Measuring and exploring factors affecting students’ willingness to engage in peer mentoring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to measure students’ willingness to mentor their peers and explores key factors to student peer mentoring effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses a hybrid research methodology consisting of a survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was conducted with students of a bachelor of commerce (BCom) program of a North American university to analyze the impact of organizational culture and altruism on their willingness to mentor their peers. The focus group discussion was carried out with students of the same program to explore the objectives, focus, and factors contributing to their willingness to mentor and to peer mentoring effectiveness. Findings – Organizational culture and altruism significantly affect students’ emotional and intentional willingness to mentor their peers. Peer mentoring can help students prepare their transition from high school to university, guide them through university programs, and help them prepare their transition from university to workplace. Critical factors to peer mentoring effectiveness include a good fit between mentors and mentees, a reasonable ratio of mentor to protégés, and an understanding of and a willingness to address each student's specific needs. Practical implications – Business schools should embrace and promote a culture of mutual help, look for altruistic students as prospective peer mentors, and promote voluntary student peer mentoring. A mentoring program should be flexible enough to meet each student's needs. Attention should be paid to finding a good fit between mentors and protégés. Communication should focus on the benefits of student peer mentoring for mentors and protégés. Originality/value – This research brings empirical evidence on peer mentoring by testing and confirming the impact of altruism and organizational culture on students’ willingness to mentor their peers. It also provides practical insight to business schools for implementing student peer mentoring programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it