Next Article in Journal
The Role of Language and Literacy Skills in Science Learning from Kindergarten to 5th Grade: Mitigating Gender, Racial/Ethnic, and Socio-Economic Disparities
Next Article in Special Issue
Comfort in the Role: The Core of Positive Veteran Teachers
Previous Article in Journal
Choosing Whether to Use Mobile Technology Outdoors
Previous Article in Special Issue
‘If You Do Not Write, You Dry Up’: Tensions in Teacher Educator Research and Academic Writing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/educsci14090993
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Empowering Educators: The Impact of Reverse Mentoring on Developing Scientific Mindset and Research Skills

by
Julia Raberger
1,*,
Konstantinos Gkaravelas
2 and
Dominik E. Froehlich
1
1
Centre for Teacher Education, University of Vienna, 1090 Porzellangasse 4, 1090 Vienna, Austria
2
Department of Philosophy, University of Ioannina, 45110 Ioannina, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 993; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090993
Submission received: 1 August 2024 / Revised: 3 September 2024 / Accepted: 5 September 2024 / Published: 10 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Teachers and Teaching in Teacher Education)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The integration of educational research into teaching practice is an important component in fostering the professional development of educators. Recognizing mentoring activities as an effective method for fostering such research-driven teaching practice, this study set out to explore the effectiveness of reverse mentoring in cultivating a scientific mindset and enhancing research skills among school-based teacher educators. The defining feature of reverse mentoring is the reversal of the mentor and mentee roles, with student teachers mentoring school-based teacher educators. These school-based teacher educators here represent in-service teachers who teach in schools on a daily basis while simultaneously supporting the training of future teachers. Through a semi-structured interview study, nine reverse mentoring projects implemented in Austria and Greece were analyzed. The findings highlight the importance of the thematic focus of the reverse mentoring projects, motivations for participation, insights into collaboration dynamics, learning outcomes, and suggestions for process improvement. Learning outcomes are reported in new teaching methods, content knowledge, and improved collaboration capabilities. A framework categorizing reverse mentoring collaboration into basic, guided, and deep levels is discussed. Suggestions for further research are provided to validate and expand upon the findings of this study.

1. Introduction

An important aspect of professional teaching is the ability to incorporate educational research into practice [1]. This integration not only allows teaching to be informed and guided by empirical research findings but also empowers teachers to conduct practitioner research to foster continuous improvement in their practice [2,3]. Existing research underscores the critical role of a scientific mindset and research skills [4,5]. Building upon the definitions of inquiry and scientific habits of mind [6,7], in this paper, we define a scientific mindset as a holistic way of thinking grounded in scientific principles and methods. Research skills encompass specific skills and knowledge for engaging and applying research in a particular field [8,9].
Importantly, these mindsets and skillsets are not only relevant for the teachers but also for teacher educators, who need to model research behaviors. Here, we are focused on teachers’ research in the classroom; hence, we zero in on school-based teacher educators. School-based teacher educators are more senior teachers that act as mentors to student teachers and newly qualified teachers [10]. We will refer to them as school-based teacher educators but note the dual role of these educators in teaching school pupils and mentoring student teachers. Interestingly, mentoring for teachers has been implemented worldwide and has been well researched, too. Unfortunately, although previous research has recognized the potential power of partnerships to bridge the gap between theory and practice (e.g., [11,12,13]), research has mostly been executed in a rather one-sided fashion, focusing on the learning of students or new teachers (e.g., [14]). There is a growing yet still limited body of research exploring the potential for professional development of the mentors themselves (e.g., [15]). These mentoring interactions are important aspects of social capital [16] and informal learning that have been shown to improve a variety of competencies in other fields [16,17].
It is essential to recognize that mentoring programs, if done right, are not one-way streets. School-based teacher educators also benefit from engaging in professional learning communities (e.g., [18,19,20]). The concept of reverse mentoring shows that school-based teacher educators, who typically act as mentors, also have the potential to learn from their mentees [21]. While this approach could be a highly productive pathway to shape school-based teacher educators’ scientific mindset and research skills, as we will argue for more fully below, research about reverse mentoring in teacher education is scarce and focused on a very narrow set of applications, such as digital education (see below).
In this study we set out to investigate the usefulness of reverse mentoring to promote a scientific mindset and research skills among school-based teacher educators. Specifically, we seek to understand the role of participating in a research-based reverse-mentoring program for the development of school-based teacher educators’ scientific mindset and research skills. To investigate this question, we first review existing literature about reverse mentoring and the role of a scientific mindset in professional educational practice. We then present the setup of a reverse-mentoring program in the context of practitioner research and the data of nine school-based teacher educators who have participated.

2. Background

In this section, all components of the research question—scientific mindset, research skills, and reverse mentoring—are explained in more detail.

2.1. Scientific Mindset and Research Skills for Teachers

A scientific mindset broadly refers to a way of thinking that includes scientific and inquiry habits of mind. These habits of mind are defined as a set of dispositions required for cognitive tasks that are practiced, refined, or repeated across contexts and situations [22]. Key features of scientific habits of mind are skepticism, rationality, objectivity, curiosity, open-mindedness, suspension of belief, and mistrust of arguments from authority [6]. For teachers, in particular, skills that enable them to systematically inquire, reflect, and research their everyday teaching practices are essential for understanding the dynamic and complex nature of their school environments and improving educational practices [4]. An inquiry habit of mind for teachers involves valuing deep understanding, reserving judgment while tolerating ambiguity, and considering various perspectives to ask increasingly focused questions [7]. Supporting a teaching culture that fosters inquiry, and thereby scientific mindsets among teachers, promotes collaboration and dialogue [23].
While a scientific mindset supports the application of scientific principles in understanding and approaching the world, research skills are required to conduct and build upon research within a particular field. Specifically, they encompass a range of skills, including the ability to search for informative literature, collect and analyze data, evaluate findings, and communicate results effectively to inform practice and guide decision-making [8,9,24]. Research skills are proven to be more effectively developed when the learning experience is engaging and interactive, such as in action research settings or inquiry-based learning experiences [25,26,27].
In the context of researching one’s own practice, Smith [28,29] emphasizes the need for guidance and suggests a specific mentoring process structured around the stages of the research cycle—planning, acting, observing, and reflecting—to help educators navigate and benefit from their research endeavors. Eraldemir-Tuyan [30] highlights that mentoring strategies must be adapted to the specific individual needs of the mentee to effectively enhance research capabilities. Békés [31] notes that research engagement mentoring could be a mutually beneficial learning activity for both the mentor and mentee. Building on this idea of mutual learning, the concept of reverse mentoring offers a fresh perspective on how mentoring can be effectively applied to foster a scientific mindset and research skills.

2.2. Reverse Mentoring

Traditional mentoring is about the interaction between a mentor and a mentee with the main goal of learning but rather organized in one-way knowledge flow from the experienced to the less experienced [32,33]. In contrast, it is a legitimate goal in education to equalize the transfer of knowledge for both sides. Hence, reverse mentoring could be the route.
In reverse mentoring, as pointed out by Murphy [21], less experienced individuals (e.g., student teachers) act as reverse mentors and are paired with more experienced reverse mentees (e.g., school-based teacher educators). However, for this to be reconciled, it is necessary that the new reverse mentors possess specialized knowledge to share with their overall more experienced colleagues during this reversed mentoring process [21]. Applied to teacher education, school-based teacher educators participating in reverse mentoring possess a wealth of extensive pedagogical knowledge and experience, which is of great value to the student teachers. In contrast, student teachers are novices in the field of teaching, yet they may offer insights into current trends in the field, informed by their experiences at university [34]. Through the reversal of roles, traditional hierarchical structures, which may appear in traditional mentoring, are challenged, and student teachers become empowered [35].
In the present study, we will refer to the student teachers who assume the role of mentors in the reverse mentoring process as “reverse mentors”. Similarly, the school-based teacher educators who assume the role of mentees will be referred to as “reverse mentees”. To summarize, Figure 1 shows how knowledge is intentionally directed in reverse mentoring as opposed to the traditional one-way flow of knowledge.

2.3. Implementation of Reverse Mentoring in Teacher Education

To date, there have been few studies that have examined reverse mentoring in the context of initial teacher education. Of these, the majority have focused on the learning of digital literacy. The underlying belief is that younger individuals have more experience with modern technology, having grown up with it and can therefore, as digital natives, easily teach these skills to older individuals. A multitude of small-scale case studies can be found in the literature, wherein student teachers impart new digital skills to school-based teacher educators, while simultaneously enhancing their own pedagogical skills as a result of this collaboration (e.g., [36,37,38,39,40,41,42]). However, Bertram et al. [43] examined in a quasi-experimental intervention study with comparison groups, explicitly, the efficacy of reverse mentoring between school-based teacher educators and student teachers in enhancing technopedagogical knowledge. The results indicated that reverse mentoring is no more effective than any other collaborative intervention in this context for learning and professional development. Nevertheless, the study demonstrated that student teachers successfully can take over the role of a competent reverse mentor.
Other examples include cross-generational reverse mentoring to overcome stereotypes, advance learning leadership, and promote inclusion (e.g., [44,45,46,47,48,49]). An example of how reverse mentoring can be implemented in the teaching practicum can be found in [50], where school-based teacher educators were given the opportunity to learn directly from student teachers about English language teaching techniques. Through this process, the participating school-based teacher educators gained an increased awareness of the development of their teaching practice and demonstrated a deeper understanding of the need to use a variety of teaching strategies [51].
These exemplary cases found in the literature vaguely indicate the effectiveness of reverse mentoring in various areas of the educational landscape.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

We took a qualitative approach to further explore the role of reverse mentoring for school-based educators’ development of a scientific mindset and research skills. We recruited nine participants from a research-based mentoring program implemented at several European universities [52,53]. Within this program, school-based teacher educators work with student teachers on impact-focused practitioner research projects to jointly develop research skills (and achieve a direct impact on whatever the project itself is about, see Table 1).
In the reverse mentoring project, student teachers worked in groups of around four to five student teachers to mentor the school-based teacher educators. They were supported throughout this process by university-based teacher educators who initiated and oversaw the entire project. To enhance communication and ensure effective collaboration, each group designated a spokesperson to serve as the primary communication link between the reverse mentoring group and the school-based teacher educator. The research projects were carefully structured around the research cycle, with pre-defined milestones guiding each phase. These milestones included developing the research framework, planning data collection and interventions, carrying out analysis and evaluation, and finally, dissemination and reflection. Each milestone was accompanied by specific tasks and instructions designed to help achieve the objectives, with brief feedback provided at each stage to ensure progress and alignment with project goals.

3.2. Instruments

Before conducting the interviews, an interview guide was created to ensure a thorough exploration of the school-based teacher educators’ learning experiences through reverse mentoring with student teachers. The open-ended questions addressed the motivation of school-based teacher educators for participation, existing attitudes towards educational research, collaboration dynamics with the student teachers, and key factors for successful implementation of reverse mentoring. The interviews were conducted in German (Author 1) or Greek (Author 2) during online meetings (Austria) and in-person meetings (Greece). The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

3.3. Analysis

We analyzed the data using qualitative content analysis [54]. The analysis was implemented in two major phases. First, the primary coder, in close collaboration with a second coder, established an inductive category system (see Table 2) based on the first four interviews that were conducted. In a second phase of data analysis, a third coder deductively applied the category system to the rest of the data; this coding was subsequently discussed with the primary coder. Furthermore, important utterances not covered by the category system were discussed, but no new code or category was necessary. Therefore, theoretical saturation was assumed.

4. Results

The interviews with school-based teacher educators revealed several key insights into the challenges and successes encountered in reverse mentoring projects between school-based teacher educators and student teachers. These insights are organized into five main themes: the thematic focus of the reverse mentoring projects, motivations for participation, insights into the reverse mentoring process, learning outcomes, and suggestions for process improvement.

4.1. Thematic Focus of the Reverse Mentoring Projects

First, school-based teacher educators had to determine a mentoring opportunity. These mentoring opportunities were directly identified by the school-based teacher educators and were linked to specific needs or uncertainty regarding how to handle complex situations (see Table 1). Thematically, the topics were linked to the wish for more innovation, including the integration of new technologies, the exploration of differentiated teaching methods, and the creation of community-based learning environments. Additionally, an emphasis on inclusion motivated participation, particularly in creating supportive learning environment for diverse groups of pupils and addressing school violence to foster a beneficial learning environment for all. The submitted topics for the reverse mentoring projects varied not only in subject matter but also in focus. For example, not all topics were subject or content-specific nor did they all include specific and actionable research questions.
Several school-based teacher educators reported that initial attempts to address the challenge had failed, and that the reverse mentoring program was one of their last hopes for a solution (Reverse Mentees ID2, ID5, and ID9).

4.2. Motivations for Participation

The motivations for participation varied among school-based teacher educators, though all sought external input to improve their teaching practice. Reverse mentees ID2, ID4, ID5, and ID9 were uncertain about the appropriate courses of action and sought guidance. ID1 and ID2 aimed to enhance their credibility and objectivity in evaluating teaching materials and methods. Meanwhile, the reverse mentees ID3, ID6, ID7, and ID8 were looking for practical suggestions and were keen to learn and stimulate critical/reflective thinking through this collaborative endeavor. Numerous reverse mentees (ID1, ID3, ID4, and ID8) noted that time constraints were a significant factor in their ability to address their identified challenge independently. One participant expressed this in the following way:
My biggest challenge was time management. I could have found the solutions myself, and often did, but it required a lot of time. I had hoped to receive materials and a well-developed teaching concept tailored to my class, which would not require too much effort on my part.
ID3
It is notable that although the reverse mentoring projects were explicitly communicated as opportunities for school-based educators to receive support in educational research engagement, only ID1 expressed motivation related to an interest in educational research. Overall, a few reverse mentees (ID1, ID2, and ID4) reflected on their participation as a method to enhance credibility and objectivity and to avoid bias in self-research.

4.3. Insights into the Reverse Mentoring Process

Reverse mentoring begins by pairing student teachers with school-based teacher educators but reverses the traditional mentoring flow of knowledge from the student teachers to the school-based teacher educators (see Figure 1). The guiding principle for adopting the reverse mentoring approach was that research into one’s own teaching practice should not be an individual matter. With this in mind, the reverse mentors (student teacher group) and the reverse mentee (school-based teacher educator) were assigned to carry out practitioner research projects, addressing challenges identified by the school-based teacher educator beforehand.
Most projects followed an iterative process of refining ideas and exchanging information through online meetings (ID1, ID2, ID3, ID4, ID5, ID7, ID8, and ID9). Key activities in the working phase included brainstorming and collaborative decision-making, which were reported in various projects (ID1, ID2, ID3, ID4, and ID9). A structured working process involving regular updates, discussion on project development, and maintaining transparency with clear communication and process documentation was reported in a range of projects (ID1, ID2, ID3, ID4, ID5, ID7, ID8, and ID9). The reverse mentors developed solutions, materials, and interventions in all projects, while minimal reverse mentee involvement, limited to data provision, was noted in some projects (ID2, ID4, ID6, and ID8).
Challenges such as unclear goals (ID1 and ID4), time loss (ID1), incomplete project work (ID4), and poor/little communication (ID1 and ID6) were identified. On the contrary, mutual experience-sharing between reverse mentors and reverse mentee was also mentioned in a few projects (ID3, ID4, and ID7). Direct interaction of student teachers with classroom pupils was reported as part of the research project (ID1 and ID7) as the use of additional literature by school-based teacher educators to enhance their knowledge, indicating that they were also open to learning (ID1 and ID2).
Interestingly, one reverse mentee (ID1) was mentored by two groups of student teachers working on the same research question with differing success. The reverse mentee attributed the difference to communication:
Working with the first group was highly successful due to their proactive communication and detailed involvement from the outset, resulting in a smooth process. In contrast, the second group failed to make proper contact and attempted to deviate from the agreed topic, resulting in a lack of communication and, ultimately, minimal output with no measurement.
ID1

4.4. Efficiency of Reverse Mentoring for Professional Development/Learning Outcomes

Several learning outcomes reported by the reverse mentees interviewed suggest that reverse mentoring is effective for professionalization. Key outcomes include new teaching methods (ID3), enhanced content knowledge (ID1, ID4, and ID5), realizations about pupils’ working styles (ID1 and ID4), the ability to carry out similar projects independently (ID3), an increased scientific view of teaching (ID1), enhanced knowledge about research methodologies (ID1), improved networking and collaboration capabilities (ID2, ID3, ID4, and ID7), enhanced social skills (ID1), and know-how about the effective integration of external projects into everyday teaching practice (ID1). The comment below illustrates the learning progress in scientific mindset:
But what is has done is it has made my view of teaching a bit more scientific again. Instead of just saying: “Let’s do some exercises”, it’s now more about understanding the underlying reasons: “Why am I doing this? What is my goal? How is it scientifically grounded?”. Also, I’ve become more inclined to seek specialized literature when I hit a roadblock. So, my perspective changed a lot. My joy in analyzing and questioning things has also increased. Additionally, my mindset has evolved to prioritize thinking first, then acting.
ID1
And another reverse mentee commented:
It was enjoyable to exchange ideas with like-minded individuals who shared their experiences with me. I found this informal setting very pleasant because I learn best through dialogue. As a result, I was able to gain a lot from the experience.
ID3
However, while the reverse mentees from Austria appeared to have greater learning experiences, the school-based teacher educators from Greece (ID5, ID6, ID7, ID8, and ID9) noted insufficient time to implement new ideas, especially as projects ended before intervention plans could be evaluated due to summer break. To enhance learning, the school-based teacher educator expressed a desire for additional literature references (ID1 and ID2). Additionally, one reverse mentee reflected in the interview on the reasons for the low level of involvement in the project:
The learning opportunity was limited because the students were working behind the scenes and only using me as a link to get the raw pupils’ data for analysis.
ID4
While the reverse mentoring project fostered collaboration between school-based teacher educator and student teachers, the level of classroom pupil involvement was also addressed in the interviews, as some research projects conducted through the reverse mentoring process were directly linked to classroom pupils. In Project ID7, reverse mentors directly worked with pupils and exchanged ideas for the community-learning project via online meetings. In Project ID1, reverse mentors collaborated with pupils to measure the effectiveness of using artificial intelligence for text comprehension in German language lessons.
Feedback from pupils played a crucial role in the school-based teacher educators’ view of the project’s success. One school-based teacher educator highlighted the positive impact of pupil feedback:
The best moment was the feedback from the pupils. This: ‘We’ve finally done something really new. That was something really exciting. We were able to try out something that really has to do with the reality of our everyday lives.’ Where I thought to myself: ‘It’s actually nice that a scientific project is being received so positively by young people. Where I thought to myself: ‘The call to do more of this actually fits.’
ID1
In contrast, reverse mentee ID4 noted a lack of enthusiasm from pupils:
The worst moment had to do with the pupils. I announced in the classes that we were taking part in the project and they just weren’t interested at all. They just said: ‘Do you have to do that? Does it count for the grade?’ Eh, that’s just the usual. Just pupils, annoying. Not very motivated.
ID4

4.5. Suggestions for Improvement

In the interviews, school-based teacher educators provided positive feedback and recommendations for improving the reverse mentoring approach. All found the participation beneficial and expressed a desire to repeat it or recommend it to others. One reverse mentee undertook a similar project independently after participating in the reverse mentoring project:
Actually, I carried out something similar the following year. I took a similar project, extended its duration, and incorporated peer learning. I’m confident that the use of this peer learning teaching method was influenced by my participation in the project, so I wouldn’t have had it without it. It really brought about a change in my perspective.
ID3
To maximize the learning outcomes, the school-based teacher educators expressed the need for more information about administrative matters and overall objectives from the university course facilitators (ID1, ID4, ID6, ID8, and ID9). They also suggested more in-person meetings instead of online-meetings (ID4, ID6, ID8, and ID9). To improve communication and accountability, some reverse mentees suggested that all meetings with student teachers should be planned in advance:
Perhaps the only improvement would be to communicate the joint appointments earlier or coordinate them so that everyone actually has time.
ID3

5. Discussion

The current study highlights the potential of reverse mentoring as a strategy to foster the development of a scientific mindset and research skills among school-based teacher educators. This approach leverages the strengths of both student teachers and school-based teacher educators, facilitating a bidirectional flow of knowledge and promoting professional growth. The insights gathered from the qualitative data provide several key points for consideration.

5.1. Engagement and Motivation of School-Based Teacher Educators

To participate effectively in reverse mentoring, school-based teacher educators first need to identify a mentoring opportunity that ideally presents a challenge for them. Our findings suggest that, in most cases, these school-based teacher educators initially attempted to address these challenges on their own but encountered difficulties that required additional support. In other cases, participation in reverse mentoring was driven by a desire to gain external input and save time. The mention of participation to outsource research work points to a significant barrier that teachers face—lack of time [55]. As the demands of teaching seem to leave no time to fully explore or deal with complex and innovative situations, the role of seeking external input becomes particularly important, especially with the increased capacity to share expertise to reduce workload, embrace innovation and find the appropriate course of action [56].
In addition, clarity about the goals and tasks of reverse mentoring influences its success. Our study suggests that a reflective approach on the part of the reverse mentee and a willingness to step out of one’s comfort zone are fundamental to participation. The project should be viewed not only as a project that advances teaching but rather as a learning experience in its own right. In some cases, external pressures, such as the urgent need to address significant educational challenges (as seen in ID5 and ID9), also drive the commitment to participate in reverse mentoring programs. School-based teacher educators who voluntarily participate in reverse mentoring tend to have personal characteristics that support effective collaboration, such as a willingness to collaborate and an appreciation of the benefits of teamwork [57].

5.2. Role and Participation of Student Teachers

Student teachers are empowered to choose the challenges that interest them most and to work collaboratively in groups, supported by university-based teacher educators and scaffolding materials. This support structure provides clarity about their roles in the project while allowing them autonomy to choose activities that contribute to learning. The emphasis on collaboration is further reinforced by structured communication, with roles such as group spokespersons helping to ensure effective interaction with school-based educators. Furthermore, involving student teachers in a collaborative inquiry approach has been shown to have significant benefits for their learning too [58].

5.3. Effectiveness of Reverse Mentoring

The study’s findings indicate that reverse mentoring can be an effective tool for professional development, aligning with previous research on the benefits of collaborative approaches [57,59]. The school-based teacher educators reported a variety of positive outcomes, including the adoption of new teaching methods, enhanced content knowledge, and a more scientific approach to teaching. These findings suggest that reverse mentoring fosters an environment that encourages continuous improvement. However, we were also able to identify differences in the learning outcomes of the participating reverse mentees.
Several variables could have an impact on various reverse mentees’ learning. We believe that the motivations for participating in the project, as well as the expected outcomes of the mentoring process, will have an influence on work attitudes and levels of engagement. A key factor that emerged from the interviews was the importance of communication and collaboration. Reverse mentees displayed varying levels of engagement, with some taking a more active role in the project, while others were more passive. To classify the level of engagement, we propose a framework based on the main findings presented above (see Table 3) to conceptualize the depth of collaboration. While previous research has already identified factors and barriers for facilitating deep collaboration [57], we present this framework to guide future research in analyzing the collaboration dynamics within reverse mentoring processes.
Reverse mentoring collaborations are categorized into basic, guided, and deep levels. We assume that participation at a basic level is extrinsically rewarding, where reverse mentees seek service from reverse mentors. In contrast, deeper participation is intrinsically satisfying, providing a sense of accomplishment. As the interviewed school-based teacher educators emphasized the importance of communication as a critical factor, we believe that communication moderates the progression from the basic level to the guided level and finally to the deep level of reverse mentoring.

5.4. Challenges and Areas for Improvement

Despite the positive findings, several challenging factors for school-based teacher educators were identified in the interviews. This is consistent with evidence from previous studies [55]. Time constraints were a notable issue, particularly for educators in Greece, who noted that they had insufficient time to implement new ideas. As the start and end of the school year varies greatly from country to country and time management is often difficult when working with school-based teacher educators, we suggest that the objectives of the reverse mentoring project be scaled to the time available.
Additionally, we also found that effective communication was highlighted as a critical factor for success. Projects that experienced poor communication often resulted in less successful outcomes, underscoring the importance of structured communication plans and clearly defined project goals. Ensuring regular updates, clear documentation, and ongoing feedback can help mitigate these issues and enhance the overall effectiveness of reverse mentoring programs.

5.5. Future Research

The exploratory nature of this study led to several areas for further research. Future studies could focus on identifying which authentic research tasks are most effective in fostering a learning environment that nurtures the development of research skills and dispositions through reverse mentoring. This also begs the question whether the school-based educators do ask the most productive questions to begin with. A larger-scale, quantitative approach could help here to identify general patterns and inform the definitions of the projects. Additionally, quantitative methods could examine how differences in project implementation influence outcomes, especially given the noted differences between Austria and Greece in this study. Moreover, the parameters influencing the level of collaboration (see Table 3) of school-based teacher educators in the reverse mentoring process could also be explored, calling for relational approaches [60]. Identifying these parameters will be crucial for determining the ideal learning opportunities, ensuring that school-based teacher educators can actively engage in the process.
While improving scientific mindset and research skills is critical for school-based teacher educators, these skills may not automatically transfer from reverse mentoring to daily teaching practice [58]. Future research could explore the types and duration of ongoing support and development necessary to ensure that the benefits of reverse mentoring are fully realized in everyday practice. Additionally, examining the long-term impacts of reverse mentoring on teaching practices towards classroom pupils as well as towards student teachers would provide valuable insights into how these skills are sustained and effectively applied over time.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.R. and D.E.F.; Methodology, J.R.; Validation, J.R., K.G., and D.E.F.; Investigation, J.R. and K.G.; Writing—original draft, J.R.; Writing—review and editing, K.G. and D.E.F.; Supervision, D.E.F.; Funding acquisition, D.E.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Commission under the Erasmus+ program, grant number 2023-1-AT01-KA220-HED-000159316.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Vienna, Austria (protocol code 01133 and date of approval 27 March 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Groß Ophoff, J.; Rott, B. Educational Research Literacy. Special Issue Editorial. J. Educ. Res. Online 2017, 9, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Borg, S. Language Teacher Research Engagement. Lang. Teach. 2010, 43, 391–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Davies, P. What Is Evidence-Based Education? Br. J. Educ. Stud. 1999, 47, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cochran-Smith, M.; Lytle, S.L. Teacher Research as Stance. In The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2009; pp. 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Salmento, H.; Murtonen, M. The Roles of Epistemic Understanding and Research Skills in Students’ Views of Scientific Thinking. In Redefining Scientific Thinking for Higher Education; Murtonen, M., Balloo, K., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 31–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Çalik, M.; Coll, R.K. Investigating Socioscientific Issues via Scientific Habits of Mind: Development and Validation of the Scientific Habits of Mind Survey. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34, 1909–1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kreijns, K.; Vermeulen, M.; Evers, A.; Meijs, C. The Development of an Instrument to Measure Teachers’ Inquiry Habit of Mind. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2019, 42, 280–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Böttcher, F.; Thiel, F. Evaluating Research-Oriented Teaching: A New Instrument to Assess University Students’ Research Competences. High Educ. 2018, 75, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tack, H.; Vanderlinde, R. Measuring Teacher Educators’ Researcherly Disposition: Item Development and Scale Construction. Vocat. Learn. 2016, 9, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. European Commission. Supporting Teacher Educators for Better Learning Outcomes; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2013; Available online: https://www.id-e-berlin.de/files/2017/09/TWG-Text-on-Teacher-Educators.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2024).
  11. Clarke, A.; Triggs, V.; Nielsen, W. Cooperating Teacher Participation in Teacher Education: A Review of the Literature. Rev. Educ. Res. 2014, 84, 163–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Daza, V.; Gudmundsdottir, G.B.; Lund, A. Partnerships as Third Spaces for Professional Practice in Initial Teacher Education: A Scoping Review. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 102, 103338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ellis, N.J.; Alonzo, D.; Nguyen, H.T.M. Elements of a Quality Pre-Service Teacher Mentor: A Literature Review. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2020, 92, 103072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cutillas, A.; Benolirao, E.; Camasura, J.; Golbin, R.; Yamagishi, K.; Ocampo, L. Does Mentoring Directly Improve Students’ Research Skills? Examining the Role of Information Literacy and Competency Development. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Walters, W.; Robinson, D.B.; Walters, J. Mentoring as Meaningful Professional Development: The Influence of Mentoring on in-Service Teachers’ Identity and Practice. Int. J. Mentor. Coach. Educ. 2019, 9, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Coppe, T.; Thomas, L.; Pantić, N.; Froehlich, D.E.; Sarazin, M.; Raemdonck, I. The Use of Social Capital in Teacher Research: A Necessary Clarification. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 866571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Beausaert, S.; Froehlich, D.E.; Riley, P.; Gallant, A. What about School Principals’ Well-Being? The Role of Social Capital. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2023, 51, 405–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Admiraal, W.; Schenke, W.; De Jong, L.; Emmelot, Y.; Sligte, H. Schools as Professional Learning Communities: What Can Schools Do to Support Professional Development of Their Teachers? Prof. Dev. Educ. 2021, 47, 684–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bäcklund, J.; Florin Sädbom, R.; Manderstedt, L.; Anderström, H. We Are Mentoring More Often: Experiences of Being a Mentor in a Training School Project. Educ. Inq. 2022, 15, 203–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Czerniawski, G.; Guberman, A.; MacPhail, A.; Vanassche, E. Identifying school-based teacher educators’ professional learning needs: An international survey. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2023, 1–16. Available online: https://doi-org.uaccess.univie.ac.at/10.1080/02619768.2023.2251658 (accessed on 2 September 2024). [CrossRef]
  21. Murphy, W.M. Reverse Mentoring at Work: Fostering Cross-generational Learning and Developing Millennial Leaders. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012, 51, 549–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Costa, A.L.; Kallick, B. Habits of Mind across the Curriculum: Practical and Creative Strategies for Teachers; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. Snow-Gerono, J.L. Professional Development in a Culture of Inquiry: PDS Teachers Identify the Benefits of Professional Learning Communities. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2005, 21, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Quesada-Pallarès, C.; Marrs, S.; Martínez-Fernández, J.R. Editorial: Teaching and Learning Research Methods: Fostering Research Competence among Students. Front. Educ. 2022, 7, 1075978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Herbert, A.; Christoph, W.; Katharina, S.-A.; Johannes, R. Forschendes Lernen und Kompetenzentwicklung von Lehramtsstudierenden. In Professionalität und Professionalisierung von Lehrpersonen. Perspektiven, Theoretische Rahmungen und empirische Zugänge; Jan-Hendrik, H., Ed.; Verlag Julius Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn, Germany, 2023; pp. 27–49, (Studien zur Professionsforschung und Lehrer:innenbildung). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Böttcher-Oschmann, F.; Groß Ophoff, J.; Thiel, F. Preparing Teacher Training Students for Evidence-Based Practice Promoting Students’ Research Competencies in Research-Learning Projects. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 642107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nind, M.; Katramadou, A. Lessons for Teaching Social Science Research Methods in Higher Education: Synthesis of the Literature 2014–2020. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 2023, 71, 241–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Smith, R. Mentoring Teachers to Research Their Classrooms: A Practical Handbook. ELT J. 2021, 75, 119–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Smith, R. Mentoring Teacher-Research: From Situated Practice to ‘Global’ Guidance. In International Perspectives on Mentoring in English Language Education; Wyatt, M., Dikilitaş, K., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Eraldemir-Tuyan, S. From in-service to pre-service: A comparative look at my Action Research mentoring experience. In Energizing Teacher Research; Barkhuizen, G., Burns, A., Dikilitas, K., Wyatt, M., Eds.; IATEFL: Faversham, UK, 2019; pp. 11–18. [Google Scholar]
  31. Békés, E.Á. Supporting Ecuadorian Teachers in Their Classroom Research: Reflections on Becoming a Research Mentor. Engl. Lang. Teach. Res. J. 2020, 1, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mullen, C.A.; Klimaitis, C.C. Defining Mentoring: A Literature Review of Issues, Types, and Applications. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2021, 1483, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ziegler, A. Mentoring: Konzeptuelle Grundlagen und Wirksamkeitsanalyse. In Mentoring: Theoretische Hintergründe, Empirische Befunde und Praktische Anwendungen; Stöger, H., Ziegler, A., Schimke, D., Eds.; Pabst Science Publishers: Lengerich, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  34. Clarke, A.J.; Burgess, A.; van Diggele, C.; Mellis, C. The Role of Reverse Mentoring in Medical Education: Current Insights. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2019, 10, 693–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zauchner-Studnicka, S.A. A Model for Reverse-Mentoring in Education. Int. J. Educ. Pedagog. Sci. 2017, 11, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aydın, B. Three Birds with a Stone: Technology Integration in Language Education with Reverse Mentoring Model. J. Teach. Educ. Educ. 2017, 6, 177–190. [Google Scholar]
  37. Campbell, K.M.; Braxton, M.M.; Tumin, D.; Rodríguez, J.E. Reverse Mentoring between Minority Students and Faculty. J. Best Pract. Health Prof. Divers. 2020, 13, 184–188. [Google Scholar]
  38. Farrell, R.; Cowan, P.; Brown, M.; Roulston, S.; Taggart, S.; Donlon, E.; Baldwin, M. Virtual Reality in Initial Teacher Education (VRITE): A Reverse Mentoring Model of Professional Learning for Learning Leaders. Ir. Educ. Stud. 2022, 41, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Frey, T.K. Overcoming Technological Barriers to Instruction: Situating Gen Z Students as Reverse Mentors. Front. Commun. 2021, 6, 630899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Haidusek-Niazy, S.; Huyler, D.; Carpenter, R.E. Mentorship Reconsidered: A Case Study of K-12 Teachers’ Mentor-Mentee Relationships during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2023, 26, 1269–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Khattak, S.R.; Rahman, S.U.; Saleem, Z.; Fayaz, M.; Fayaz, M.; Iqbal, K. Reverse Mentoring: Improving Technological Skills of Older Peers: A Moderated Mediation Approach. Multicult. Educ. 2021, 7, 248–260. [Google Scholar]
  42. Leh, A.S.C. Lessons Learned from Service Learning and Reverse Mentoring in Faculty Development: A Case Study in Technology Training. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2005, 13, 25–41. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bertram, V.; Baier-Mosch, F.; Dignath, C.; Kunter, M. Promoting Pre- and in-Service Teachers’ Digital Competence by Using Reverse Mentoring. Unterrichtswiss 2023, 51, 559–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bozak, A. Instructional Reverse Mentoring: A Practice Proposal for Teachers’ Understanding the “Z” and “Alpha” Generaltions’ Learning Perspectives. Int. J. Eurasia Soc. Sci. 2021, 12, 114–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cain, L.; Goldring, J.; Westall, A. Seeing behind the Curtain: Reverse Mentoring within the Higher Education Landscape. Teach. High. Educ. 2022, 29, 1267–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chaudhuri, S.; Park, S.; Johnson, K.R. Engagement, Inclusion, Knowledge Sharing, and Talent Development: Is Reverse Mentoring a Panacea to All? Findings from Literature Review. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2022, 46, 468–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gadomska-Lila, K. Effectiveness of Reverse Mentoring in Creating Intergenerational Relationships. J. Organ. Change Manag. 2020, 33, 1313–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gündüz, Ş.; Akşit, B. Student-President Reverse Mentoring at Universities: Maltepe University Case. Yuksekogretim Derg. 2018, 8, 346–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Israni, B. Reverse Mentoring (RM) an effective way to advance the principles of equality, diversity, and inclusion across universities: A systematic review of literature (SLR). In Re-imagining higher education through equity, inclusion and sustainability (RISE). In Proceedings of the 2nd. EUt+ International Conference on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Technical University of Sofia, Sozopol, Bulgaria, 1–3 September 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Porras, N.I.; Díaz, L.S.; Nieves, M.M. Reverse Mentoring and Peer Coaching as Professional Development Strategies. Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J. 2018, 20, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Valle, L.; Lorduy-Arellano, D.; Porras-González, N. Using Reverse Mentoring to Transform In-Service Teachers’ Beliefs About How to Teach English. Profile Issues Teach. Prof. Dev. 2022, 24, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Froehlich, D.E.; Hobusch, U.; Moeslinger, K. Research Methods in Teacher Education: Meaningful Engagement Through Service-Learning. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 680404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Froehlich, D.; Hobusch, U.; Edinger, T.; Haring, M.; Heuer, J.; Pauls, G.; Stolze, A.; Tröthann, E. Service-Learning Im Lehramt. Das Konzept Der Teaching Clinic Und Fallbeispiele Aus Universität Und Hochschule. J. Für Lehrerinnenbildung JLB 2023, 2023, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mayring, P. Qualitative Content Analysis: A Step-by-Step Guide, 1st ed.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  55. Reidl, I.; Hobusch, U.; Froehlich, D. Praktische Herausforderungen Bei Der Umsetzung von Aktionsforschungsprojekten Durch Lehrer*innen. In Aktionsforschung: Vergangenheit—Gegenwart—Neue Zukunft; Schuster, A., Rauch, F., Lechner, C., Mewald, C., Oyrer, S., Zanin, R., Schweiger, C., Stieger, L., Zehetmeier, S., Eds.; Praesens Verlag: Vienna, Austria, 2023; pp. 209–220. [Google Scholar]
  56. Froehlich, D.E.; Messmann, G. The Social Side of Innovative Work Behavior: Determinants of Social Interaction During Organizational Innovation Processes. BCCE 2018, 3, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vangrieken, K.; Dochy, F.; Raes, E.; Kyndt, E. Teacher Collaboration: A Systematic Review. Educ. Res. Rev. 2015, 15, 17–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Willegems, V.; Consuegra, E.; Struyven, K.; Engels, N. Teachers and Pre-Service Teachers as Partners in Collaborative Teacher Research: A Systematic Literature Review. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2017, 64, 230–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pandian, V.; Awang, M.B.; Ishak, R.B.; Ariff, N. A Systematic Literature Review on Professional Learning Community Models. Malays. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2022, 7, e001902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Brouwer, J.; Froehlich, D.E. Co-Evolution Models of Longitudinally Measured Interactions. In Analyzing Group Interactions; Huber, M., Froehlich, D.E., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 14 00993 g001
Figure 1. The primary flow of knowledge in traditional forms of mentoring is from the school-based teacher educator (mentor) to the student teacher (mentee). In reverse mentoring, the knowledge flow is reversed, with the student teacher (reverse mentor) guiding the school-based teacher educator (reverse mentee).
Figure 1. The primary flow of knowledge in traditional forms of mentoring is from the school-based teacher educator (mentor) to the student teacher (mentee). In reverse mentoring, the knowledge flow is reversed, with the student teacher (reverse mentor) guiding the school-based teacher educator (reverse mentee).
Education 14 00993 g001
Table 1. Topics for the reverse mentoring projects.
Table 1. Topics for the reverse mentoring projects.
EducatorResearch QuestionClusterFocusCountry
ID1How effective is AI as a teaching method?Evaluating and Adapting Teaching Materials/Methodssubject-specific (German language class) and content-specific (Selected Books/Literature)Austria
ID2To what extent does the current subject textbook meet the needs of learners?Evaluating and Adapting Teaching Materials/Methodssubject-specific (Orthodox Religion) and not-content-specific (Language barriers)Austria
ID3What teaching methods are effective in addressing the different abilities of students in school?Managing Diverse Learner Needssubject-specific (English language class) and content-specific (Food)Austria
ID4What strategies can be used to address students’ knowledge gaps in school?Managing Diverse Learner Needssubject-specific (Mathematics) and content-specific (Language barriers in percentage calculations)Austria
ID5What practical strategies can be effectively implemented in managing classrooms with pupils from refugee or migrant backgrounds to reduce instances of school violence?Classroom Management and Behavioral Problemsnot-subject-specific, not-content-specificGreece
ID6What strategies can address classroom heterogeneity resulting from the disinterest of pupils who do not require the subject for nationwide examinations?Managing Diverse Learner Needssubject-specific (Chemistry), not-content-specific (Heterogeneity)Greece
ID7How can pupils raise awareness about the local smog threat and effectively engage the local community in addressing this issue?Alternative Teaching Methodsnot-subject-specific (Community-based Learning; interdisciplinary), content-specific (Environmental awareness, Smog)Greece
ID8What are the key pedagogical principles of the flipped classroom model, and how can it be effectively planned and implemented?Alternative Teaching Methodssubject-specific (Language class), not-content-specific (Flipped Classroom)Greece
ID9What alternative teaching methods can be used to improve the academic integration and performance of Roma pupils?Managing Diverse Learner Needsnot-subject-specific, not-content-specificGreece
The research questions are directly linked to the learning needs of school-based teacher educators and have been thoroughly developed and shaped together with focus through the reverse mentoring process.
Table 2. Description of Categories.
Table 2. Description of Categories.
CategoryDescription of Category
C1School-based Teacher Educator Profile/Scientific Attitudes/Motivation for ParticipationInformation about the participating school-based teacher educators, including their professional background, and their attitudes towards educational research.
It also explores the reasons why the school-based teacher educators chose to participate in the reverse mentoring project, which could include their motivations, challenges they face, and their goals for participating.
C2Collaboration with Student Teachers/Learning InteractionsFocuses on the dynamics of the interactions between the school-based teacher educator and student teachers during the reverse mentoring project. It looks at how often they interacted, the nature of the interactions, and the overall quality and effectiveness of their collaboration.
C3School-based Teacher Educators Learning ExperienceInstances where school-based teacher educator reflect on their own learning and professional development as a result of participating in the reverse mentoring project. This includes any new knowledge, or skills acquired, changes in teaching practice, and solutions implemented in their teaching.
C4FeedbackFeedback from the school-based teacher educator on their experience of the reverse mentoring project. It highlights what was successful, what could be improved, and suggestions for future projects.
Table 3. Possible levels of reverse mentoring collaborations.
Table 3. Possible levels of reverse mentoring collaborations.
BasicGuidedDeep
Goal of the Reverse Mentoring ProcessAddress the practical needs of reverse mentees while reverse mentors develop basic skills and understanding.Enhance learning for both reverse mentors and reverse mentees through structured collaboration and the application of knowledge in real-world contexts.Create a community of practice that emphasizes continuous improvement and reflective practice that benefits both reverse mentors and reverse mentees.
Interaction and CommunicationMinimal and task-focused, with communication occurring only when needed.Structured, regular with scheduled meetings and purposeful communication to provide feedback and foster understanding.Structured, regular and ongoing, with open, ongoing, and reflective communication that facilitates deep collaboration and mutual growth.
Characteristics of the Reverse Mentoring ProcessReverse mentors independently develop a service or resource (e.g., research-based teaching materials, strategies) for the reverse mentees.Reverse mentors develop a service or resource with active involvement from reverse mentees, who provide ongoing feedback and participate in discussions.Both parties engage in continuous feedback, reflection, and collaborative development of materials, practitioner research projects.
Reverse Mentors Learning OutcomesDevelopment of basic communication skills, initial exposure to new perspectives, and the application of general concepts to practice.Enhanced critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration skills. Improved ability to apply knowledge to real-world situations.Leadership and empowerment, improved communication and collaboration, deepened understanding of educational practices, and preparedness for future roles.
Reverse Mentees Learning OutcomesInitial openness to new perspectives. Beginning to engage in reflective practice.Improved practices through exposure to fresh perspectives. Building trust and improving communication with reverse mentors. Enhanced problem-solving through collaboration with reverse mentors.Professional growth as school-based teacher educators. Strengthened capacity to serve as role models. Promoting a culture of continuous learning and reflective practice within the educational community.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Raberger, J.; Gkaravelas, K.; Froehlich, D.E. Empowering Educators: The Impact of Reverse Mentoring on Developing Scientific Mindset and Research Skills. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 993. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090993

AMA Style

Raberger J, Gkaravelas K, Froehlich DE. Empowering Educators: The Impact of Reverse Mentoring on Developing Scientific Mindset and Research Skills. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(9):993. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090993

Chicago/Turabian Style

Raberger, Julia, Konstantinos Gkaravelas, and Dominik E. Froehlich. 2024. "Empowering Educators: The Impact of Reverse Mentoring on Developing Scientific Mindset and Research Skills" Education Sciences 14, no. 9: 993. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090993

APA Style

Raberger, J., Gkaravelas, K., & Froehlich, D. E. (2024). Empowering Educators: The Impact of Reverse Mentoring on Developing Scientific Mindset and Research Skills. Education Sciences, 14(9), 993. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090993

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop