While the question about whether teachers should act as mentors or coaches might seem subtle, it is far from frivolous. A coach and a mentor have completely different connotations, and the direction that a teacher chooses to follow has a profound impact on the lifelong values and skills that students carry into adulthood. In this article, we strategically explore what Rwanda’s education system should embrace: coaching-based teaching techniques or mentoring-based approaches.
Firstly, although some people consider them synonyms, mentoring and coaching are completely different methods of helping the learner develop their potential. Mentoring is more directive and involves the mentor drawing from their past lived experiences, thereby dictating the direction the learners should follow. On the other hand, throughout the learning process, coaching involves guiding learners along an almost self-directed path, consequently helping them discover their strengths and achieve their goals. Because of this distinction, mentoring tends to develop qualities of trust, respect for experience, obedience, and humility as opposed to coaching, which instills self-awareness, creativity, independence, critical thinking, and accountability into the learners.
As the two approaches vary in the qualities that they instill in the learners, they also have considerable weaknesses that cannot be overlooked. Being a self-discovery process, coaching risks, misjudgement, learners are likely to make choices based on their incomplete knowledge; uncertainty, learners are first overwhelmed and frustrated by the options available; and wasted time. Mentoring — a directive approach — thwarts the creative and innovative seed ideas of students, and often fosters a sense of dependence within the learners.
From a Rwandan pedagogical perspective, mentoring was embraced over coaching models, risking all advantages of coaching-based teaching techniques despite the national curriculum being deemed competence-based. This also seems to be the case for most of Rwanda’s peer nations. Rationally, however, this has significant nuances. The primary goal of education is to transfer knowledge and build a firm skill foundation in the learner. So, mentoring-based teaching approaches seem to work quite well for junior learners but not senior students.
The problem is that coaching-based teaching approaches are still overlooked, even with senior learners. For instance, agriculture courses from high school to university levels are teacher-centered, and students are barely given enough time to test their novel ideas and unconventional hypotheses.
Does this not stifle innovation in Rwanda’s economic backbone (agriculture)? Does the system not restrain the learners from linking learned theories to real-world agricultural challenges? Yes, and besides creating an unstimulating academic environment, sticking to mentoring-based teaching methods often leads to dead-end careers in agriculture, as is the case in other sectors.
As a conclusion, mentoring excels at transferring knowledge and instructing learners who are new to their field. Coaching, on the other hand, builds confidence, develops inclusive leadership, and stimulates a culture of autonomy, thereby sparking creativity.
The beauty of mentoring and coaching lies in their complementarity; the weaknesses of one are the strengths of another. Their co-existence in the Rwandan academia is a perfect suggestion that encapsulates the ideal academic setting that enhances the sharing of knowledge, concomitantly allowing the learners to explore their unique fields of interest and develop self-responsibility.
BY BIZUMUREMYI EMMANUEL [OPINION]
