1. LdV partnership project MIND.TS Project meeting on Malta, 4-7 April 2011 Info-training course on mentoring in Slovenia – a report

2. In the framework of the MIND.TS project activities, CPZ- International, Centre for Knowledge Promotion, organized an info-training course on mentoring in Slovenia. The course was carried out on the 2nd of April 2011 at CPZ- International, Centre for Knowledge Promotion.

3. Agenda of the course was the following: 9:00-9:15: Registration of participants/Coffee 9:15-10:15: Introduction and presentation of lecturer dr. Žiga Knap (Metka Uršič) Introduction in mentoring (dr. Žiga Knap): Mentoring as method of education and training Origin of mentoring On mentoring relations Theories and approaches in mentoring 10:15-10:30: Coffee break 10:30-11:45: Team building (Metka Uršič): Presentation of participants Defining needs and expectations of participants

4. Experiences of participants in mentoring Defining mentoring 11:45-12:00: Coffee break 12:00-14:00: Learning on mentoring (dr. Žiga Knap): Mentoring in practice – study of examples of good practice and discussion Official definition of mentoring and of understanding mentoring, mentor programme and relations Building of profiles of mentor and mentee (Metka Uršič) Defining mentoring programme suitable for organizations 14:10-14:15: Coffee break 14:15-16:00: Transferring knowledge into practice (Dr. Žiga Knap): Mentoring in practice: study of examples of good practice (Metka Uršič) Writing simple mentoring plan Discussion Evaluation and conclusion (Metka Uršič)

5. The course was open to: Members of the CPZ-International team External collaborators of the CPZ-International Members of selected non-profit organizations However, the participation in the course was poor – there were only 5 participants, including: 1 lecturer/trainer 4 trainees – 3 of them were members of the CPZ team and 1 was a member of Bicyclists' network of Ljubljana

6. Feedback of participants in the framework of team building activities Participants' answers to the question on their expectations regarding the course: Possibility of establishment of contacts between people with common problems To get more clear notion/understanding on what is mentoring as training method for non-profit organizations which above all enables bigger successfulness and sustainability of these organizations To get knowledge, methodology that will help me in solving problems in the organization To learn how could I improve effectiveness of our organization by the use of mentoring Good course Very good result, that is the achieved goal

7. To learn how mentoring can be used in development projects, to achieve changes To get an idea for the future

8. Participants' answers to the question on their experiences on mentoring: My life mentor was a woman, my father's secretary, who gave me directions for life. Besides I had a mentor at faculty who guided me through the research process. I had several mentors; for undergraduate thesis..., afterwards when studying at the Moscow university..., and a mentor for doctoral dissertation... They all motivated me and also partly helped me..., but probably I was not flexible enough to get more from them. I had a mentor for undergraduate (and master) thesis and afterwards a mentor for doctoral dissertation and there was an important difference between them. The first was directing me through the research process, but also trying to impose on me her views. Therefore our collaboration was very hard. The second was directing me through the research process, but without imposing on me his views – instead of this he was helping me to put forward my own views, however not at any price. Therefore we had very good collaboration.

9. I learnt from my mentor for undergraduate thesis that you must not complicate...

10. Participants' answers to the question on their definition/understanding of mentoring: Mentoring is a process in which »older« more experienced person transfer knowledge, values, experiences to »younger« less experienced... Mentor is a teacher and a creator in this process. I understand mentoring as a way, how more experienced person (teacher, professional) initiates the other (learner, colleague, novice) into some activity and perhapes also makes him/her keen on this activity. From the history: Mentor who was a mentor to Telemachus. From the Slovenian history: Zois who was a mentor to Vodnik as to Kopitar, although he was not a poet nor a linguist. I imagine mentor as someone who directs you toward your goal, however he/she does not imposes on you his/her or other people's views, but helps you to put forward your own views, however not at any price.

11. Mentor is someone who advises you at work and discuss with you problems or steps at work. Mentor always listen to your reflections and motivates them. He does not impose his own solutions to you, but guides you to find your own solutions. He offers you his view on a problem and motivates you to reflect what is the difference between your solution and his view on a problem. He motivates you to reflect if his view is perhapes more appropriate (more correct, based on better suppositions,...) than yours and if you could include his reflections into your solution. The result is something with which they both are satisfied...

12. Participants' answers to the question on their view on benefits of mentoring in their organization: We will use mentoring as method of training in external educational projects (development projects) and internally in the staff development. Mentoring is useful for any organization who wants to be sustainable. In our organization mentoring could bring positive changes regarding relationships between staff members.

13. Feedback of participants on the course (received from 4 participants) Participants assessment of the following course matters: Relevance of the course: three participants rated this matter with 4 (1 being the lowest, 5 being the highest) and one participant rated it with 5 Clarity of objectives: two participants rated this matter with 4, one rated it with 5 and one with 3 Level of achievement: two participants rated this matter with 4, one rated it with 5 and one with 3 Contents of the course: two participants rated this matter with 3, one rated it with 5 and one with 4 Course material: two participants rated this matter with 5 and two rated it with 3 Timing and logistic: two participants rated this matter with 4 and two rated it with 3

14. Participants assessment of the following matters of the first module: Usefulness: three participants rated this matter with 4 and one rated it with 5 Interest: two participants rated this matter with 5, one rated it with 4 and one with 3 Timing: three participants rated this matter with 3 and one rated it with 4 Relevance: all four participants rated this matter with 5 Methodology: two participants rated this matter with 4, one rated it with 5 and one with 3

15. Participants assessment of the following matters of the second module: Usefulness: two participants rated this matter with 5 and two rated it with 4 Interest: three participants rated this matter with 5 and one rated it with 3 Timing: two participants rated this matter with 4 and two rated it with 3 Relevance: two participants rated this matter with 5 and two rated it with 4 Methodology: two participants rated this matter with 5, one rated it with 4 and one with 3

16. Participants assessment of the following matters of the third module: Usefulness: three participants rated this matter with 4 and one rated it with 5 Interest: two participants rated this matter with 5 and two rated it with 3 Timing: two participants rated this matter with 4 and two rated it with 3 Relevance: two participants rated this matter with 5, one rated it with 4 and one with 3 Methodology: two participants rated this matter with 4, one rated it with 5 and one with 3

17. Participants suggestions for improvement of the following matters: Number of participants: all four participants think that 8-12 is appropriate number Duration of the course: two participants think that the duration was appropriate and two participants think that it was not Modules: none of participants would have new modules in this course Course: three participants think that nothing from their experience could be included in the course and one participant think that something from her experience could be included in the course Group: three participants think that the group should be homogeneous and one participant think that it should be heterogeneous