Mentors’ behavioral profiles and college adjustment in young adults participating in an academic mentoring program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore associations between different mentor behavioral profiles and mentees’ perceptions of the quality of mentoring relationship, the usefulness of the mentoring, and their college adjustment during the first year of college. Design/methodology/approach The study used a quasi-experimental design and involved the participation of 253 student mentees and 246 students from a control group. Cluster analysis on the responses of mentees on the mentor behavior scale was used to identify behavioral profiles of academic mentors. Findings Four distinct behavioral profiles were identified: optimal (high scores on mentor structure, involvement, autonomy support, and competence support); sufficient (moderate on all scales); controlling (low on autonomy support but high on other scales); and inadequate (low on all scales). Compared to mentees exposed to sufficient and inadequate profiles, mentees exposed to the optimal profile perceived the mentoring relationship and its usefulness as more positive. Furthermore, they reported better social adjustment in college compared to a control group, whereas mentees exposed to the inadequate profile reported poorer adjustment. Interestingly, mentees exposed to the controlling profile found the mentoring relationship useful. Research limitations/implications This study provides new empirical bases for the behavioral profiles of mentors that best meet mentees’ academic adjustment challenges. Limitations of the study include the absence of the mentors’ perceptions in the creation of behavioral profiles and the fact that the profiles were analyzed based on a single program. Originality/value Behavioral profiles of academic mentors were examined through the lens of a strong theoretical model that emphasizes the important role of structure, involvement, autonomy support, and competence support in the academic adjustment of mentees.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".