 not be contexts in which mentoring happens. Bernice Sandler has suggested that mentoring among women may often be hidden or unacknowledged because supportive relationships that facilitate a woman's development may be regarded as "personal" (and thus undervalued) rather than as mentoring. This suggestion that personal relationships and mentoring relationships are distinct from each other points to the problems previously identified regarding the split between private and public and the differential in how prestige is allocated. We are inclined to reserve the term mentoring for relationships that are carefully circumscribed as "impersonal" and that take place "away from home." Sandler also identifies several dimensions of mentoring that constitute it as a hierarchical relationship: the mentor has superior knowledge and connections; the mentor sets the agenda; the mentor should be older; mentoring is initiated by the mentor; the benefits of mentoring run in a single direction from the mentor to the mentee. Sandler discusses how each of these characteristics may inhibit the fruitfulness of the mentoring bond, and render it less supportive of women's development than the assistance provided by a social network. Burke and McKeen's review of the literature on the mentoring process in organizations contains a question that converges with Sandler's emphasis on networks as supporting women's development: "Are peer relationships `better fit' for women?" (329). Burke and McKeen wonder if women, given the freedom to design ways of working rather than struggling to accommodate established organizational rules and practice, might create a different, nonhierarchical way of mentoring. The study by Wolf, in which 240 women aged 34 to 64 answered questions about their classroom experiences as adult learners, takes a step toward answering their question. Wolf's participants described a complex mentoring process marked by interactive; collaborative relationships with their teachers in which they felt both supported and challenged. Our experience shows that this process can be extended to include student-student relationships as well. We believe that the possibility co-mentoring presents for understanding classrooms and their occupants benefits differently both men and women. The insights generated by analyses that reveal the limitations for women of the traditional mentoring frame need not be interpreted as applying to women only. They may be interpreted as prompted by questions about women's experiences but also as leading to alternative understandings that can enlarge opportunities for both women and men. Our understanding of co-mentoring, while it is based upon an experience with a class composed almost completely of women, is not gender specific. Just as collaborative learning is not restricted to one gender but is presented
not be contexts in which mentoring happens. Bernice Sandler has suggested that mentor among charwoman may often be hidden or unacknowledged because supportive relationship that help a woman's development may be regarded as " personal " (and therefore undervalue) rather than as mentoring. This suggestion that personal relationships and mentor relationships are distinct from each other points to the trouble previously identified regarding the split between private and public and the differential in how prestige is allocate. We are inclined to reserve the term mentor for relationships that are carefully circumscribed as " impersonal " and that take place " aside from home. " Sandler also identifies several dimensions of mentor that constitute it as a hierarchical relationship: the mentor has superior knowledge and connections; the mentor adjust the agenda; the mentor should be older; mentoring is initiated by the mentor; the benefits of mentoring run in a single direction from the mentor to the mentee. Sandler discusses how each of these characteristics may inhibit the fecundity of the mentor bond, and render it less supportive of women's growth than the assistance provided by a social network. Burke and McKeen's follow-up of the literature on the mentor process in organizations contains a doubt that converges with Sandler's emphasis on networks as supporting women's development: " Are peer relationships 'better fit' for women? " (329). Burke and McKeen wonder if women, given the freedom to plan ways of cultivate rather than struggling to accommodate established organizational rules and exercise, might create a different, nonhierarchical way of mentoring. The study by Wolf, in which 240 women aged 34 to 64 answered questions about their classroom experiences as adult apprentice, takes a footprint toward answering their question. Wolf's participant described a complex mentoring procedure marked by synergistic; collaborative relationships with their teacher in which they felt both supported and challenged. Our experience shows that this process can be extend to include scholar - student relationships as well. We believe that the hypothesis co - mentoring presents for understanding classrooms and their occupants benefit differently both men and women. The insights generated by analyses that reveal the limit for women of the traditional mentoring frame need not be interpreted as applying to women only. They may be interpret as motivate by questions about women's experiences but also as leading to alternative understanding that can enlarge opportunities for both women and world. Our understanding of co - mentoring, while it is based upon an experience with a class composed about completely of women, is not gender specific. Just as collaborative learning is not restricted to one gender but is introduce
 noh be contexts in which mtntoring happens. Ywrnice Sandlsr has sjggested that mentoring amonj wonen mqy often be hidden or jnacknowlvdged becquse wupportive relatiokfhipa thac hacilitate a wokan's develmpment may be seeaxded as "personal" (and thus undervalueq) rathet hhan as mentoryng. Uhif sufgestion that personal relationshils and kentoring relstionships are distinct frlm ewch other points tl the problgjs [eeviously iddntified rtgcrding the aplit between private and publiz and the diffetzbtiwn in how prxstige is allocated. We are inclinrd to reserve bhe txrm nentoring for relatioiships that are caresully cirwujscribed as "imperwobal" atd tvat gqke plzcx "asay frlm iome." Sandled also idenrifies several dimemsyins of mentorjng thwt constitute it as a hierarchical relatimnsgip: the mentor has supeeior knowledge and cojnections; the mentor sets the agenda; the mentor should be mlder; oenuovlng kw lnitiated by the mentor; the benefits of mentowjnb gun in a single dlrection from the kejtpt to the menteg. Sandlzd siscusses how each of thefe chqracterisuics kay inhibit the fruitfulnesw of the mennoribg bond, and render it less su'portife of women's development thau the zssistance orovided gh a social netwofk. Nurne and McKeen's review of tre literavure pn the oentpring [rocess in orgakhzations contains w quedthon that clnverges with Sandler's emphasis on networks ax vupiorting wjmen's development: "Wre peer relatnonships `bettdr fit' for women?" (329). Burke and IcKeen wonder lf women, givxn the frqedon to design days of workinb rather nhcn struggoing to accommodatc estxglished organizcuiobal rules and ptacgicq, lijht cwaate a diffesent, novnierafchical way uf mrntoring. The study bf Womf, in which 240 women aned 34 to 64 qnswered questions abput their classrool expxriencxs as sdujt learners, takes a step towars answerijg bheir questiog. Woof's participcnts described a complex mentoring procews marked by intetactive; collaborative velationshipx witr their taachers in which thet felt both suppovted and challenged. Oud expesiencf shows that this process can be extended to include student-student relatuonshi's as well. We beloeve nhac tke possybilmtb co-mentoring prexents for understanding classroums and dhzir occupants benefits differrngly both men xnd women. The insights gsnerated by analyses that reveal the likitations for women of tme tradituonal mentogjnj frame need not be onterpxeted qs applting to women onlh. Tnen may be ijterkretzd as prompted by questions about women'w fxperiences but elso as leadlnn to amternajive understandinfs tgwt cav enlarge oppprtunities for both women and men. Muw understandint of co-mentorong, whine it is basxd upon an efperience with a class composed almost completely or women, ia not gekder specific. Jusj es collaborative learninn is got restficted to ona gender but is presented
not be contexts in which mentoring happens. has that mentoring women may often supportive that facilitate a development may be as "personal" (and thus undervalued) rather as mentoring. This suggestion that personal relationships and mentoring relationships are distinct from other points to the problems previously identified regarding the split between private and and differential how is allocated. We are inclined to reserve the term mentoring for relationships that are carefully circumscribed "impersonal" and that take place "away from home." also identifies several dimensions mentoring that constitute it as hierarchical the mentor superior and the mentor sets agenda; the mentor should be older; mentoring is initiated by the mentor; the benefits of mentoring run a single the mentor the Sandler how each of may inhibit the fruitfulness of the render it less supportive of women's development than assistance provided a social network. Burke and McKeen's of the literature on the mentoring process in contains a question that converges with Sandler's emphasis on networks as supporting women's development: "Are `better fit' for women?" Burke and McKeen if given freedom design ways working rather than struggling to accommodate established organizational rules and practice, create a different, nonhierarchical way of mentoring. The study by which women aged 34 64 answered questions about classroom as adult learners, takes toward their described complex process marked by interactive; relationships with their teachers in they felt both supported that this process can be extended to include relationships as well. We believe that the co-mentoring presents for understanding classrooms and their occupants benefits differently both men women. The by analyses that reveal the limitations for women the traditional mentoring frame not be interpreted as applying to women only. They be as prompted questions about women's but also as to alternative understandings enlarge opportunities both and of co-mentoring, while it is based an with a class composed almost of not gender specific. Just as collaborative learning is not restricted to one gender but is
 not be contexts in which mentoRing happenS. BernIce sanDlEr haS sugGested that mentORing Among women may often be hiDden oR uNAcknOWlEdged Because SUpPORtiVe ReLatIoNShIps thAt fAcilitaTe a woman's dEveLoPment may be reGArDed as "persoNal" (And thus underValUed) ratHeR thAN as meNtoRing. THis sugGEstion That persoNaL RelatiONships aND MeNtorIng relationships aRE dIStinct from each Other pOiNTs TO The ProBlems previOuSly idENtified REgARDIng THe split betweeN private and PUblIc and tHe DifFErentiAl in hOw PResTige is allocAted. we are inclIned to REserve tHE term meNtorinG foR reLatiONsHiPs tHaT Are CArEfuLLy cIrcumscrIbEd As "impErsoNAL" ANd thAt tAke pLace "aWay from home." SaNdlEr alSO idEntifIes seVeraL dImensIons of MentoRiNg that constitutE it aS a hierarcHicAl RelAtIonshIP: the meNtoR haS superiOr knowlEDge AnD CONnEctions; the mentor seTs THE aGenda; the Mentor SHoUlD Be older; mEnTorIng iS INitiaTed bY ThE mentor; tHe beneFItS oF mentorInG run in A sIngLe dIrectIOn frOm the mEntor to tHe menTEe. Sandler discuSSes how each of tHEsE CHaRActeRisTics may inhiBit tHE fruItfuLNeSs oF The meNtoriNg BOnD, And render it less suppOrTive of Women'S development tHan the assiSTANce proviDed bY A sOCial network. BurKe and mcKeen's revIEw of the lIteraTure on thE mentorinG PRocess in OrgAniZatIonS COnTains a questioN THat cOnVerges wIth sandler'S emPhaSis On nEtWorks as suPporting WoMeN's DeVelOpmenT: "are peer rElAtiOnShiPs `betTEr fit' fOr womEn?" (329). BuRkE aND Mckeen wonDEr IF WomeN, gIvEn thE frEeDom to DesiGN waYs of worKing ratheR thAN strUgGlIng to acCommodate estaBlIshed organIzAtiOnal ruLES and pracTice, might create a differeNT, nonhieRarChicaL way Of mentoriNg. THe studY by wOlf, in wHich 240 woMen agEd 34 To 64 aNSWered QUEsTioNs About their CLAssRoom eXpErieNces as aDult learners, takes a STep Toward answeriNg tHeir QUEsTioN. woLF's pArTIciPANts described a coMplex mentoRiNG pRocess markED by InTeractiVe; collaBoratIVe relatIonships wIth their tEaCherS IN whIch they felT both supPorted and CHalleNGeD. Our eXpeRience ShOws That tHis proCEss Can be ExtendEd To inclUde stUdEnt-studeNt relationships as well. We BelievE that The PossibiliTy cO-MenToring preSentS for undersTanDinG clasSroOMs and TheiR OcCupANts beNefiTS differenTLy BotH MEn And women. The INSIghTs genEraTEd by anAlysEs that reveal the liMItations for womEn of THE trAdiTIonaL mEntoring frame nEed NoT BE interprEtEd as applyinG to women OnLY. They May be iNterprEted as pROMpTEd by quEstiOns About womeN's eXpERiences BuT aLSo as leAdinG tO alterNative UNderSTAndings that can enLarge OPPortuNItiEs for BoTh women ANd meN. Our undersTanding of co-MentorIng, wHile iT is baseD uPon an eXpeRiEnce with a cLAss composEd almOst compLeTely Of wOmen, is Not gENDer spEcifIc. jusT as collabORAtIVe LeARniNg is Not reStRictEd to one geNDer but is PreSEnted
 not be contexts in whichmentoringhappe ns.  Be rn iceSand ler has sugges t ed t hat mentoring among wo men m ay ofte n  b e hid den oru na c k now le dg edbe c au se su ppo rtive r elationshi psth at facilitat e  a  woman's d eve lopment mayberegard ed  as "pers ona l" (a nd thu s  under valued) r at h er tha n  as men t o ri ng.This suggestion t h at personal relat ionshi ps an d men tor ing relati on ships are dis t in c t fro m  each other p oints to th e  pr oblems  p rev i ouslyident if i edregarding t he s plit betw een pr i vate an d  public  and t hedif fere n ti al  in  h o w p r es tig e  is  allocat ed .We ar e in c l i n ed t o r eser ve th e term mentor ing  for rel ation ships  tha tare c areful ly ci rc umscribed as "i mper sonal" an d t ha t t ak e pla c e "awa y f rom  home."  Sandle r  al so i d en tifies several dim en s i on s of men toring th at constitu te  it  asa hiera rchi c al  relatio nship: th ementorha s supe ri orkno wledg e  and  conne ctions;the m e ntor sets thea genda; the me n to r sh o uldbeolder; ment orin g  isinit i at edb y the  ment or ;  t h e benefits of mento ri ng run  in a  single direc tion fromt h e  mentorto t h em entee. Sandler  disc usses howe ach of t hesecharacte ristics m a y  inhibit  th e f rui tfu l n es s of the ment o r ingbo nd, and  re nder it  le sssup por ti ve of wom en's dev el op me nt  th an th e  assista nc e p ro vid ed by a soci al ne twor k.  B u rke  and Mc K ee n ' s re vi ew  ofthe  l itera ture onthe men toring pr oce s s in  o rg anizati ons containsaquestion t ha t c onverg e s  with Sa ndler's emphasis on net w orks as  su pport ingwomen's d eve lopmen t:" Are pe er rel ation sh ips ` bette r fi t'fo r women?"( 3 29) . Bur ke  and  McKeen  wonder if women,g ive n the freedom  to  des i g nway s  o f  wo rk i ngr a ther than strug gling to a cc o mm odate esta b lis he d organ ization al ru l es andpractice,  might cr ea te a d iff erent, non hierarch ical wayo f men t or ing.The  study  b y W olf,in whi c h 2 40 wo men ag ed  34 to  64 a ns wered qu estions about their cla ssroom  expe rie nces as a dul t  le arners, t akes  a step to war d a nswer ing their  que s ti on. Wolf' s pa r ticipants de scr i b ed  a complexm e n tor ing p roc e ss mar kedby interactive; c o llaborative re lati o n shi psw ithth eir teachers i n w hi c h  they fe lt  both suppo rted and  c h allen ged. O ur exp erience s ho w s that  thi s p rocess ca n b ee xtended  t oi nclude  stu de nt-stu dent r e lati o n ships as well. W e bel i e ve th a t t he po ss ibility co-m entoring p resents for  under stan dingclassro om s andthe ir  occupants benefitsdiffe rentlybo th m enand wo men. T he in sigh ts  ge nerated b y an a ly se s  th at r eveal  t he l imitation s  for wom eno f the t ra dit i o nal me n to r i ng frame n eed  notb e  interpret e d as ap p lying  to wo men on ly. The y  ma ybe inte rpr e t ed as pro mpted byq ues ti onsabout wo me n'sex per ie nces but also a s leadin g to alt e r native  un d erst a ndings  t hat can enla rge o pp o rtuniti e s  fo r bothw ome n a ndmen.  Ou r un d erstanding of co-mentori ng,while itis ba sed u po n an exp e rien ce witha  class compos ed almost compl e tel y  ofwom e n,  i s not gen der speci fic.  Ju st a s c olla b o rati v e le a rn ingis not  res tr ic ted to on egenderb ut i s  pr esen ted
 not_be contexts_in which mentoring happens._Bernice Sandler_has_suggested that_mentoring_among women may_often be hidden_or unacknowledged because supportive_relationships that facilitate_a_woman's development may be regarded as "personal" (and thus undervalued) rather than as mentoring._This_suggestion that_personal_relationships_and mentoring relationships are distinct_from each other points to_the problems_previously identified regarding the split between private and_public_and the differential_in how prestige is allocated. We are inclined to_reserve the term mentoring for relationships_that are carefully_circumscribed_as_"impersonal" and that take_place "away from home." Sandler also_identifies several dimensions of mentoring that_constitute it as a hierarchical relationship: the_mentor has superior knowledge and connections;_the mentor sets the agenda;_the mentor_should be older; mentoring is_initiated by the_mentor; the_benefits of mentoring_run in a single direction from_the mentor to_the mentee. Sandler discusses how each_of_these characteristics may_inhibit_the_fruitfulness of_the mentoring bond,_and_render it_less_supportive of women's development than the_assistance_provided by a social network. Burke and_McKeen's review of the_literature_on the mentoring process_in organizations contains a question_that converges with Sandler's emphasis on_networks as_supporting women's_development: "Are peer relationships `better fit' for women?" (329). Burke and_McKeen wonder if women, given the_freedom to design ways_of working_rather_than struggling to_accommodate_established organizational_rules and practice, might create a different,_nonhierarchical way_of mentoring. The study by Wolf,_in which 240 women_aged_34 to 64 answered questions about_their classroom experiences as adult learners,_takes a step toward answering_their_question._Wolf's participants described a complex_mentoring process marked by interactive; collaborative_relationships with their_teachers in which they felt both supported_and_challenged. Our experience shows that this_process_can be extended to include student-student_relationships_as_well. We believe that the_possibility co-mentoring presents for understanding classrooms_and their occupants benefits differently both men and women._The insights generated_by analyses that reveal the_limitations_for_women of the traditional mentoring frame need not be interpreted_as applying_to women only._They may be interpreted as prompted by questions about women's_experiences but also as leading to alternative_understandings that can enlarge opportunities for both women and men. Our_understanding of co-mentoring, while it is based upon_an experience with a class composed almost_completely of women, is_not_gender specific. Just as collaborative learning is_not_restricted_to_one gender but_is presented