Evaluation by the mentor can be done at different levels. On one hand, the mentor can design assessments that will allow mentees to demonstrate their achievement of learning outcomes specifically related to content knowledge of the research project. On the other hand, the mentor should evaluate mentee’s performance and achievement of research attitudes including: thinking critically, taking initiative, working independently, and accepting feedback.
The first level of evaluation can be attained by common assessment tasks such as writing essays, submitting written reports, developing a project, preparing an oral or poster presentation, writing a research journal, or preparing a portfolio. The assignment that is selected should align with the research project’s learning outcomes. It is also important that mentor and mentee discuss the assignment, that the mentee receives proper instructions, and that feedback is given during and after the preparation of the assignment. Providing the mentee with examples of similar assignments that highlight the expected quality of work will be beneficial.
The mentee must receive constructive criticism of his/her performance during the research experience. The mentor should be aware that comments and suggestions are usually highly regarded by the mentee so the mentor’s feedback must be honest and accurate. Evaluation on this second level requires the mentor to carefully reflect on mentee’s attitude gains. This evaluation can be done with the help of rubrics or evaluation forms, samples of which are presented in the tables below.
Unquestionably, both evaluation levels are closely interrelated; it is unlikely that a mentee will achieve content knowledge learning outcomes without applying the proper research attitudes.
| ">CIRCLE ONE: 1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree | ||||||
| ">1. Student was adequately prepared academically | ">1 | ">2 | ">3 | ">4 | ">5 | ">n/a |
| ">2. Student was engaged in the research project and took initiative | ">1 | ">2 | ">3 | ">4 | ">5 | ">n/a |
| ">3. Student worked cooperatively with other research assistants | ">1 | ">2 | ">3 | ">4 | ">5 | ">n/a |
| Student accepted feedback constructively">">4. Student accepted feedback constructively | ">1 | ">2 | ">3 | ">4 | ">5 | ">n/a |
| ">5. Student contributed effort to establish rapport with me | ">1 | ">2 | ">3 | ">4 | ">5 | ">n/a |
| ">6. Student seemed comfortable working on my research project | ">1 | ">2 | ">3 | ">4 | ">5 | ">n/a |
| ">7. Student showed interest in graduate study and research | ">1 | ">2 | ">3 | ">4 | ">5 | ">n/a |
| ">8. Student’s interest in graduate study and research increased as a result of experience | ">1 | ">2 | ">3 | ">4 | ">5 | ">n/a |
| ">9. I would like to stay in touch with this student | ">1 | ">2 | ">3 | ">4 | ">5 | ">n/a |
| ">10. My experience with this program was positive | ">1 | ">2 | ">3 | ">4 | ">5 | ">n/a |
| ">11. I would be willing to mentor a student next year | ">1 | ">2 | ">3 | ">4 | ">5 | ">n/a |
| ">Other comments: | ||||||
| ">THE PROCESS | ||||
| ">Beginning | ">Competent | ">Excellent | ">Evidence | |
| ">Thesis | ">Develops a relevant thesis for the course and assignment | ">Develops a manageable scope and focus; poses an interesting question or problem | ">Modifies thesis to incorporate initial findings and surprising insights | ">Paper/Project Bibliography |
| ">Search Tools | ">Uses basic tools such as the library catalog, search engines, and full text databases | ">Uses more tools, such as disciplinary databases, electronic journals, reference indexes or bibliographies | ">Uses complex tools, archival finding aids and specialized databases | ">Paper/Project Bibliography |
| ">Search Techniques | ">Uses keyword searching | ">Modifies searches iteratively; identifies new keywords including synonyms, related terms, variant spellings; uses subject headings; follows footnotes and references | ">Modifies searches iteratively; uses search limits; identifies key authors; follows footnotes and references iteratively; uses cited reference searching | ">Paper/Project Bibliography |
| ">Library Collections | ">Uses school’s collections superficially | ">Digs deeper into school’s collections and services | ">Exploits school’s collections and services to their fullest | ">Paper/Project Bibliography |
| ">THE SOURCES | ||||
| ">Beginning | ">Competent | ">Excellent | ">Evidence | |
| "> | ||||
The previous tables provide evaluative tools for mentees’ learning outcomes. However, if a mentor chooses to devise his or her own evaluation rubric, the following table provides guidance on how to do so.
| Stages | Comment |
| Decide the Dimensions of Performance or essential elements that must be evident in high quality work [rows]. | Rule of thumb: If a student can score highly on all dimensions but not score well overall, you have the wrong dimensions. Revise. Discuss with colleagues. |
| Decide the levels of achievement—number and type . | Ways of describing various levels of mastery include: – advanced, proficient, functional, developing. – sophisticated, competent, partly competent, not yet competent. – exemplary, proficient, marginal, unacceptable. – or others that you choose (between 3 and 5). |
| For each Dimension of Performance, distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable (failing) performance. | Write the criteria for acceptable performance clearly and unambiguously. |
| For each Dimension of Performance, write clear performance descriptors (criteria) at each achievement level. | Try to determine qualitative and quantitative differences that characterize work or performance at the different levels. |
| Include (if possible) the consequences of performing at each level. | For example, the standard of the work would (or would not) be accepted by the profession or a business (as in a charter) or a professional journal (as in publication guidelines), etc. |
| Add the rating scheme you will use and apply any weighting. | Consider: – awarding grades (analytical scheme) or not (holistic scheme). There are arguments for each of these approaches (see below). It’s useful to discuss this with your teaching team to ensure a consistent approach. – including weighting criteria if required. – whether grades should be awarded for work below the minimum standard. – the criteria for ‘failure’. |
| Evaluate and revise accordingly. | Few rubrics will be constructed perfectly the first time. They are developmental tools and need to be critically evaluated after use. |
Mentoring is a dynamic process. Therefore, if the mentor detects weaknesses in the mentee’s performance or attitudes during the research experience, the mentor should address those issues immediately and not at the end of the project when the evaluation is written. By including periodic assessment strategies in the research plan prior to progress meetings, the mentee is given the opportunity to address problems and realign the research project. This type of formative assessment allows for course correction while the summative assessment serves as the overall evaluation of the project.
A Handbook on Mentoring Students in Undergraduate Research, 2nd Edition Copyright © by Undergraduate Research Committee, New York City College of Technology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.