RAPPORT
Issue 5 (August 2020)
offered by Wisker above, though – it could
be argued - may insufficiently address the
potential tension between such faster
progress and moving at the student’s own
pace; indeed, elsewhere in this publication
the coaching approach is characterised as
‘directive and challenging’ (ibid.:19).
This approach does not appear to
subscribe to the view that coaching is nondirective;
rather the emphasis is on using
structured frameworks, with a focus upon
goal achievement and improving
performance as opposed to what is termed
a ‘problem-focussed approach’. While the
tutor is considered ‘an enabler and
facilitator’, they are also exhorted to set
clear expectations and move
conversations on, with a strong emphasis
on ‘solution-talk’ and ‘reframing student
perspectives in more positive directions’.
This approach does not appear to accord
a central role to (increasing) concerns
about student mental health 8 though it
does acknowledge the importance of
establishing rapport and developing
empathy, and also that some matters, for
example in relation to institutional
regulations, submission and assessment
deadlines, might be outside of the
student’s control.
As this evidence attests, in recent times
the terms coaching and mentoring (both
separately and - more often - together)
have become increasingly evident in the
literature (see e.g. Wisker et al. 2008) with
strong links to social engagement and
academic performance (see also
Andreanoff 2016). Furthermore, rather
than simply relating coaching and
mentoring to Personal Tutoring and
Academic Advising per se, evidence seeks
to locate such approaches within broader
institutional thinking. For example, a
review undertaken on behalf of
Bournemouth University 9 reports that:
‘A review of the student support
literature suggested that, to be
successful, schemes need to
address teaching and learning
issues as well as social issues; be
discipline based; adopt a studentcentred
approach; and be delivered
early in the academic year.’
In similar vein, Carnell et al. (2006) focus
upon how coaching and mentoring
practices have explicit links with models of
learning, a perspective somewhat
reinforced by Lochtie et al. (op cit). In this
context it is interesting to note that the
illustrations provided in a recent UKAT
webinar based upon US experience and
nurse education in a UK context 10 , both
appear` to infuse solution-focussed
coaching into work across particular
student cohorts to support retention and
achievement.
Finally, the potential for tension in terms of
purposes and practices we have already
suggested are acknowledged in practice.
Both Andreanoff and the Bournemouth
8
See e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/m
ar/05/levels-of-distress-and-illness-amongstudents-in-uk-alarmingly-high
(accessed
28.08.19)
9
At:
https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/sites/default/file
s/asset/document/1.-Literature-Review-
V.Final.pdf (accessed 28.08.19)
10
At
https://www.ukat.uk/events/webinars/archive/usi
ng-solution-focused-coaching-with-students/
(accessed 28.08.19).
52