A“Curriculum of Hope”:Designing and Evaluating a Remote Mentoring Program forPupils ina Pandemic

Purpose:This paper reports the evaluation of an ongoing intervention,the GROW Programme,aimed at meeting the needs of 15-18-year-old pupils who were unable to attend school in England for periods during 2020-2021.The aim of the paper is to theorize the underlying basis of practice in such a lockdown context to inform future responses.Design/Approach/Methods:Thematic analysis of a mixed-method evaluation,using surveys and interviews of teachers and mentors,and pupil focus groups,of the remote mentoring of pupils and their learning during lockdown,is further analyzed by means of Bernstein's knowledge codes and concept of open schools,to identify the form of knowledge inherent in online mentoring.Findings:The analysis offers a framework for open schooling valuable to schools in uncertain times and identifies the shift to metacognition and self-regulated learning as holding particular benefits for learning underdisruption.Originality/Value:The paper takes a novel view of the disruption brought about by the partial closure of schools and offers a methodology for evaluating its effects by means of a unique intervention.It makes visible the characteristics and the potential benefits of alternative approaches in order that schools can make informed choices.

A causational analysis of scholars' years of active academic careers vis-à-vis their academic productivity and academic influence

Taking the scholarly activities of 73 doctoral program mentors working at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College(the CAMS &PUMC) as a sample of our investigative survey, we tried using such statistical methods as the analysis of variance(ANOVA), factor analysis and correlation analysis to compare the different characteristics of scholarship assessment of Chinese medical scholars as exhibited in their published papers in domestic and foreign journals. Our research findings show that citations per paper and A-index are more suitable for assessing the highly accomplished senior Chinese medical professionals(e.g. academicians) for their domestic and international scholarship attainment. In contrast, the m-quotient is not deemed appropriate to assess their academic influence both at home and abroad. Upon our further analysis of 6 evaluative indicators, we noticed that these indicators might be applied in two different aspects: One is from the viewpoint of Chinese scholars' academic influence at home, which has been evaluated mainly from the perspective of 'total' amount and 'average' amount of both publications and citations. The other is from their academic impact embodied by the means of documents retrieved from the Web of Science, which is mainly assessed from the two viewpoints of publications and citations. It is suggested that the accumulated time-length of a given scholar's active engagement in professional practice in a specific subject area be taken into consideration while assessing a researcher's performance at home and abroad.