Maria,

Good question/s .. and signs of a possible and fruitful research topic ..

One thing worth thinking about is how you are using the term 'value' and what I have in mind with the term 'values-in-use'. They are related. And they are related to 'evaluation'. But there are also important differences and distinctions. (And an aside: value and worth are related; and worth and worship are related.)

Can their enthusiasm or dedication be an indicator of the value of their engagement in mentoring for their professional development?

Why not? What other explanation might you give, if it was not indicating 'value'?

Do I think that in-service mentoring programs can be valuable to trigger double-loop learning and could we explore this by interviewing both members of the dyad?

I understand 'double-loop learning' in the terms that Argyris and Schon use it, and you will see that my thesis relies heavily on Argyris and Schon's work, for my theorising.

And you have a double-barrelled question here, something to watch out for when designing interview questions.

Do I think that in-service mentoring programs can be valuable to trigger double-loop learning?

Why not? What other explanation might you give if double-loop learning does not happen?

Could we explore this by interviewing both members of the dyad?

Why not? What might be the risks?

You note one: "I'm slightly troubled about that because both the mentor and the mentee in this case are part of the same work-environment (compared to mentoring that may take place away of the specific work-environment)and that may increase their blindness towards their values-in-action"

What other risks are there?

How might you manage those risks?

How might you seek to address the issue of the 'same work-environment increasing their blindness towards their values-in-action', as you investigate it?

Note: at this point I do understand you to be operating very clearly within Argyris & Schon's field of studies.
And at this point Schon's discussion of methodological issues associated with reflective practice, found in the concluding chapter of Schon, D. A. (Ed.). (1991). The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press..

Regards,

Dianne Allen

On Sat 13/03/10 8:21 AM , mariaarmaou [log in to unmask] sent:

Hi Dianne and all,

This is a very interesting dicussion. Great resource indeed! My quick question regards the way that mentoring sessions are perceived by each member of the dyad seperately and their further engagement (or dedication, enthousiasm) in mentoring and further professional development.
Can their enthousiasm or dedication be an indicator of the value of their engagement in mentoring for their professioanl development?
Also, do you think that in-service mentoring programs can be valuable to trigger double-loop learning and could we explore this by interviewing both members of the dyad (in some form of intensive interviewing at different time points for example?).
I'm slightly troubled about that because both the mentor and the mentee in this case are part of the same work-environment (compared to mentoring that may take place away of the specific work-environment)and that may increase their blindness towards their values-in-action

Regards,
Maria

--- On Fri, 12/3/10, Dianne Allen wrote:

From: Dianne Allen
Subject: Re: mentoring and personality? and working with 'values-in-use'
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, 12 March, 2010, 20:55

Sarah, Jean and all,

A couple of elaborating comments Sarah ...

1. working with both sides of the dyad, and self-awareness and other-awareness and safe environments

(you said: "I certainly agree with you about working with both sides of the mentoring dyad and wonder if working with both but separately might be preferable because values in use might become suppressed (consciously or unconsciously), for a plethora of reasons, if they were together.
In a climate of relative safety, empathy and confidentially that a group of just mentors or of mentees affords you might see actual and potential mismatch by dint of espoused values?")

There is some advantage of working with both, separately, as you say, because of 'safety' and 'confidentiality'. The first step in using tools like these for self-awareness is one of helping others consider and recognize where they are at, with no strings attached - ie self-honesty is 'critical' to this work. Even so, it is likely that when first doing this self-analysis that the individual will tend to recognize and report 'espoused-values', since that is part of their self-image, what they think they are in response to what 'the world' expects of them. It will take some honest self-awareness, empathy, and disclosure-sharing from the presenter/facilitator of the tool to raise the issue of the difference between 'espoused values' and 'values-in-use', so that participants can begin reach down into the deep values-in-use.

There is also some value in working with work groups as groups, when, if/as the safe environment is established with growing self-disclosure, then there is real self-awareness, and meaningful and useful other-awareness and owning of difference, and considering how difference might work out in the working relationship.

It was my experience, of sharing a number of self-awareness tools, in a group of peers, that showed that, as time went by, this process was quite powerful in building working cohesion and re-empowering professional enterprise (see
http://www.library.uow.edu.au/adt-NWU/public/adt-NWU20050901.105532/index.html

and especially chapter 8 for some more details [Allen, 2005])

2. mentoring as facilitation and changing values-in-use see annotations interspersed below

Regards Dianne

----- Original Message -----

From: [log in to unmask]">Sarah Fletcher

To: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 8:11 PM

Subject: Re: mentoring and personality?

Dear Jean and Everyone,

A few further thoughts over breakfast..

If we take the definition of mentoring as facilitating significant life changes e.g career and coaching as more geared to refining skills and reaching pre-specified ends (I am thinking about the definitions in the National Framework from CUREE/TDA here) then in mentoring both parties will very likely be focusing on enabling significant changes in values in use.

Significant changes in values-in-use is a long term project, in my view. (Any 'learning to change is difficult, complex and takes time' [Allen, 2005]). The first step it to know them, accurately. That involves significant and ongoing self-analysis, and oten with some trusted and external inputs to validate the internal view and analysis. And values-in-use are deeply seated (embedded and out of ready conscious sight). The second step is being sure about the purpose and advantage of changing them. Then there is the work on shifting such a meaning perspective (Mezirow) and risking intrapersonal disintegration in the process (see The King and I, and 'Tis a puzzlement.)

There is a likelihood that in times of significant life change, values in use and espoused values will a) come under the spotlight and b) develop/evolve i.e. undergo change. Where values come under the spotlight there may be a Hawthorne effect whereby values change because they are under scrutiny. In times of substantial upheaval, values in use might become less stable - anecdotal evidence is where mentors and mentees report that they never thought they would react as they had in a particular situation. This might reflect a lack of awareness of their values in use, which surface in time of stress. Alternatively, it might be that both values in use and espoused values are in actuality profoundly shifting.

I suggest that when novice teachers are struggling for survival they may exhibit 'entrenched values' clinging for security to values that have enabled survival in the past or... they might adopt values from their mentors (reinforcing cloning) or they may feel sufficienly confident (perhaps based on surviving previous periods of instability) to tolerate or maybe welcome 'fluid values' which can allow for shifts in perception, position and even overt contradiction.

The 'model' I am working with, with 'attitudes' being the outside ring, more on the surface, more open to change, and often changeable by advertising programs, eg health awareness campaigns, with 'beliefs' being the next more inner ring, and less susceptible to change, eg religious beliefs, political attachments' but capable of changing one's mind in response to thinking through reasons or other challenges to attachments, has 'values' as the innermost component of our complex. Values are much more entrenched, and incongruent behaviour arises when values-in-use, deepseated survival learning, come into conflict with 'beliefs' or 'attitudes'. The person of integrity is the one where there is alignment of values-in-use/beliefs/attitudes.