In this blog, Anna Sedda (Associate Professor, School of Social Sciences, Edinburgh) and David Colledge (Graduate Teaching Assistant, School of Social Sciences, Edinburgh) reflect on how a mentoring approach enhanced UG dissertation supervision and supported professional development.

This past semester (AY25-26), I, Anna, served as a mentor and observer for David, a Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) in the School of Social Sciences who had been assigned to supervise three undergraduate dissertation projects in Psychology.

While this might sound routine, an important issue emerged: according to the standards of our accrediting body (the British Psychological Society), dissertation supervision in accredited psychology programmes must be carried out by experienced staff. Graduate Teaching Assistants, however capable, cannot act as sole supervisors. When I was contacted by our dissertation Course Leader about this oversight, we had to ensure compliance – but rather than simply reassign the students, we saw an opportunity to turn a procedural issue into a learning experience.

Developing a Mentoring Approach

I volunteered to act as a mentor-observer, supporting David while maintaining academic and professional standards. My goal was double: to empower David in his first experience of dissertation supervision, and to model a structured, reflective approach to mentoring.

To guide the process, I created two key documents:

  • A Code of Conduct: outlining expectations around confidentiality, professional boundaries, and communication during supervision.
  • An Observation and Reflection Log: an Excel-based tool mapping the timeline of our meetings, key topics of discussion, and the aims of each session. This tool also allowed space for both of us to record reflections after each interaction, promoting continuous feedback and shared learning.

This structure mirrored good practice in peer observation and mentoring, which emphasises clarity, mutual trust, and reflective dialogue (Gosling, 2005). It ensured that while I did not attend the student supervision meetings directly – avoiding a “third person” presence that might have unsettled students as well as the supervisor – appropriate academic oversight remained in place.

Building Confidence Through Practice

At the outset, David expressed concern about explaining to students that they could not be supervised by him independently. Through our mentorship process, we reframed this limitation as a developmental journey rather than a deficit. Across successive meetings, we reflected on practical questions: how to structure student feedback, manage ethical considerations, and maintain boundaries between guidance and direction. I provided examples from my own practice and encouraged David to identify the strengths in his own practice.

Over time, we noticed greater confidence in communication and judgment. Importantly, David began articulating his evolving understanding of good supervision – precisely the kind of self-awareness that underpins professional growth.

David’s Reflections

Anna was clear from the outset that the aim of the mentoring process was to empower me as an independent supervisor. Supporting me to structure my own supervision in line with accreditation standards and encouraging me to reflect on both the challenges and successes I encountered, fostered a sense of autonomy and grounded my experience of supervision as an authentic teaching practice (Kreber, 2013). This approach allowed me to explore how supervising undergraduate dissertations calls on everything a Graduate Teaching Assistant is at once: as a student myself, I could recognise where they were struggling and meet them there; as a researcher, I could help them to clarify their methodological choices; as a teacher, I could structure my feedback, manage ethical considerations, and set boundaries as per my and Anna’s discussions. Graduate Teaching Assistants are often described as occupying a liminal position, somewhere between the roles of student, researcher and teacher, with the result that a GTA’s professional identity may be an actively negotiated process rather than a clearly defined representation (Winstone & Moore, 2017). Anna’s supportive, dialogic approach helped me to experience supervision as a role where I need not switch between my identities but could practise all three simultaneously.

Anna Reflecting on her Own Supervision Practice

An unexpected benefit of this mentoring experience was its impact on me as an academic. After several years of supervising dissertations, this task can easily become an automatic process – efficient but perhaps less reflective. Observing someone else’s first encounters with supervision reminded me to pause and reassess my own practice. I found myself asking: do I still bring the same curiosity and care to supervision that I encourage in others? Am I modelling the reflective, dialogic approach I value? The enthusiasm and diligence of David served as a mirror, prompting me to reconnect with the principles that first shaped my approach to student research mentoring. This aligns with the concept of the reflective practitioner, that professionals develop most when they consciously examine their decision-making in action.

From Observation to Transferable Practice

As the project nears completion, it is becoming clear that this structured mentoring approach could benefit others beyond our department. The code of conduct and observation log, once refined, could serve as a reusable framework for supporting early-career colleagues or Graduate Teaching Assistants in their first supervisory roles. It offers clarity, reflection, and compliance, all essential qualities in higher education teaching practice.

The next step is to share these resources across the wider community, encouraging adaptation within other disciplines. In the longer term, establishing consistent, supportive onboarding for novice supervisors could help institutions maintain quality supervision while meeting accreditation requirements.

Final Reflections

What began as a potential accreditation issue evolved into one of the most rewarding teaching and learning experiences of the semester. Mentoring through observation not only supported a colleague’s professional development but also revitalised my own reflective practice. Perhaps most importantly, it illustrated that even administrative or procedural challenges in higher education can be powerful catalysts for learning if we approach them with curiosity and care.

 

References

Gosling, D. (2005) Peer observation of teaching: implementing a peer observation of teaching scheme with five case studies. SEDA paper 118.

Kreber, C. (2013). Authenticity in and through teaching in higher education: The transformative potential of the scholarship of teaching. Routledge.

Winstone, N. E., & Moore, D. (2017). Sometimes fish, sometimes fowl? Liminality, identity work and identity malleability in graduate teaching assistants. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 494–502.

 

Image credit:

‘Eggs’ Photo by Олег Мороз on Unsplash