The study was part of the large-scale project Innovating Teacher Collaboration Practices in Norwegian Higher Education (PeTS), funded by the Research Council of Norway, which is now completed. PeTS looked at two ways colleagues can learn from each other at a research-intensive university in Norway: Problem-based Peer Mentoring (PPM) and Observation-based Peer Mentoring (OPM). In PPM, staff meet to discuss challenges related to teaching and supervision. In OPM, colleagues observe each other’s teaching and share feedback. Both approaches create a safe and supportive space for reflection, learning, and collaboration.
The overall goals of the PeTS-project
- Develop faculty-based collaboration among peers related to teaching and supervision;
- Investigate both affordances and restrains of the peer mentoring models (PPM and OPM) in supporting the development of collaborative communities;
- Gain new insights about peer mentoring that contribute to the organization of supportive faculty development measures in higher education.
About the PhD project
In my PhD project, I focus on PPM activities among postgraduate supervisors. While teaching and supervision in higher education are frequently seen as individual responsibilities, research consistently indicates that academic staff thrive in collaborative settings and value the opportunity to work with colleagues. PPM offers such opportunities through a structured approach with clear roles and stages, allowing colleagues to share problems and experiences, exchange ideas, and support one another.
My project aims to build an in-depth understanding of what happens during PPM conversations—how participants interact, share experiences, and work through challenges together. Put simply, the study draws on ideas about learning as something that happens through interaction between people, the task they are working on, and the tools they use, such as the PPM model itself. This perspective helps explain how the PPM model, including its different phases and roles, shape the way conversations evolve.
To understand how these mentoring activities worked in practice, I collected data by observing PPM sessions and video recording them. In addition, I conducted three focus group interviews with the same groups after the program had ended, which were also video recorded. These recordings form the main basis of my analysis.
Preliminary findings suggest that the mentoring model supports active participation and productive dialogue among participants. PPM can be a valuable way for supervisors to learn from one another—both individually and as a group. When the mentoring model is understood and used as intended, it helps conversations grow into meaningful discussions where participants think together, share ideas, and solve problems collaboratively.
Most of the groups in the study accepted the structure and guidelines of the mentoring model and found this way of working together helpful and rewarding. However, for PPM to work well, everyone involved needs to understand the purpose of the activity, and respect one another and the process. When participants feel forced to take part or are unclear about expectations, the collaboration can become unproductive or break down.
By January 2026, two papers reporting these findings had been published:
- Bastiansen, S., de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (2025). Unpacking the problem: analysing interactions in a peer-group mentoring session, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2025.2492056
- Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, L. (2023). Problem-based peer mentoring: A tool for faculty development. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer mentoring in higher education. Springer.