

(5) experiential value;

(6) teacher role;

(7) program flexibility;

(8) value of errors;

(9) motivation;

(10) accommodation of individual differences;

(11) learner control;

(12) user activity;

(13) cooperative learning; and

(14) cultural sensitivity.

In adapting Reeves’ model to better describe an e-mentoring program, PD’s 1, 2 and 11 will firstly be

collapsed under a general heading of theoretical background with reference to learner control, PD’s 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10

will be grouped under a subsumed under a second category of learning models, PD’s 6 and 13 will be included under

a third expanded category of interaction and learning, and PD 7 will stand but be expanded into the important fourth

dimension of flexibility. While not intrinsically of letter significance than other dimensions, PD’s 9, 12 and 14 were

seen as dimensions less important to this particular discussion because they were not specifically designed into the

Mentors Online program. A table summarising the proposed adaptation to Reeves’ model is set out in Appendix 1.

(1) Theoretical background - epistemology, pedagogical philosophy and learner control


The dimension described by Reeves as “learner control” was fundamental to the epistemological context of Mentors

Online with the program was grounded in a constructivist theoretical approach. The learning process was intended to

be non-directive with mentees provided with a range of learning options which they could control; the process was

then driven by these choices.

The program was structured to provide for and support these choices in a variety of ways. Mentors were

trained to be responsive to the needs of their e-mentoring partner and were instructed to encourage mentees to

develop their own responses rather than advising directly on what they should do. Mentors were prompted by the

Mentors Online host to “provide the mentee with options, work with the mentee to define the parameters of the

mentoring relationship, to listen carefully and to ask open questions which evoked responses.”12 This was in addition

to the requirement for mentors, prior to registration with the program, to undertake an online training tutorial which

took them through issues such as learning styles and a range of flexible learning options.

The Mentors Online program was presented to participants as a means of providing a “scaffolding” which

mentees could use to direct their mentoring partnership. The program provided participants with the option of

accepting, modifying or ignoring the basic program goals.

It is absolutely at your discretion whether or not you wish to set personal program goals which replace or

are in addition to those provided via the structure of the program, or whether you want to disregard the

structured exercises altogether.13

Previous research indicates that highly individual learning pathways often characterise training interventions

for this cohort (Devins and Gold, 2000;14 Stokes, 2001.

15) In line with this research Mentors Online was structured to

provide assistance with establishing these critical individualised learning pathways. The host provided a link to an

online questionnaire called Business Diagnostix (http://www.apesma.asn.au/connect/bus_diagnostix/bdhome.htm)

which was a tool designed to assist mentees identify particular areas of their business operation which might benefit

from review with a more experienced professional.

The explanation on the Business Diagnostix (BD) home page sets out how BD is intended to work as a

business assessment exercise:

Business Diagnostix is a simple self-assessment tool which aims to assist you with an overview of where

you and your business operation stand now, and to identify the key areas in which you may benefit from

investing some further time. BD will also signpost you to resources to follow up in each of the identified


areas. The tool is designed for professionals operating as sole traders or with fewer than five employees,

and is appropriate for both those just starting up a business and those whose business operations have been

running for a period of time.

BD involves completing a straightforward 8-point questionnaire to help pinpoint the areas

requiring attention, and provides you with access to a range of toolboxes for use as needed. The BD tool is

an excellent way of identifying areas on which you might focus your discussions with a mentor. Complete

the questionnaire to find out your current business competencies and capabilities.16

So, in this way also, mentees were assisted with choosing their learning pathways.

Previous research has indicated a correlation between program benefits and setting program goals (Boyle

and Boice, 1998; Murray, 1991).17 In line with this research, Mentors Online was structured to assist mentees with

setting program goals by prompting them as follows:

In setting your program goals you may want to consider working on some of these possibilities: a marketing

plan, a basic website, a plan for introducing e-business into your business operation, arranging to present to

a conference as an expert in a particular area, registering with a relevant professional body to provide expert

advice in court cases in particular area of expertise, a plan for diversifying your client base, a plan for

getting non-paying or slow-paying clients to pay, arranging to modify the way your business is conducted to

comply with the Australian Taxation Office results test as part of the Personal Services Income measure,

undertake a risk analysis, work on a cash flow projection for the coming 12 months, etc. etc. etc. Some

additional goals to consider are set out in your Manual under the Getting the Most out of Being Mentored

section.18

General input from potential participants prior to the program indicated that these discussion topics were possible

areas of interest, and these were provided back to mentees as possible discussion and learning points.

The program reassured participants that the program structure could form minimum goals as a fallback

position if needed, that is, the Mentors Online program also provided specific learning objectives and guided

learning pathways if the mentee preferred not to actively control their mentoring learning pathway. This is

exemplified in this excerpt from the program schedule:

Remember that by participating in the program and undertaking the four basic exercises attached to the

program, the minimum outcomes you will have achieved will be to have:


• undertaken a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis of your business operation;

• considered possible future professional development activities;

• reviewed your business plan;

• considered ways of networking more effectively;

• engaged in a one-on-one professional development activity;

• engaged in work-integrated learning process to develop targeted business skills; and

• engaged in a process of peer review with a colleague.19

In these ways, the Mentors Online program was structured to provide guidance with self-constructed individual

learning pathways but also to offer the option of structured learning pathways if the learning preferences of the

particular participant required it. In keeping with a constructivist approach, the Mentors Online approach to goal

setting viewed the learner or mentee, in Reeves’ terms, not as an “empty vessel” but “an individual replete with pre-

existing knowledge, aptitudes [and] motivations”20 - a view consistent with the andragogical model of learning used

widely in adult education.21 These adult learning principles largely informed the choice of, in Reeves’ terms, a

constructivist as opposed to an instructivist pedagogical approach. Mentors were encouraged by the host to build on

and work with the individual strengths of mentees and reminded throughout the program to avoid any tendency to be

directive (or instructivist) in their approach.

Devins and Gold’s article “Cracking the tough nuts” (2000)22 provides an interesting example of how a

constructivist approach to learning, education and mentoring can be complicated by the specific learning needs of the

SME sector. They suggest that the success of mentoring based on constructivist learning theory which uses a

“sounding board” or “mentee doing the agenda-setting” approach is dependent upon the manager/mentee having an

agenda to pursue, and note that this may not always be the case.23 Mentors Online did include the sounding board

approach as a learning option but designed into the program assistance for participants to facilitate the agenda-setting

process and the issues that mentees would “bounce off” their mentors. Some mentor comments from the Mentors

Online program indicated that where mentees did not have a proactive or “agenda-setting” approach, their

motivation, program experience and program outcomes were negatively impacted. There is certainly scope for

further research into the correlation between motivation, program outcomes and the mentee agenda-setting process as

a feature of structured e-mentoring programs for the micro-business and SME sector.


In looking at Reeves’ learner control dimension further, it is interesting to further consider Devins and

Gold’s observations about learning pathways in mentoring programs. Devins and Gold take the position that learning

pathways which occur within many mentoring programs in the SME sector are characterised by “their unpredictable

path and their lack of connection to the predicted package of resources and activities.”24 They suggest that mentoring

must necessarily be constructed mutually by the participants, and that the learning pathways are therefore as diverse

as those participating in such programs. The complexity and diversity of mentees’ learning pathways are of course

compounded by the fact that, as Tolentino points out (1998), the businesses of the professionals involved in training

interventions can vary in size, type of business, industry sector, business environment and level of technology used.25

It is not surprising then that e-mentoring programs for the micro and SME sector will, more often than not, be

structured around, in Reeves’ terms, “unrestricted learner control”.

Interestingly, Devins and Gold go on to suggest that mentoring programs which depend largely on mentee-

directed learning pathways may in fact be less likely to produce positive outcomes than an approach whereby the

mentor takes a leadership and instructor role by driving the discussions. 26 Clearly then whether or not mentoring

programs must necessarily be constructivist in approach is contested but the weight of the literature suggests that this

approach is favoured by most practitioners at this time.

(2) Learning and interaction - teacher role and cooperative learning - and the role of host/facilitator

Collin and Berge’s discussion of learning and interaction in computer-mediated courses seems to offer a useful basis

for considering Reeves’ dimensions of teacher role and cooperative learning in relation to e-mentoring. They say:

There are essentially two kinds of interaction with regard to learning. One is a student individually

interacting with content. The other is social activity: a student interacting with others about the content.

Both types of interaction are necessary for efficient, effective and affective learning. In distance education,

it is particularly important to provide an environment in which both kinds of interaction can occur.27

In Collin and Berge’s terms, both content and interaction are critical to the online learning process. In the case of

Mentors Online, the host provided the basic content with limited interaction, and the mentor provided the vast

majority of the social interaction around the provided content. In Reeves’ terms, the Mentors Online program

provided a mentor/teacher in tandem with support for cooperative learning. Reeves’ “cooperative learning” and

Collin and Berge’s “interaction with content as a social activity” was integral to the program.


The socially interactive nature of learning has a direct impact on consideration of Reeves’ sixth PD - that of

teacher role - when considering an e-mentoring program. Devins and Gold (2000) point out that social interaction in

the form of development of rapport and trust with a mentor in the initial stage of a program is critical to all

subsequent activities which constitute an e-mentoring partnership. The Devins/Gold view of teacher role in

mentoring for SME’s suggests that the mentee’s interaction with the mentor is the central activity of the program

which grounds all learning, and that establishment of this relationship - this social interaction - should be the first

priority of a telementoring program. That is, they suggest that it is the mentor’s primary role to establish this social

interaction around the content of the program – especially in an online environment. In line with this thinking, the

Mentors Online program was designed to provide a relationship-building phase in an effort to underpin the

subsequent phases of the program. Mentors in the Mentors Online program were encouraged to be facilitative in their

approach (interacting with the mentee to mutually construct and facilitate learning and learning pathways on the basis

of a soundly established relationship) rather than taking a didactic approach (instructing on pre-arranged content

without the dimension of social interaction) on Reeves’ continuum. This area is certainly worthy of further study

considering its important relationship to program benefits.

In her “Using telementoring to deliver training to SME’s,”28 Andrea Stokes implicitly considers this social

interaction between mentee and mentor when she outlines the need for a mix of delivery methods when designing

training programs for the SME sector. She reports that a “multi-faceted approach” was preferred by those accessing

the Distance Learning Advisory Service pilot program - that is, an approach which provides for a range of different

interactions around content. Consistent with this view, a multi-faceted approach was encouraged by Mentors Online.

Mentors Online mentors were involved in live online chat, creating and updating shared spreadsheets, working

through Powerpoint presentations with mentees, attaching e-books, providing passwords to video presentations such

as how to hand over your business card, as well as critiquing business plans and directing mentees to further

resources - certainly a diverse range of teaching roles, techniques, resources and interactions around diverse program

content. This kind of approach suggests that describing e-mentoring programs simply in terms of them being

facilitative or didactic could be problematic.

In “Building business success”29 (2000) Sue Porter similarly complicates Reeves’ facilitative/didactic

approach to teacher role. She suggests that her program experience indicated that a business coach can move from

initially being fairly prescriptive or didactic through to a facilitative role as the program progresses. This approach is


confirmed by Clutterbuck (1991) who suggested that the role of mentor changes from coach, coordinator, supporter,

monitor and organiser depending on the needs of the mentee at the particular stage of the mentoring process.30 This

was certainly the case with Mentors Online for both host/facilitator and mentors with the initial focus on technical

and access issues, then on encouraging involved and personal exchanges between participants, through to

introducing more complex topics for discussion when the mentee became comfortable with the email medium and

their mentor in the mid to later stages of the program.

Both Stokes’ and Porter’s experience suggest that considering teacher role in facilitative/didactic terms may

be problematic because such an approach may fail to adequately describe the diversity of interactions between

mentors and mentees in e-mentoring for the micro-business and SME sector.

In addition to the difficulties raised by Devins and Gold, Stokes and Porter, the Mentors Online experience

indicates that looking at e-mentoring programs solely in terms of teacher/mentor role potentially excludes the

important role of the e-mentoring host, facilitator or moderator. When considering teacher role in the context of

third-party managed telementoring programs, it is imperative to unpack the dimension of teacher role to provide for

not only for interaction with the mentor but also with the host/facilitator. The role of host/facilitator as telementoring

program moderator is a growing area of the literature and a discourse which is of course relevant to a discussion of

the role of teacher in a third-party managed program such as Mentors Online.

In “Participating from the sidelines, online”31 Harris and Figg consider the role of facilitator in relation to a

text-based email-supported program. They suggest that computer-based facilitation should involve medium-specific

strategies in relation to facilitation and detail the three key roles of a host/facilitator in a third-party managed

program as (1) facilitator as tour guide (coordinating the learning event), (2) facilitator as tutor (complementing the

expertise of the mentor and modelling the style of communication appropriate to online mentoring) and (3) facilitator

as jovial nag (reminding participants of mandatory program requirements, deadlines and prodding participants into

communicating in a timely and consistent manner). Other roles identified for telementoring facilitators identified in

the literature include playground monitors, gentle guide, listener, technician, prompter, referee and compliance

monitor. It may be that there is scope for further research into the description of the role of host/facilitator/moderator

in this new literature and indeed whether such descriptions may be the subject of gendered terminology.

Many of the telementoring roles described by Harris and Figg were evidenced in the Mentors Online

host/facilitator case experience. Program coordination, netiquette, guidance on appropriate style and mode of


communication, compliance with mandatory aspects of the program including completion of online tutorials in

preparation for the program, setting of communications schedule and program goals were all part of the role of

host/facilitator.

While the facilitator’s focus was on provision of basic content and compliance, there is no doubt that a level

of, in Collin and Berge’s terms, social interaction, also characterised mentees’ contact with the host/facilitator.

Participant comments set out in Figure 1 demonstrate that mentees attached significant value to interaction with the

facilitator:

Figure 3 – Participant comments on contact with host/facilitator

The email support and information was invaluable.

Thank-you for the kind words and outline of the way forward.

I looked forward to your emails.

Thank-you for taking such a keen interest. I appreciate your positive comments.

Most of the topics you raised are on the agenda and we are working on them.

What a great message. Lots to think about and discuss.

Love your update emails - really useful.

Good instructions - will do.

It was good to know there was someone to refer to for any questions.

Thank-you for all of your input - it’s been a fantastic experience.

In “E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online”32 Gilly Salmon discusses the positive correlation between

completion of training and active e-moderation.33 The weight of evidence currently available suggests that in third-

party managed programs, the role of the host/facilitator involves social interaction which is important to the learning

process and likely to impact on program outcomes.

The current literature in this area and the Mentors Online case experience confirms that it may be expedient

to split Reeves’ teacher role dimension into two separate dimensions to better describe telementoring programs - that

of (1) mentor role and (2) host/facilitator role.

(3) Learning models - underlying psychology, goal orientation, experiential value, value of errors and

accommodation of individual differences


The learning needs of entrepreneurs in the SME sector are fairly widely documented. In summary, there is a

requirement for learning models which support learning by doing, learning from peers, learning from mistakes,

learning from the “real world” and learning by reflection. For professionals, learning opportunities must also be

within a framework of shared professional values.

The training needs of this cohort suggest that an e-mentoring program is most appropriately based on

situated or experiential learning models.34 The weight of the literature suggests that e-mentoring programs for SME’s

need to, in Reeves’ terms, accommodate individual difference, affect future action or behaviour, combine

achievement of goals defined mutually by mentee and mentor with discovery-based learning, be grounded in

concrete experiential value, and provide learning opportunities which value “errors” in order to assist mentees to

learn from their own and their mentor’s experience.

In line with the weight of the literature around the training needs of entrepreneurs and small business

managers, Mentors Online was based on an experiential learning model. The program was experiential in that it, in

Kolb’s terms, engaged the mentee in “a process whereby concepts (were) derived from and continuously modified by

experience.”35 Mentors Online was structured to provide opportunities for mentees to learn and experiment within

the protected mentoring relationship and then modify their actions in terms of their own and their mentor’s

experience. As an example, participants were prompted to review their business plans with their mentor with a view

to moving forward to the next stage of business development. The mentor was simultaneously encouraged to assist

their mentee with blind spots or to discuss alternative approaches to business planning, and to review the mentee’s

business operation in light of their experience. They were also encouraged to engage in, in Hartshorn and Parvin’s

terms, the “zone of proximal development”36 - that is, the mentee develops their level of understanding just beyond

its current level by utilising their own and the mentor’s experience. Mentors were instructed as follows:

When you’ve begun to establish your partnership, you may be able to assist with pinpointing some of the

mentee’s blind spots, or to help uncover areas of hidden potential. You may be able to assist the mentee

with advice on how to face similar challenges or remove obstacles to achieving their goals.37

Mentors Online was based on a situated learning model in that it encouraged mentees to integrate the

mentoring process with their day-to-day business activities. In Hartshorn and Parvin’s terms, the program took a

“naturalistic” approach which implicitly draws on this situated learning theory.38 Mentees were advised by the

host/facilitator as follows:


Try to avoid the tendency to make the mentoring activity separate to your current business activity -

integrate your mentoring discussions with your current business projects. This maximises the chances of

developing your skills and improving your business practices in areas which are directly relevant -

integrating the learning process with your work is the way to obtain maximum benefit from the e-mentoring

program.39

Comments from participants indicated that the program was successful in integrating the mentoring experience with

the mentee’s business activities at various points for various participants:

All is progressing very well. X's input and advice on my Business Plan has been invaluable - more

importantly his input on day to day matters has been extremely helpful. Since starting the program I have

had some staffing problems and issues which X has helped me with, plus general day to day issues which he

has been helping with too.

In this case, value was attached to the assistance provided with day to day activities alongside the support provided

in working through the program’s web-based exercises.

Deakins and Freel (cited in Robert Sullivan’s Entrepreneurial Learning and Mentoring, 2000)40 also

subscribe to an experiential and situated approach to entrepreneurial learning, and detail the particular importance of

learning from critical incidents within this model. The opportunity for mentees to consider learning from past

mistakes by considering critical incidents which occurred as their business developed was designed into the Mentors

Online program:

This may also be an appropriate stage of the program to consider a “critical incident” - that is, an incident

which either directly or indirectly helped or hindered you in moving your business in the direction you

intended. You might find it useful to work through such an incident with your mentor with the benefit of

hindsight. Your mentor may be able to help you step back and talk the relevant issues through, and to bring

forward learning from past incidents to help avoid their recurrence.41

Again, participant comments indicated that the fact that the program provided situated or work-integrated learning

opportunities was useful because it provided the basis for dealing with business issues with some immediacy:

In Mentors Online's last email it said to talk about a critical incident ... I think I just had mine this

morning!!!


Cope and Watts (2000)42 consider the critical incident approach in detail and suggest that such incidents for

entrepreneurs are very often not discrete events but a series of episodes or an extended learning pathway which is

viewed in retrospect as a critical incident. While this particular Mentors Online participant’s experience of a critical

incident may belie the complexity of critical incidents for entrepreneurs, there is without doubt some significance in

the incident being described and value attached to the opportunity to discuss it with a mentor.

Hartshorn and Parvin (1999) locate the experiential critical incident approach within a broader behavioural

model. The mentor, they suggest, can support the [mentee] to review and reflect on their activities and deconstruct

their experience, identifying critical incidents and associated learning outcomes, to affect future action or behaviour.

This form of engagement between mentor and mentee was encouraged by the Mentors Online host/facilitator to

encourage practices and behaviours which would move the mentee’s business operation forward.

The Mentors Online program can also be described as located within experiential and situated models of

learning in that it provided an option for learning from peers. While providing consolidation of a link with their

professional association, the Mentors Online program also provided access to an online networking tool called

Nexus, both of which provided opportunities to network and engage with professional colleagues. The Mentors

Online program aimed to enhance professional identity by providing the support of a professional colleague and the

chance for the mentee to reflect on their business operation within that protected professional relationship. There is

scope for further work in this area with the post-program survey indicating that the Mentors Online program was

limited in its success in this area.

(4) Flexibility

Reeves defines the flexibility of a computer-based education program in terms of its modifiability. While this may be

useful, it may also be valuable to consider the flexibility of a telementoring program with reference to its mode of

delivery.

Survey responses indicated that the asynchronous nature of communication when using email, and the

potential reach to geographically dispersed professionals provided by the email-based mode of delivery made the

Mentors Online program more accessible to this heterogeneous group of professionals than a face-to-face option.

The flexible delivery method was critical to meeting the training needs of the target group and was specifically

designed into the program.


With 85 per cent of the Australian population located in capital cities,43 it would be reasonable to expect

around 15 per cent participation in the Mentors Online program from the rural/regional sector. In fact, of the total

registrations, 37 per cent were from areas outside capital cities. The comparatively high participation rate for rural

and regional participants would suggest that e-mentoring has facilitated access for this sector of the population. In

the post-program survey, over 90 per cent of Mentors Online participants and all regional/rural participants reported

that the fact that the program was email-based facilitated their participation.

In using Reeves’ definition of the dimension of flexibility, the Mentors Online program was flexible in that

it was easily modifiable. With individual modifications and departures from the basic program structure difficult to

track, Reeves is no doubt correct in cautioning that flexibility does not necessarily correlate with effectiveness.

However the weight of the literature suggests that a modifiable program is likely to contribute to effectiveness with

interventions for this cohort.

It is possible to suggest then that in describing a telementoring program, flexibility as a pedagogical

dimension set out by Reeves can be usefully expanded to provide not only for the “modifiability” of a program, but

also to explicitly describe the program’s mode of delivery.

Findings

So what did Reeves’ framework offer an analysis of e-mentoring?

The constructivist theoretical underpinnings and inquiry into how learner control was deployed appeared to

provide a sound basis for describing the widely divergent learning pathways which arose throughout the Mentors

Online program as well as for other programs aimed at similar target groups.

The analysis of the Mentors Online case experience according to a category of learning models confirmed

that situated and experiential learning models were a useful context for discussion of the particular training and

learning needs of this cohort. Critical incident analysis also appeared to be appropriately located in this context.

The category of learning and interaction provided a basis for a sophisticated discussion of e-mentoring in

three critical areas - the need for business-integrated mentoring activities, teacher role and the role of host facilitator.

The importance of mentee social interaction with the program host as well as the mentor was identified as an area

which Reeves’ framework failed to accommodate, and was thus provided for by way of expansion to this category.

Reeves’ dimension of flexibility was also expanded to better describe the mode of program delivery.


In considering the nexus between pedagogy and e-mentoring for the micro and SME sector, evaluating a

program’s structure in terms of (1) its theoretical background with particular reference to learner control, (2) the

learning models utilised, (3) the management of learning and interaction between mentor and host/facilitator, and (4)

the ways flexibility was designed into the program structure, appears to have provided a sound interpretive

framework for unpacking the Mentors Online program, and for comparing it with other programs. This approach,

combined with an analysis of outcomes (as proposed by Reeves), may well have further application as a basis for

grounding the evaluation of online mentoring programs, and explicating the theoretical and pedagogical basis of

much of the existing e-mentoring literature.


Appendix 1 – Reeves’ model setting out “What really matters in computer-based education” adapted for a proposed

model of what matters when evaluating telementoring as a computer-based education program

Reeves’ model Adaptation of Reeves’ model Incorporating Reeves’

dimensions

(1) Epistemology

Theoretical background

Epistemology

(2) Pedagogical philosophy Pedagogical philosophy

(3) Underlying psychology Learner control

(4) Goal orientation

Learning models

Underlying psychology

(5) Experiential value Goal orientation

(6) Teacher role Experiential value

(7) Program flexibility Value of errors

(8) Value of errors Accommodation of individual

differences (9) Motivation

(10) Accommodation of

individual differences

Interaction and learning

Cooperative learning

Mentor role***

(11) Learner control Role of host/facilitator**

(12) User activity Flexibility Flexibility

(13) Cooperative learning Mode of delivery**

(14) Cultural sensitivity Cultural sensitivity*

Motivation*

User activity*

* Dimensions not specifically designed into Mentors Online so not included in this discussion.

** New dimensions

*** from Reeves’ teacher role


Appendix 2 – E-mentoring Effectiveness Index

The Index lists key elements of an e-mentoring program under a series of standard headings which concord with the

questions comprising a standard survey questionnaire.

The Index was designed to provide a structured means of measuring:

(a) the effectiveness of the program at the individual level;

(b) the effectiveness of the program overall for APESMA; and

(c) the success of the program.

The Index is not software-driven making it suitable for organisations conducting small-scale e-mentoring

programs only.

(a) Effectiveness of the program at the individual level

For the program to be considered effective at the individual level, participants (mentors and mentees) needed to

achieve a minimum score in the following five defined key areas:

• have had a positive e-mentoring experience (minimum score 5)

• have achieved positive outcomes (minimum score 3)

• be satisfied, as a minimum, with the frequency of contact from Mentors Online (minimum score 1)

• have found the content of the facilitator’s messages helpful (minimum score 3); and

• have been made aware of resources available beyond the e-mentoring program (minimum score 1).

E-mentoring experience

Range Experience of program

5-22 Positive

0-4 Not positive

Program outcomes

Range Program outcomes

16-33 Very positive

3-15 Positive

0-2 Limited outcomes


Contact frequency

Range Experience of program

1-3 Satisfied

0 Not satisfied

Content of facilitator’s messages

Range Satisfaction level

16-20 Very helpful

3-15 Helpful

0-2 Not helpful

Further resources

Range Satisfaction level

1-3 Made aware of further resources

0 Not made aware of further resources

A majority of participants (mentors and mentees) achieved the minimum score in the five defined key areas

meaning the Mentors Online program was considered effective at the individual level.

(b) Effectiveness of the program

For the Mentors Online Program to be considered effective, it must have been effective for the majority of

mentees, that is, most mentees must have achieved the minimum score in each of the five key areas meaning a

total score of at least 13 on the E-mentoring Effectiveness Index.

Range Effectiveness of Program

0-12 Ineffective

13-29 Effective

30-59 Very effective

60-92 Highly effective


The majority of mentees achieved a minimum score in each of the five key areas (meaning a total score of at least

13 on the E-mentoring Effectiveness Index) so Mentors Online as a program was considered effective.

(c) Success of the program

For the Mentors Online Program to be considered successful, it must have been effective for the majority of

mentees and the majority of mentors, that is, most participants must have achieved the minimum score in each of

the five key areas meaning a total score of at least 13 on the E-mentoring Effectiveness Index.

Range Success of Program

0-13 Unsuccessful

14-29 Successful

30-59 Very successful

60-92 Highly successful

With a majority of participants achieving a minimum score in each of the five key areas meaning a total score of

at least 13 on the E-mentoring Effectiveness Index, the Mentors Online program was considered successful.


Bibliography

Bisk, L., (2002). Formal entrepreneurial mentoring: the efficacy of third party managed programs. Career

Development International, MCB Limited.

Boyle, P., and R. Boice. (1998). Systematic Mentoring for New Faculty Teachers and Graduate Teaching

Assistants in Innovative Higher Education. 22.

Cascio, T and Gasker, J. (2001). Everyone has a shining side: computer-mediated mentoring in social work

education. Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 37, No. 2.

Clutterbuck, D. (1991). Everyone needs a mentor: fostering talent at work. Institute of Personnel Management.

Collin, M. and Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer-mediated online courses. Background paper

presented at the FSU/AECT Distance Education Conference.

Cope, J. and Watts, G. (2000). Learning by Doing: An exploration of experience, critical incidents and reflection in

entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 6, No. 3,

pp. 104-124.

Devins, D. and Gold, J. (2000). Cracking the tough nuts: mentoring and coaching the managers of small firms.

MCB University Press, Career Development International.

Hall, R., Bretherton, T., Buchanan, J. (2000). It’s Not my Problem; the growth of non-standard work and its impact

on vocational education and training in Australia. NCVER, ANTA, ACIRRT.

Harris, J.B. and Figg, C. (2000). Participating from the sidelines, online: facilitating telementoring projects.

University of Texas.

Hartshorn, T.A. (1992). Interpreting the city: an urban geography (2nd edition). John Wiley & Sons.

Hartshorn, C. and Parvin, W., (1999). Teaching entrepreneurship: creating and implementing a naturalistic model.

Durham University.

Kasprisin, C. A., Single, P. B., Single, R. M., and Muller, C. B. (2003). Building a better bridge: Testing e-training

to improve e-mentoring programmes in higher education. Mentoring and Tutoring, 11, 67-78.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Murray, M. (1991). Beyond the Myths and Magic of Mentoring. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Perren, L. (2000). Literature review of telementoring in the SME. Unpublished manuscript. University of Brighton.

Porter, S. (2000). Building business success: a case study of small business coaching. MCB University Press,

Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 32, No. 7.

Raffo, C., Lovatt, A., Banks, M. and O’Connor, J. (2000). Teaching and learning entrepreneurship for micro and

small businesses in the cultural industries sector. Education and Training, Vol. 42, No. 6.

Reeves, T. (2000). Evaluating what really matters in computer-based education, University of Georgia. Available

at http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/CP/reeves.htm.

Rickard, K.M. (2002). Final evaluation report to Small Business Enterprise Culture Program. Unpublished

manuscript. Available as Final Evaluation Report at

http://www.apesma.asn.au/mentorsonline/pdfs/final_report.PDF.

Rickard, K.M. (2003). Mentors Online: e-mentoring for self-employed professionals. Unpublished manuscript.

Available as Research Report 2003 at http://www.apesma.asn.au/mentorsonline/program/other.asp.

Salmon, G. (2001). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. Kogan Page, London.

Single, P. B. and Muller, C .B. (2001). When email and mentoring unite: the implementation of a nationwide

electronic mentoring program. In L. Stromei (Ed.), Implementing successful coaching and mentoring

programs (pp. 107-122). Cambridge, MA: American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) In

Action Series.

Stokes, A. (2001). Using telementoring to deliver training to SMEs: a pilot study. MCB University Press, Education

and Training, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 317-324.

Sullivan, R. (2000). Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and

Research, Vol. 6, No. 2.

Tolentino, A.L. (1998). Training and Development of Entrepreneur-Managers of Small Enterprises: Pointers and

Lessons Learned, ILO Enterprise and Management Development Working Paper EMD/19E, Montivideo,

Cinterfor.

Waite, M. and Will, L. (2001). Self-employed Contractors in Australia: incidence and characteristics. Productivity

Commission Staff Research Paper, AusInfo, Canberra.


Endnotes

1 Waite, M. and Will, L. (2001). Self-employed Contractors in Australia: incidence and characteristics.

Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, AusInfo, Canberra.

2 Id, 2001, Unpublished. Cited at p.7, http://www.apesma.asn.au/connect/newsletters/news_april_2002.pdf.

3 Hall, R., Bretherton, T., Buchanan, J. (2000) It’s Not my Problem; the growth of non-standard work and its

impact on vocational education and training in Australia. NCVER, ANTA, ACIRRT

4 Rickard, K.M. (2002). Final evaluation report. (unpublished). Available at

http://www.apesma.asn.au/mentorsonline/pdfs/final_report.PDF.

5 Single, P. B. and Muller, C .B. (2001). When email and mentoring unite: The implementation of a nationwide

electronic mentoring program. In L. Stromei (Ed.), Implementing successful coaching and mentoring programs

(pp. 107-122). Cambridge, MA: American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) In Action Series.

6 Id. (2001)

7 Kasprisin, C. A., Single, P. B., Single, R. M., and Muller, C. B. (2003). Building a better bridge: Testing e-

training to improve e-mentoring programmes in higher education. Mentoring and Tutoring, 11, 67-78.

8 Rickard., K.M. (2003). Mentors Online: e-mentoring for self-employed professionals (unpublished). Available as

Research Report 2003 at http://www.apesma.asn.au/mentorsonline/program/other.asp.

9 In May 2002, Dr. L. Perrin from the University of Brighton and J. Bianco from RSB Consulting in Sussex were

commissioned by the Small Business Service (one of three subsidiaries of the Department of Trade and Industry)

to review current practice and academic research in the area of e-mentoring for small business. Mentors Online

was used as a best practice model for e-mentoring for SME’s in the south-east of England in 2003.

10 Bisk, L. (2002). Formal entrepreneurial mentoring: the efficacy of third party managed programs. Career

Development International, MCB Limited., p.262, and Stokes, A.(2001). Using telementoring to deliver to

SME’s: a pilot study. Education and Training, Vol. 43, No. 6, 2001. and Perren, L. (2002) Literature review of

telementoring in the SME. University of Brighton., and Flagg, B. N. (1990). Formative evaluation for

educational technologies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


11 Reeves, T. (1997). Evaluating what really matters in computer-based education. Retrieved from University of

Georgia. (http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/reeves.htm)

12 Mentors Online introductory message, Week 1

13 Mentors Online Message 2, Week 3

14 Devins, D. and Gold, J., Cracking the tough nuts: mentoring and coaching the managers of small firms, MCB

University Press, Career Development International, 5/4/5.

15 Stokes, A. (2001). Using telementoring to deliver training to SMEs: a pilot study. MCB University Press,

Education and Training, Vol. 43, No. 6.

16 Business Diagnostix - Available at http://www.apesma.asn.au/connect/bus_diagnostix/index.htm

17 Boyle, P., and R. Boice. (1998). Systematic Mentoring for New Faculty Teachers and Graduate Teaching

Assistants in Innovative Higher Education. 22 and Murray, M. (1991). Beyond the Myths and Magic of

Mentoring. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.



20 Reeves, T. pedagogical dimension 2, p. 5

21 Raffo, C., Lovatt, A., Banks, M. and O’Connor, J. (2000). Teaching and learning entrepreneurship for micro

and small businesses in the cultural industries sector. Education and Training, Vol. 42, No. 6, p. 363.

22 Devins, D. and Gold, J., (2000), pp. 250-255.

23 Id, p. 253.

24 Id, p. 254

25 Tolentino, A.L. (1998). Training and Development of Entrepreneur-Managers of Small Enterprises: Pointers and

Lessons Learned, ILO Enterprise and Management Development Working Paper EMD/19E, Montivideo,

Cinterfor (in Introduction).

26 Id, p. 253, “… this approach may cause the BC to feel that the sessions may ‘meander …’”.

27 Collin, M. and Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer-mediated online courses. Background

paper for presentation at the FSU/AECT Distance Education Conference. Retrieved from

http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flcc.html


28 Stokes, A. (2001), pp. 317-324.

29 Porter, S. (2000). Building business success: a case study of small business coaching. MCB University Press,

Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 241-244.

30 Clutterbuck, D. (1991). Everyone needs a mentor: fostering talent at work. Institute of Personnel Management.

31 Harris, J.B. and Figg, C. (2000). Participating from the sidelines, online: facilitating telementoring projects.

University of Texas Retrieved from http://www.figg.com/phd/Harris_Figg_JCD_Aug2000.htm.

32 Salmon, G., Id.

33 Id, p. 68

34 Hartshorn, C. and Parvin, W. (1999). Teaching entrepreneurship: creating and implementing a naturalistic

model. Durham University.

35 Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

36 Id, p. 9


38 Hartshorn and Parvin, Knowledge conversion model, p.8.

39 Mentors Online message to all mentees, Message 5, Week 9

40 Sullivan, R. (2000). Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour

and Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 160-175.

41 Mentors Online Message 4 Week 7

42 Cope, J. and Watts, G. (2000). Learning by Doing: An exploration of experience, critical incidents and

reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 6,

No. 3, pp. 104-124.

43 ABS figures cited in Hartshorn, T.A. (1992). Interpreting the city: an urban geography. (2

nd edition). John

Wiley & Sons.

E‐mentoring and pedagogy: a useful nexus for evaluating online mentoring programs for small...

Documents

Transcript of E‐mentoring and pedagogy: a useful nexus for evaluating online mentoring programs for small...