Report on a Pilot to Support
Student Peer-Mentoring Groups
David Andersen!, Laura Black’, Larry Gottschamer’, Luis Luna-Reyes', Krystyna Stave*
Abstract
This paper reports on an effort in early stages to disseminate peer mentoring groups more
broadly throughout academic and practitioner members of the System Dynamics Society.
Several people with experience in a robust peer mentoring group volunteered to serve as a
“friendly voice” in students’ peer: mentoring groups formed at the Student Chapter meeting at the
July 2016 Intemational System Dynamics Conference in Delft.
" University at Albany; dfandersen@albany.edu and Ihina-reyes@albany.edu
? Montana State University; Iblack@montana.edu
3 University of South Florida; Igottschamer@qmail.com
4 University of Nevada Las Vegas; krystyna.stave@unlv.edu
Report on a Pilot to Support Student Peer-Mentoring Groups
Background
Having met biweekly or weekly as peermentoring collaborators for more than 5 years, members
of the “Thursday Group” (named so to help us remember when we agreed to meet) wrote a Notes
and Insights reflection paper for the System Dynamics Review on benefits we experienced from
peer mentoring (Richardson et al., 2015). We included descriptions of our ground rules and.
basic processes as well as some outcomes, in hopes of encouraging others to form similar
collaboration and research-support networks with system dynamics colleagues.
Some of the Thursday Group’s members’ reasons for participating include:
e Soliciting constructive feedback on early-stage research ideas, models, and papers;
e Staying current and flexible on system dynamics, even though no local colleagues use
system dynamics methods;
e Retaining focus on research, even though one’s local environment places less value on.
research activities;
e Regularly enjoying collegial friendships forged originally through conference
interactions, rather than reconnecting only annually;
e Being part of a friendly support network that aids navigating ups and downs of research,
system dynamics modeling and analysis, teaching innovation efforts, etc.
Changing Sodety Demography?
The System Dynamics Society demography is changing, or perhaps we are becoming more
cognizant of and more focused on addressing demographics that have always been present. The
Ph.D. Colloquium organizers in 2016 invited 70-plus Colloquium participants to complete a
survey on a variety of issues, including whether they identified as self-taught in system
dynamics. With a 20-plus percent response rate, more than 40 percent of Colloquium
participants identified as having no on-site faculty having system dynamics expertise.
At the Student Chapter meeting at the 2016 conference, with some improvisation, 25 students
formed 5 peer mentoring groups and have met since (usually via electronic means) with
regularity. The stated intent in forming these groups was to help each other increase system
dynamics competency in their respective research endeavors, which, for the most part, are based.
in degree programs where system dynamics is not centrally practiced or substantively included in
the cuniculum.
Peer Mentoring versus Traditional Instruction
While peer-mentoring is not a substitute for instructional training by experts, research suggests
that talking with people of like-levels of skill can provide significant benefits:
¢ Anorganization achieves highest levels of expertise when accumulations of knowledge
on either side of a boundary are relatively balanced (Black, Carlile, Repenning, 2004).
¢ Leaming grounded in relationships and emerging through dialogue is more effective than
traditional forms of mentoring or training (Bokeno and Gantt, 2000).
* Because knowledge is socially constructed (Berger and Luckmann, 1966), recognizing a
“contribution” to scholarship is inherently a social process (Richardson et al. 2015).
Piloting an Approach to System Dynamics Support
During the 2016 conference and again subsequently, some members of the “Thursday Group”
discussed the possibility of offering encouragement and support to the student peer-mentoring
groups. One conversation identified issues including:
a Concems that we would introduce inadvertent conflicts with students’ real supervising
faculty or committee members;
b. Concems whether people should even attempt to leam or use system dynamics without
access to intensive, skilled tutoring and commonly accepted best practices;
c. Desires to help those whose efforts evoked memories of our own struggles to obtain
instruction in system dynamics;
d. Concems that we could not devote sufficient time / focus / expertise to be truly helpful to
students without on-site system dynamics expertise
e. Concems on whether system dynamics as a methodology can thrive if the Society or
individuals do not take steps to help those seeking to leam in a variety of circumstances.
After discussing these concems with the President of the Student Chapter, he shared this email
(excerpted) among five student-peer-mentoring groups and four “friendly voice” volunteers.
We have an opportunity for senior level SD practitioners to join student peer-
mentoring groups. However, the experts willing to adopt a group (basically
members of David and Laura's own peer mentoring group) are already too busy,
have concems about taking on another 5 graduate students, and want to avoid
conflicts with student's advisors.
I think we can make this work by limiting the amount of time the experts spend.
This means they are active during the meeting and aren't required to read.
materials sent beforehand. The initial commitment to a group is a pilot program
and will only last the rest of this semester. We can collectively decide if it's
working or not at the end of the pilot.
The expert sitting in on the group should be considered a ‘coach’ instead of a
mentor or advisor. These imply a much deeper relationship they may not be able
to commit to. Also, students are responsible for making sure any
advice/feedback/criticism from the expert is acceptable with their advisor.
With agreement to these ground mules for a “pilot” to last from January through May, four
volunteers were matched to four student-peer-mentoring groups based primarily on the
volunteers’ schedule opportunities for joining in already-ongoing peer-mentoring meetings.
Together with students, members of peer-mentoring groups, and other practicing system
dynamicists, we intend to discuss these experiences, along with benefits and concems we
experience, at the 2017 Intemational System Dynamics Conference.
Assessing the Pilot, Continuing the Conversations
In May 2017 we conducted focus group of both peer-mentoring group participants and “friendly
voice” coaches to elicit benefits and concems related to this pilot effort. Some of the highlights
include the following.
Students’ Perceptions
Concems
* Howto reduce scheduling issues, among students and between students and “friendly
voice”
« Howto ensure consistent meeting attendance by students
How to address fact that meeting attendance not always support by advisors in non-
SD discipline
Benefits
“I found [the “friendly voice”] inputs really helpful”
“Voice (and resources) were invaluable”
Questions, suggestions, support and constructive critique...and laughter
“Don't go!” “If you can re-join laten...that would be fantastic.”
“Friendly Voice” Perceptions
Concems
How to manage expert's role / time investment in group; how to set expectations with
students
I Wish I Knew could be helpful even if I feel inadequately knowledgeable of
students’ projects
How to get students to be consistently organized about who presents when
How to handle students’ not being skilled at managing discussion to make sure
presenter focuses on question for group
Benefits
Sometimes could prevent students going down “rabbit trails” in writing
“T really like the students in my group.”
Student commitment, enthusiasm.
“Some of them are quite advanced in their research and SD skills. Very happy to see
these up and coming talents in our field!”
At the 2017 Intemational System Dynamics Conference (Tuesday at 3:30), we will facilitate a
session focused on peer-mentoring groups and perhaps other approaches to supporting system
dynamics competency particularly among those students—but also perhaps other academics and.
practitioners—who do not have local access to system dynamics expertise.
References
Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of knowledge: A treatise in
the sociology of knowledge. Soho: Open Road Media.
Black, LauraJ., Paul R. Carlile, and Nelson P. Repenning. 2004. “A dynamic theory of expertise
and occupational boundaries in new technology implementation: Building on Barley's
study of CT scanning,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(4): 572-607.
Bokeno, R. Michael, and Vemon W. Gantt. 2000. "Dialogic mentoring: Core relationships for
organizational leaming," Management Conmunication Quarterly 14(2): 237-270.
Richardson, George P., LauraJ. Black, Michael Deegan, Navid Ghaffarzadegan, Donald Greer,
Hyunjung Kim, Luis F. Luna-Reyes, Roderick MacDonald, Eliot Rich, Krystyna Stave,
Nicole Zimmermamn, David F. Andersen. 2015. “Reflections on peer mentoring for
ongoing professional development in system dynamics,” System Dynamics Review, 31
(3): 173-181. doi: 10,1002/sdr.1542
