Centre for Educational Development

Aarhus University Seal
 AU About Aarhus University  Consultancy Peer mentoring The reflective investigation

Peer mentoring: The reflective investigation

The reflective investigation is peer mentoring using a combination of two practices:

The reflective conversation, which is a staged conversation designed to encourage reflection and dialogue.

The scientific investigation, which involves a systematic examination of data.

In essence, the reflective investigation is a reflective conversation about specific data with the purpose of exploring and gaining a deeper understanding of one's teaching practices (Christensen, 2023; Felten, 2013).

The purpose of the reflective investigation is for a colleague to help another colleague reach a better understanding of a particular situation, leading to new and improved actions as a teacher. Additionally, the reflective investigation can increase the colleague’s awareness of the fundamental pedagogical values and principles that guide their pedagogical decisions, and what they consider meaningful teaching and education (Felten, 2013).

Examples of data materials are:

  • Student evaluations
  • A planned activity during teaching using learning technologies
  • A plan for an extended teaching course
  • Teaching materials, such as a video or a formulation of am assignment or exam
  • Personal notes from observations
  • A manuscript for teaching in a video and/or audio format.
  • Data from Power BI about the students’ course

How does the reflective investigation proceed?

Two colleagues allocate approximately 30 minutes in their calendars to meet. It is the responsibility of the colleague who initiates the reflective investigation to share specific data or materials with the invited colleague before the meeting. The reflective investigation consists of three phases: 

  1. A brief introduction and framing of the case (approximately 5 minutes) 
  1. A longer investigation of the data material (approximately 20 minutes) 
  1. A brief conclusion focusing on specifying the next steps (approximately 5 minutes) 

This arrangement requires participants to utilize the time and conduct a thorough examination of the pedagogical issue and investigation data material.

Data (5 minutes)

Prior to the meeting, you will have collected data and produced material about your teaching.

You invite a colleague to a 30-minute meeting about a case, dilemma, situation, or idea that you want to investigate further.

Examination (20 minutes)

You describe the case and show your colleague your data.

Your colleague will engage in your investigation from a professional standpoint with focus on pedagogical aspects.

Check out (5 minutes)

You round off the meeting and tell your colleague how the meeting has helped you.

You and your colleague can arrange to meet again when you have made progress with the aspects that the conversation has brought about.

Suggestions for how the conversation can unfold

Introduction and framing (approximately 5 minutes) 

Colleague with data material: 

“Thank you for agreeing to meet with me and discuss teaching. We have half an hour and I would like us to reflect jointly on a specific situation/a particular issue/a current dilemma that is currently on my mind. To give a brief overview, it involves…” 

Investigation (approximately 20 minutes) 

Colleague with data material: 

  • “The situation is best described as…” 
  • “I have gathered some data (e.g. notes from a log, student evaluations, or other observations) that show…” 
  • “I believe that x works well in my teaching, but y is a challenge.” 
  • “I believe that the main question might be…” 
  • “With your knowledge of my situation, what are your thoughts?” 
  • “With your knowledge of our students, what are your thoughts on…?” 
  • “With your knowledge of our profession, what are your thoughts?” 

During the investigation, the invited colleague can apply questioning techniques and attentive listening, e.g.: 

  • “Can you provide me with an example?” 
  • “Could you elaborate on what you mean by…” 
  • “Could you explain to me why you have reached the conclusion that…” 
  • “Are there any alternative interpretations to…?” 
  • “It seems to me that what you just said is quite important to you. Can you explain why?” 

Concluding remarks (approximately 5 minutes) 

Colleague with data material: 

  • “Following our conversation, I have realized that…” 
  • “I can imagine that x could be an option.” 
  • “Going forward, I plan to…” 
  • “Is there anything I might have missed, or that we haven’t talked about?” 
  • “Thank you very much for your time and mentoring. If you would be willing to and can find the time, I would like to arrange another meeting in about a month.” 

Literature

  • Christensen, M. K. (2023). Hvordan bliver jeg en god medicinsk underviser? In M. K. Christensen & L. B. Kjær (Eds.), Medicinsk Didaktik: En guide til lægen som underviser (Vol. 1, pp. 32-51). FADL's Forlag.
  • Felten, P. (2013). Principles of Good Practice in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 121-125.
Revised 22.04.2024
-
Nina Adolfsen