Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Tytuł pozycji:

Key issues in professionalizing mentoring practices.

Tytuł:
Key issues in professionalizing mentoring practices.
Autorzy:
Stoeger H; Department of Educational Sciences, Universtiy of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Balestrini DP; Department of Educational Sciences, Universtiy of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Ziegler A; Department of Educational Psychology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany.
Źródło:
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences [Ann N Y Acad Sci] 2021 Jan; Vol. 1483 (1), pp. 5-18. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Nov 30.
Typ publikacji:
Journal Article; Review
Język:
English
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: 2006- : New York, NY : Malden, MA : New York Academy of Sciences ; Blackwell
Original Publication: New York, The Academy.
MeSH Terms:
Mentors*
Mentoring/*standards
Quality Improvement/*standards
Humans
References:
Merton, R.K. 1993. On the Shoulders of Giants: A Shandean Postscript (the Post-Italianate Edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Williamson, P. 1995. Pelican History of Art: Gothic Scultpture 1140-1300. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bloom, B.J. 1985. Generalizations about talent development. In Developing Talent in Young People. B.J. Bloom, Ed.: 507-549. New York: Ballantine Books.
Zuckerman, H. 1977. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.
Roche, G.R. 1979. Much ado about mentors. Harv. Bus. Rev. 59: 14-20.
Subotnik, R.F., P. Olszewski-Kubilius, M. Khalid & H. Finster. 2021. A developmental view of mentoring talented students in academic and nonacademic domains. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 199-207.
Kram, K.E. 1985. Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Ragins, B.R. & J.L. Cotton. 1999. Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 84: 529-550.
Weber Ku, E.B., M.A. Hagler, M.F. Parnes, et al. 2021. Natural mentoring relationships among survivors of caregiver childhood abuse: findings from the Add Health Study. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 50-66.
Haggard, D.L., T.W. Dougherty, D.B. Turban, et al. 2011. Who is a mentor? A review of evolving definitions and implications for research. J. Manag. 37: 280-304.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
DuBois, D.L., N. Portillo, J.E. Rhodes, et al. 2011. How effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 12: 57-91.
Allen, T.D., L.T. Eby, M.L. Poteet, et al. 2004. Career benefits associated with mentoring for proteges: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 89: 127-136.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. & T.A. Judge. 2008. A quantitative review of mentoring research: test of a model. J. Vocat. Behav. 72: 269-283.
Sambunjak, D., S.E. Straus & A. Marušić. 2006. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA 296: 1103-1115.
Underhill, C.M. 2006. The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: a meta-analytical review of the literature. J. Vocat. Behav. 68: 292-307.
DuBois, D.L. & M.J. Karcher, Eds. 2013. Handbook of Youth Mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McQuillin, S.D. & H.L. McDaniel. 2021. Pilot randomized trial of brief school-based mentoring for middle school students with elevated disruptive behavior. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 127-141.
Christensen, K.M., M.A. Hagler, G.S. Elizabeth, et al. 2020. Non-specific versus targeted approaches to youth mentoring: a follow-up meta-analysis. J. Youth Adolesc. 49: 959-972.
Wood, S. & E. Mayo-Wilson. 2012. School-based mentoring for adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 22: 257-269.
Crisp, G., V.L. Baker, K.A. Griffin, et al. 2017. Mentoring undergraduate students. ASHE High. Educ. Rep. 43: 7-103.
Lipsey, M.W. & D.B. Wilson. 1993. The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: confirmation from meta-analysis. Am. Psychol. 48: 1181-1209.
Paik, S.J. 2015. Educational productivity: achieving excellence. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. J.D. Wright, Ed.: 272-278. Oxford: Elsevier.
Grassinger, R., M. Porath & A. Ziegler. 2010. Mentoring the gifted: a conceptual analysis. High Abil. Stud. 21: 27-46.
Dickson, J., K. Kirkpatrick-Husk, D. Kendall, et al. 2014. Untangling protégé self-reports of mentoring functions: further meta-analytic understanding. J. Career Dev. 41: 263-281.
DuBois, D.L., B.E. Holloway, J.C. Valentine, et al. 2002. Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: a meta-analytic review. Am. J. Community Psychol. 30: 157-197.
Eby, L.T., T.D. Allen, S.C. Evans, et al. 2008. Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. J. Vocat. Behav. 72: 254-267.
Eby, L.T., T.D. Allen, B.J. Hoffman, et al. 2013. An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring. Psychol. Bull. 139: 441-476.
Raposa, E.B., J. Rhodes, G.J.J.M. Stams, et al. 2019. The effects of youth mentoring programs: a meta-analysis of outcome studies. J. Youth Adolesc. 48: 423-443.
Tolan, P.H., D.B. Henry, M.S. Schoeny, et al. 2014. Mentoring programs to affect delinquency and associated outcomes of youth at risk: a comprehensive meta-analytic review. J. Exp. Criminol. 10: 179-206.
Van Dam, L., D. Smit, B. Wildschut, et al. 2018. Does natural mentoring matter? A multilevel meta-analysis on the association between natural mentoring and youth outcomes. Am. J. Community Psychol. 62: 203-220.
Govekar-Okoliš, M. 2018. Mentors’ perceptions on effects of their mentoring with higher education students in companies after the adoption of the Bologna process. Eur. J. High. Educ. 8: 185-200.
Herrera, C. & M.J. Karcher. 2013. School-based mentoring. In Handbook of Youth Mentoring. D.L. DuBois & M.J. Karcher, Eds.: 203-220. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Laco, D. & W. Johnson. 2019. “I expect it to be great…but will it be?” An investigation of outcomes, processes, and mediators of a school-based mentoring program. Youth Soc. 51: 934-960.
Morris, R.C. 2016. Mentoring to improve a child's self-concept: longitudinal effects of social intervention on identity and negative outcomes. Curr. Res. Soc. Psychol. 24: 13-30.
Ziegler, A., K.L. Gryc, M.D.S. Hopp, et al. 2021. Spaces of possibilities: a theoretical analysis of mentoring from a regulatory perspective. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 174-198.
Michel, J.-B., Y.K. Shen, A.P. Aidan, et al. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331: 176-182.
Younes, N. & U.-D. Reips. 2019. Guideline for improving the reliability of Google Ngram studies: evidence from religious terms. PLoS One 14: e0213554.
Pechenick, E.A., C.M. Danforth & P.S. Dodds. 2015. Characterizing the Google Books Corpus: strong limits to inferences of socio-cultural and linguistic evolution. PLoS One 10: e0137041.
Preis, T., H.S. Moat, H.E. Stanley, et al. 2012. Quantifying the advantage of looking forward. Sci. Rep. 2: srep00350.
Fox, J. & S. Weisberg. 2019. An R Companion to Applied Regression. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elsass, P.M. 1993. The paradox of success: too much of a good thing? Acad. Manage. Perspect. 7: 84-85.
Hargreaves, D. 2008. From loose to tight and tight to loose: how old concepts provide new insights. In Teaching: Professionalization, Development and Leadership. D. Johnson & R. Maclean, Eds.: 249-254. Berlin: Springer.
Hoyle, E. 1982. The professionalization of teachers: a paradox. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 30: 161-171.
Hoyle, E. 2001. Teaching as profession. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. N.J. Smelser & P.B. Baltes, Eds.: 15472-15476. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Merton, R.K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159: 56-63.
Keller, T.E. & D.L. DuBois. 2021. Influence of program staff on quality of relationships in a community-based youth mentoring program. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 112-126.
Kupersmidt, J.B., K.N. Stump, R.L. Stelter, et al. 2017. Mentoring program practices as predictors of match longevity. J. Community Psychol. 45: 630-645.
Hagler, M., S. Burton & J. Rhodes. 2020. Mentoring. In The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development. Accessed September 7, 2020. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119171492.wecad433.
Wheeler, M.E., T.E. Keller & D.L. DuBois. 2010. Review of three recent randomized trials of school-based mentoring. Soc. Policy Rep. 24: 3-21.
Garringer, M., J. Kupersmidt, J. Rhodes, et al. 2015. Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring. Boston, MA: MENTOR.
Kupersmidt, J., R. Stelter, M. Garringer, et al. 2018. STEM Mentoring Supplement to the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring. Boston, MA: MENTOR.
Garringer, M., C. Rummel, J. Bourgoin, et al. 2019. LGBTQ Supplement to the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring. Boston, MA: MENTOR.
Kupersmidt, J., R. Stelter, M. Garringer, et al. 2019. Workplace Mentoring Supplement to the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring. Boston, MA: MENTOR.
Garringer, M., M. Kaufman, R. Stelter, et al. 2019. E-Mentoring Supplement to the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring. Boston, MA: MENTOR.
Kupersmidt, J., R. Stelter, M. Karcher, et al. 2020. Peer Mentoring Supplement to the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring. Boston, MA: MENTOR.
Kupersmidt, J., R. Stelter, G. Kuperminc, et al. 2020. Group Mentoring Supplement to the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring. Boston, MA: MENTOR.
Stelter, R.L., J.B. Kupersmidt & K.N. Stump. 2021. Establishing effective STEM mentoring relationships through mentor training. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 224-243.
Dorner, H., G. Misic & M. Rymarenko. 2021. Online mentoring for academic practice: strategies, implications, and innovations. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 98-111.
Keller, T.E. 2005. A systemic model of the youth mentoring intervention. J. Prim. Prev. 26: 169-188.
Raposa, E.B., M. Hagler, D. Liu & J.E. Rhodes. 2021. Predictors of close faculty-student relationships and mentorship in higher education: findings from the Gallup-Purdue Index. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 36-49.
Luo, L., R. Subotnik & H. Stoeger. 2018. Mentors’ impact on majoring in STEM for students with or without a parent in a STEM field. Chron. Mentor. Coach. 2: 463-465.
Blake-Beard, S., M.L. Bayne, F.J. Crosby, et al. 2011. Matching by race and gender in mentoring relationships: keeping our eyes on the prize. J. Soc. Issues 67: 622-643.
Kanchewa, S.S., J.E. Rhodes, S.E.O. Schwartz, et al. 2014. An investigation of same- versus cross-gender matching for boys in formal school-based mentoring programs. Appl. Dev. Sci. 18: 31-45.
Mullen, C.A. & C.C. Klimaitis. 2021. Defining mentoring: a literature review of issues, types, and applications. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 19-35.
Higgins, M.C. & K.E. Kram. 2001. Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental network perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev. 26: 264-288.
Huizing, R.L. 2012. Mentoring together: a literature review of group mentoring. Mentor. Tutor. 20: 27-55.
Kroll, J. 2016. What is meant by the term group mentoring? Mentor. Tutor. Partnersh. Learn. 24: 44-58.
Mullen, C.A. 2016. Alternative mentoring types. Kappa Delta Pi Rec. 52: 132-136.
Nicholson, B.A., M. Pollock, C. Ketcham, et al. 2017. Beyond the mentor-mentee model: a case for multi-mentoring in undergraduate research. Perspect. Undergrad. Res. Mentor. 6: 1-14.
Herrera, C., Z. Vang & L.Y. Gale. 2002. Group Mentoring: A Study of Mentoring Groups in Three Programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Stoeger, H., M. Heilemann, T. Debatin, et al. 2021. Nine years of online mentoring for secondary school girls in STEM: an empirical comparison of three mentoring formats. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 153-173.
Stoeger, H., M. Hopp & A. Ziegler. 2017. Online mentoring as an extracurricular measure to encourage talented girls in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics): an empirical study of one-on-one versus group mentoring. Gift. Child Quart. 61: 239-249.
Tynjälä, P., M. Pennanen, I. Markkanen & H.L.T. Heikkinen. 2021. Finnish model of peer-group mentoring: review of research. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 208-223.
Kram, K. 1983. Phases of the mentor relationship. Acad. Manag. J. 26: 608-625.
Ericsson, K.A., R.R. Hoffman & A. Kozbelt, et al. 2018. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Peluchette, J.V.E. & S. Jeanquart. 2000. Professionals’ use of different mentor sources at various career stages: implications for career success. J. Soc. Psychol. 140: 549-564.
Mezias, J.M. & T.A. Scandura. 2005. A needs-driven approach to expatriate adjustment and career development: a multiple mentoring perspective. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 36: 519-538.
Crow, G.M. 2012. A critical-constructivist perspective on mentoring and coaching for leadership. In The SAGE Handbook of Mentoring and Coaching in Education. S.J. Fletcher & C.A. Mullen, Eds.: 228-242. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jacobi, M. 1991. Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: a literature review. Rev. Educ. Res. 61: 505-532.
Stokes, P., P. Fatien Diochon & K. Otter. 2021. “Two sides of the same coin?” Coaching and mentoring and the agentic role of context. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 142-152.
Young, A.M. & P.L. Perrewé. 2000. What did you expect? An examination of career-related support and social support among mentors and protégés. J. Manag. 26: 611-632.
Young, A.M. & P.L. Perrewé. 2004. The role of expectations in the mentoring exchange: an analysis of mentor and protégé expectations in relation to perceived support. J. Manage. Issues 16: 103-126.
Spencer, R., T.E. Keller, M. Perry, et al. 2021. How youth mentoring relationships end and why it matters: a mixed-methods, multi-informant study. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 67-79.
Bailey, S.F., E.C. Voyles, L. Finkelstein, et al. 2016. Who is your ideal mentor? An exploratory study of mentor prototypes. Career Dev. Int. 21: 160-175.
Fleming, M., E.L. Burnham & W.C. Huskins. 2012. Mentoring translational science investigators. JAMA 308: 1981-1982.
Johnson, A.W. & J.W. Sullivan. 1995. Mentoring program practices and effectiveness. In Mentoring: New Strategies and Challenges. M. Galbraith & N. Cohen, Eds.: 43-56. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bendt, W. 2016. Evaluation von Mentoring Programmen an Hochschulen [Evaluation of mentoring programs at universities]. Accessed September 7, 2020. http://edoc.sub.uni-hamburg.de/haw/volltexte/2016/3588/pdf/MA_Wiebke_Bendt.pdf.
Stöger, H. & A. Ziegler. 2012. Wie effektiv ist Mentoring? Ergebnisse von Einzelfall- und Meta-Analysen [How effective is mentoring? Results of case studies and meta-analyses]. Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung 7: 131-146.
Shaw, I.F., J.C. Greene & M. Mark, Eds. 2006. Handbook of Evaluation. London: Sage.
Stoeger, H., T. Debatin, M. Heilemann, et al. 2019. Online mentoring for talented girls in STEM: the role of relationship quality and changes in learning environments in explaining mentoring success. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 168: 75-99.
Stoeger, H., S. Schirner, L. Laemmle, et al. 2016. A contextual perspective on talented female participants and their development in extracurricular STEM programs. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1377: 53-66.
Varghese, L. & L.L. Finkelstein. 2021. An investigation of self-efficacy crossover between mentors and protégés within mentoring dyads. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1483: 80-97.
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: STEM; best practice; mentoring; professionalization; research; talent development
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20201201 Date Completed: 20210201 Latest Revision: 20210201
Update Code:
20240105
DOI:
10.1111/nyas.14537
PMID:
33258118
Czasopismo naukowe
Mentoring has experienced a tremendous upswing over the past decades, which has only recently slowed down somewhat. One possible factor explaining mentoring's popularity are numerous case studies suggesting that it is one of the most effective ways of helping individuals to develop. Meta-analyses indicating effect sizes for mentoring that are below what would theoretically be possible appear to contradict the success stories, however. This circumstance raises questions about the professionalization of mentoring practices. We focus on seven key issues for future efforts at professionalizing mentoring. Key issues 1 and 2 address observation of the state of the art within formal mentoring when programs are planned and implemented: the consideration of recent research and of best practices. While both areas can overlap, they provide complementary sources of pertinent information for the professionalization of mentoring. Key issues 3-6 address the need to align mentoring activities to the specific context and goals of individual mentoring programs by observing idiographic program characteristics, mentoring dynamics, the orchestration of mentoring goals, and the provision of mentoring resources. Finally, key issue 7 highlights ongoing evaluation as the basis of the effective, continuous improvement of mentoring programs.
(© 2020 The Authors. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of New York Academy of Sciences.)
Zaloguj się, aby uzyskać dostęp do pełnego tekstu.

Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies