University of the West of England

MODULE SPECIFICATION

(Revised October 2005)

Code:

UTLGJ7-30-M

Title:

Mentoring for Professional Development

Version:

3

Level:

M

UWE Credit Rating:

30

ECTS Credit Rating:

15

Module Type:

Standard

Owning Faculty

Social Sciences and Humanities

Field:

Secondary Education and Lifelong Learning

Field Leader:

  

Valid From:

September 2008

Discontinued From:

  

Contributes Towards:

MA Education

MA Education(RAICS)

MA Lifelong Learning

PG Dip Education

PG Dip (RAICS)

PG Dip Lifelong Learning

PG Cert Education

PG Cert (RAICS)

PG Cert Lifelong Learning

Pre-requisites:

None

Co-requisites:

none

Excluded Combinations:

none

Learning outcomes:

On successful completion of the module participants will:

    • be able to identify factors that facilitate or inhibit the professional development of the mentee and critically evaluate the role of mentor and the implications for their own practice in this process (A)

    • have a critical understanding of any standards or framework applying to their mentee and of the contextual significance of the environment in which the mentoring is taking place including ways in which the environment could enhance the experience of the mentee (A)

    • be able to use available evidence to assess the individual needs of the mentee and to scaffold action planning appropriate to the mentee and to their working environment (A)

    • have a critical understanding of the principles of reflective pedagogy, both for their personal and professional role and of the ways in which this is relevant to the mentor/mentee relationship and be able to reflect critically on their own and others’ functioning in order to improve practice (A)

    • have a critical understanding of principles underlying effective observation of practice and the provision of associated feedback, including the development of appropriate questioning and listening skills (A)

    • be able to identify and articulate links between personal and professional values and practice in the workplace (A)

    • have a critical understanding of action enquiry as a process for professional development within the context of the work place(A)

    • have a critical understanding of the principles of co-coaching and if appropriate have developed associated skills (A)

    • be able to take independent and self-critical responsibility for their own work, guiding the learning of others and managing their own requirements for continuing professional development.

Syllabus outline:

Consideration of individual standards/required outcomes relevant to the mentee; identification and analysis of potential effects of the context of the workplace on the mentees’ role; critical friendship; use of case-studies in relation to individual needs; theories of reflective pedagogy and its role in personal development; principles of action enquiry and co-coaching where appropriate; consideration of literature appropriate to relevant generic mentoring skills such as critical self-reflection, questioning and listening, challenging assumptions and conclusions, observing and providing feedback, target setting, building self esteem and confidence; exploration of links between values and practice on which to begin to develop skills for possible action enquiry; consideration of relevant regulatory frameworks eg DDA and issues of equity and social justice in relation to the mentee’s role; collection of evidence appropriate to the self-evaluation of the mentors role.

Teaching and learning methods:

Initial workshop followed by supported independent study, including guidance in the use of locally and nationally available resources eg on-line library access, data-bases relevant to the mentees role.

Indicative sources:

All participants will be encouraged to make full use of the print and electronic resources available to them through membership of the university. These include a range of electronic journals, and a wide variety of resources available through web-sites and information gateways. The University library’s web-pages provide access to subject relevant resources and services, and to the library catalogue. All resources can be accessed from outside the university.

TEXTS

ASKEW S (2000) Feedback for Learning London: Routledge

DOWNEY M (1999) Effective Coaching London: Orion

FLAHERTY J (1999) Coaching: Evoking Excellence in Others London: Butterworth – Heinemann

GHAYE A AND GHAYE K (1988) Teaching and Learning through Critical Reflective Practice London: David Fulton

HEDGER K AND JESSON D (2002) The Numbers Game: The Use of Assessment Data in Primary and Secondary Schools and by Ofsted Inspectors (3rd Edition) Centre for Performance Evaluation and Resource Management: University of York

MASON J (2002) Researching Your Own Practice: The Discipline of Noticing London: Routledge/Falmer

MCNIFF J, LOMAX P AND WHITEHEAD J (2003) You and Your Action Research Project 2nd edition London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer

SCHON D (1991) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action New York:Basic Books

And other texts relevant to the specific role of the mentee.

Assessment

ATTEMPT 1

First Assessment Opportunity

Component A (weighting 100%)

Description

A structured portfolio , equivalent to 5000 words including a reflective commentary of no less than 2500 words, associated evidence and a witness statement of authenticity by the line manager.

Assessment criteria

A. Conceptual Domain – level M

The assignment demonstrates that the student can use and organise coherently relevant ideas, perspectives or theories to interpret and/or explore issues under study and in addition can critically analyse and/or evaluate those ideas, perspectives or theories showing the ability to synthesise and/or transform ideas in the process of developing an argument.

C. Contextual Domain – level M

The assignment demonstrates that the student has an awareness of the significance of contextual factors (eg personal, locational, historical, political etc) influencing the area of study and is able to critically engage with the contextual significance.

G. Action Domain – level M

The assignment demonstrates that the student can explore the relationship between theory and practice in the workplace, and use reflection to develop personal theory and refine professional practice, with due regard to issues of equity and social justice, critically evaluating professional development needs and/or outcomes

Second Assessment Opportunity (further attendance at taught classes is/is not required)

Component A (Weighting 100%)

Description

A structured portfolio , equivalent to 5000 words including a reflective commentary of no less than 2500 words, associated evidence and a witness statement of authenticity by the line manager.

Assessment criteria

A. Conceptual Domain – level M

The assignment demonstrates that the student can use and organise coherently relevant ideas, perspectives or theories to interpret and/or explore issues under study and in addition can critically analyse and/or evaluate those ideas, perspectives or theories showing the ability to synthesise and/or transform ideas in the process of developing an argument.

C. Contextual Domain – level M

The assignment demonstrates that the student has an awareness of the significance of contextual factors (eg personal, locational, historical, political etc) influencing the area of study and is able to critically engage with the contextual significance.

G. Action Domain – level M

The assignment demonstrates that the student can explore the relationship between theory and practice in the workplace, and use reflection to develop personal theory and refine professional practice, with due regard to issues of equity and social justice, critically evaluating professional development needs and/or outcomes

SECOND (OR SUBSEQUENT) ATTEMPT: Attendance at taught classes is/is not required.

Specification confirmed by …………………………………………………Date ……………………………

(Associate Dean/Programme Director)

University of the West of England, Bristol

Module Specification (revised November 2002)

Guidance Notes for users completing the specification

Please bear in mind that this module specification will be used as a reference by students, staff and non-UWE colleagues.

1

Each section of the electronic copy should be contracted or expanded as

appropriate to accommodate your text – the more concise the better.

2

The entries against the two italicised headings are optional and designed for those faculties which insist that these are essential (eg HSC). If they are

unnecessary, make no entry and delete these headings.

3

All other sections must be completed.

4

Learning Outcomes (and Key Skills)

Key skills are no longer listed in a separate section. The University's policy on specifying key skills is that they should be identified and made explicit by associating them with learning outcomes in this section. The specification should also make clear which learning outcomes are targeted by which elements of assessment. This can be done by making a brief cross-reference to the relevant component/element of assessment (eg assessment component A, element 3) in brackets at the end of each learning outcomes statement. Some learning outcomes are of course process-related or less tangible and may not be assessed discretely or formally.

5.1

Assessment

 

(a)

Standard modules may have one or two components. All elements in component A are assessed under controlled conditions; elements in component B may be assessed under controlled conditions or other conditions or by a combination of controlled conditions and other conditions. The A:B component weighting for standard modules at all levels should be expressed as percentages (using whole numbers only ie no decimal points).

 

(b)

Professional practice modules may have one or two components. Component A is the practice component, is by definition assessed under controlled conditions and yields a pass/fail outcome only. There is therefore no overall weighting between components A and B in professional practice modules. Component A must be passed to achieve a pass in the module overall.

Elements in component B may be assessed under controlled conditions or other conditions, or a combination of controlled and other conditions. Each element within component B must show a discrete weighting.

 

(c)

Project modules have only one component. This component usually has one element only but it may be sub-divided into two elements (the first element being typically a project plan / proposal / design, and the second the project itself). At all levels these two elements will show discrete weightings and faculties may specify that one of them (typically the plan / proposal / design) must be passed in its own right in order to pass the module (this aims to ensure that students take the plan / proposal / design seriously and complete it satisfactorily before tackling the extended piece of work). Conversely, the two elements may be the extended piece of written or other creative work and a presentation, where the former must be passed in its own right, irrespective of any impressive theatrical skills a student might demonstrate in the presentation!

Project modules are the only type of module in which a requirement to achieve a pass in an element in its own right is permitted.

5.2

The second (ie referral) Assessment Opportunity (AO2)

 

(a)

The weighting between components must be the same for AO2 as for the first assessment opportunity (otherwise it would not make sense to be able to carry forward a mark for a component which has been passed).

 

(b)

The number of elements included in each component in AO2 need not be the same as in AO1 and if this is the case the weighting between elements within the component will clearly not be the same as for AO1. The critical point is that the activities included in the elements for AO2 must meet the same learning outcomes for the referred component overall as those included in AO1.

Note

Colleagues should bear in mind the change to percentage marks for level M modules, with a University-wide pass mark of 50% at level M, takes effect from 1 October 2003.

Rod Coleman

University Modular Scheme Director

November 2002

Back to top