Mentor worksheets

Fill this in together rather than sending it ahead. The value is in the conversation it forces — particularly the questions about feedback and confidentiality, which are the ones that cause trouble later when they are left assumed.

How we will meet

If one of us has to cancel, we will…

How we will work together

The kind of feedback that helps me most is… (In the moment? Written first? After time to reflect? Blunt or cushioned?)

What stays between us, and what the mentor may share with the program or the fellow’s chair

Where I want to be pushed, and where I want room to work it out myself

What a bad week looks like for me, and how you would know I was having one

What the mentor commits to bring (Preparation, an observation visit, introductions, honesty, availability…)

Three goals for the year

In the fellow’s own words, and specific enough that in April you can both tell whether they happened. Revisit these in December and in April.

1. Goal 1 — and how we will know it happened

2. Goal 2 — and how we will know it happened

3. Goal 3 — and how we will know it happened

Review

We will re-read this compact on… (Recommended: the December meeting. It is meant to be revised, not filed.)

One page per meeting, following the five-part shape. The part that matters most is the last box: actions with a name and a date against each. Start the next meeting by reading it back.

1. Check in 3 min

How is the workload, the semester, the person?

2. Since last time 5 min

What was agreed last time, what happened, and what got in the way

3. Today’s focus 15 min

Focus

Notes — what the fellow said, not what you concluded

4. Decisions and actions 5 min

Action	Who	By when

5. Close 2 min

One thing that went well this fortnight (Say it out loud before the meeting ends.)

Anything I should keep an eye on

Three parts, used in order. The point of part one is that the fellow chooses what you look for; the point of part two is that you record what happened rather than what you thought of it; the point of part three is that the fellow speaks first. Skipping part one is the usual reason an observation lands badly.

Part 1 · Before the visit

Completed together, a week or so ahead.

What the fellow wants evidence about e.g. “Do the quieter students ever speak?” “How long do I talk without stopping?” “Does the group work actually produce anything?”

What is planned, and what students will be doing

What “this went well” would look like, in terms of what students do

Part 2 · During the class

Every five to ten minutes, write down what the instructor is doing and what the students are doing. Record behaviour, not judgement — the judgements come later, and the record is what makes them discussable.

Time	Instructor is…	Students are…

Evidence on the fellow’s focus question

A specific moment worth returning to — quote it if you can

Part 3 · The debrief, within a week

The fellow’s own read, before you say anything “How did that go, and what would you change?”

What is working and should be protected

The one or two changes worth making, and why these rather than others

What the fellow needs from the mentor to make them

What we will look at in the next observation

Work down the page in order. If the problem cannot be stated without naming the solution, the project is not ready yet — go back to the classroom evidence and try again. Scope is the thing to be ruthless about: this has to fit inside one spring course carried alongside another.

The problem

What do students do, or fail to do, that you want to change? Describe the behaviour, not the technique you have in mind.

What makes you believe this is real? What have you already seen?

Who has looked at this before, and what did they find?

The question

The question, in one sentence If the answer could not possibly be “no,” it is not yet a question.

The change

What will you actually do differently, in which weeks of the course?

What are you comparing against? Previous offerings, another section, the same students before and after, a rubric standard…

The evidence

What you will collect	When	What it would show

What would convince a skeptical colleague in your department?

What result would make you conclude it did not work — and would you say so?

Approvals and data handling

How you keep your grading role separate from your data-collection role

Feasibility and timeline

By when	What must be done

If the term goes badly, what is the smaller version you would fall back to?

Where this goes after the Interface Conference Department seminar, ASEE, a journal, the fellow’s teaching portfolio…

Use it twice. In December it is a mid-year stocktake against the compact; in April it is what the mentor brings to the joint summative evaluation with the fellow’s Department or Unit Chair. Fill in the fellow’s column and the mentor’s column separately first, then compare — the gaps between them are the most useful part of the conversation.

Against the three goals

Goal set in August	Where it stands	Evidence

Teaching

What has visibly changed in the fellow’s teaching, with an example

The evidence: observations, student feedback, assessment results, course materials

What is still developing, and what would move it

The scholarly teaching project

Where the innovation and its evaluation stand

Dissemination: what has been presented, submitted, or published

Professional growth

CTE program, workshops, networks built, service taken on

What now exists in the fellow’s record that did not exist in August

Readiness

Readiness as an engineering educator — the mentor’s honest assessment

What the fellow most wants recognized in the joint evaluation

Goals for the next period, or for after the appointment ends