Kovac—CC Mentorship
Running Head: Kovac—CC Mentorship
Unpacking Mentorship as a Means for Knowledge Transfer in the Community College:
A Discussion of Urgency, Opportunity, and Relevant Theory
Submitted to
Dr. Don Turnbull
In Partial Fulfillment of the Course Requirements for
INF385q—Knowledge Management Systems
Submitted by
Jason Kovac
November 20, 2008
1 of 12
Kovac—CC Mentorship
Introduction
Preparing community college faculty for the challenges of teaching and learning in the 21st
century is a compelling task for contemporary leaders in higher education. One critical step in the
process is that of knowledge transfer, where tacit and explicit knowledge is shared among employees,
towards a workforce with heightened sensitivity to classroom issues, and an improved capacity to
respond. Davenport & Prusak (2000) note that “knowledge is transferred in organizations whether or
not we manage the process at all” (p. 88). Though options abound when seeking to manufacture the
most effective means for knowledge transfer, we are reminded that “knowledge transferred by means of
a long apprenticeship or mentorship is likely to have high viscosity” (p. 102). These person-to-person
connections seem to be effective in helping staff overcome resistance to skills development; in the
community college, they may be relatively effective means to advance how faculty understand and
respond to constraining factors at work in the classroom.
This paper will offer a brief outline of some of the factors contributing to the urgency of
knowledge transfer among current community college faculty. It will posit opportunities to be found
among a confluence of trends, as influenced by communications technology and the behavior of
contemporary students. It will highlight the potential for community colleges to leverage emerging
tools towards a model for teaching and learning that responds to demonstrated interests of stakeholders.
Most importantly, it will offer some details regarding mentorship as a means for knowledge transfer
among community college faculty, a critical task for any college that wishes to advance their teaching
and learning programs in response to these factors.
Urgency and Innovation
The next generation of community college leaders will inherit a system rife with financial
challenges: the percentage of institutional budgets funded by the state is in decline (Lasher & Sullivan,
2 of 12
Kovac—CC Mentorship
2004; ECS, 2000); community members are often tolerating the highest taxes and tuition rates they
might bear (Kim, 2007); resources made available by partners are finite at best—at worst, absent.
Scholars point to several root causes—declining public trust in the higher education system (Roueche,
1997), increased competition from Medicaid, corrections, and other state-funded public needs.
Regional specifics aside, it is a picture not likely to improve significantly in the near future. As such,
contemporary educational leadership has learned to be entrepreneurial—they seek to become master
fundraisers, to create partnerships with business and industry (Roueche, 2005).
Indeed, the call for higher educators to innovate has been sounded at the highest levels,
including the Spellings Report (A Test of Leadership, USDoED, 2006), commissioned by the U.S.
Department of Education. Though recommendations included in this report are broad, the repeated
emphasis on seeking innovation is unmistakable. Says the panel of authors: “American higher
education has become what, in the business world, would be called a mature enterprise: increasingly
risk-averse, at times self-satisfied... It has yet to successfully confront the impact of globalization,
rapidly evolving technologies, and increasingly diverse and aging population, and an evolving
marketplace characterized by new needs and new paradigms” (USDoED, 2006, p. xii). Rethinking the
way community colleges do their core business of teaching and supporting learning seems fundamental
to “ignoring the status quo”; if the future of public funding cannot be guaranteed, community college
leaders need to re-imagine the way learning is delivered, towards improved potential for revenue, via
means both affordable and engaging.
Stakeholder Trends
In 1999, Professor Anthony Giddens, then Director of the London School of Economics,
traveled the world to give a series of lectures on globalization. He had this to say about the explosion of
communications technology that was (and is) feeding the trend towards cultural globalization:
3 of 12
Kovac—CC Mentorship
“Changes are happening today under the impact of globalisation. In the Western countries, not just
public institutions but everyday life is becoming opened up from the hold of tradition... Where tradition
has retreated, we are forced to live in a more open and reflective way” (Giddens, 1999). Though the
debate on the merit of globalization remains fierce, community college leadership would do well to
focus on the cultural results of this awesome trend: a population more keenly aware of choice, less
interested in the “normal way” of doing things. This seems in keeping with what we know about
contemporary students. Students of the 21st century are and will continue to become radically different
than any we've known. Though a generalization would belittle the individuality stressed above, most
profiles of millennial students note that these are people who don't know what life was like before the
Internet; who have high comfort levels with technology; who are focused on personal relevance of
learning and results (Jafari, 2006; Guess, 2007; Carlson, 2005). In effect, these trends outline a policy
of practice—created by students from the bottom up. Those colleges who doesn't pursue innovation
towards engaging these students are likely to see their student success rates plummet, their funding
problems increase, and their reputation decline rapidly.
Opportunity
Brown & Adler (2008) posit: “Arguably, the most visible impact of the Internet on education
has been the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement, which has provided free access to a wide
range of courses and other educational materials to anyone who wants to use them” (p. 18). Platforms
such as MERLOT (http://www.merlot.org/) and OER Commons (http://www.oercommons.org/), and
groups like The Center for Open and Sustainable Learning (http://cosl.usu.edu/) afford educators the
opportunity to share, explore, enhance, and expand anything from a simple homework prompt to a
series of multimedia-rich learning objects with other teachers across the globe.
The OER is a tremendous platform for helping community colleges innovate in light of
4 of 12
Kovac—CC Mentorship
contemporary ideas about “the long tail,” an economic concept utilized by businesses like Amazon.com
and Netflix, who are able to address low-frequency interests not satisfied elsewhere, thanks in large
part to the relatively low overhead of running an online business. The sum of sales per these lowfrequency interests ends up being substantially equal to, if not greater than, the revenue from highfrequency, "hot" items. Community colleges using platforms like OER Commons to store and share
educational resources become part of a community of knowledge sharing, where educational
opportunities are available for repurposing, towards satisfying the unique interests of local consumers.
As Anderson (2006) reminds us: “Most of us want more than just the hits. Everyone's taste
departs from the mainstream somewhere. The more we explore alternatives, the more we're drawn to
them” (Anderson, 2006, p. 18). How uncannily like one scholars' description of millennial students,
who “want the academy to provide more learning alternatives, not just different ones... Millennials are
not monolithic, they want services explicitly more customized to their personal preferences” (Sweeney,
2005). As Giddens notes, globalization is bringing an intensely individual quality to our stakeholders'
interests. The era when our communities, our students, will be satisfied by traditional “greatest hits” is
likely in decline.
Web2.0 tools are empowering a broader segment of contemporary faculty with the means to be
producers of rich classroom content. Platforms such as OER Commons help these teachers share these
learning objects for reuse in different contexts. Together, these tools open the door for rethinking the
way courses are prepared by higher educators and delivered to students. They seek to leverage the great
wealth of knowledge available—often cached in the minds and memories of faculty, staff and other
stakeholders—and create new opportunities for emerging experts to produce media-rich educational
content. The tremendous challenge that remains, however, is building equity among faculty regarding
their understanding of pressing issues, and their effective competency in response. The diffusion of
5 of 12
Kovac—CC Mentorship
innovation is a time-intensive process (Rogers, 2003); the organizations who emerge as those most
effective in responding to these issues are likely to be the ones who are deliberate in building
connections between faculty whose pedagogy and technology competency are more robust and those
whose talents are yet underdeveloped.
Getting Faculty Up to Speed
Any organization that seeks to bolster knowledge transfer between employees has options—
given finite resources, there are likely limits to which methods can and should be pursued. Mentorship
is one means by which community college leaders might connect new or untrained faculty with
teachers who have begun to embrace the tools and concepts described above. Roadmaps that a college
might reference in developing a mentorship program are complex, nuanced, and often customized to a
specific context—as such, there are few “easy answers” for community colleges seeking to realize the
benefits of mentorship among faculty. The following is offered as an introductory touchstone, with
every appreciation for the considerable task that would remain for any college building a mentorship
program.
Mentors are described as individuals with experience and influence who teach those with less
experience (Crow & Matthews, 1998). Roles that a mentor might play for mentee include teacher
(Levinson et al., 1978), sponsor (Schein, 1978), challenger (Daloz, 1983) and confidant (Odell, 1990).
Williams (2004) describes the mentoring process as “a socialization strategy that helps aspiring
administrators learn the requisite knowledge, skills, behaviors and values to take on complex,
responsibility-laden school leadership roles” (p. 55). The potential benefits of interacting with mentor
include growing an understanding of role responsibilities (Crow & Matthews, 1998), enabling an
appreciation for the complexity of group process (Daresh, 1988; Barnet et al., 1999), and developing
awareness, interest, and engagement with contemporary and historical voices in the field (Gordon &
6 of 12
Kovac—CC Mentorship
Maxey, 2000).
Corollary to the concept of mentorship is that of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP),
introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991):
LPP provides a way to speak about the relations between newcomers and
old timers, and about activities, identities, artifacts, and communities of
knowledge and practice. It concerns the process by which newcomers
become part of a community of practice. A person’s intentions to learn
are engaged and the meaning of learning is configured through the
process of becoming a full participant in a sociocultural practice …. This
social process includes, indeed it subsumes, the learning of
knowledgeable skills (p. 37).
In short, employing legitimate peripheral participation means creating ways for newcomers to a
group or organization to observe, understand, and experiment in meaningful ways with the processes
involved in doing the work at hand, without feeling they are totally culpable for results of risks taken
during the learning process. Conversely, LPP would also suggest that new group members with limited
opportunities for working with the group and their tools/resources will see their potential for growth
and learning stunted to some degree. Other scholarship on legitimate peripheral participation also
emphasizes the active and situated nature of the learning process (Guldberg, 2008; O'Donnell, 2007;
Fuller, 2005). To some scholars, the modes of interaction that constitute legitimate peripheral
participation have as great an effect on the learning process as the expertise that is the subject of the
learning.
Even in cases where a fixed doctrine is transmitted, the ability of a
community to reproduce itself through the training process derives not
7 of 12
Kovac—CC Mentorship
from the doctrine, but from the maintenance of certain modes of
coparticipation in which it is embedded (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 16)
Master–apprentice relations lead to an understanding that mastery resides
not in the master but in the organisation of the community of practice of
which the master is a part. A de-centered view of the master as
pedagogue moves the focus of analysis away from teaching and onto the
intricate structuring of a community’s learning resources. (Guldberg,
2008, p. 36)
Thus, when thinking about the organization of mentorship experiences using legitimate
peripheral participation, the expertise of the mentor should not be the only consideration—the way we
help mentees interact with mentors will play an important role in the learning that happens. Significant
promising practices emerge upon review of scholarship on mentorship:

Mentors [should] facilitate the journey from novice to full practitioner by focusing on the
individual intern’s experience, developmental levels, interests, dispositions and interpersonal
skills (Gordon & Maxey, 2000)

Mentors [should] challenge interns and build confidence in their developing abilities by
scaffolding growth-promoting experiences, shifting between nurturing and challenging or
between supporting and prodding (Crow & Matthews, 1998)

As a mentor perceives problems in some aspect of an intern’s work, the mentor [should] alert
the novice to the problem, explains the possible consequences and challenges the intern to try
another method (Tomlinson, 1995)

Mentors [should] respect those they assist and will work to facilitate, rather than control, the
8 of 12
Kovac—CC Mentorship
work of new volunteers (Little et al., 1984)

Mentors will seek to evaluate situations from diverse points of view and generate many
alternatives for solving problems (Bova & Phillips, 1984)
Throughout the literature discussed above, we see an emphasis on combining low risk with high
expectations for mentees, on opportunities for observation and collaboration, and on avoiding
mentorship in a bubble—situated learning and developing an appreciation for context seem a key goal
for any mentorship experience. These recommendations mean many things for a community college
that seeks to build a faculty better equipped to respond to emerging challenges and opportunities—
future research may wish to further explore these ideas as relevant to specific college contexts. Perhaps
just as important, however, is the reminder to community college leaders that effective mentorship does
not mean a casual relationship where new and old staff are forced into co-location; there are significant
theories to be applied towards the design of effective mentorship, each of which has the potential to
make valuable contributions to the future success of such programs and the organizations that support
them.
Conclusion
This paper has sought to explore the concept of mentorship as applicable to knowledge transfer
and professional development among community college faculty in light of urgent emerging issues
facing contemporary higher educators. Were a college interested in realizing the great potential in
mentorship or apprenticeship programs on their own campus, there is substantial work left to be done—
these pages have but scratched the surface of promising practice, where case studies and other
scholarship might help stakeholders build a more robust program. Community college leaders would do
well to remember that mentorship is one option among many to achieve knowledge transfer among
faculty—a complete learning program will likely include a diverse mix of activities, including the
9 of 12
Kovac—CC Mentorship
deliberate construction and support of a culture where random conversations, knowledge fairs, open
forums, storytelling, and any number of other methods are leveraged towards a more capable workforce
(Davenport & Prusak, 2000).
References
Anderson, C., (2006). The Long Tail. New York: Hyperion.
Barnett, B. G., Hall, G. E., Berg, J. H. & Camerena, M. M. (1999). A typology of partnerships for
promoting innovation. Journal of School Leadership, 9, pp. 484–509.
Bova, B. M. & Phillips, R. R. (1984). Mentoring as a learning experience for adults. Journal of Teacher
Education, 35/3, pp. 16–20.
Brown, J.S., & Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0.
Educause Review, 43/1, pp. 16-32.
Carlson, S. (2005). The net generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 7,
2005.
Crow, G. M. & Matthews, J. (1998). Finding one’s way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Daresh, J. C. (1988). The role of mentors in preparing future leaders. Paper presentation at the Annual
Conference of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April.
Daloz, L. A. (1983). Mentors: Teachers who make a difference. Change, 5/6, 24–27.
Davenport, T.H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Education Commission of the States (ECS)(2000). State funding for community colleges: A 50-state
survey. Accessed 11/15/08 at http://www.ecs.org/html/ProjectbySubject.asp?issueID=26.
Fuller, A. (2005). Learning as peripheral participation in communities of practice: a reassessment of
key concepts in workplace learning. British Educational Research Journal, 31/1, pp. 49–68.
Giddens, A (1999b). Reith Lectures #3: Tradition. Accessed 11/19/08 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week3/week3.htm.
Gordon, S. P. & Maxey, S. (2000). How to help beginning teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA:
10 of 12
Kovac—CC Mentorship
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Guess, G. (2007). Facelifts for the Facebook Generation. Inside Higher Ed. September 14th, 2007.
Accessed 11/19/08 at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/09/14/websites.
Guldberg, Karen (2008). Adult learners and professional development: Peer-to-peer learning in a
networked community. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27/1, pp. 35-49.
Jafari, A., McGee, P., & Carmean, C. (2006). Managing courses, defining learning: What faculty,
students and administrators want. EDUCAUSE Review. vol. 41, no. 4, July/August 2006. pp 50–71.
Kim, J., Athavaley, A. (2007). Colleges seek to address affordability. Wall Street Journal. May 3, 2007.
Lasher, W. and Sullivan, S. (2004). Follow the money: The changing world of budgeting in higher
education. Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research, vol XIX. pp 197-240.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H. & Mskee, B. (1978). The seasons of a
man’s life. New York, NY: Ballantine.
Little, J. W., Galagaran, P. & O’Neal, R. (1984). Professional development roles and relationships:
Principals and skills of advising. San Francisco, CA: National Institute of Education.
O'Donnell, V. L. (2007). The transition of adult students to higher education: Legitimate peripheral
participation in a community of practice? Adult Education Quarterly, 57/4, pp. 312-28.
Odell, S. J. (1990). Support of new teachers. In Bey, T. M. & Holmes, C. T. (Eds.), Mentoring:
Developing successful new teachers. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
Rogers, E., (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Roueche, J. (1997). Embracing the tiger: The effectiveness debate and the community college.
Washington, D.C.: Community College Press.
Roueche, J. (2005). The entrepreneurial community college. Washington, D.C.: Community College
Press.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Sweeney, R. (2005). Higher Education for Multitaskers. The Chronicle of Higher Education (Website).
Accessed 11/19/08 at http://chronicle.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/colloquy/2005/10/millennial/.
11 of 12
Kovac—CC Mentorship
Tomlinson, P. (1995). Understanding mentoring: Reflective strategies for school-based teacher
preparation. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
U.S. Department of Education (USDoED)(2006). A test of leadership. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education.
Williams, E.J., Matthews, J., & Baugh, S. (2004). Developing a mentoring internship model for school
leadership: using legitimate peripheral participation. Mentoring and Tutoring, 12/1, pp. 53-70.
12 of 12