PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

P

04.1330 2074200

 

 

Avg 9 g 239;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClRC/Datoouopssop. 15

MENTOR/MENTEE PERCEPTIONS OF MENTOR FUNCTIONS:
THE MENTORING OF ADULT LEARNERS IN
A LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT NETWORK

By

Gary A. Teja

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Education and Communication Systems

2003

ABSTRACT

MENTOR/MENTEE PERCEPTIONS OF MENTOR FUNCTIONS:
THE MENTORING OF ADULT LEARNERS IN
A LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT NETWORK
By

Gary A. Teja

Survey research was used in studying mentor/mentee perceptions of the
effectiveness of mentoring relationships in a nonformal educational program called the
Leadership Development Network (LDN). The surveys incorporated modified versions
of Cohen’s post-secondary Principles of Adult Mentoring Scale (PAMS), one for LDN
mentors and one for LDN mentees. The data showed that mentors rated the overall
effectiveness of the mentoring relationship as “effective” whereas mentees rated it “less
effective.”

Additionally, the survey research also investigated mentor/mentee perceptions of
effectiveness in the six PAMS subscales, or mentor functions, identified by Cohen. LDN
mentors and mentees reported lowest effectiveness ratings in the Confrontive Focus
mentor function. No single mentor function received more than an average (“effective”)
rating by either LDN mentors or LDN mentees.

Additional selected variables, age, level of trust, degree of mutual benefit, length
of orientation, frequency of meeting over a six-month period, level of education attained, '
were also examined to determine if these variables influenced how mentors and mentees

perceived the effectiveness of the mentoring relationship. The level of trust and the

degree of mutual benefit were perceived as high, demonstrating their importance in
establishing effective mentoring relationships. These same variables were examined to
see if they influenced how mentors and mentees perceived the effectiveness of Cohen’s
six mentor functions. Mutual benefit was the only variable which demonstrated any
significant difference in how mentors and mentees perceived effectiveness in the mentor
functions. Mentors and mentees who perceived a high degree of mutual benefit also

perceived higher effectiveness ratings in the six mentor functions.

DEDICATION
To my wife and life partner, Jackie, for your encouragement through this whole
learning process. You have been a mentor to me in many ways these past thirty-three

years.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation is expressed to John Wiley & Sons, Inc. for permitting the use of
the illustration “Elements in the Leamer-Centered Mentoring Paradigm” within this
dissertation. From page 6 in Lois Zachary’s 7 716 mentor ’5 guide: facilitating effective
learning relationships. Copyright 2000. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

I am indebted to Dr. Rodger Rice, former director of Calvin College’s Social
Research Center, for his gentle and patient assistance in helping me overcome my fear

of statistics, always challenging me to “keep your head above the trees.”

My team leader, Rev. Alfred Mulder, was helpful in re-thinking the
implications of this research for the specific needs of the Leadership Development
Network. He also made it possible for me to pursue this doctorate with financial

assistance from Home Missions.

The synergy created by a doctoral committee consisting of Drs. Kimberly
Chung, David Krueger and Luke Reese facilitated stimulating discussions that helped

me in the process of developing my research.

I could not have asked for a more helpful advocate than my adviser, Dr. S.
Joseph Levine. He has been for me a true model of the adult educator as well as a

mentor’s mentor: an encourager, a challenger, a guide.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER l—INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
Background and Setting .......................................................................................... 1
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 2
Context of the Study ............................................................................................... 4
Population ............................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study and Objectives ...................................................................... 6
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................. 7
Andragogy ................................................................................................... 8

Mentor ......................................................................................................... 8

Mentee ......................................................................................................... 8

Mentoring relationship ................................................................................ 8

Nonformal education ................................................................................... 8

Effective mentoring ..................................................................................... 8

LDN ............................................................................................................ 9

Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 9
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 10
Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2—LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 11
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 12

The Adult Learner ................................................................................................. 12

The Mentor ................................................................................................ 26

Description of the Mentor ......................................................................... 26

The Ideal Mentor ....................................................................................... 32

The Training of Mentors ....................................................................................... 34

The Mentee ........................................................................................................... 35

The Mentoring Relationship ................................................................................. 39
Structures of Mentoring Relationships ................................................................. 39
Distance Mentoring ................................................................................... 45

Mentoring in Cyberspace .......................................................................... 45

Healthy Relationships ............................................................................... 48

Mentoring: Uniformity or Diversity ......................................................... 49

Benefits of the Mentoring Relationship .................................................... 50

Structures and Phases of the Mentoring Relationship .............................. 51

Dynamics of the Mentoring Relationship ................................................. 54

Lack of Clarity Regarding Mentoring Relationships ................................ 56

Mentoring Models ................................................................................................. 58
Leamer-centered Mentoring Paradigm ..................................................... 59

Schmoll’s Doctoral Research .................................................................... 61

vi

Rose’s Ideal Mentor Scale ........................................................................ 61

Cohen’s Principles of Adult Mentoring Scale (PAMS) ............................ 62
Summary ............................................................................................................... 69
CHAPTER 3—METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 71
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 71
LDN Mentor Survey ................................................................................. 71
Reliability and validity of the LDN Mentor Survey ..................... 73

LDN Mentee Survey ................................................................................. 74
Reliability and validity of the LDN Mentee Survey ..................... 76

. Survey Procedure .................................................................................................. 76
Operational Procedures ......................................................................................... 78
Statistical Procedures ............................................................................................ 80
CHAPTER 4—DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 82
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 82
Statistical software for tabulation ......................................................................... 82
Mentor/Mentee Demographics ............................................................................. 82
Respondents .............................................................................................. 82

Age of Respondents .................................................................................. 83
Education .................................................................................................. 83
Ordination ................................................................................................. 84
Qualities of the Mentoring Relationship ............................................................... 85
Perceptions of the Mentoring Relationship ........................................................... 87
Effectiveness of the Mentoring Relationship ........................................................ 88
Overall Effectiveness Score ...................................................................... 89
Comparing the Means of the Mentor Functions ....................................... 89
Relationship Emphasis mentor function ....................................... 89

Information Emphasis mentor function ........................................ 90

F acilitative Focus mentor function ............................................... 91

Confrontive Focus mentor function .............................................. 91

Mentor Model mentor function ..................................................... 92

Student Vision mentor function .................................................... 92

Differences in Effectiveness Scores Using Factors .............................................. 94
Age ............................................................................................................ 94
Degree of mutual benefit ........................................................................... 95

Level of trust ............................................................................................. 96
Frequency of meeting ................................................................................ 97
Length of orientation ................................................................................. 98

Level of education attained ....................................................................... 99
CHAPTER S—DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ....................................... 101
Discussion ........................................................................................................... 101
Introduction ............................................................................................. 101
Mentor/mentee Demographics ................................................................ 101

Age, Education, and Ordination Status ....................................... 101

vii

Qualities of the Mentoring Relationship ................................................. 103

Length of time served as a mentor or mentee ......................................... 103

Frequency of meeting .................................................................. 103

Length of orientation ................................................................... 104

Perceptions of the Mentoring Relationship ............................................. 106

Level of trust ............................................................................... 106

Mutual benefit ............................................................................. 107

Effectiveness of the Relationship ............................................................ 108

Overall effectiveness ................................................................... 108

Relationship Emphasis mentor function ..................................... 109

Information Emphasis mentor function ...................................... 110

Facilitative Focus mentor function ............................................. 111

Confrontive Focus mentor function ............................................ 112

Mentor Model mentor function ................................................... 114

Student Vision mentor function .................................................. 115

Summary ..................................................................................... 116

Differences in Effectiveness Scores Using Factors ................................ 116

Mutual benefit as a variable in effectiveness .............................. 117

Age as a variable in effectiveness ............................................... 120

Level of trust as a variable in effectiveness ................................ 121

Frequency of meeting as a variable in effectiveness ................... 122

Length of orientation as a variable in effectiveness .................... 122

Level of education attained as a variable in effectiveness .......... 123

Summary ..................................................................................... 123

Concluding Observations ........................................................................ 124
Recommendations ............................................................................................... 124
Recommendations for the LDN Mentoring Program ............................. 124

Training ....................................................................................... 125

Accountability ............................................................................. 127

Recommendations for Further Research ................................................. 129

APPENDIX A: Advance Notice Letter .......................................................................... 132
APPENDIX B: Cover Letter ........................................................................................... 133
APPENDIX C: F ollow-up Card ...................................................................................... 135
APPENDIX D: Panel of Experts .................................................................................... 136
APPENDIX E: LDN Mentor Survey .............................................................................. 137
APPENDIX F: LDN Mentee Survey .............................................................................. 147
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 157

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Respondents ........................................................................................................ 82
Table 2: Mentor/Mentee Age ............................................................................................ 83
Table 3: Mentor/Mentee Level of Education Attained ..................................................... 84
Table 4: Mentor/Mentee Ordination Status ...................................................................... 84
Table 5: Mean Scores for Three Qualities of Mentoring .................................................. 85
Table 6: Recoded Data for Length of Time Served as Mentor/Mentee ............................ 86
Table 7: Mean Scores for Level of Trust and Mutual Benefit .......................................... 87
Table 8: Overall Effectiveness Score ................................................................................ 89
Table 9: Mean Score for Relationship Emphasis Mentor Function .................................. 90
Table 10: Mean Score for Information Emphasis Mentor Function. ................................ 90
Table 11: Mean Score for Facilitative Focus Mentor Function ........................................ 91
Table 12: Mean Score for Confrontive Focus Mentor Function ....................................... 91
Table 13: Mean Score for Mentor Model Mentor Function ............................................. 92
Table 14: Mean Score for Student Vision Mentor Function ............................................. 93
Table 15: Summary of Effectiveness Mean Scores for all Six Mentor

Functions ........................................................................................................... 93
Table 16: Age as a Factor in Effectiveness ....................................................................... 94
Table 17: Mutual Benefit as a Factor of Effectiveness ..................................................... 95
Table 18: Level of Trust as a Factor of Effectiveness ...................................................... 97
Table 19: Frequency of Meeting as a Factor of Effectiveness .......................................... 98
Table 20: Length of Orientation as a Factor of Effectiveness .......................................... 99
Table 21: Level of Education Attained as a Factor of Effectiveness .............................. 100

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Three Sides of Adult Education ................................................................. 12

Figure 2: Elements in the Learner-Centered Mentoring Paradigm .................................. 59

CHAPTER 1» INTRODUCTION

Background and Setting

Mentoring as an educational activity has been around for centuries, taking
different forms and functions. The importance of mentoring in its many varied forms has
been firmly established in history. For example, for centuries experienced artisans and
craftsmen have taught their skills and trades to apprentices. Hunters have taken younger
men with them and taught them how to stalk, strike and then gut their kill. Women
taught younger girls how to collect flax, spin it and develop cloth for sewing into
wearing apparel. Blacksmiths took younger boys into their shops and taught them how to
forge utensils from hot metal. Carpenters have taken unskilled laborers and taught them
the fine art of cabinet making or house construction. Before the advent of trade schools,
mechanics with years of experience took joumeymen under their wings and actively
demonstrated the fine art of car repair, helping them to “hear” an engine, diagnose the
problem and suggest a solution.

In the world of nursing, experienced nurses have mentored recently “pinned”
nurses. Doctors trained other doctors by bringing young men into their homes. Today’s
residency in hospitals is a form of mentoring reminiscent of the days when doctors took
their proteges with them on house calls.

In the business world, upper management executives become mentors to less
experienced employees to assist them in climbing the corporate ladder. These upper
management executives become sponsors to younger men and women who are in the
early stages of learning the corporate culture. In many cases, these senior executives

open doors to the junior members of the company, doors which otherwise would remain

shut.

In academia, experienced teachers become mentors to teachers in their first year
of teaching. Some educators likewise take on promising students in order to coach them
in specific aspects of their education.

In the religious realm, rabbis trained other rabbis through a process of ongoing
mentoring. Within the Judaeo-Christian context, mentoring has been prevalent in the
development of new leaders. Barnabas, for example, was instrumental in mentoring the
Apostle Paul who in turn later mentored a young man named Timothy. In the early
colonial days in America, prior to the founding of seminaries and divinity schools,
ministers took young men into their homes and taught them the Bible and pastoral skills
in preparation for their ordination. Medicine men among the Navajo, who have a
religious function, took underlings—even boys—and passed on to these proteges the
oral wisdom of their past.

Each one of the situations above is an example of a mentoring relationship
between two people. Mentoring, therefore, has been and continues to be a major vehicle
for the development of men and women by more experienced persons through the
transmission of knowledge, the passing on of skills and the sharing of moral and ethical

codes.

Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for the study finds its origin in a scale developed by
Cohen (1993; 1995a; 1995b) in his Principles of Adult Mentoring Scale (PAMS) and
descnbed in detail in the literature review. Cohen describes six subscales which play a

significant role in mentoring relationships. These six subscales are: 1) relationship

to

emphasis, 2) information emphasis, 3) facilitative focus, 4) confrontive focus, 5) mentor

model and 6) student vision. These subscales form what Cohen called mentor functions.

The intent of the relationship emphasis is the development of trust between
mentor and mentee. This is seen first and foremost as a function of the mentor. By
information emphasis, Cohen describes the role of the mentor in obtaining the needed
information about the mentee, his/her goals and plans, in order to make sure that what
he/she (the mentor) offers, fills a need of the mentee. By facilitative focus, Cohen is
attempting to examine how the mentor guides the mentee in an exploration of
possrbilities, looking at options and alternative views which will help the adult learner,
or the mentee, to arrive at his/her own conclusions. Confrontive focus are those items in
the instrument that examine the mentor’s role of challenging the mentee in order that the
mentee may make the necessary changes in direction or behavior to continue in his/her
personal, professional and intellectual development. As a role model, Cohen examines if
the mentor shares from his/her own experiences in life “to motivate students to take
necessary risks (make decisions without certainty of successful results) and to continue
to overcome difficulties in their own journey toward educational and career goals”
(Cohen, 1993, p. 76). In the student vision Cohen examines if the mentor helps the
mentee to develop his/her critical thinking ability, to cast a vision for a preferred future,

to help the mentee become an independent adult learner.

Cohen presents two versions of the scale, one for post-secondary education and
one for business, to analyze mentor role competencies. Reliability of the educational
version is .9490 using the alpha scale, (Cohen, 1993, pp. 133, 183.) All six subscales

measured by the Principles of Adult Mentor Scale demonstrate positive correlation.

Accordingly, each mentor behavior “showed a high positive correlation... as indicated
by the results of the Pearson Correlation Coefficient ® data” (Cohen, 1993, p. 183).
The intent of the Scale as a self-assessment tool is to help mentors “to become
more alert to the impact of their specific behaviors on mentees” (Cohen, 1995a, p. 24)
In addition to assisting mentors in a self evaluation of their mentoring skills,
Cohen in his findings, states that PAMS could be used as a diagnostic tool for
identifying areas of deficiency around which a mentoring training program could be
developed (Cohen, 1993, p. 202). This has significance for this study as it seeks to

suggest training for mentors in order to enhance effective mentoring relationships.

Context of the Study

The mentoring relationships within the Leadership Development Networks
(LDN) of the Christian Reformed Church of North America were the context for this
study. The Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA) is a Protestant
denomination within the US. and Canada with a 150 year history. For every new local
church that is started, or “planted”, two churches die or merge. For the past fifteen years,
Christian Reformed Home Missions, an agency of the CRCNA, has been facilitating
nonformal educational programs for developing leaders for the church in order to
contribute to the starting of new churches. These programs have gone under the names
of Evangelist Training Program (ETP), ,‘Adelante! (Spanish-language ETP), “Called to
Serve,” (training in Basic English for Southeast Asian church leaders in the US. and
Canada) and now more recently, Leadership Development Networks. Through these
nonformal educational settings, adult learners acquire a theological knowledge base,

skills development and character formation appropriate to those with the calling to be

ordained evangelists.

Each nonformal LDN has as one of its core values that the learning experience
must be mentorship-driven (New-Church Development Department, 2000, Section D-
41). In other words, the adult learners must have a mentor. Mentoring is seen as a means
of assisting the adult learners in the LDNs. Levinson (1978, p. 93 states, “The mentor
relationship is one of the most developmentally important relationships a person can
have in early adulthood.” His study suggests a correlation between adult and career
development, both spheres which take on significance in the training of these future
evangelists. Stanley and Clinton ( 1992, p. 11), in discussing mentors, say that most
leaders over the course of their lifetime are helped along the way by three to ten
significant people.

Within the CRCNA the importance of this mentorship has already been identified
in previous studies, the most recent being the research of De Vries (1987) in which the
author examines the mentoring relationship between new pastors and more experienced
pastors.

As important as mentoring has been declared for LDN, the assigning of mentors
to LDN adult learners and the monitoring of the mentoring enterprise has been a
sporadic and not-well-thought-out activity. The need for answering questions regarding
the effectiveness of mentoring in the LDNs leads to this broader study on the whole

issue of mentoring of adult learners in any nonformal educational setting.

Population
There are two populations in this study. One of the populations is all of the adult

learners, or mentees, in the Leadership Development Networks (LDNs) in the Christian

Reformed Church in North America. The other population is the corresponding mentors
for these mentees. The LDNs are located in southern California, Texas, New Jersey,
Illinois, Michigan, and Florida, as well as in Vancouver, Canada. The mentee population
for this study consists of the following: 2 in Florida; 16 in New Jersey; 5 in Chicago,
Illinois; 9 in California; 14 in Canada; 22 in Texas, totaling 68 mentees. The mentor
population consists of 2 mentors in Florida; 8 in New Jersey; 5 mentors in Illinois; 6 in
Califomia; 9 in Canada; 17 in Texas, for a total of 47 mentors. The difference in size
between the mentee population and the mentor population is due to some mentors having
more than one mentee while other mentors have a single mentee under their care.

These populations consist of native English-speakers, native Spanish-speakers,
and those for whom English is a second language. Ethnically/racially, the population is
composed of Anglo Americans, Hispanics and African Americans.

Many of the mentees are second career learners. Academically they range from
some high school all the way to learners with Master’s degrees. All have opted for this
form of training instead of enrolling in the formal programs at the Reformed Bible
College or Calvin Seminary.

The mentors in this population are mostly ordained ministers or evangelists in
active ministry in the Christian Reformed Church in North America. Many hold a
bachelor’s degree from the Reformed Bible College or a Master’s degree from Calvin
Seminary. A few are graduates of nonformal educational programs such as the LDN
itself. Even fewer are graduates of other bible colleges or seminaries from outside the

US. and Canada.

Purpose of the Study and Objectives

Galbraith and Cohen ( 1995a; I995b) point out that too often a mentor enters into

a mentoring relationship without any forethought of what ingredients are needed for a

successful mentoring experience. What begins as an honorable goal sometimes ends in

utter frustration for both mentor and mentee. Mentoring often happens with little
consideration as to what contributes to an effective mentoring experience.

The purpose of this study was to examine mentoring relationships in terms of the
functions of a mentor. The objectives were to:

1) Examine the extent to which the six mentor functions identified by Cohen can be
helpful in understanding the perceptions of both mentors and mentees.

2) Examine mentors’ perceptions of the mentor functions when selected variables are
examined. The selected variables were age, degree of mutual benefit, level of trust,
frequency of meeting, length of orientation, level of education attained.

3) Examine mentees’ perceptions of the mentor functions when selected variables are
examined. The selected variables were age, degree of mutual benefit, level of trust,

frequency of meeting, length of orientation, level of education attained.

Definition of Terms
It was hard to arrive at exact definitions for some of the terms which were used
in this study. Merriam (Spring 1983, p. 169) cites the difficulty of arriving at a clear
definition for even the simple word mentoring. “[M]entoring appears to mean one thing
to developmental psychologists, another thing to business people, and a third thing in
academic settings.” Bova (May-June 1984), for example, cites ten different examples of
definitions for mentoring. The definitions given below were considered working

definitions of words frequently employed in this study.

Andragogy

“The art and science of helping adults learn.” (Knowles, 1985, p. 6).

Mentor
“One who offers knowledge, insight, perspective or wisdom that is helpful to
another person in a relationship that goes beyond doing one’s duty or fulfilling one’s

obligations.” (Shea, 1999, p. 3).

Mentee
“A recipient of a mentor’s help, especially a person who seeks out such help and

uses it appropriately for developmental purposes...” (Shea, 1999, p. 3).

Mentoring relationship
“A developmental, caring, sharing and helping relationship where one person
invests time, know—how and effort in enhancing another person’s growth, knowledge,

and skills.” (Shea, 1999, p. 3).

Nonformal education

“Any intentional and systematic educational enterprise (usually outside of
traditional schooling) in which content is adapted to the unique needs of the students (or
unique situations) in order to maximize learning. .. (Kleis, Lang, Mietus, and Tiapula,

1973, p. 6).

Effective mentoring

“The aim of effective mentorship, then, is to promote the development of the
learner... . taken to mean an increase in the ability to perceive and hold complexity, to
tolerate ambiguity, to experience one’s own and others’ feelings more richly, to see
oneself and others in a broader context, and to make wholehearted commitments in a

complex, tentative, and interdependent world.”('Daloz, 1998, p. 354).

LDN
Abbreviation for Leadership Development Network, a nonformal educational

program for training evangelists in the Christian Reformed Church in North America.

Significance of the Study

Schmoll (1981, p. 5) has accurately pointed out the need for such inquiries into
mentoring relationships and adjustments in those relationships.

In a society which is fast moving (Toffler, 1974); in a society in which
persons are increasingly isolated from one another (Fromm, 1955;
Toffler, 1974; Fleming, 1975); in a society in which friendships are few if
at all (Sadler, 1969; Macoby, 1976; Levinson, 1978); in a society which
has shifted its focus from one of goals to roles (Glasser, 1972); and in a
society in which the individual has become of primary importance, there
seems to be a tremendous need to explore relationships that offer hope for
both individuals and society.

This study was essential to examining suggested characteristics that make for
effective mentoring relationships in nonformal educational settings. Identifying
characteristics essential to effective mentoring relationships can stimulate the design of
training modules for mentors regarding the development of these essential characteristics

or behaviors.

The results of this study add to the growing body of research on the specific

subjects of mentors, mentees and the mentoring relationship. Greater clarity of definition
of these terms was the outcome of this study, as well as a theoretical framework for

effective mentoring relationships.

Limitations

Survey research on two populations, an LDN mentor population and an LDN
mentee population, was used in the development of this study. These are two very
specific populations, therefore, the generalizability of the results of this study to other
settings is limited in scope. The study has validity and reliability only to the two

particular populations on which this study focuses.

This study is also time-limited, examining survey responses regarding a single
period of time within a broader mentoring relationship. The perceptions of mentors and
mentees regarding the relationship are essentially “frozen in time,” since they were not

asked to respond to the survey more than once in the mentoring relationship.

Assumptions

Although there can be no direct control over the responses given by respondents
to the surveys, it is assumed that the respondents are able and willing to give valid
responses to all statements in the surveys. It is also assumed that respondents are able

and willing to give reliable responses to all statements on the surveys.

10

CHAPTER 2—LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The focus of this literature review was on sources regarding mentoring in the
educational and business settings. With few exceptions, most of the literature available
on the subject of mentoring dates from the early 19805 forward. Wunsch (1994, p. 1)
notes, “from 1980 to 1990, over 380 articles appeared in the popular press and academic
journals on mentoring in business and education”. Gray (1989) and Gray and Gray
(1986) provide two annotated bibliographies, one for literature prior to 1986, and one
from 1986 through 1989, covering more than 1,300 entries. Noller & Frey, (1983)
provide an additional resource, including a matrix on seventeen specific mentoring areas.
Biehl (1997, p. 9) points out one reason why there is so little formal literature on
mentoring prior to the early 19805 or late 19705: “ [A] book on mentoring would not
have been necessary one hundred years ago. It was to human relationships what
breathing is to the body. Mentoring was assumed, expected, and therefore almost
unnoticed because of its commonness in human experience”. Something happened to
take mentoring out of the mainstream of experiences so that a formal revival of
mentoring needed to occur and be written about. As literature on adult learners began to
appear, so did articles and books on the subject of mentoring.

This literature review deals with the adult learner, with the mentor, the mentee,
and with the mentoring relationship. The literature review is divided into four main
sections: 1) the adult learner, 2) characteristics and role of the mentor, 3) characteristics
and role of the mentee, 4) the mentoring relationship as perceived and described over

time, and 5) mentoring models.

The Adult Learner

To fully understand the characteristics and role of adult mentors and adult
mentees, there is a need to first understand the adult learner. According to Zachary
(2000, p. 3), mentoring “is grounded in knowledge about adult learning”. Educators like
Eduard Lindeman (1926) and Malcolm Knowles (1970; 1975; 1984; 1985; 1986) give
us a broad understanding of the adult learner. Coombs, Prosser, and Ahmed (1973)
discuss three contexts for adult learning: 1) formal, 2) nonformal and 3) informal
settings. Ward, Levine, Joesting and Crespo (1984) discuss the three contexts,

represented by means of Figure 1.

(IC’ILNEIRIO
'EIDN'VHD

 

Burzmqots Atrociurodopos
uouipou uo pasoq

 

 

Figure l: The Three Sides of Adult Education

Ward et a1. (1984) call this concept the three-sector model of educational modes.

12

Formal education is seen as being ladder-structured. Adult learners in a formal
educational mode are moving up the educational ladder rung by rung, acquiring degrees
which will be recognized by others as a sign of having arrived. They use the term '
change-oriented to describe those adult learners in the nonformal educational mode.
These adult learners are looking for information in a structured setting that will bring
about change in themselves and in society. No degree awaits this adult learner at the end
of his/her investigation. lnforrnal education involves becoming a better person, a more
educated person. There is no certificate to be earned; no school to attend; no specified
set of outcomes to acquire. Informal education is very unstructured.

Within these three settings, the adult learner experiences the process of learning.
The combination of the two words, adult + learner, provides us with a label by which to
limit our literature review as well as to focus it Neither primary school children nor
adolescent learners are the subject of this review. There has been substantial adult
learner research already done, a defining or describing of the adult learner. Cross (1981)
reviews much of the literature through 1980 which describes learner characteristics,
learner motivation, and learning preferences. In The Literature of Adult Education: A
Bibliographic Essay, Houle (1961; 1992) reviews the literature regarding adult education
and adult learners. Houle divides adults into three types of learners: 1) those who are
goal-oriented learners, 2) those who are activity-oriented learners, and 3) those who are
learning-oriented leamers. Allen Tough (1968), himself a protége' of Houle, looks
particularly at adult motivation to learn, and phases for learning. He points out that an
adult learner has more than a single reason for learning. Much of an adult’s learning is

the result of a desire to gain and apply knowledge or skills. Tough discusses three

13

different leaming patterns which are, themselves, a restatement of Houle’s three learner
orientations. In lieu of discussing goal-, learning-, and activity- oriented learners, Tough
refers to 1) a learner’s awareness that he/she wants to accomplish something which
requires new learning, 2) the learner has a desire to learn something due to curiosity or

interest, and 3) the learner determines simply to learn something new.

Paul Bergevin (1967) studies eleven problem areas for the adult learner,
particularly pages 65-89 in his book. Chapter VI distinguishes succinctly the difference
between the way a child and an adult learn. This chapter gives a list of caveats which the
adult educator ought to take into account in order to enhance the possibility of “success”
in the learning experience.

Alan Rogers (1986), contributes to the discussion on the adult learner based on
his experiences in the United Kingdom and'in the two-thirds world. More recently,
Taylor, Marienu, and Fiddler (2000) and Merriam and Caffarella ( 1999) add to this
knowledge base. The former look at adult learning in light of developmental theory
while the latter bring together in a singular work the seminal works of Cross, Knowles,

Kidd and others and also present more recent adult learning theories.

It is Malcolm Knowles, though, who best describes the adult learner in terms that
have been replicated in many different forms by subsequent adult educators. Knowles
was a proponent of andragogy: the art and science of helping adults learn. Knowles, in
his development of his concept of andragogy, posits certain assumptions about all adult

learners.
1) The adult learner has a need to know, investing time and money to do so.

2) The adult learner is self-directed. . “An essential aspect of maturing is developing the

14

3)

4)

ability to take increasing responsibilities for our own lives—to become increasingly
self-directed” (Knowles, 1975), p. 15). Caffarella (1993) and Candy (1991) have
more recently contributed to our understanding of self-directed learning. Caffarella
(1993, p. 28) writes “the learner chooses to assume the primary responsibility for
planning, carrying out, and evaluating those learning experiences”. Merriam and
Caffarella (1999) point out that “Participation in self-directed learning seems almost
universal—in fact, an estimated 90% of the population is involved with at least one
self-directed learning activity a year.” Cross (1981, pp. 63-64) gives a more detailed
report on the self-planned leaming projects as proposed by Tough and explained by
Candy and Caffarella. Galbraith and Zelenak (1991, pp. 112-1 18) likewise look at
learning contracts and their advantages and limitations in their 1991 volume on adult
learning. O’Donnell & Caffarella ( 1998, p. 276) define learning contracts as “a
formal agreement written by a learner which details what will be learned, how the
learning will be accomplished, the period of time involved, and the specific
evaluation criteria to be used in judging the completion of the process.” Knowles
(1986) writes on the same subject in his large work Using Learning Contracts,
regarding understanding learning contracts, developing and using them in various
settings, and offering practical hints on achieving success with them.

The adult learner is rich in experiences. The adult learner does not come into this act
of learning with an empty head to be filled with information or skills from one who
has all the information.

The adult learner has a readiness to learn. Havighurst (1972) says that the learner has

“teachable moments.”

15

5) The adult learner is self-motivated. The learner seeks out opportunities to learn.

6) The adult learner is in a problem-centered mode. He or she is looking for immediate
application of what is being learned, application to situations in which the learner
finds himself or herself.

In the late ‘205 through the late ‘505, Lindeman had written something similar to
this. Knowles (1984) makes reference to this writing of Lindeman in The Adult Learner
(p. 30). He identifies several Lindeman key assumptions about adult learners:

1) “Adults are motivated to learn as they experience needs and interests that learning
will satisfy...” Learning for adults, then, is situational. They learn when there is a

need.

2) “Adults’ orientation to learning is life-centered...” Learning, therefore, is based on
life situations and not on subjects.

3) “Experience is the richest resource for adults’ learning...” Lindeman had written in
1926 that “Experience is the adult learner’s living textbook.”

4) “Adults have a deep need to be self-directed.”

It is clear from the literature that andragogy and/or adult learning theory takes on
many forms. Pratt (1993, p. 15) states, “For some, andragogy has been a prescriptive set
of guidelines for the education of adults. For others, it represents a philosophical position
vis-a-vis the existential nature of adults. For still others, it is an ideology based on beliefs
regarding individual freedom, the relationship between individual and society, and the
aims of adult education.” Merriam & Caffarella (1999, pp. 250-251) enumerate the

various studies that criticize Knowles’ conceptual framework.

What is clear is that andragogy serves as a theory of sorts presenting assumptions

l6

regarding adult learners that will be touched upon again as the roles of mentor and of
mentee are later discussed in this review. Knowles (1984, pp. 15-18) himself refers to an
“andragogical process design” which includes seven elements. Pratt (1993, p. 19)
enumerates these for us as: 1) climate setting, 2) involving learners in mutual planning,
3) involving participants in diagnosing their own needs for learning, 4) involving
learners in formulating their learning objectives, 5) involving learners in designing
learning plans, 6) helping learners carry out their learning plans, and 7) involving
learners in evaluating their learning.” The andragogical assumptions about adult
learners together with this andragogical process design would seem to correlate with
what is good about a mentor/mentee relationship and could serve as a particular

approach in developing that relationship.

Both Lindeman and Knolwes referred to the self direction of the adult learner.
This is a key word in literature on adult learning. Grow (1991, pp. 134-135) points out
that learners go through four stages on their way to becoming self-directed learners: 1)
dependent, not self-directed, 2) moderately self-directed, 3) intermediate level of self-
direction, and 4) self-directed. In the first stage the learner is completely dependent on
the educator for his/her information, affirmation, when and how to do tasks, etc. The
educator practically spoon-feeds the learner. The teacher functions more as a constant
coach. In the second stage, the learner shows signs of self-direction, of some
independence. He/she is able to do limited personal goal setting without the constant
urging and instructing of the teacher. Confidence begins to build and learning skills
become more fine-tuned. The teacher at this level needs to be very motivational and

show great enthusiasm for teaching and for the learners. In the third stage the learner

demonstrates more involvement in the learning process than in the two earlier stages.
More self-direction is evident Greater interest is shown in understanding how their
leaming is occurring. The learner is more able to adapt and to apply what is being
taught, and begins to strategize in ways not thought possible before. There is a greater
openness to learning from others and to learn with others. The teacher at this level
functions more as a facilitator. In the fourth and final stage, the learner reaches the level
of being able to direct himself/herself in learning, in setting goals, in setting standards
for his/her own work and involvement. The learners who reach this fourth level “thrive
in an atmosphere of autonomy.”

Probably the best description of the self-directed learner is bound in the classic
work by Candy (1991) in Self-directionfor Lifelong Learning. Candy provides the
reader with a “Profile of the Autonomous Learner,” listing more than one hundred
attributes and competencies of the autonomous learner. Candy points out that justifiably
educators can expect learners to become self-directed or autonomous, responsible for
their own learning.

Zimmerman (1990, p. 4) in the Educational Psychologist writes succinctly about
self-directed learners, describing them as learners who “approach educational tasks with
confidence, diligence, and resourcefulness. Self-regulated learners are aware when
they know a fact or possess a skill and when they do not... . Self-regulated students
proactively seek out information when needed and take steps to master it. When they
encounter obstacles such as poor study conditions, confusing teachers, or abstruse text
books, they find a way to succeed.” This seems to second what Grow had to say about

the self-directed learner at stage Four in his/her development.

18

Weimer (2002, p. 16) is quick to point out, though, that “development as an
independent learner is not the inevitable outcome of formal educational experiences.”
The literature tends to discuss the need for learners to become autonomous, describes
what a self-directed learner is like, and describes how a learner-centered teacher ought to
be, pointing to a reality which, in many formal institutions of learning, appears,

unfortunately, to be only a dream.

Closely linked to this concept of self direction is the concept of adult readiness to
learn. In other words, an adult, when ready to learn, is self-directing in his/her efforts to
learn something new. Guglielmino (1977) lists eight factors that need to be present if an
adult learner is ready for self-directed learning: 1) openness to learning, 2) an
understanding of self as an effective learner, 3) initiative and independence as an adult
learner, 4) acceptance of responsibility, 5) creativity, 6) future orientation, 7) love of
learning, and 8) the ability to use basic study and problem-solving skills. Based on these
eight factors, Guglielmino developed a Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale
(SDLRS) to determine adult readiness for self-directed learning (Guglielmino &
Guglielmino 1988; Guglielmino, Long, & McCune 1989). Merriam and Caffarella
(1999) report various studies based on the use of this scale. Questions, though, have been
raised about the validity and reliability of this scale (Brookfield, 1984; Field, 1989;
Field, 1991). Nevertheless, the author of the scale has refuted the claims. According to
Merriam and Caffarella (1999, p. 217), “Only further studies on the SDLRS will put to

rest these major differences of Opinion.”

What motivates the adult learner to learn when he/she is ready to learn?

Motivation for learning is also key to an understanding of the adult learner. The adult

19

learner, as already seen by the various descriptions of the adult learner, is self-motivated.
As mentioned before, Houle (1961) describes three self motivated learners: 1) the goal-
oriented learner, 2) the activity-oriented learner, and 3) the learning-oriented learner.
The goal-oriented learner becomes involved in a learning activity because of objectives
he/she has set for himself/herself. This type of learner is responding to what Houle terms
transitions. These transitions serve as “triggers” for new learning. Sokol and Cranton
(Spring 1998) discuss “trigger events” as the catalyst for what is called transfonnative
learning. The activity-oriented learner involves himself/herself in a learning activity for
other-than-learning reasons. They may be bored, seeking fiiendship, or they may need to
get out of the house. They become learners for the sake of the activity, not necessarily
for the learning that will occur. The third learner type, the learning-oriented, is involved
in a learning activity for the sheer joy of learning. Houle is referred to again because of
the importance of his seminal work on adult motivation to learn.

For example, Peterson (1979) observes that the research on adult motivation
points to “thirty variations on the same study.” The Houlian typology on the adult
learner has become, as it were, a classic. Interestingly, Lowe (1987; January-March
1991) carries out research to question if there isn’t a fourth motivational taxonomy. He
calls it the “institutional orientation,” which approaches the subject from a sociological
dimension rather than from a psychological dimension. This may have more bearing
when mentoring is discussed as a means of inducting a person into a specific
organizational setting. Cross (1981, p. 83) points out that eventually “Every learner has
more than one reason for engaging in learning”. In her cited work, she gives a more in-

depth analysis of adult learner motivation (pp. 85-97).

20

Another popular term to describe the adult learning process is “lifelong
learning.” The first two appendices of Cross’s work (1981) deal extensively with this
theme. Dave (1976, pp. 35-36) in his book, Lifelong Education and School Curriculum,
writes, “Lifelong education seeks to view education in its totality. It covers formal,
nonformal and informal patterns of education... It is also characterized by flexibility in
time, place, content, and techniques of learning and hence calls for self-directed
learning, sharing of one’s enlightenment with others, and adopting varied learning styles
and strategies.”

Dave gives twenty characteristics of lifelong learning, of which only four are

cited here:

1) Learning is a lifelong process.

2) Lifelong learning includes all three modes (formal, nonformal, informal)

3) Lifelong learning is flexible and diverse in content, in the time of learning, as well as
in the learning tools used and techniques employed

4) Lifelong learning by its very nature allows for the possibility of alternative ways of
learning.

Richardson (1979, p. 48) gives a very broad definition of lifelong learning, a
definition that somehow describes the lack of clarity regarding lifelong learning or the
broad strokes which have been used to describe this phenomenon. Richardson says,
“’Lifelong education’ means anything you want it to mean.” Billington (1998) brings
more clarity by coming up with seven key factors which he suggests encourage adult
learning:

1) An environment which fostered a sense of safety in which the learner’s experiences

21

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

were valued.

An environment which fostered intellectual freedom. Learners are encouraged to be

creative and to think “outside of the box.”

An environment in which all are learners and teachers. There is a sense in which

everyone in the activity is a peer.

An environment in which self-directed leaming is considered as a positive factor

rather than a negative. Learner and teacher (instructor, facilitator) together design the

learning activities. There is no cookie cutter model for the curriculum that everyone
must go through.

An environment which fosters pacing. Although pacing normally refers to a person
working at his or her own speed, in this context Billington refers to pacing as
“challenging people just beyond their present level of ability.” There is always a
challenge there for the learner, but a challenge which, with a little effort, can be
attained.

An environment in which there is mutual participation. Participatory learning takes

place as both learner and facilitator dialogue. The “classroom” becomes a place

where experimentation can take place.

An environment where there is appropriate feedback from learner to facilitator so

adjustments in the activity can be made.

What Billington has said about the learning environment for the adult learner will

find special significance when we look at the literature regarding the environment for the

mentoring relationship. Similarities will be noted.

Deshler (1998) raises several questions which adult learners may ask themselves

22

as they evaluate the learning activities they are involved in. The first set of questions

pertain to gaining new confidence, the ability to learn better how to learn and the ability

to change in one’s views.

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

6)

Have they learned how to learn better or gain access to more knowledge?
Have they gained confidence and skill in presenting their ideas?

Have they changed their assumptions, habits of the mind, priorities?
Have they gained confidence in taking leadership?

Have they overcome self-doubts, insecurities, and learning deterrents?
Have they increased their commitment to take direct action?

The second set of questions which Deshler raises deal with learner evaluation,

questions which deal with information and skill acquisition.

1)

2)

3)

4)

Have they gained factual knowledge that is useful to them?

Have they made use of principles, concepts or theories in relationship to their
real problems?

Have they developed specific psychomotor manual skills?

Have they increased their interests in the subject or problem?

Adult learners will also want to evaluate the learning activities they are involved

in. In addition to the types of questions mentioned above, one needs to consider what

Deshler (1998) calls the “reference perspectives” (pp. 319-323) when the learners are

about to pass judgment on the data they have collected—mentally or written—regarding

a learning activity. Are they comparing their degree of learning against a pre-established

standard, or criterion-referenced? Or are they comparing their learning with that of other

adult learners, or cohort-referenced? Maybe they’re concerned about the amount of

23

progress they’ve made in learning something new or in improving a skill, or progress-
referenced. Then again, they may be approaching their learning from the perspective of
how difficult the subject was or the skill gained, or difficulty-referenced. They might
even be looking at this learning activity as to its value in light of the sacrifices they made
in time, money, or personal gratification, or altemative-referenced They have different
ways of j udging the value and worth of their learning experience. In a similar fashion,
mentees as adult learners will need to evaluate perspectives on their mentoring

relationship at the same time that mentors evaluate that relationship.

It is worth taking note of a publication from Jossey-Bass entitled Learner-
centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice (Weimer, 2002). As the subtitle
suggests, a leamer-centered approach to teaching implies a change in practice. One
could also call this a paradigm shift. In the same way in which one views Knowles’
characteristics of the adult learner as andragogical assumptions, one reads into Weimer
‘sfive key components a teaching paradigm, or an innovative approach to the subject of
“teaching” adults. Weimer suggests that the focus of this teaching ought not to be on the
teacher but on the learner. Even as we talk about teaching, the limelight is on the learner
and not on the faculty. “Learner-focused teaching,” therefore, “focuses attention on what
the student is learning, how the student is learning, the conditions under which the
student is learning, whether the student is retaining and applying the learning, and how
current learning positions the student for future learning.” (Publisher’s comment) Even
though addressed to the college and university professor, the learner is seen as the
subject and not the object of teaching. Weimer states that she wrote this book since most

teachers tend to know a lot less about learning than about teaching. Her goal was to write

24

something that would explore how teaching could enhance learning. The goal is to help
the learner to be ultimately responsible for his/her own learning (pp. xvi). In this
approach, the teacher is never seen as the all-knowing talking head, but rather as a
gardener, midwife, guide, coach, and orchestral maestro (pp. 74-76). Each one of these
concepts conjures up a different image, demonstrates a different role for the leamer-
centered educator. Not original metaphors with Weimer, she cites various other
educators who have written on the subject, like Ayers(l986), Fox (1983 ), Hill (1980),
Dunn (1992), and Eisner (1983), from whom she borrowed these terms. This concept of
the teacher as a gardener is reiterated by Grow ( 1991, pp. 134-135) when he writes,
“[teachers do] not teach subject matter but... cultivate the student’s ability to learn.” In
all of these metaphors the educator has a supportive role to play but is not the primary
player. Gardeners may cultivate, but flowers and vegetables do the growing. Midwives
merely deliver a live baby. Guides lead or show the way, but the hiker or tourist still
needs to do the walking. Coaches urge the team on, but the team does the playing. And
the maestro waves his baton in the air, counting out the beats, but the woodwinds play
their Clarinets, the percussionists beat the drums and the violinists play their instruments.
As Daloz (1986, p. 232) explains, “What we model for our students is not knowledge,

but our curiosity, the journey, not the destination.” The destination is the learner’s to

Pursue, not the educator’s.

Although admitting that from time to time traditional teachers have also filled
these roles, Weimer (2002) points out that for those involved in leamer-centered
teaching, these roles are not optional. “Our continued insistence on always being at the

center of classroom activities directly compromises attempts we make to be learner-

25

centered. We must move aside, often and regularly,” (Weimer, 2000, p. 74). These same
concepts will come up again in this literature review as the role of the mentor is
examined.

In summary, the literature review thus far has looked at the adult learner,
describing the adult learner in terms understood by both Lindeman and Knowles, in
terms of his/her motivation as pointed out by Houle and others, in terms of the
conditions needed for self direction, or learning, to take place. The literature review also
has looked at a paradigm shift from that of teacher-centered teaching to learner-centered

teaching, calling on the teacher of adults to be gardener, midwife, coach, guide, or

maestro.

The Mentor
Shea (1994) and many others have given The Oafvssey as the historical origin for
the word mentor. Shea also points out that the idea or concept of mentoring goes back
even earlier than this classic epic. “Archeologists and anthropologists trace its origins
back to the Stone Age, when especially talented flint knappers, healers, cave artists, and
shamans instructed younger people in the arts and knowledge needed to perpetuate their
skills” (p. 13). The concept of mentoring is an old one, and mentors wereon the scene

even in prehistoric times, although the term itself may not have been used.

Description of the Mentor

The literature shows both definitions of the term as well as descriptions of the
term. The word mentor has many analogous terms used to describe it. Parks and Parks

(2000, p. 128), for example, see mentors as those upon whom mentees are dependent “at

26

the time of the development of critical thought and the formation of an informed, adult,
and committed faith.” They further say, “Good mentors help to anchor the promise of

the future” (p. 128).

Vogel (2000) identifies mentors as adult educators. Their role is to help the
mentee to grow in knowledge, skills and character. Vogel also describes the adult
educators/mentors as midwives who “assist other people in giving birth to new ideas,
new skills, new metaphors, and new ways of being and doing. They assist learners in

giving birth to their own ideas, visions and goals” (p. 24).

Taylor et al. (2000) uses the metaphor of an educator-as-a-journeyman-architect
for their description of a mentor (p. 328). As such, the mentor is not a master but a
fellow traveller, working also towards self-improvement and bettering his/her craft.
They expand on this definition by describing what a mentor does, giving rise to other
nouns as well. The mentor blazes a trail (trailblazer), presenting several paths open to the
mentee in any given situation. The mentor provides a map (guide or scout), whether
dealing with skills, information, or developmental growth issues. The mentor allows the
mentee to establish his/her own pace (coach), in determining how fast to go in one’s own
development, as well as determining if any development should occur at this time.
Taylor further states that the mentor provides a lifeline (a lifeguard), always available to
listen when needed, acknowledging the feeling of the mentee in the process of his/her
development (pp. 330-333). Daloz (1999, p. 226) not only sees the mentor providing a
map, but goes beyond this by seeing the mentor as helping the mentee to develop his/her

own maps.

Marienu (Taylor et al., 2000, p. 330) also calls the mentor a guide on the journey.

27

The mentor has also been called “a people grower” (Elmore, 1995). Shea (1999, p. 3)
defines the mentor as “Anyone who has an important, long-lasting, beneficial life-or
style-enhancing effect on another person, generally as a result of personal one-on-one

contact.”

Tice (1997) describes the mentor as an inspirer of others. “We need to be around
people who believe in us so that we can more fully believe in ourselves. This enduring
belief in our own capabilities, more than anything else, is the gift that mentors give” (p.
145); in a sense, it is the gift that keeps on giving.

Schein (197 8) identifies eight roles that mentors play similar to many already
mentioned: confidant, teacher, sponsor, role model, developer of talent, opener of doors,

protector, successful leader.

Stanley and Clinton (1992, p. 38) list six characteristics of a good mentor: l)
ability to readily see potential in a person; 2) tolerance with mistakes, etc.; 3) flexibility;
4) patience, knowing that time and experience are needed for development; 5)
perspective; and 6) gifts and abilities to utilize and pass on.

Shea ( 1994, pp. 46-49) lists behaviors which mentors need to practice in order to
be effective at the task: 1) listening, which allows the mentee to take ownership and to
become his/her own problem-solver; 2) feedback, which tells the mentee that they also
are understood; 3) providing information and ideas, which takes on greater importance
not for the information given but knowing when to give it; 4) context-shifting, which
allows the mentee to see himself/herself in a different situation; 5) confrontation, in
which the mentor helps the mentee to anticipate the consequences to an action; 6)

permission and encouragement, in which the mentor serves as a permission-giver for the

28

mentee to make changes; and 7) exploring options, in which the mentor does
brainstorming with the mentee to see more choices, to be more creative in solving
problems. Shea lists additional mentor responsibilities (p. 52). Elmore (1995, pp. 65-66)
presents a list of seven ways for a mentor to improve his/her mentoring skills. A similar
list of behaviors or skills was developed by Breen, Dolan and Whitaker (1975) as early
as 1975. Not much appears to have changed in nearly thirty years as far as the basic

skills or behaviors identified in good mentors.

Daloz (1999, pp. 203-229), in looking at mentor roles, suggests three major
functions of a mentor: 1) support, 2) challenge, and 3) vision. These three functions are

then subdivided as follows:

1) Support consists of listening, providing structure, expressing positive
expectations, serving as advocate, sharing ourselves, and making it special. 2)
Challenge consists of setting tasks, engaging in discussions, heating up
dichotomies, constructing hypotheses, and setting high standards. 3) Vision
consists of modeling, keeping tradition, offering a map, suggesting new
language, and providing a mirror.

Zachary (2000, p. 28), describes the role of the mentor from an educational and
developmental approach, “The role of the mentor is to facilitate learning in such a way
that the knowledge, skills, or competencies connect to action in the present and possibly
in the future. This requires building on the learner’s experiences, providing a conducive

environment for learning, supporting, and providing vision for the learner.”

On the other hand, Shea also presents mentor behaviors to be avoided: 1) giving

advice too freely; 2) criticizing; 3) rescuing; 4) sponsoring inappropriately; 5) building

29

barriers unnecessarily; 6) ignoring the why—the essence of education is understanding;

and 7) discounting (pp. 43-46). Elmore (1995, pp. 59-61) discusses “How to spot a toxic
mentor.” Both point out, then, the downside of being a mentor. It is not a case of simply
being a mentor. There are definitely roles a mentor plays and skills a mentor needs to

have in order to be effective.

Tice (1997, p. 189) takes us in a bit of a different direction when he says that the
mentor ought to be attuned to doing active listening. “Its primary purpose is to
understand the meaning of the message from the speaker’s point of view.” Tice
describes a process for active listening: A mentor should commit himself/herself to be
one. Then he/she should prepare to listen. He/she needs to patiently wait until the other
person finishes, and then must hold back on over-analyzing what was said. The active
listener, says, Tice, should be an empathetic listener, “to understand, not to critique,
analyze, advise, or argue” (p. 192). An active listener is aware of nonverbal cues,
understanding body language. He/she also verifies assumptions, making sure that he/she
understands what was said. Daloz (1986, p. 215) describes active listening as ”actively

engaging with the student’s world and attempting to experience it from the inside.”

Several mentions have been made about the mentor being a mirror. Daloz (1999,
p. 228) speaks of the mentor providing a mirror in which the mentee may see
himself/herself, a way of extending the learner’s self-awareness. Daloz cites Socrates
who held up his own mirror by asking a series of “if-thens” until his learners saw the
implications of their logic. Galbraith and Zelenack (1991, p. 129) in discussing Daloz,
suggest that Daloz is describing the mentor as an “alternative voice,” one who assists the

mentee in exploring alternative viewpoints. The mentor helps the mentee to look at

30

his/her assumptions and to gain a better understanding of where one is coming from.

Mentoring is, then “about helping adults learn how to learn, not how to be taught.” What
the mentee is supposed to see in the mentor’s mirror is not a reflection of the mentor but
guidelines for the journey towards becoming a lifelong learner. Daloz (1998, p.355) also

calls mentors “interpreters of the environment”

Another role of the mentor is that of being a critical thinker. According to
Zachary (2000, p. 16), the mentor himself/herself needs to be a critical thinker so as to
be able to model critical reflection in the mentoring relationship. Brookfield (1989;
1995) has written two volumes, one dealing with helping the adult educator, or mentor,
to become a critical thinker, and one volume to help the educator, or adult mentor, to
help the learner, or mentee, to become a critical thinker. Marsick (1991) cites Watkins
(1989, pp. 95-99) who discusses the need for the adult facilitator, or mentor or adult
educator, to live out certain skills for facilitating critical reflection. The roles of the
facilitator are: 1) developer of human capital, 2) problem solver, 3) change

agent/interventionist, 4) designer, and 5) empowerer.

Cohen (1995a) refers to another ability of the mentor, that of discerning the
readiness of the mentee. “ [T]he mentor must be aware of the extent to which the mentee
is receptive to and able to benefit from legitimate challenges at any point in the
relationship” (p. 13). Previous literature talked about the adult learner as ready to learn.
The mentor as an adult educator must be able at times to discern when the mentee, or

adult learner, is actually ready to learn something new.

Cohen also points out that the mentor must be keen on the timing of any

intervention. “ [A] significant aspect of mentor influence will depend on timing” (p. 12).

31

Timing would appear to be closely linked to readiness.

Thus far in looking at the literature regarding the mentor, many descriptions have
been given and many roles have been enumerated. Many of the descriptions and roles
are reflective of what the literature has already said about adult learning. What the
literature fails to show is an ideal mentor. Many of the roles described, if put together,

could be used for developing an ideal mentor scale.

The Ideal Mentor

Rose (1999) looks at the literature and tries to show what an ideal mentor looks
like. She developed a scale as part of her PhD. research designed to assess graduate
students’ definitions of the ideal mentor. Called the Ideal Mentor Scale, the tool helped
to demonstrate the relevance of personality to mentoring theory. For most of the
respondents in her study, the ideal mentor was shown to be a person with sufficient
experience to warrant being sought after as a mentor. This person exhibited the
characteristics of reliability, intellectual curiosity, and communication skills. He/she also
is available to the mentee, prepared to offer constructive criticism, and encourage the
learner in his/her abilities.

Johnston (2002, p. 14) recognizes that “Though some basic factors make
mentoring work... no singular model exists for defining the ‘proper’ mentoring
relationship, just as those who are involved vary greatly in personality, motivation,
workloads, and expectations.” Nevertheless, in citing respondents to a survey sent out to
the Michigan State University’s TA Program listserv, he found that “To be a good

mentor, one must:

' reach out, and not wait for the mentee to approach

32

' establish clear expectations

° be a good and effective listener

0 model appropriate behavior

° develop mutual respect and a good rapport
' know when to influence actions

Levinson ( 197 8, p. 98) summarizes best the nature of the mentor when he writes,
“The mentor may act as a teacher to enhance the younger man’s skills and intellectual
development. Serving as sponsor, he may use his influence to promote the young man’s
entry and advancement. He may be a host and guide, welcoming the initiate into a new
occupational and social world and acquainting him with its values, customs, resources,
and way of life; the mentor may be an exemplar that the prote’gé can admire and seek to

emulate. He may provide counsel and moral support in times of stress.”

The mentor is someone who exhibits these and other various roles at one time or
another. None of these roles alone makes a mentor. A role model alone is not descriptive
of a mentor, or a sponsor or opener-of-doors alone does not make a mentor. It is the
cumulative roles of counselor, teacher, sponsor, protector, guide, people-grower,
encourager, critic, role model, etc. that describe the person we look to as a mentor. Each
of these roles or qualities is essential for the task of mentoring another, of assisting the
mentee to grow emotionally, intellectually and spiritually. Such roles or qualities are
what one expects from an adult educator as he/she relates to an adult learner. The
mentor’s vocation is to assist the mentee in his/her developmental and professional
growth. The mentor helps the mentee to be an adult learner, to experience transformative

learning, to become self-directive in his/her needs and aspirations in an ever-changing

33

world.

The Training of Mentors

Even though much has been written describing the mentor and his/her behaviors,
many mentors are not as well trained in the art of mentoring as they ought to be. Cohen
( 1995a, pp. 152-153) writes, “[T]he development of meaningful interaction between
mentors and mentees was assumed to inherently germinate in the fertile soil of
education. This expectation, of course, often proved to be based on a highly
oversimplified view of context itself as capable of conferring competence, without
specific mentor training, mentee orientation, or proper attention to the administration of
the mentor program.” Moreover, Cohen (1995b, p. 17), quotes Schlossberg, Lynch and
Chickering (1989) who suggests that few professionals, especially in higher education,
have had substantial training to become the mentors they need to be. They write, “[N]ew
mentors may not always give high priority to the need to pursue information and specific
training about the influence of the mentor... . Many... may therefore enter into the
mentor role with their concerns about improving the quality of the mentoring experience
essentially tilted in the direction of observing and commenting on what students do, ”
thus giving a one-sided view to what mentoring is all about. The result of this perception
is that many mentors place the onus on the mentees when in effect, “the transactional
dynamics of one-to-one mentoring assume a relationship based on active rather than
passive mentor input.” Theriot (1986, p. 70) suggests that “the personality of the mentor
is more important than the personality of the mentee in a mentoring relationship.”
Gailbraith and Cohen (1995a) state that good mentoring does not “just happen.” “If adult

and continuing educators are going to be effective mentors and if adult learners are

34

going to be effective mentees, then a deliberate effort must be made to acquire
appropriate training” (p. 91). Daloz (1986, p. 33) points out that, “the trip belongs, after

all, to the traveller, not the guide...” and so, we turn our attention to the mentee.

The Mentee

The emphasis in this review has focused more on the mentor up to this point. Just
as it “takes two to tango,” it also takes two to make a mentoring relationship: a mentor
and a mentee. The literature review began by looking at the adult learner. The adult
learner and the mentee are very similar in characteristics and needs. While the word
mentor is ancient, the word used for the person who is mentored, mentee, is a recent
invention. It does not have the history that the word mentor has. In fact, this word was
put forth first in 1978 by Levinson (1978). Prior to the use of these particular words,
protege and apprentice more commonly expressed what we know as the mentee. Shea
( 1999) defines prote'ge' as elitist language. The protégé was protected from making
mistakes; was assisted in conforming to the expectations of the organization. His/her
way was paved to become a member of the inner club. The protégé gained access to
those in power. “Despite its value, this elitist system has lost favor in our society because
it spawned favoritism, discrimination and a form of social cloning... . The essence of an
affective relationship is now led by the mentee rather than the mentor” (Shea, 1999, p.
11). Mentoring is no longer seen as a rite of passage in the corporate world. Mentoring
takes on a transactional role in which mentor and mentee interactive to the benefit of
both, and the role of the mentee is much more proactive than before.The mentee as an
adult learner is now “someone who makes an effort to assess, internalize and use

effectively the knowledge, skills, insights, perspectives or wisdom offered... who seeks

35

out such help and uses it appropriately for developmental purposes wherever needed” (p.
3). Shea (1999) suggests that at the same time that the mentor is expected to practice
listening, the mentee is expected to be an “assertive learner” (p. 32) in keeping with the
adult learner characteristic of being self-directed. He/she knows when and where to go
for help. Shea puts much responsibility for the success of the mentoring relationship on
the shoulders of the mentee. Through a series of questionnaires and tips, Shea attempts
to help the mentee evaluate whether he/ she has the required behaviors to make the
mentoring relationship work (pp. 60-61 ). Additionally, Shea recommends procedures for

the mentor/mentee meeting (p. 70).

Shea’s (1999) book Making the Most of Being Mentored is directed to the
mentee specifically. Shea differentiates between the traditional role of the protege and
the new role of the mentee. The prote'ge' historically was often passive in the mentoring
relationship, and became a clone of the mentor, a mirror-irnage. The adoption of the term
mentee places a greater responsibility on the mentee. He/she is expected to be more
proactive in the relationship. Helshe is responsible for whatever growth occurs. As Shea
expresses it, “Mentors help—mentees do!” (p. 11). For example, mentees have a greater
role in choosing their mentor(s) whereas traditionally prote'gés were usually assigned to
a mentor. Mentees also have a greater role in deciding what to accept and what to reject.
Mentoring becomes more than acculturation or acclimation to a specific work climate or
philosophy. Mentees are more in control of their learning than before. They may even
see their relationship more as a partnership of two individuals who can learn from each
other rather than as a relationship of “more experienced” to “less experienced.” Accord-

ing to Bova (May-June 1984, p. 16), mentees will see personal growth in integrity, in a

36

sense of purpose, and in their intellect.

Cohen (1995a, p. 23) points out that the role of the mentor is to help the mentee
reach the stage of being an independent adult learner, “to take initiatives to manage
change, and to negotiate constructive transitions through personal lifestyle and
workplace events.” The mentee determines in some respects his/her own needs or
wants. He/she, as an adult learner, is intrinsically motivated and is an active learner.
Daloz (1999, p. 3) writes, “Most of us have learned a good deal more out of school than
in it. We have learned from our families, our work, our fiiends. We have learned from
problems resolved and tasks achieved, but also from mistakes confronted and illusions
unmasked. Intentionally or not, we have learned from the dilemmas our lives hand us
daily.” Such leamings make adults open to mentoring and being mentored. The goal
becomes that of helping the mentee to develop a lifelong habit of learning. Slowly over

time he/she moves towards self-direction and independence.

Shea (1999, pp. 9-60) clearly outlines mentee responsibilities. First, this is a
partnership in which the partners often make different investments in different amounts.
Mutual gain is the goal, although both do not necessarily invest as heavily in the
relationship. The mentee needs to appreciate the mentor’s help without holding him/her
in awe. Shea (1999, p. 52) calls this the “awe factor”. Shea shares a study that reported
that in 80% of mentoring relationships, the mentee was usually reluctant to engage in the
relationship in the beginning. He attributes this to the awe factor. He reports that the

relationship usually normalizes after the initial three-four months.

The mentee also must practice self-empowering behaviors, be open to feedback,

and set realistic expectations with the mentor. A good mentee will be open and sincere

37

regarding needs and deficiencies and communicate problems clearly. The mentee will
proactively seek out ways to achieve his/her objectives. Mentees no longer wait for the
mentor; they often initiate frequent and regular contact with their mentors. As active,
self-directing learners, mentees will contribute ideas about options open to them for
solving problems. The mentees need to choose “to develop and change themselves”
(Shea, 1994, p. 19). “ [I]n the newest forms of mentoring, mentors are increasingly
focusing on offering information about options and paths, and mentees are playing a
larger role in deciding upon goals and developing strategies for achieving them” (Shea,
l994,p.60)

Elsewhere in this literature review mention was made of the fact that the mentor
needs to take into account the mentee’s particular learning style. Equally important,
Brookfield (1986, p. 64) contends that the learner (mentee) also needs to become aware
of his/her own learning style.

Johnston (2002, p. 15) in an open—ended survey asks respondents to mark on a
Likert scale how they would answer the following statements: “For a positive mentoring
relationship to develop, the protege must...” (Responses given to this survey question
follow:

' “seek helpful feedback and demonstrate appreciation for the same
0 not be afraid to ask for whatever one needs to grow

0 never be afraid of asking questions

° actively participate in the relationship

' take advantage of the mentor’s expertise and experience.”

Even though Shea and others point out the proactive role of the mentee in

38

effective mentoring relationships, most of the literature appears to focus more on the
mentor and not on the mentee. As critical as the role of the mentee is in this relationship,
it appears that the mentor still has a predominant role in making the relationship work.
In summary, it is obvious from the literature that a transformation in behavior on
the part of the person being mentored has occurred. No longer simply an assigned
protege of another, the mentee is a proactive learner in his/her own development and
growth. He/ she has a greater role to play and certain behaviors are essential for the
mentee to realize that development and growth. This more active role certainly changes
the dynamics in the mentoring relationship. The next area to review in literature is that

of the mentoring relationship.

The Mentoring Relationship
In this next section, the literature regarding mentoring relationships was
reviewed. The literature fell into certain subsections: structures for mentoring
relationships, distance mentoring, mentoring in cyberspace, healthy relationships,
mentoring: uniformity or diversity, benefits of the mentoring relationship, dynamics of
the mentoring relationship, and lack of clarity regarding mentoring relationships and

mentoring models.

Structures of Mentoring Relationships
Cross (Daloz, 1999, p. xi) rightly calls mentoring “a slippery concept.” It is not a
term researchers have readily defined as much as described. In fact, Bogart and Rednar
' (1985, p. 851) write “One problem in the mentoring literature is the lack of any one

comprehensive, yet functional definition.” Five years later, Healy and Welchart (1990)

39

report the same phenomenon. Nevertheless, mentoring relationships, real and fictional

alike, have long been valued by human society. Darwin (May 2000, pp. 197-198) relates:
Luke Skywalker is paired up with veteran Obi-Wan Kenobi, an
experienced and supportive mentor. Other well-known mentor-protege
relationships include Ernest Hemingway’s mentor, Gertrude Stein; Gail
Sheehy claims Margaret Mead as her mentor, who in turn was inspired by
Franz Boas. In the world of adult education, Allen Tough’s mentor at the
University of Chicago was Cyril Houle. ... For centuries... the passing of
the throne by the sovereign to a successor was known as Shan Jang,
stepping out of the way. Mentoring flourished in the English feudal
system as favored pages and squires became knights. The apprenticeship
model was practiced by the Guilds in Medieval times. During the
Renaissance and Baroque periods, patron families supported talented
artists. There has been a strong reproductive element attached to

mentoring, well suited to societies relying on ritualized behavior to
protect the status quo.

Reilly and Adams (1997) continue with this line of thought, making reference to
other one-on-one models of mentoring: Freud with Jung, Socrates with Plato and Hubert
Humphrey with Walter Mondale.

The mentoring relationship in the business world often means transmitting
information necessary for one to be able to adapt to the work environment and to the
culture of the organization. The bulk of Shea’s research (1994; 1997; 1999) has this
intent. Also, the studies conducted by several others (Albrecht, 1989; Boreen, 2000)
focus specifically on the mentoring relationship in the business setting, or what is
commonly called “the workplace.” Krarn’s (1985) work is particularly helpful in
understanding mentoring in the workplace. Beck (1989), Nathan (1990), Boston (1976)
and Cox, Daniel and Boston ( 1985) deal specifically with career development. Reilly
and Adams (1997) develop a “Mentor Program Planning Guide” for mentoring high
schools students and workers, a program for uniting education with business, mentoring

students for success in the workplace.

40

The mentoring relationship has also been viewed from the standpoint of teacher
to teacher-inductee, teacher to student, as well as student to student (Allsop and Benson,
1997; Barnes and Stiasny, 1995; Becker, 1994; Bey, Holmes, and Association of
Teacher Educators, 1990). Much of this literature also deals with preparing the novice
teacher for his/her role in the classroom. Other portions of this literature deal with the
equipping of teachers for leadership as well as the importance of ongoing mentoring for
all teachers, not just novices (Boreen, 2000; Canton & James, 1999; Edwards &
Collison, 1996; Fairbanks, Freedman, and Kahn, March-Apri12000; F eiman-Nemser,
January-February 2001; F rierson, 1997; Furlong and Maynard, I995; Galvez-Hjomevik,
January 1986; Gehrke, January 1988; Goodlad and British Petroleum Company ltd.,
1998; Goodwin, Stevens, and Bellamy, November-December 1998; Gratch, May-June
1998; Haring and F reeman, 1999; Huffman and Leak, January 1986; Jaworski, Watson,
and Mathematical Association, 1994; Mawer, 1996; McIntyre, Hagger, & Wilkin, 1993;
Mokros, Erkut, Spichiger, and Spencer Foundation, 1981; Odell and Ferraro, May-June
1992; Pierce, Spring 1998; Portner, 1998; Reglin, 1998; Reilly and Adams, 1997;
Reiman and Thies-Sprinthall, 1998; Rose, 1999; Smith, 1986; Smith and West-
Bumham, 1993; Stewart, May-June 1992; Torres-Guzman and Goodwin, 1995;

Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, and Niles, May-June 1992; Wilkin, 1992).

There is also a growing body of literature regarding the particular needs of
women who serve as mentors or mentees and even the issue of cross-gender mentoring.
(Atcherson & Jenny, November 1983; Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N. and
Tarule, J ., 1986; Cohen, 1995a, pp. 146-148; Collins, 1983; F lannery and Hayes, 2000;

Hanagan, 1977; Hechinger, September 1979; Henning and Jardim, 1976; Mokros et al.,

41

1981; Schaller, Spring 1996; Stalker, 1996; Tisdell, 1993; and Weisbard, 1996). More
recent are the works ofBaker (1996), Duff (1999), Hunt (1993), Kent (1999), Lutz
(1997), and Otto (1997) which all deal with women mentoring women. One particular
thesis suggests that there is a way of mentoring which is unique to women (Christenson,
1999). Although, two women researchers in particular, Philipps-Jones (2000c) and
Zachary (2000), have not limited their writing to women mentoring women or gender-

specific mentoring.

There is an increasing body of literature on the subject of crosscultural mentoring
(Cohen, 1995a; Griffin & Ervin, 1990; Rodriguez, 1995; Thomas, 2001). These studies
suggest that there may be issues in mentoring or in the mentoring relationship which are
peculiar to particular cultures or that need to be taken into account when one plans to

mentor within another culture.

Such one-to-one mentoring relationships as described above point to a
relationship which usually implies a superior and an inferior participant. The mentor is
viewed as superior. As Darwin (May 2000, p. 198) points out the very name mentor
comes fi'om the root men which means “to remember, think, counsel.” The word prote’ge'
comes from the French, meaning “to protect”. The protective teacher, as it were,
transmitted his knowledge to the younger learner, the one to be protected. “Thus
traditionally, the mentoring relationship has been framed in a language of paternalism
and dependency and stems from a power-dependent, hierarchical relationship, aimed at

maintaining the status quo.”

Daloz (1999), long a proponent of mentoring from a traditional perspective of

mentor to protégé, especially in the educational setting, has broadened his understanding

42

of the relationship with the change in title in the second edition of Eflective Teaching
and Mentoring to Mentor: Guiding the Journey of A dult Learners, thus seeing mentoring
as an activity proactively involving both mentor and mentee. Mentoring is now starting
to be defined as a transformational journey and the mentor as a “trusted guide” (p. xiv).
“Like guides, we walk at times ahead of our students, at times beside them; at times, we
follow their lead” (p. 244). In other words, there appears to be a shift in the
understanding of mentoring relationships from that of superior to inferior, of master to
journeyman, of mentor to protege, to one of colleague to colleague or peer to peer. It is a
relationship in which both benefit from the process, both develop and grow. It is a
relationship which is both transactional and transformational—both actively participate
and both are changed in the process.

Galbraith and Cohen (1995b, p. 6) pick up on this language, calling mentoring a
“journey of self-development.” Not necessarily an easy journey, Daloz (Zachary, 2000,
p. xiv) writes, “The journey of mentor and mentee runs along narrow and daunting
ledges as well as high outlooks and is not for the fainthearted or indifferent”

One of the most stimulating thoughts on mentoring as transformation, although
one-sided, comes from Yamamoto (1988, p. 187):

Mentoring involves an experience of transcendence for the mentor and
one of transformation for the prote'gé. The latter represents a shift in
perspective, a restructuring of Weltanschauung. It follows that one of the
critical functions of a mentor is iconoclastic in nature, so as to throw the
person under guidance off his or her comfortable and customary perch. In
other words, the mentor must make the familiar unfamiliar, thus inducing
in the prote’ge’ a reexamination of the known world, a broadening of the
perspective, and a bearing of the attendant sense of ambiguity and
uncertainty. In this embodiment of the very spirit of human inquiry and

development lies the perennial challenge for any mentor.

Yamamoto presents the reader, therefore, with a view that most adult educators

43

can applaud as educator helps the learner, or mentor helps the mentee, on the path
towards a lifetime of transformational or transformative learning. To “become a human
being, they (prote'ge's) need to transcend the mundane realm of profane experience to
attain the broader and deeper reality of the sacred” (p. 188). The mentoring relationship
has become transactional and interactive with both mentor and mentee benefiting from

this relationship.

Galbraith (1991a) discusses in depth this transactional process. He encapsulates
this thought, writing, “When facilitators and adult learners are engaged in an active,
challenging, collaborative, critically reflective, and transforming educational encounter,
a transactional process is occurring” (p. 1). From the literature review thus far on both
mentor and mentee, all of these adjectives have come into play. The relationship of
mentor to mentee and vice versa has been an active encounter in which the mentor
challenges the mentee, works collaboratively, in which both critically reflect, and one’s

learning context becomes transformed.

So far in this literature review of the mentoring relationship, only one-to-one
mentoring has been examined. Zachary (2000) points out that mentoring can also take on
other forms, such as peer mentoring or mentoring circles. Daloz, Parks, Keen and Keen
(1996) suggest that this traditional view of one-to-one mentoring might better be
replaced by a mentoring community if it is to be truly transformational. “Ecologists tell
us that a tree planted in a clearing of an old forest will grow more successfully than one
planted in an open field. The reason, it seems, is that the roots of the forest tree are able
to follow the intricate pathways created by former trees and thus embed themselves more

deeply. Indeed, over time, the roots of many trees may actually graft themselves to one

another, creating an interdependent mat of life hidden beneath the earth. This literally
enables the stronger trees to share resources with the weaker so the whole forest
becomes stronger” (p. xiii). Little literature exists to support this position or to promote

it.

Distance Mentoring

Not only has the literature dealt with one-to-one, and to a more limited degree,
group mentoring, but it has also dealt with the issue of on-site and /or long distance
mentoring. For Daloz (1999) a mentoring relationship is not something which can be
developed across the miles. “Thus entangled in the Internet, spun about at hyperspeed,
drowning in information, starved by virtual reality, should we wonder that we hunger for
real reality? Can such technology nourish our need for community, intimacy,
contemplative time, wisdom? ...Even though our work might be augmented, I do not
believe that the kind of mentoring I have experienced and written about here can or
should take place over the Internet” (p. xxv). Zachary (2000), on the other hand, does not
agree with Daloz’s assumption. She sees long distance mentoring to be more common
than it used to be. She cites examples of chat room meetings, e-mail exchanges as
commonplace today (p. 4). There appears to be agreement, though, that long distance
mentoring requires a previously established relationship between the proposed mentor

and mentee.

Mentoring in Cyberspace
Until now, the focus has been on the personal, human side of one-to-one or group

mentoring relationships, sometimes long distance mentoring over the phone or e-mail if

45

not face to face. No mention has been made of mentoring as it it is presently developing
over the Internet Several examples of this type of mentoring will now be reviewed.

Several universities and other academic institutions have begun serious
mentoring programs, and made their mentoring material available in one form or another
via the World Wide Web. For example, the University of Missouri, St. Louis has a
website with reference to its mentoring of college students. The University of Michigan,
Rackham School of Graduate Studies has downloadable .pdf files on mentoring dealing
with How to Get the Mentoring You Want” and “How to Mentor Graduate Students.”

In addition to these academic sites, several mentoring organizations also have
their own websites, such as the MentorLink.org (http://www.mentor1ink.ong,) a website
for mentoring persons in ministry. Many mentoring resources are available on line at this
site for downloading. For example, the site offers articles on 13 different relational areas
as well as articles on five growth areas. This site also has what it calls “Web Assisted
Mentoring (WAM)” which uses the Internet to connect mentors and mentees, as well as
provide mentoring resources online.

Dr. Robert Logan, a religious consultant on church planting and church growth,
has a widely-used site called CoachNet (’http://www.coachnet.org) where subscribers can
refer to an interactive file called Compucoach as well as participate in mentoring
conversations via threaded discussion group forums in English and Spanish.
Coachnetcom (http://www.coachnet.com) is another site, featuring Judith W. Fields,
who offers one-on-one coaching, telecoaching (live teleconferencing) and cybercoaching
(by the Internet.) She is a certified coach and professor of the virtual university called

Coach University (httpz//www.coghuniversitvcom).

46

Additionally, the United States Coast Guard has its own site which features its
mentoring program (httpz/lwww.uscg.mil/hq/g-w/g-wt/g-wtl/mentoring.htrn). Online
PowerPoint presentations and/or onscreen written summaries cover the following
subjects: “So you Want to be a Mentor (or Find a Mentor)”, Tips for Mentors/Tips for
Mentees,” “How to be an Effective Mentor,” “What to Look for in a Mentor,” “How to
be an Effective Mentee,” “Getting Started in a Mentoring Partnership,” “Four Types of
Mentoring Relationships,” as well as other very useful information. Additionally, the site
presents an interactive survey that gives the participant feedback on whether he or she
has the profile for being a mentor. This site tends to agree with previously established
research already discussed on the roles of mentor and mentee and stages of mentoring.
The site states that an effective mentor is supportive, patient, respected, people-oriented,

a good motivator, respectful of others, an effective teacher, and a self-confident person.

Another key mentoring resource on the Internet is the Mentoring Group
(’http://www.mentoringgroupcom), the site of Dr. Linda Phillips-Jones (2000a; 2000b;

2000c; 2000d; 2000c; 2001a; 2001b; 2001c) of the Coalition of Counseling Centers.

Peer Resources (http://www.peer.ca/peer.html,) located in Victoria, British
Columbia, is a Canadian site on peer training and resourcing. This site also has a
mentoring section with an extensive listing of resources, as well as a Canada-wide

survey of best practices among 2,000 different corporations and institutions.

Additionally, Denver Seminary, a Protestant academic institution whose motto is
“Equipping Leaders,” annually sponsors a National Conference on Mentoring. Denver
Seminary has a very active student mentoring program (peer, professor/ learner) with

mentoring contracts and academic credit for participation in the mentoring program. All

47

seminarians at Denver must be involved in at least two mentoring relationships, one with
a professional pastor and one with a layman in order to receive feedback from different
perspectives on ministry, “from the pulpit and from the pew.” In addition to these two
mentoring relationships, seminarians also participate in a mentoring cohort with other
seminarians and a lead professor. One professor at Denver Seminary is under contract
with several US. Armed Forces in helping them develop mentoring programs for their
officers (e. g., US. Air Force and US. Army). Another professor serves as Professor of
Mentoring on behalf of the seminary, working with pastors and church staffs, seminary
alumni, seminary mentors, in the whole area of mentoring techniques and philosophy of

mentoring.

Healthy Relationships

Within a mentoring relationship, whether in the workplace, in education, or in the
church; whether one-to-one or communal; whether on-site, long distance or in
cyberspace; the relationship needs to be healthy if it is to be effective. De Vries (1987, p.
77) writes, “Each party assigned to or entering the relationship must have a commitment
both to the relationship and to the other person involved in that relationship. This
commitment will be evident by the amount of intentionality the person brings to the
relationship, the intensity of involvement, and the level of care for the person or interest
in the relationship that the party evidences.” Parks and Parks (2000, p. 127) describe
this healthy relationship as “an intentional, mutually demanding, and meaningful
relationship between two individuals.” They go on to describe this healthy relationship
as a recognition of the mentee as someone to be supported, as a challenge and inspiration

for the mentor (pp. 128-131). Daloz et al. (1996) calls this a “passionate and fertile

48

relationship” (p. xxiv). Shea (1994, p. 13) sees this relationship as a “developmental,

caring, sharing, and helping relationship” in which the mentor “invests time, know-how,

and effort in enhancing another person’s growth, knowledge, and skills, and responds to

critical needs in the life of that person in ways that prepare the individual for greater

productivity or achievement in the firture.” The key words are developmental, caring,

sharing, and helping. This relationship implies an investment on the part of the mentor,

no less than it does on the part of the mentee.

Hendricks and Hendricks (1999, pp. 158-160) describe the relationship by listing

a series of key ways in which the mentor helps the mentee:

By serving as a source of information for the mentee.

By providing wisdom.

By promoting skills development and certain appropriate behaviors.

By providing the mentee with feeback.

By coaching, with coaching defined as preparing the mentee to win at life.

By serving the mentee at times as a sounding board.

By always being available to the mentee in times of personal need.

By helping the mentee to plan, to chart his/her own growth, etc.

By “nurturing curiosity,” showing possibilities, opening new doors, giving the
mentee a peek at different perspectives and opportunities.

Tice (1997) sees the mentoring relationship as a series of affirmations (pp. 121-

136) to promote self-esteem, as well as a time for self-examination (pp. 149-151).

Mentoring: Uniformity or Diversity

In most of the cases the mentoring relationship is discussed in the context of

49

“likeness.” In other words, there is some kind of homogeneity between the mentor and
mentee. Oftentimes men are assigned to men and women to women. An Hispanic
mentee may ask for an Hispanic mentor. For many, this homogeneity sets the stage for a
“successful” mentoring relationship. The “relating” is based on commonality. Shea
(1999) differs from many in the field when he suggests that there is value gained in a
mentoring relationship where diversity exists. “You can learn more from sOmeone who
is quite different from you in background, culture, religion, life experience... than you
may from a person who is quite similar” (p. 90). Daresh (1992) also concludes that
success in mentoring is not based on the mentor and mentee sharing similar leadership
styles. Success is based on their ability to build on their sameness and/or difference. At
the same time, Shea points out the importance of understanding learning styles (p. 87).
In any educational setting—and mentoring is such a setting—it is important to

understand one’s own learning style and that of the other person.

Benefits of the Mentoring Relationship

Schulz (1995) decribes three benefits of the mentoring relationship for both
mentor and mentee: learning, growth, and development. For the mentor, he/she has the
opportunity to learn new skills and ideas. Their ability to coach and to lead become fine-
tuned. They begin to think more critically before responding and begin to analyze their
own techniques for teaching and sharing ideas. They have the opportunity to grow
personally and professionally. They may even be forced to re-exarnine their decision-
making and their past performance. Especially for teachers and business people,
mentoring may open new doors to them as well as promotions. From a developmental

standpoint, the benefits to the mentor are found in the life stages. As the mentor works

50

with the mentee, this gives the mentor the opportunity in middle adult life to move from
Erikson’s stagnation to generativity (Erikson, 1959). Their self worth is enhanced, and
they have a feeling they are passing something on to the next generation of leaders. Tice
(1997) suggests that the mentor will find this relationship rewarding and beneficial in
ways he/ she may not have considered. “In a vital, active, ongoing mentoring
relationship, you may find your assumptions and beliefs challenged, your energy
renewed, your mind doing fresh work with old ideas” (p. 149). Additionally, he/she will
probably experience greater self-esteem and the fulfillment of his/her own
developmental needs.

The mentee, says Schulz (1995), also has the opportunity to learn, grow and
develop. They learn skills which will stay them well in their new positions, whether in
the workplace, in schools, or in the church. They learn something of the institutional
culture. They may even learn the unwritten rules of the institution. Schulz suggests that
there may be “creative and intellectual growth” as a result of this mentoring. Through
the relationship the mentee will grow in self-confidence, in self-identify, in taking
ownership of the tasks at hand. He/she begins to be aware of his/her own decision-
making skills. From a developmental standpoint, the mentee eventually moves on to
autonomy or to another mentoring relationship. They begin to work independently or
interdependently. “Maturity and development ultimately come from the ability to give
up the previous and perhaps dependent relationship and establish a new one. When the

Separation is complete, both the mentor and the prote’gé are equipped to mentor someone

new” (p. 62).

Structures and Phases of the Mentoring Relationship

51

Mentoring relationships may be highly structured or informal. Mentoring
relationships also may be long-term or short-tenn. Shea (1997) presents a working
diagram describing structured/short-terrn, structured/long-term, infonnal/short-tenn and
informal/long-term relationships (p. 8). A similar 4-quadrant matrix is presented by
Shea dealing with the intensity of the relationship (Shea, 1997, p. 20). According to
Shea, the mentor and mentee need to take into account the amount of mentoring required
and the resources at the fingertips of the mentor. In other words, the format of the
relationship and time involvement of the mentor and mentee will have a lot to say about

the eventual outcomes and success of the relationship.

Whether highly structured or informal events, mentoring relationships go through
at least four different phases. Kram (1985) identifies these phases as: preparation,
negotiation, enabling, and coming to closure. Zachary (2000) describes these four phases
in more detail, and compares Krarn’s preparing to Zachary’s filling the soil, Kram’s
negotiating to Zachary’s planting seeds, Kram’s enabling to Zachary’s nurturing growth,
and Kram’s coming to closure to Zachary’s reaping the harvest (pp. 65-160). Cohen
(1995a) identifies these same phases as early, middle, later and last. Whatever these
phases may be called, “Simply being aware of them provides significant signposts”
(Zachary, 2000, p. 50). They assist both the mentor and mentee in initiating, designing,
developing and ending a mentoring relationship. Even informal mentoring relationships

don’t “just happen.” There is some intentionality to them and by nature they go through

the four phases.

Mentoring relationships can “go bad” (Shea, 1997). It may be due to a

Shortcoming on either the mentor’s or mentee’s part. It may be due to a lack of

52

confidentiality, a misplaced trust, or lack of integrity on the part of one of the
participants in the relationship. Strong disagreements may be the culprit The reasons
why the mentoring relationship sours are many and varied. Shea, (1997 ) suggests that a
mentoring relationship ought to have a “no-fault divorce provision” in which either party
may end the relationship. The mentor and mentee can then walk away from the failed

mentoring relationship with as little damage to either party as possible.

Also, many mentoring relationships simply seem to “run their course” (Shea,
1999). Taylor et al. (2000, p. 332) calls this a movement towards “self—agency” or “self-
authorship.” When goals have been met, it may be time for the mentee to move on,
either to self actualization or to another mentoring relationship with yet another mentor.
Therefore, a good mentoring relationship knows when to call it quits. Ending well a
mentoring relationship is as important as knowing how to initiate one. The title of
Peddy’s (1999) book, The Art of Mentoring: Lead, Follow, and Get out of the Way, also

points to the eventual termination of mentoring relationships.

Levinson (1978) suggests that a mentor usually comes into a mentee’s life during
moments of transition. It is usually in such moments that adult learners are best able to
learn new ideas, to think new thoughts, to perceive in new ways. Mentoring during such
moments is both reactive and proactive. This is Havighurst’s (1972) “teachable
moment,” Sheehy’s (1976) “passages” and Aslanian and Brickell’s “trigger events”
(' I 980). The mentoring relationship takes into account adult development theory: life
Phases (Levinson, 1978) and life cycles and developmental stages (Erikson, 1950;1959;
I(ohlberg & Mayer, 1972). During such life phases mentoring relationships can flourish

and produce lasting changes. Personal, professional and character goals may be

53

established, requiring a mentoring relationship to accomplish these goals. Since
structured mentoring relationships are goal-centered, this suggests a temporalness to
these relationships. Whether long-tenn or short-tenn, a mentoring relationship will either
naturally, forcefully or by design, end Mentoring relationships may even be

renegotiated, extending the relationship but only as new goals are set.

Dynamics of the Mentoring Relationship

Zachary (2000, p.xviii), contributes to this discussion by putting forth a series of
assumptions about the mentoring relationship. For her, mentoring is a powerful grth
experience for both mentor and mentee. It is a process of engagement of both mentor
and mentee to each other. It requires reflection, preparation and dedication. At its best,
mentoring focuses on the learner, the learning process, and the learning which occurs.
Zachary developed her book to serve as a workbook alongside of Daloz’s book (1999).
In fact, Taylor et al. (2000, p. 329) consider Daloz’s book Mentor: Guiding the Journey
of Adult Learners to be “the closest thing educators have to a ‘text’ on this subject” (of
“attending to and caring for another’s experience of growth”).

Since adult education and the mentoring process have much in common, how we
view education detemiines how we view mentoring. For Daloz (1999) education needs
to be understood as the development of the whole person—more than simple knowledge
transmission or teaching of skills. Mentoring becomes more inclusive and less narrow
when viewed from this perspective. Hendricks (1996, p. 127), on the other hand, sees
mentoring as “managing a person whose performance is standard or average” and
defines mentoring as instructing. Even the use of the word instructing is narrowing the

definition of mentoring, and speaks of traditional pedagogy over against the more

54

liberating concept of Knowles’s (1970; 1985) andragogy. Hendricks (1996, p. 132) goes
on to describe the mentee as “your child.” Even the mentoring session is described in
terms of rewards, extrinsic rather than intrinsic motivation, another sign of traditional
pedagogy. Zachary (2000, p. 3) decries this concept, what she calls a subservient
mentoring relationship found in the workplace and even in professor/ student exchanges.
Such relationships, she concludes, can quickly destroy a mentoring relationship. Instead,
she encourages a leamer-centered relationship, promoting a “learning partnership.”
Picking up on other terms used in this section, Zachary explains, “The learner... plays a
more active role in the learning than in the former mentor-driven paradigm. The
mentor’s role has been replaced from ‘sage on the stage to guide on the side’ (King,
1993). When the mentor’s work is solidly grounded in principles of adult learning,
mentor and mentee are viewed as co-leamers who both benefit and grow from the
relationship, “ (pp. 3, 28). This is in keeping with the best concepts of andragogy.
Mentoring becomes facilitation. Brookfield (1986, p. 63) states, “Facilitators of learning
see themselves as resources of learning rather than as didactic instructors who have all
the answers.” For Tough (1979, p. 183) this implies a relationship in which the
mentor/facilitator is “warm, loving, caring, and accepting of the learners.” Repeating
what others have also said about this relationship, Tough goes on to explain how
mentors see themselves in dialogue with equals, not subordinates and are open to
learning from the mentee/learner. Zachary (2000, p. 23) echoes these thoughts when she
writes of facilitation as “listening, empowering, coaching, challenging, teaching,
collaborating, aiding, assisting, supporting, expediting, easing, simplifying, advancing,

and encouraging.”

55

The mentoring relationship as described thus far, is very distant from what one
used to conceive of as mentoring. It has moved far beyond a traditional pedagogy and its
banking education (F reire, 1973) to a liberating facilitation, applying andragogical
assumptions. Rather than “telling,” a mentoring relationship is based on questioning and
self-discovery. Zachary (2000) suggests five strategies for facilitating learning in the
mentoring relationship: 1) ask questions; 2) reformulate statements; 3) summarize; 4)
listen for the silence; and 5) listen reflectively. Brookfield (1986, pp. 87-91) writes on
this subject in-depth. He deals with types of questions, as well as ways of listening and
responding (pp. 92-107). Vella (1997) writes on the subject of listening and responding
in her first book on adult education. The subtitle explains her approach: “The Power of
Dialogue in Educating Adults”. In describing her “Twelve Principles for Effective Adult
Learning”, Vella demonstrates her respect for the adult learner, the mentee. Others
referred to this as the dignity of the learner. In her second book (Vella, 1995), she
reflects on the role of the adult learner in the educational process, insights which can be
applied to the mentoring relationship. One chapter in particular is quite poignant:
“Honoring the Role of the Learner.” In a similar vein, Daloz (1999, p. 205) goes on to
say, “Listening... is a powerful intervention, perhaps the most powerful we have as

mentors.”

Lack of Clarity Regarding Mentoring Relationships

Jacobi (1991) wrote a literature review on mentoring relationships, looking at the
literature between the mid- 1970’s and up to 1990. This comprehensive review points to
many interesting facts. For example, Jacobi reiterates what Merriam says about the

nebulousness of the term mentoring. Jacobi describes this as “definitional vagueness,”

56

(p. 505). Jacobi cites Wrightsman (1981, pp. 3-4) who affirms “There is a false sense of
consensus, because at a superficial level everyone ‘knows’ what mentoring is. But closer
examination indicates wide variation in operational definitions, leading to conclusions
that are limited to the use of particular procedures... . The result is that the concept is
devalued, because everyone is using it loosely, without precision. ..

Jacobi (1991, pp. 510-513) points out that researchers tend to disagree in their
understanding of mentoring relationships. There are disagreements regarding the age
differential between mentor and mentee, the frequency and duration of the mentoring
relationship, the level of intimacy or intensity of the relationship, whether mentoring
should be same gender or cross gender, whether women have as many opportunities for
mentoring as men do; whether mentors and mentees should be of the same race or
ethnicity, whether non-whites have the same opportunities for mentoring as whites do,
and whether formal, assigned mentoring relationships are as valuable as nonformal, non-
assigned mentoring relationships. Jacobi reaches what she calls the lowest common
denominator when she writes:

I. Mentoring relationships are helping relationships usually focused on

achievement. . .

2. Whereas the specific functions provided to the proteges by mentors vary,
mentoring includes any or all of three broad components: (a) emotional
and psychological support, (b) direct assistance with career and
professional development, and (c) role modeling.

3. Mentoring relationships are reciprocal relationships. The mentor as well

as the prote'gé derives benefit from the relationship...

57

4. Mentoring relationships are personal...
5. Relative to their proteges, mentors show greater experience, influence,
and achievement within a particular organization or environment (p. 513).

The presentation of the literature thus far has shown the mentoring relationship
as one built on trust, caring, and sharing. It is a learner-centered relationship in which
both mentee and mentor learn. Although at times conceived of as a superior/inferior type
of relationship, much of the literature points toward a change in perception to a
relationship of equals. At one time seen merely as a transmission of information and
skills, the mentoring relationship is now seen as a sharing of rich experiences, of mutual
leamings and discoveries and of role modeling. It is described as a transformational
journey with a guide who sometimes leads, sometimes walks beside, and sometimes
follows. Mentoring relationships may be long-term or short-term. They may be
structured or informal. They may be highly intensive or more passive. They may end
when the need no longer exists. A Ieamer may go through many mentoring relationships
throughout his/her lifetime. The behaviors of both mentor and mentee to a large degree

will determine the success or failure of the mentoring relationship.

Mentoring Models
Successful mentoring programs need an underlying theoretical framework that
supports the programs. The literature shows several theoretical frameworks, or
mentoring models, worth mentioning. F our of these models are discussed in this
literature review. They are 1) Zachary’s Leamer-centered Mentoring Paradigm, 2)
SChmoll’s research into the relationships between mentor and mentee, 3) Rose’s Ideal

Mentor Scale and 4) Cohen’s Principles of Adult Mentoring Scale.

58

Leamer-centered Mentoring Paradigm

Zachary (2000) contributes to the building of a mentoring theoretical fi'amework

in her paradigm (p. 6). Figure 2 shows Zachary’s paradigm.

 

 

 

Mentoring element Changing Paradigm . Adult Learning Principle
Mentee role From: Passive Adults learn best when they are
To: Active partner involved in diagnosing, planning,
implementing, and evaluating their
own learning.
Mentor role From: Authority The role of the facilitator is to
To: Facilitator create and maintain a supportive
climate that promotes the
conditions necessary for learning
to take place.

 

Learning process

From: Mentor directed
and responsible for
mentee’s learning

To: Self-directed and
mentee responsible for
own learning

Adult learners have a need to be
self-directing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Length of relationship From: Calendar-focused Readiness for learning increases

To: Goal determined when there is a specific need to
know.

Mentoring relationship From: One Life = one Life’s reservoir of experience is a
mentor = one mentee primary learning resource: the life
To: Multiple mentors over experiences of others add
a lifetime and multiple enrichment to the learning process.
models for mentoring:
individual, group, peer
models

Setting From: F ace-to-face Adult learners have an inherent
To: Multiple and varied need for immediacy of application.
venues and opportunities

Focus From: Product oriented: Adults respond best to learning
knowledge transfer and when they are internally motivated
acquisition to learn.

_ To: Process oriented:
Critical reflection and
_ application

 

Note: From The Mentor ’s Guide (p. 6), by Lois Zachary, 2000, San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers, a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, reprinted with permission.

Figure 2: Elements in the Learner-Centered Mentoring Paradigm.

59

 

The paradigm demonstrates that the mentee moves from being a passive person
to an active participant. This coincides with what is understood about the adult learner,
namely that adults learn best when they are involved in the learning process. This also
follows from what Daloz and Shea have said about the changing role of the mentee. At
the same time, the mentor moves from being authoritative to facilitative. The mentor
works hard to create an environment which will promote learning. In the learning
process, the relationship moves from mentor-directed to the mentee showing greater
responsibility for what happens in the relationship. Adult learners are self-directed as has
been pointed out previously in the literature review. Formerly such relationships were
for a specific length of time. Now what determines the cessation of such relationships is
when the pre-detennined goals have been met. The goal-focused relationship parallels
what we know about adult learners in their need to be ready to learn. We cannot force
feed any adult learner. Mentoring relationships were previously seen as one over a
lifetime. Zachary points out that one may now experience several mentoring
relationships over the course of one’s life. We learn from our own experiences and from
those of others. The setting for mentoring relationships was usually face-to-face, but
now can be multiple settings and various opportunities for learning. This parallels what
has been said previously about the adult learner’s need for immediate application. The
focus of a mentoring relationship was product oriented such as the transfer of knowledge
or of skills. More important to the relationship today is the process, also allowing for
critical reflection and application to occur. This is based on the adult learning principle
of intrinsic motivation of the adult learner. Zachary’s paradigm encapsulates much of

what this literature review up to this point has revealed.

60

Schmoll’s Doctoral Research
Schmoll (1981) also contributes to the shaping of mentoring models. She

describes various relationships between mentor and mentee in her study. She points out
that researchers could not get an overall picture of this relationship by studying
individual features or aspects of mentor/mentee relationships. On the contrary, these
relationships needed to be studied holistically. To do this, she asks significant questions
(pp. 2-3):

1) How do mentors and mentees describe the overall qualities of their relationship?

2) How do mentors and mentees describe themselves and each other?

3) How do mentors and mentees describe the development of their relationship?

4) How do mentors and mentees describe the significance of their relationships for

themselves and for their mentor or mentee?

Rose’s Ideal Mentor Scale

Rose (1999) studies the issue of the “ideal mentor” in her doctoral dissertation at
the University of Iowa. Finding fault with existing measures (pp. 44-51), Rose goes on
to develop the framework for her Ideal Mentor Scale. The context for her study was
PhD. students in Research I Universities. She developed a 76-item survey measuring
ideal mentor characteristics and followed this survey with a factor analysis of the
characteristics. The results of her study suggest that intellectual curiosity, reliability,
research ethics, and good communication skills are essential in an ideal mentor. The
ideal mentor likewise is available to his/her mentee and provides constructive criticism,

challenges the mentee, and expresses belief in the mentee as an adult learner.

6l

Cohen’s Principles of Adult Mentoring Scale (PAMS)

Cohen developed the Principles of Adult Mentoring Scale, also known as PAMS
(Cohen, 1993, 1995a; 1995b), as a way of assessing what he considered good mentoring.
Cohen explains that the theoretical foundation for this scale is found in Galbraith’s
( 1991b) understanding of the relationship of mentoring and the transactional framework
of adult education. Cohen affirms Galbraith’s premise that the mentoring relationship is
“a transaction between the mentor and the adult learner.” (Cohen, 1995a, p. 21). A
substantial part of the literature reviewed has already pointed out the transactional
nature, or transactional process, of mentoring. This transaction is reflected in the
aforementioned scale as “six essential behavioral functions of the mentoring role”
(Cohen, 1995a, p. 15): 1) relationship emphasis, 2) information emphasis, 3) facilitative
focus, 4) confrontive focus, 5) mentor model, and 6) student vision. These are also called
“mentor functions.”

The intent of the first function or subscale, relationship emphasis, is the
development of trust between mentor and mentee. This is seen first and foremost as a
function of the mentor. Cohen identifies five mentor behaviors that contribute to a
positive, evolving relationship between mentor and mentee: (Cohen, 1995a, p. 29).
These are quoted verbatim:

1) “Practice responsive listening (verbal and nonverbal behaviors that signal

sincere interest.

2) Ask open-ended questions related to expressed immediate concerns about

actual situations.

3) Provide descriptive feedback based on observations rather than inferences of

62

motives.
4) Use perception checks to ensure comprehension of feelings.

5) Offer nonj udgmental sensitive responses to assist in clarification of emotional

states and reactions.”

Cohen continues to describe the ins and outs of each behavior. For example, in
practicing responsive listening, Cohen emphasizes eye contact, facial expression, voice
tone, gestures and posture as nonverbal communicators that tell a mentee if his/her
mentor is truly interested in him/her. The use of open-ended questions, for example, can
truly open up a dialogue between mentor and mentee whereas close-ended questions
require little response on the part of the mentor. Open-ended questions, and the use of
“right” questions, will open rather than narrow the conversation and are seen as less
accusatory. As another example, descriptive feedback reiterates what the mentee has
already shared. It seeks to build on what has been stated rather than asking “Why”
questions that tend to seek out the motives for a mentee’s actions. A mentor would do a
perception check in order to attempt to understand how a mentee feels about a certain
action, idea, or issue. This feeling is not always obvious or easily interpreted without
doing a perception check. Conducting a perception check is another way of developing a
rapport and establishing a mentoring relationship that is positive and constructive. The
use of nonj udgmental responses allows for an acknowledgement of what was said
without trivializing the remark by giving approval or dissent too soon (Cohen, 1995a, p.

44.)

By information emphasis Cohen describes the role of the mentor in obtaining the

needed information about the mentee, his/her goals and plans, in order to make sure that

63

what he/she (the mentor) offers, fills a need of the mentee. Questions are framed to
elicit: 1) facts regarding the mentee’s reasons for entering into this relationship, and 2)

facts about what the mentee already knows (Cohen, 1995a, p. 49).

By facilitative focus, Cohen is attempting to examine how the mentor guides the
mentee in an exploration of possibilities, looking at options and alternative views which
will help the adult learner (the mentee) to arrive at his/her own conclusions (Cohen,

1995a, pp. 61-74).

Confrontive focus are those items in the instrument which account for the
mentor’s challenging the mentee in order that the mentee may make the necessary
changes in direction or behavior in order to continue in his/her personal, professional

and intellectual development.

In the mentor model subscale Cohen examines if the mentor shares from his/her
own experiences in life “to motivate mentees to take necessary risks, make decisions
without certainty of successful results, and continue to overcome difficulties in their own

journey toward educational and career goals” (Cohen, 1995a, p. 22).

In the student vision subscale Cohen examines if the mentor helps the mentee to
develop his/her critical thinking ability, to cast a vision for a preferred future, to help the

mentee become an independent adult learner (pp. 108-120).

Cohen used a five-stage methodology in the development of PAMS: l) the
development of the preliminary scale, 2) a jury assessment of experts for initial construct
validity, 3) the presentation of the scale at a major adult education conference for further
refinement of the scale for construct validity, 4) the selection of the criterion group who

added their suggestions regarding the mentor functions, and 5) a final validation of the

scale.

Within this first stage, development of the preliminary scale, it was important to
determine what are the critical mentor functions for establishing a mentor role
framework. Cohen came up with two types of mentor actions: content and affect, or
factual and emotional domains. Cohen also established working definitions for such
terms as transactional process of learning, mentoring, faculty mentor role, and adult
learner. The two major categories previously defined, factual and emotional, were
further subdivided into the six functions or behavioral dimensions previously
enumerated. These functions were seen to be “interpersonal behaviors.” These have also
been described in brief form above. Cohen further looked at phases of a mentoring
relationship as part of this first stage in the development of the scale. Two key issues
came out of a discussion of phases: trust and timing. Trust must be developed between
mentor and mentee for an effective mentoring relationship. The timing of the
relationship is also important, especially in the beginning of the relationship
development. Mentoring was seen as a dynamic and developmental process rather than a
single event. This developmental process is comprised of four specific phases: 1) early
phase, in which trust is developed at the beginning of the relationship; 2) middle phase,
during which information is gathered and exchanged in order to better understand the
mentee’s needs, goals and concerns; 3) later phase, at which time the mentee is assisted
to explore his/her beliefs, interests, reasons for decisions; and 4) last phase, in which the
mentor is more a role model and the mentee is encouraged to reflect critically, to pursue
challenges, to become more one’s own person as a lifelong learner. These four phases

are reflected specifically in the six behaviors or mentor functions which Cohen puts

65

forth. The early phase deals with the relationship behaviors, the middle phase deals with
the information behaviors, the later phase deals with the facilitative and confrontive

behaviors, and the last phase with the role model and student vision behaviors.

Cohen developed a self assessment instrument that was “subject-centered,
forced-choice, five point Likert-type, behaviorally summated rating scale.” (Cohen,
1993, p. 87). Scoring sheets were also created for the mentors, as well as instructions
regarding the scoring process. The population samples in this first stage consisted of four
groups: 1) “nationally recognized scholars” who were involved in higher education
mentoring and had published on the same; 2) a representative sampling of educators
nation-wide who were professionally committed to mentoring, 3) Community College of
Philadelphia administrators, counselors and faculty mentors, and 4) community college
mentors who participated in the final version of PAMS in order to establish the
normative scores. “The development and testing of the scale proceeded in carefully

planned stages.”(Cohen, 1993, p. 90).

In stage two, jury assessment, Laurent Daloz and Nancy Schlossberg, prominent
scholars in the field of adult education, reviewed the Scale for construct validity. Ten

additional scholars and twelve educators participated in the content validity.

In stage three, the adult education conference, the construct validity was refined.
Cohen submitted his work to an adult education conference, the Pennsylviania
Association of Adult and Continuing Education (PAACE) By consensus the participants
at the conference concurred that the six discrete factors of the construct “were a realistic
and valid explanation of behaviors relevant to the development of significant mentoring

relationships... ”(Cohen, 1993, p. 94). Agreement was also made on the mentoring -

66

phases which Cohen had suggested. The scale was then further refined based on the
input of the Conference, by a representative selection of Community College of
Philadelphia mentoring program administrators and others. An item analysis was then
conducted. Additionally, several personal interviews regarding content validity were also

conducted.

In stage four, selection of the criterion group, demographic information on 46
mentors was collected from mentors at the Community College of Philadelphia and the
PAMS survey was administered in order to establish the normative scoring of the

PAMS.

In stage five, Cohen describes the process used for the final validation of the

scale:

To validate (test for construct validity) the original set of item statements
as truly representative of discrete factors, a “back translation”. .. had been
conducted with experts in the field. The data resulting from this approach
was analyzed to ensure that specific items could be correlated to the six
factor categories. Any discrepancies between the proposed correlation
and the matches completed by the experts were revised as indicated. The
data from the evaluation panels was then formulated into a table that
differentiated factors (mentor general functions) and clustered item
statements (mentor specific behaviors) (Cohen, 1993, p. 98).

The purpose of the scale once developed and validated, was to assist mentors in
evaluating their effectiveness in the mentoring relationship through this self assessment
tool and to reflect on the results for improvement. Cohen developed this scale for use
with both post-secondary education as well as for the business world. Cohen suggests
that this scale could be used in other settings with this proviso: “The scale was
developed to incorporate the mentor functions and behaviors experts agreed were most

likely to be of significance in mentoring relationships between faculty mentors and adult

67

-—

learners, with a special orientation to the realities of mentors and commuter students at a
community college. If the results of this study are generalized for use in other
educational environments with this caution, the scale also can be utilized with a
reasonable degree of confidence by many education professionals.”( Cohen, 1993, p.

196).

Given that word of caution, others have since adapted the PAMS for their own
use. For example, Cohen’s scale has been adapted and used by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (F EMA) in its disaster field training organization. The 55
questions have been adapted to meet the needs of the agency in its mentor training in

workshop materials published January 2000 by F EMA.

Additionally, Hallesky (2001) studies faculty member behavior at a two-year
technical school to see if they fulfill the mentor expectations identified in the literature.
Cohen’s scale was used for mentor self-assessment. Hallesky also develops a modified
PAMS for use by the mentees in assessing their mentors. Such a scale proves valuable as
it helps to determine if mentors and mentees alike perceive the relationship in the same
way. In Hallesky’s study, mentors tend to rate their performance higher than do the

mentees.

Another study which makes use of PAMS is a doctoral dissertation by Jones
(1999). Jones surveys student teachers, classroom supervising teachers and teacher
education university supervisors at four different schools in the six behaviors, or
competencies, identified by Cohen. The post-secondary PAMS is used. Jones finds that
mentoring in the context of teacher education is a dynamic process, not a one-time event

or program. She also finds that the relationship and information emphasis elements of

68

PAMS were both significant competencies in her study population.

Coffrnan (1998) also makes use of PAMS in her dissertation as she studies 83
mentors in a community college. Likewise, PAMS is utilized in the Ed. D. study by
Jadwick ( 1997) in which she analyzes mentoring perceptions of mentors and mentees in
the 1995-96 Mentor Program, Office of Minority Student Services. Stoner(1996) also
utilizes the scale in his research. The sample for his study comes from members of the
Pennsylvania Association of Adult and Continuing Education.

The reliability of Cohen’s Principles of Adult Mentoring Scale permitted its use
in at least five other doctoral dissertations and one federal mentor training program in
evaluating mentor behaviors that contribute to an effective mentoring relationship.

In addition to assisting mentors in a self evaluation of their mentoring skills,
Cohen in his findings states that PAMS could be used as a diagnostic tool for identifying
areas of deficiency around which a mentoring training program could be developed.

PAMS would appear to be crosscultural in nature. The Universite du Quebec in
Montreal (Douville, 1998) makes available a French version of the post-secondary Scale,

“Echelle des Principes du Mentorat Adulte.”

Summary
This review has examined literature relevant to the adult learner, the mentor, the
mentee, and the mentoring relationship. Four models of mentoring were also examined:
Zachary’s Leamer-centered Mentoring Paradigm, Schmoll’s research on relationships,
Rose’s Ideal Mentor Scale, and Cohen’s Principles of Adult Mentoring Scale (PAMS).
This review has produced a basic understanding of the mentoring relationship

and characteristics thus far identified as essential for effective mentoring relationships to

69

occur whether in the business world, in academia, or in religious circles. The following
chapter, methodology, will deal with the research to be conducted in order to gain
valuable feedback on mentoring effectiveness from the actual field of mentoring in a

nonformal setting.

70

CHAPTER 3-- METHODOLOGY

Instrumentation

Merriam and Simpson (1989, p. 127) write, “The technique and procedures for
conducting research are to the researcher as the chisel and hammer are to the stone
sculptor: their careful and consistent use brings new images of reality.” The choosing of
the particular research design to be used in this study is important in helping to bring an
understanding of mentor/mentee relationships.

Care was taken in selecting procedures for the research instrument, resulting in
the decision to develop two quantitative surveys, one for mentors and one for mentees.

The surveys were reviewed in light of the work of Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (1995) and

Salant and Dillman (1994).

LDN Mentor Survey

A survey was developed to measure the LDN mentors’ perceptions of the
mentoring relationship. This survey consisted first of information pertinent to the mentor
such as age, present position in the church, ordination status, number of mentees one has
had in the past prior to this particular relationship, length of present mentoring
relationship, orientation received as a mentor, number of times he/she met with mentee
over a six-month period, a rating of trust level in the relationship, a rating of the degree
of mutual benefit perceived in the relationship, and the highest educational level
attained.

The LDN Mentor Survey also included within it a modified version of Cohen’s

post-secondary version of the Principles of Adult Mentoring Scale (PAMS). Cohen’s

71

scale follows the six subscales outlined in the theoretical framework, testing for
behaviors in the following areas: relationship emphasis, information emphasis,
facilitative focus, confrontive focus, mentor model, and student vision. The respondents
give responses to 55 statements. The 55 statements cover the six subscales in this way:
ten items for relationship emphasis, ten items for information emphasis, six items for
facilitation focus, twelve items for confrontive focus, six items for mentor model, and
eleven items for student vision. The respondent is instructed to choose the response on

,9

the Likert-type seale which is “most representative of your actual behavior as a mentor.

9’ ‘6 ,’ 6‘ 9’ 6‘

The five possible responses are “never, infrequently, sometimes, frequently,” and
“always.” Each answer on the scale has a point value. Each statement is one of a series
of statements testing for a particular subscale. The point values for statements which
pertain to each subscale are totaled. An overall score based on the sum total of the six

subscales gives an overall effectiveness rating for the mentor.

The LDN Mentor Survey reflects the LDN focus instead of Cohen’s post-
secondary focus. For instance, the statement, “I discuss students’ general reasons for
attending college and then focus on helping them identify concrete educational
objectives, degrees, curricula, and courses” was adjusted to read “I discuss mentees’
general reasons for becoming involved in the LDN and then focus on helping them
identify concrete learning and spiritual formation objectives.” The statement “I
encourage students to express their honest feelings (positive and negative) about their
academic and social experiences as adult learners in college,” was adjusted on the LDN
Mentor Survey by eliminating the words “in college.” The LDN Survey adjusted a

statement like “I discuss my own work-related experience as a way of helping students

72

think about and carefully examine their career options” to “I discuss my own ministry-
related experiences as a way of helping mentees think about and carefully examine their
ministry options.” Also, the word mentee was always substituted for the word student
throughout the LDN Mentor Survey.

The LDN Mentor Survey included an identification number to maintain public
anonymity within the study while allowing a later comparison of mentor responses to
mentee responses. Each mentor was assigned a numbered LDN Mentor Survey,
beginning with #1, in order to later match the mentor with his/her mentees but also to be

able to identify who did or did not return the initial survey.

Reliability andyaliditv of the LDN Mentor Survey

In order to build content validity the LDN Mentor Survey was examined by a
panel of four experts (See Appendix D) in the field of mentoring who were individually
asked to identify problem items. A technician versed in developing interview
instruments as well as literature on survey development (Salant & Dillman, 1994) were
consulted regarding the LDN Mentor Survey. Two mentor/mentee pairs similar to the
population were asked to review the survey and identify items that needed improvement
or clarity. This served as the pilot study for further refinement of the survey questions
and procedures for establishing validity of the instrument. According to Merriam and
Simpson (1989, p. 131): “Pretesting an instrument works out problems that may arise
after the data has been collected. Also, previewing the questionnaire for leading and
threatening items guarded against bias and weak reliability of results.” The reliability of
the original Cohen PAMS has already been demonstrated (Cohen, 1995a; 1995b; 1993).

The researcher administered all surveys, thus increasing the reliability of the

73

study. All attempts to minimize generous bias were observed. All attempts were also
taken to minimize the four types of survey errors identifed by Salant and Dillman (1994,
pp. 13-23): coverage error, sampling error, measurement error, and non response error.

Each of these can affect the accuracy of the survey.

LDN Mentee Survey

A survey was developed to measure the LDN mentees’ perceptions of their
mentors in the mentoring relationship. This survey consisted first of information
pertinent to the mentee such as age, present position in the church, ordination status,
length of present mentoring relationship, orientation received as a mentee, number of
times he/she met with mentor over a six-month period, a rating of trust level in the
relationship, a rating of the degree of mutual benefit perceived in the relationship, and
the highest educational level attained.

The LDN Mentee Survey also included within it a modified version of Cohen’s
post-secondary scale from the perspective of the mentee.

Cohen’s scale follows the six subscales outlined in the theoretical framework,
testing for behaviors in the following areas: relationship emphasis, information
emphasis, facilitative focus, confrontive focus, mentor model, and student vision by the
respondent giving responses to 55 statements. The 55 statements cover the six subscales
in this way: ten items for relationship emphasis, ten items for information emphasis, six
items for facilitative focus, twelve items for confrontive focus, six items for mentor
model, and eleven items for student vision. The respondent was instructed to choose the

9

response on the Likert scale which was “most representative of their mentor’s behavior.’

7’ ‘6

The five possible responses were “never,” “infrequently, sometimes,” “frequently,”

74

and “always.” Each item response had a point value. Statements test for one of the six
subscales. All statements referring to, for example, the mentor role, are added together to
get a sum total for that particular subscale. This provides data regarding the mentee’s
perception of the mentor’s behavior for that subscale. The total number of points for a
subscale determines the mentee’s perception of the effectiveness of that particular
behavior in the mentor. An overall score based on the sum total of the six subscales

gives an overall rating of the mentee’s perception of the effectiveness of the mentor.

The LDN Mentee Survey was adjusted to reflect the LDN focus and not the post-
secondary context of the scale. In addition, the statements were rephrased to represent
the mentee’s perception of the mentor’s behaviors for each of the 55 statements. For
example, the following statement on the Cohen’s Scale “I make a good deal of eye
contact with students,” becomes “My mentor makes a good deal of eye contact with me”
on the LDN Mentee Survey. All of the 55 statements were re-written from the

perspective of the mentee and his/ her perception of the relationship.

A third section was added to the LDN Mentee Survey. The statements in this
section used a Likert-type scale and measured the mentee’s level of satisfaction with the

mentoring experience.

The LDN Mentee Survey included an identification number to maintain public
anonymity within the study while allowing the researcher to match mentor responses to
mentee responses. Mentees were assigned a number corresponding to their mentor, and a
letter. For example, #la signified that he/she served as the mentee in relationship with
mentor #1. If mentor #1 has additional mentees, these mentees in turn were assigned

#1b, #1c as appropriate. These numbers also helped 0 identify who had retumed or had

75

not returned the initial survey.

Reliabilityand [MW of the LDN Mentee Survg

In order to build content validity into the LDN Mentee Survey, the instrument
was reviewed individually by a panel of four experts (See Appendix D) who normally
work with mentees. A technician versed in developing interview instruments as well as
literature on survey development (Salant & Dillman, 1994) were consulted regarding the
adjustments made to the PAMS. Two mentor/mentee pairs similar to the population were
asked to review the survey that had been developed. This served as the pilot study for
further refinement of the survey questions and procedures by the researcher and his
adviser for establishing validity of the modified instrument. According to Merriam and
Simpson (1989, p. 131), “Pretesting an instrument works out problems that may arise
after the data has been collected. Also, previewing the questionnaire for leading and
threatening items will guard against bias and weak reliability of results.” Cohen’s PAMS
has already been demonstrated to be reliable (Cohen, 1995a; 1995b; 1993), and the
Mentee Survey for the behavior analysis is a modified version of this same instrument.

The researcher administered all surveys thus increasing the reliability of the
study. The surveys only measure present mentoring relationships and are not part of a
longitudinal study of any given mentoring relationship. Care was taken to avoid
generosity bias and to minimize the four types of survey errors reported by Salant and
Dillman (1994, pp. 13-23): coverage error, sampling error, measurement error, and non

response error. Each of these can affect the accuracy of the survey.

Survey Procedure

76

The study used a basic surveying procedure outlined by Salant and Dillman
(1994), consisting of 1) sending an advance-notice letter which included information
regarding informed consent (See Appendix A), 2) sending a questionnaire with cover
letter (See Appendices B, E, and F), 3) sending a follow-up postcard to non-respondents

(See Appendix C), and 4) sending new questionnaires to non-respondents.

The advance-notice letter, sent two weeks prior to the initial survey, advised
participants that they were being invited to participate in a research project on mentoring
and also informed them that their participation was completely voluntary. They were
informed that a questionnaire would follow within 15 days. In the follow-up letter with
the questionnaire they were again advised that their participation was voluntary and that
their survey would be considered confidential. They were asked to complete the survey

and to return it if they consented to participating in the research project.

Fifteen days later the survey and its cover letter were placed in the mail. The
letter described the need for a study which would gather data regarding existing
mentorships from which recommendations for more effective mentoring would be
developed. The importance of both mentee and mentor participating in this process was
explained. The letter guaranteed confidentiality of the results, explaining that coding
would be required for the purpose of identifying specific mentors with their Specific
mentees as well as identifying non-respondents. The right to privacy was also explained.
Procedures and policies as outlined and required by the MSU University Committee on

Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) also were adhered to in the letter.

The participants were told that a final summary of the results of the study would

be provided to them. The participants were told how long the survey should normally

77

take to fill out. A self-addressed stamped envelope for returning the survey also was
included. The letter explained that by returning the questionnaire, the participants were
agreeing to participate in the survey.

Non-respondents to the survey, after 14 days, were contacted by a postcard,
encouraging their cooperation with the project in order to increase the number of actual
responses. A new questionnaire and self-addressed stamped envelope were then sent to
those who were still non-respondents ten days later. A determination of any difference
between early and later respondents (Salant & Dillman, 1994, pp. 460-462) was
conducted in order to determine if non-respondents would affect the validity of the
surveys. Salant and Dillman point out that non-respondents would normally respond the
same way as late respondents do, so it was important to compare early and late
respondents to see if there was any measurable difference. None was observed.

F orty-seven percent of the mentees returned the mentee LDN survey and
seventy-two percent of the mentors returned their mentor LDN survey. Out of a total
response by 34 mentors, 18 of these responded with the first mailing. Out of a total
response by 36 mentees, 12 responded with the first mailing as well. The second mailing

netted an additional response of 16 mentors and 25 mentees.

Operational Procedures
A process for dealing with item non-response was established before reviewing
the returns. Non-response was defined in two ways: 1) items for which the respondent
left an item blank, giving no response and 2) items where the respondent had
handwritten N/A, not applicable, by an item on the survey.

Each question from the modified Cohen scale related to one of six factors. A

78

non-response to any of these questions within the LDN Mentor or Mentee Surveys
required that the study determine a way of allowing for the possibility of each item being
answered. For a particular mentor function in which one or two responses were not
given, an average of the answered items for that mentor function was calculated. That
averaged number or rating was assigned to the non-response item This became the

Operational procedure for dealing with most non-responses.

It was pre-detennined that if a respondent did not answer three or more items
related to any particular mentor function to allow for a valid average, then that survey
would be discarded in order to avoid skewing the results. Five LDN Mentee Surveys

required discarding based on this predetermined process.

Several questions required that the respondents give a time-related response. For
example, the respondents were asked how long their orientation had been. It had been
predetermined that such responses would be recorded as hours. Where a respondent
might answer “1 day,” a day was predetermined to represent 8 hours. A response of “1
month” or “weekly” would equate to 8 hours per day for 4 days a month, or 32 hours.
The length of being a mentor or mentee would be predetermined as months. A response

of “1 year” would therefore translate to 12 months.

Certain responses would be reviewed to see if mentors and mentees agreed in
their responses by comparing mentor and mentee mean scores as well as sum total scores
for each of the six mentor functions. Time was spent analyzing other selected variables
or factors to see how they influenced a mentor’s or mentee’s perception of mentoring
effectiveness, first individually and then for each specific mentor function. Such factors

that were examined were length of orientation, length of time in the relationship, age of

79

mentee, BIC.

Statistical Procedures

It is understood that this study was not generalizable to other populations. It was
also understood that this was a census survey or whole population survey, and not a
samples survey. Nevertheless, one of the statistical procedures used was an independent
samples t-test when analyzing the role that age, for example, might play in the
effectiveness ratings of the mentor functions or in one of the quality factors such as
degree of mutual benefit perceived in the relationship. The use of the t-test helped to
derive better understanding or meaning from the data. Inferential statistics are
descriptive, which suited the purposes of this study. Sriram (1999) states that “inferential
statistics are used primarily as descriptive landmarks when negotiating uncertain
terrain... Research advances both by magnifying and isolating effects, and p values are
valuable benchmarks in this endeavor.”

Much of the data being analyzed is ordinal where respondents are rating
effectiveness on a Likert-type scale, examining central tendency or the average. Ordinal
data is normally measured by the median since this is not affected by extreme cases.
Nevertheless it can still be appropriate to measure using the means value. For over thirty
years, statisticians have been treating ordinal numbers like intervals because of the work
of Labovitz (1970), thus making the use of means an optional statistical operation for use
with ordinal data.

Once the data had been gathered and entered into SPSS, the first computations
dealt with descriptive statistics. All mentors were examined regarding age, number of

times serving as. a mentor, length of the present mentoring relationship, amount of time

80

spent in orientation, number of times over a six-month period that the mentor met with
his/her respective mentee, highest level of academic achievement, position within the
church, and ordination status. In addition to these items, the mentor also was described
regarding his/her perception of the trust level in the relationship and his/her perception
of the degree of mutual benefit in the present mentoring relationship. Mentees were also
analyzed as a group regarding their answers to the descriptive factors as well as to trust
level and mutual benefit Then overall scores for all mentees were compared and their

scores for each of the six mentor functions were analyzed, using a t-test.

81

CHAPTER 4—DATA ANALYSIS

Introduction
In the previous chapter the methodology for the study was explained in detail,
from instrumentation to statistical procedures. Responses were received to both the LDN
Mentor Survey and the LDN Mentee Survey. This chapter focuses on analyzing the data

collected through these surveys.

Statistical software for tabulation
Responses to the LDN Mentor Survey and LDN Mentee Survey were for the
most part tabulated using a Windows version of SPSSTM statistical software and

supplemented with VassarStatsTM.

Mentor/Mentee Demographics

Respondents

Table lshows the number of LDN Mentor Surveys and LDN Mentee Surveys
sent out, the number of surveys, returned, the response rate in percentages, the number
of surveys discarded, and the total number by percentages of surveys used in the data
analysis.

Table 1: Respondents
I Sent out Returned Discarded # Used

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LDN Mentor Survey | 47 34 (72%) o 34 (720/1)
LDN Mentee Survey | 68 371mg 5 32 (47%

 

 

 

 

82

The survey instruments were sent out to a total population of forty-seven mentors
and sixty-eight mentees. Thirty-four mentors (72%) returned the LDN Mentor Survey
and thirty-seven mentees (54%) returned the LDN Mentee Survey. Five LDN Mentee
Surveys were discarded according to the protocol established in the previous chapter, i.e.
three or more non-responses in any one factor. Thirty-four LDN Mentor Surveys (72%)

and thirty-two LDN Mentee Surveys (47%) were used for data analysis

Age of Respondents

The survey instruments asked the mentors and mentees their age. The data are

shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Mentor/Mentee Age
Mentor (n=34) Mentee (n=32)

 

 

Mean 49.2 years 39.3 years
SD 8.4 years 11.8 years

 

 

 

 

 

 

As could be expected, the mentors were older than the mentees. The mean
difference in age between the two groups was 9.9 years. It is interesting to note that the
mentor group was slightly more age-homogeneous with a standard deviation of 8.4 years
which was 3.4 years less variant than the standard deviation of the mentees. As a group
the mentors are not only older than the mentees but they appear to be more similar in age

to each other than the mentees.

Education

Mentors and mentees were asked on the survey to indicate their highest level of

79 ‘6

education attained. Options given on the survey were “grade school certificate, some

83

college,” “college degree,” “graduate study,” and “graduate degree.” The data are shown

in Table 3.

Table 3: Mentor/Mentee Level of Education Attained

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mentor (n=34) Mentee (n=32)
Grade school certificate 1 (2.9%) 6 (18.8%)
Some college 1 (2.9%) 12 (37.5%)
College degree 2 (5.9%) 8 (25%)
Graduate study 4 (11.8%) 2 (6.3%)
Graduate degree 26 (76.5%) fi9.4%)

 

In comparing the educational levels of mentors with mentees, the data show that
mentors had attained a higher level than mentees on the average. Combining the college
degree, graduate study and graduate degree categories, the data show that thirty-two
mentors (94.2%) of the total mentor respondents, have a college degree compared to
thirteen mentees (40.7%) of the total mentee respondents. Twenty-six mentors (76.5%)
hold a graduate degree whereas only three mentees (9.4%) have a graduate degree. A
larger number of mentees, eighteen persons (56.3%) have only a grade school certificate
or some college than is the case for the mentors, where only two persons (5.8%) of the

total number of mentor respondents.

Ordination
Mentors and mentees were asked on the surveys to indicate their ordination
status. The two options on both surveys were “ordained” and “not ordained.” The data

are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Mentor/Mentee Ordination Status

 

 

 

 

 

I Mentor (n=34) Mentee Q=32)
Ordained [ 30 (88.2) 5 (15.6%)
Not ordained | 4 (11.8%) 27 (84.4%)

 

 

84

More mentors indicated they were ordained than mentees. The numbers are
almost the exact opposite of each other. As skilled practitioners, the mentors necessarily
were mostly ordained pastors and evangelists while the mentees were future evangelists
in training. The four unordained mentors were either elders in local churches or spouses
of pastors.

In summary, the mentors in the LDN tend to be older and more educated than the
mentees. More mentors were ordained than mentees. As experienced practitioners they
were training future practitioners who for the most part were in the process of becoming

ordained.

Qualities of the Mentoring Relationship
Descriptive statistics were drawn on three quality areas in the mentoring
relationship: length of time served as a mentor or mentee, frequency of meetings, and

length of orientation in the present relationship. The data are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Mean Scores for Three Qualities of Mentoring

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Length of time served Frequency of Meetings Length of
as Mentor/Mentee over a 6-month Period Orientation
Mentor Mentee Mentor Mentee Mentor Mentee
N 34 32 32 32 32 30
Mean 40.1 months 39.3 months 10.9 times 10.5 times 14.8 2.4
hours hours
SD 51.8 11.8 7.0 6.5 20.6 2.9

 

The standard deviation for the mentor was higher than the mean. This can be

explained due to two extreme cases. Twenty-three of the thirty-four mentors, or 67.6%,

reported thirty-six months or less. Two of the mentors indicated 180 and 264 months

respectively. These are considered “extreme values” or “extreme cases.” According to

DiLeonardi and Curtis (1992: 50), “the mean is susceptible to extreme cases.” They also

85

 

stated, “The standard deviation, like the mean, is very sensitive to extreme values,” (p.
52.) Removing the two extreme cases, 180 and 264, from the mentor database gives us a

more accurate reading of the length of time. The data are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Recoded Data for Length of Time Served as Mentor/Mentee

 

 

 

 

l Mentor Mentee l
N 32 32 I
Mean 28.8 months 39.3 months
SD 21.8 1 1 .8

 

 

 

 

 

Removing the two extreme cases, the mentees have more experience in being
mentees than mentors have in being mentors even though previous data show that
mentors have more orientation to being a mentor than mentees have to being mentees.

The mentor group for the frequency of meeting over a six-month period was 10.9
times with a standard deviation of 7.0 and the mean for the mentee group was 10.5 times
with a standard deviation of 6.5. Both mentor and mentee groups showed similar
responses regarding the frequency of meeting over a six-month period. The means for
these two groups was very close. Both groups perceived the same number of times
meeting in a mentoring relationship, namely about ten times over a six-month period.

The data regarding length of orientation are interesting because mentors received
more orientation to become a mentor than the mentees did to become mentees. This
difference could be significant in effectiveness perceptions of the mentoring relationship.
Extreme values were noted in the standard deviations for both mentor and mentee
groups, again accounted for due to extreme cases.

In summary, mentors received a longer period of orientation to the task of being

a mentor than mentees had received to the task of being a mentee. The mentors and

86

mentees met 10+ times together over a six-month period. Mentees, according to the

recoded data, had been mentees longer than mentors had been mentors.

Perceptions of the Mentoring Relationship
Mentors and mentees were asked to rate the level of trust and degree of mutual
benefit they perceived in the mentoring relationship. In both trust and benefit, the
perceptions were rated by means of a Likert-type scale with 1 representing “no trust”
and 5 representing a “high level of trust”. Means were calculated for both mentors and

mentees. The data are shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Mean Scores for Level of Trust and Mutual Benefit

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Trust Mutual Benefit
Mentor Mentee t-value p-value Mentor Mentee t-value p-value
(n=32) (n=32) (n=31) (n=31)
Mean 4.3 4.5 -1.365 .182 3.9 3.7 .745 .462
SD .7 .8 .8 1.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In both mentor and mentee groups, the perception of the level of trust was above
the midpoint (3). A t-test showed no significant difference between the means for
mentor and mentee groups.

In both mentor and mentee groups the means regarding the degree of mutual
benefit in the relationship were quite similar. There was agreement between the mentor
and mentee groups that there is a degree of mutual benefit in the present mentoring
relationships. In other words, both mentors and mentees indicated that they benefited
from this relationship. A t-test showed no significant difference between the means for
mentor and mentee groups.

In summary, mentors and mentees perceived an above average level of trust and

87

an above average degree of mutual benefit through the mentoring relationship.

Effectiveness of the Mentoring Relationship

How effective did the mentors and mentees perceive the mentoring relationship?
Both the LDN Mentor Survey and the LDN Mentee Survey were designed specifically to
measure mentor and mentee perceptions of the effectiveness of the existing mentoring
relationships. Cohen’s six effectiveness “mentor functions” or subscales: relationship
emphasis, information emphasis, facilitative focus, confrontive focus, mentor model and
student vision, were analyzed for both the mentor and mentee groups. Both the LDN
Mentor Survey and the LDN Mentee Survey measured effectiveness within the six
mentor firnctions using a Likert-type scale for each item: 1= “not effective,” 2: “less
effective,” 3= “effective,” 4: “very effective,” and 5=“highly effective.” The first
tabulations were made for an overall effectiveness score, combining the six mentor
function totals and tabulating an overall mean score. This gave a composite view of
overall effectiveness in the LDN mentoring relationships in Table 8. Second,
effectiveness ratings for the individual six mentor functions were then tabulated for both
the mentor and mentee groups. The operations for the individual mentor functions are
described in more detail in Tables 9-14.

A decision regarding the interpretation of Likert-type scores was taken based on
the advice of two research specialists: 1) scores between 1 and 1.4 were to be rated “not
effective,” 2) scores between 1.5 and 2.4 were to be rated “less effective,” 3) scores
between 2.5 and 3.4 were to be rated “effective,” 4) scores between 3.5 and 4.4 were to
be rated “very effective,” and 5) scores between 4.5 and 5 were to be rated “highly

effective.” This served as the guide for the interpretation of scores in the following

88

tables.

Overall Effectiveness Score
Combining all six effectiveness mentor functions together, a score for overall
effectiveness in the mentoring relationships was recorded. The data are shown in Table

8.

Table 8: Overall Effectiveness Score

 

 

 

I Mentor (n=34) Mentee (n=32) t-value p-value
Mean ] 2.6 2.2 1.171 .245
SD [1.4 1.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mean for the mentors’ overall score on effectiveness of the relationship
translated to an “effective” rating whereas the mean for the mentees’ overall score
translated to a “less effective” rating. Overall, mentors rated the mentoring relationship
more effective than did the mentees. A t-test showed no significant difference between

the means of the two groups.

Comparing the Means of the Mentor Functions

A comparison of the means for both mentor and mentee groups was then tested
for each of the six mentor functions to see if there was a significant difference in the
perception ratings between the mentor group and the mentee group. The data are shown

below in Tables 9-14.

Re_lationship Emphasis mentor function.
According to Cohen (Cohen, 1993:75) the relationship emphasis is one in which

the mentor “conveys through active, empathetic listening a genuine understanding and

89

acceptance of student’s feelings.” This is the first of six mentor fimctions identified by
Cohen that allow for developing an overall understanding of the “mentor role.” A
comparison of the means for the relationship emphasis mentor function is shown in

Table 9.

Table 9: Mean Score for Relationship Emphasis Mentor Function

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Mentor (n=34) Mentee (n=32) t-value p-value
Mean ] 2.7 1.8 3.043 003*
SD | 1.4 1.2

 

 

Mentors perceived the mentoring in regards to the relationship emphasis mentor
function as “effective” whereas the mentees perceived it to be “less effective.” Mentors
saw themselves as more effective in this first mentor function than did the mentees. A t-
test showed that there was significant difference between the means of the two groups at

.05 or less.

Information Emphasis mentor function.

According to Cohen ([Cohen, 1993:75) the information emphasis is one in which
the mentor “directly requests detailed information from and offers specific suggestions
to students about their current plans and progress in achieving personal, educational, and
career goals.” The mentor in this case is an informartion-gatherer, information which
helps him/her to be able to evaluate how to help the mentee in his/her learning. A
comparison of the means for the information emphasis mentor function is shown below

in Table 10.

Table 10: Mean Score for Information Emphasis Mentor Function

 

 

 

I Mentor (n=34L Mentee (n=32) t-value p-value
Mean | 3.0 2.6 .934 .177
SD | 1.5 1.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

9O

Both mentors and mentees perceived the mentor to be “effective” in this mentor

function. A t-test showed no significant difference between the means of the two groups.

F acilitative Focus mentor function.

According to Cohen (Cohen, 1993:75) the facilitative focus is one in which the
mentor “guides students through a reasonably in-depth review of and exploration of their
interests, abilities, ideas, and beliefs.” In other words, the mentor demonstrates
facilitation skills when using this particular function.

The data are shown in Table 11.

Table 11: Mean Score for F acilitative Focus Mentor Function

 

 

 

I Mentor (n=34) Mentee (n=32) t-value p-value
Mean [3.5 3.1 1.151 .254
SD ] 1.4 1.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mentors perceived themselves to be “very effective” and mentees perceived the
mentors to be “effective” in the skills accompanying the use of the facilitative focus

mentor function. A t-test showed no significant difference between the means of the two

groups.

Confrontive Focus mentor function.

According to Cohen (Cohen, 1993:75) the confrontive focus is one in which the
mentor “respectfully challenges students’ explanations for or avoidance of decisions and
actions relevant to their development as adult learners.” The effectiveness of the

confrontive focus was analyzed in Table 12.

Table 12: Mean Score for Confrontive Focus Mentor Function

 

 

 

I Mentor (n=34) Mentee (n=32) t-value p—value
Mean I 2.3 1.9 1.111 .271
SD ] 1.4 1.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

91

Both mentors and mentees perceived the mentor to be “less effective” in utilizing
the behaviors and skills that correspond to confrontive focus. This was the lowest score
recorded in the data regarding any one of the six mentor functions. A critical mentor
function, this one appears to be the least utilized or least developed of the six functions.

A t-test showed no significant difference between the means of the two groups.

Mentor Model mentor function.

According to Cohen (Cohen, 1993276) the mentor model is one in which the
mentor “shares (self-discloses) life experiences and feelings as a ‘role model’ to students
in order to personalize and enrich the relationship.” The effectiveness of this mentor

function is shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Mean Score for Mentor Model Mentor Function

 

 

 

I Mentor (n=34) Mentee (n=32) t-value p—value
Mean I 3.2 2.8 1.054 .296
SD ~ I 1.3 1.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mean scores show that both mentors and mentees perceived the relationship
by this mentor function to be “effective.” Both mentors and mentees saw the mentor as
an effective role model, one capable of sharing from his/her life experiences, making the

necessary self-disclosures. A t-test showed no significant difference between the means

of the two groups.

Student Vision mentor function.
According to Cohen (Cohen, 1993:76) the student vision is one in which the
mentor “stimulates students’ critical thinking with regard to envisioning their own future

and to developing their personal and professional potential.” The effectiveness of student

92

vision was analyzed. The data are shown in Table 14.

Table 14: Mean Score for Student Vision Mentor Function

 

 

 

 

I Mentor (n=34) Mentee (n=32 t-value p-value
Mean T28 2.5 .929 .357
SD I 1.3 1.5

 

 

 

 

 

Both groups, mentor and mentee, perceived the mentor to be “effective” in
his/her use of the behaviors and skills in the student vision mentor function. such as
stimulating students’ critical thinking. A t-test showed no significant difference between
the means of the two groups.

A summary table with the effectiveness ratings of the six subscales follows. The

data are shown in Table 15.

Table 15: Summary of Effectiveness Mean Scores for all Six Mentor Functions

 

 

 

 

 

r Relationship information Facilitative Confrontive Mentor Student
Emphasis Focus Focus Focus Model Vision
Mentor Mean 27* 3.0 3.5 2.3 3.2 2.8
SD 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3
Mentee Mean 18* 2.6 3.1 1.9 2.8 2.5
SD 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at .05 or less
In summary, mentors perceived themselves to be “effective” or higher in five of
the six mentor functions. Mentees perceived the mentors to be “effective” in four of the
six mentor functions. Mentors rated themselves more effective than did the mentees.
There was no significant difference in the mean scores of mentors and mentees in
five of the six mentor functions. The only mentor function that showed any significant
difference between the mean scores of the mentor and mentee groups was relationship

emphasis at .05 or less on the t-test.

93

Differences in Effectiveness Scores Using Factors

Six selected variables were also examined in order to rate the mentors’ and
mentees’ perceptions of the mentor functions when these selected variables were taken
into consideration In the statistical operations that followed, data were classified as
either dependent or independent variables. The overall effectiveness score and the six

mentor functions served as dependent variables and the selected variables served as the

. ""71

independent variables. An analysis was conducted to compare the mean score of the high

than:
.A .

rating group with the mean score of the low rating group of each of the independent
variables for all six mentor function scores to see if there was a significant difference in
those ratings. Second, an independent samples t-test was conducted in order to test the

degree of significance.

Age.

The means of the mentor functions and overall scale were compared by age. The

data are shown in Table 16.

Table 16: Age as a Factor in Effectiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mentors (n=34L Mentees (n=32)

Less 49.2 t- p- Less 39.3 t—value p-

than years value value than years or value

49.2 or 39.3 older

years older year

5

Overall score 2.8 2.3 .984 .332 1.8 2.4 -1.435 .164
Relationship 2.8 2.7 .185 .854 1.3 2.1 -2.178 .039*
Information 3.3 2.6 1.255 .219 2.1 3.0 -l .677 .104
Facilitative 3.7 3.3 .850 .402 2.9 3.3 -.700 .489
Confrontive 2.7 1.9 1.513 .140 1.6 2.2 -1.405 .171
Mentor model 3.3 3.0 .761 .452 2.4 3.2 -2.060 048*
Student vision 2.8 2.8 -.074 .941 1.9 2.9 -2.006 .055

 

*Significant at .05 or less

94

The data showed that older mentees rated effectiveness higher in two mentor
functions than did the younger mentees.

Age played no significant difference in the effectiveness ratings of any of the six
mentor functions for the mentor groups.

Age played a significant difference in the effectiveness ratings in the relationship
emphasis and mentor model mentor functions for the mentee groups. There was a
significant difference in how mentees perceived effectiveness in the relationship

emphasis mentor function and the mentor model mentor fimction

mgree of mutual benefit.
The means of the mentor functions and overall scale were compared by degree of

mutual benefit The data are shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Mutual Benefit as a Factor of Effectiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mentors (n=3 3) Mentees (n=3 2)

Low High t-value p- Low High t-value p-

benefit benefit value benefit benefit value

(below (3.9 or (below (3.7 or

3 .9) above) 3.7) above)
Overall score 1.8 2.8 -2.074 .047* 1.4 2.5 -2.512 .019*
Relationship 1.9 3.0 -2.290 029* 1.1 2. 1 -3.079 005*
Information 2.0 3.3 -2.452 020* 1.6 3.1 -2.963 .006*
Facilitative 3.2 3.7 -.839 .408 2.0 3.6 -2.744 .010*
Confiontive 1.6 2.6 -l.862 .072 1.5 2.1 -1.210 .236
Mentor model 2.4 3.4 -2.346 .026“ 2.0 3.2 -3.231 003*
Student vision 1.8 2.6 -3.014 005* 1.5 2.9 -2.687 .01 1*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Significant at .05 or less

Mentors and mentees were divided into two groups each: those who responded
on the survey with a low degree of mutual benefit to the question regarding mutual
benefit and those who responded on the survey with a high degree of mutual benefit in

the relationship. Group division was based on the mean for this item. For example, the

95

mean for mentors was 3.9. Those who responded with a rating less than 3.9 were placed
in the low degree of mutual benefit category and those with a mean of 3.9 or above were
placed in the high(er) degree of mutual benefit category.

The data show that mentors who rated mutual benefit higher, or perceived a
higher degree of mutual benefit from the relationship, also perceived higher
effectiveness in four mentor functions than their colleagues in the lower mutual benefit
group. These four mentor functions were relationship emphasis, information emphasis,
mentor model and student vision. F

Likewise, the mentees who rated mutual benefit higher also rated effectiveness
higher in these four mentor functions, relationship emphasis, information emphasis,
mentor model and student vision. They also rated effectiveness higher in one additional
mentor function, the facilitative focus mentor function.

Mutual benefit appears to have played an important role in how mentors and
mentees perceived effectiveness in the mentor functions.

Although mutual benefit played an important role in most of the mentor
functions, the one mentor function where this was not the case was the confrontive focus
mentor function. The data did not show any significant difference in how mentors or
mentees in higher or lower groups rated the confrontive focus mentor function based on
mutual benefit. Neither higher mentor or mentee group rated confrontive focus higher in

effectiveness than did the lower mentor or mentee group.

Level of trust.
The means of the mentor functions and overall scale were compared by level of

trust. The data are shown in Table 18.

96

Table 18: Level of Trust as a Factor of Effectiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mentors (n=32) Mentees (n=3Q
Low High t-value p- Low High t- p-
level level value level level value value
of of of of
trust trust trust trust
(belo (4.2 or (belo (4.5 or
w above) w above)
4.2) 4.5L
Overall score 2.4 2.8 -.801 .429 1.9 2.3 -.736 .468 In
Relationship 2.5 3.1 -1.179 .242 1.5 1.9 -. 896 .377
Information 2.8 3.3 -1.007 .322 2.5 2.7 -.366 .717
Facilitative 3.3 3.8 -1.149 .259 2.6 3.4 - .185 1‘...
1.355
Confrontive 2.4 2.1 .368 .715 1.9 2.0 -.065 .949
Mentor model 3.1 3.4 -.690 .495 2.6 3.0 -.876 .388
Student vision 2.6 3.1 -1.007 .321 2.2 2.7 -.878 .387

Two groupings again were established for both mentor and mentee groups. The
first groups consisted of those mentors or mentees who perceived a low level of trust in
the relationship . The second groups consisted of those mentors or mentees who
perceived a higher level of trust in the relationship. For mentors the dividing point was
the 4.2 mean and for mentees it was the 4.5 mean.

Level of trust played no significant difference in the effectiveness ratings of the

six mentor functions for the mentor groupings.

Level of trust played no significant difference in the effectiveness ratings of the

six mentor functions for mentee groupings either.

Frequency of meeting
The means of the mentor functions and overall scale were compared by

frequency of meeting. The data are shown in Table 19.

97

Table 19: Frequency of Meeting as a Factor of Effectiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mentors (n=33) Mentees (n=32)

Less 10.9 t- p- Less 10.5 t- p-

than times value value than times value value

10.9 or more 10.5 or

times times more
Overall score 2.6 2.4 .381 .706 2.5 1.8 1.171 .251
Relationship 2.9 2.4 1.075 .291 2.1 1.5 1.403 .171
Information 2.9 2.9 .014 .989 2.9 2.4 .867 .393
Facilitative 3.7 3.3 .873 .389 3.3 2.9 .543 591
Confrontive 2.4 2.2 .310 .759 2.1 1.8 .743 .463
Mentor model 3.2 2.9 .558 .581 3.2 2.5 1.487 .148
Student vision 2.8 2.7 .331 .743 2.9 2.1 1.431 .163

 

Two groupings for both mentor and mentee groups were established. The low
mentor/mentee groups represented those who perceived that they had met less than 10.9
or 10.7 times respectively over a six-month period. The high mentor/mentee groups were
those mentors and mentees who perceived that they had met 10.9 or more times or 10.7
or more times respectively over a six-month period.

No significant difference in the effectiveness ratings of the six mentor functions
within either of the two mentor groupings was demonstrated when compared to the

frequency of meeting.

No significant difference in the effectiveness ratings of the six mentor functions
within either of the two mentee grouping was demonstrated when compared to the

frequency of meeting.

Length of orientation.
The means of the mentor functions and overall scale were compared by length of

orientation. The data are shown in Table 20.

98

 

Table 20: Length of Orientation as a Factor of Effectiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mentors (n=32) Mentees n=32)
Low High t— p- Low High t- p-
orienta orienta- value value orienta orienta value value
-tion tion -tion -tion
(below (14.8 or (below (2.4 or
14.8) above) 2.4) above)
Overall score 2.8 2.2 1.204 .238 2.2 2.1 .136 .893
Relationship 3.0 2.4 1.204 .238 1.8 1.7 .191 .850
Information 3.2 2.4 .949 .350 2.8 2.6 430 .670
Facilitative 3.6 3.3 .561 .579 2.9 3.4 -.744 .463
Confrontive 2.5 2.2 .538 .595 1.8 2.0 -.334 .741
IMentormodel 3.3 2.9 .869 .392 2.8 2.9 -.149 .883
IStudent vision 3.1 2.5 1.170 .251 2.5 2.4 .128 .899

 

The mentor low group consisted of those who reported having less than 14.8
hours of orientation. The high mentor group consisted of those who reported having 14.8
hours or more of mentor orientation.

The low mentee group consisted of those who reported less than 2.4 hours of
orientation; the high mentee group consisted of those who reported 2.4 or more hours of
orientation.

The analysis showed that length of orientation played no significant difference in
the effectiveness ratings of the six mentor functions within either the mentor groupings

or the mentee groupings.

Level of education attained.

The last variable tested in this analysis of differences was the level of education
attained. The means of the mentor fimctions and overall scale were compared by level of
education attained. The mentors were divided into two groups at the mean of 5.5. The

mentees were also divided into two groups with a mean of 3.5. The data are shown in

Table 21.

99

Table 21: Level of Education Attained as a Factor of Effectiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I Mentors (n=32) I Mentees (n=32) 7
Low High t— p- Low High t- p-
educa- educa- value value educa- educa- value value
tion tion tion tion
group group group group
(below (5.5 or (below (3.5 or
5.5) above) 3.5) above

)

IOverall score I3.o 2.4 1.039 [.307 2.6 1.8 1.329 .195

IRelationship I3.1 2.6 .898 I376 1.8 1.9 -.131 .897

Ilnfonnation I35 I28 I1.126 I269 I28 I23 I871 I391 I

IFacilitative I35 I35 I-.670 [.947 I33 [3.1 T340 [.737 I

IConrronnve I29 I22 I 1.259 I217 I22 I 1.6 I 1.192 .244 I

IMentormodel 3.6 I30 1.151 I250 3.1 I26 .875 .390 I

IStudentvision 3.1 I27 .792 I434 2.7 L22 .836 F411 I

 

 

Level of education attained played no significant difference in the effectiveness
ratings of the six mentor functions within either the mentor group or the mentee group.
In summary, only two factors made a difference in the effectiveness ratings of
the six mentor fimctions. These were age and mutual benefit. Older mentees perceived
higher effectiveness in the relationship emphasis and mentor model mentor functions
than the younger mentees did. Mentors who perceived higher mutual benefit than their
colleagues also perceived higher effectiveness in four of the mentor functions:
relationship emphasis, information emphasis, mentor model and student vision. Mentees
who perceived higher mutual benefit than their colleagues also perceived higher
effectiveness in five of the mentor functions: relationship emphasis, information

emphasis, facilitative focus, mentor model and student vision.

100

 

CHAPTER 5—DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Discussion

Introduction

The research has served to provide a clearer understanding of effective mentoring
relationships. Effective mentoring relationships are those relationships which have above
average scores in the six mentor functions identified by Cohen (1993) in his Principles
of Adult Mentoring Scale (PAMS). Implications for future design of mentor training
have become clearer. This chapter discusses in summary form the findings from the
gathered data and concludes with specific recommendations for the LDN mentoring
program as well as recommendations for future research.

The discussion that follows is divided into the following sections: 1)
mentor/mentee demographics, 2) qualities of the mentoring relationship, 3) perceptions

of the mentoring relationship, and 4) differences in effectiveness scores using factors.

Mentor/mentee Demographics

The mentor/mentee demographics comprise Tables 1-4 of the previous chapter.
These tables presented data regarding the number of respondents, their age, their level of

education attained, and their ordination status.

Age, Educatioa, and Ordination Status.

Tables 2-4 reported that mentors were older than mentees, had more education,

and that more mentors than mentees were ordained, facts that were to be expected. The

101

literature confirmed that in a mentoring relationship, mentors are usually older, more
experienced and in positions of leadership or authority that make them sought after by
younger, less experienced mentees rising on the corporate, educational, or religious
ladder. Mentoring relationships traditionally have been older/younger, more
experienced/less experienced arrangements. In these arrangements either the mentor
seeks out someone to train or, as is more common today, the mentee seeks out an older
person in their particular field who can advocate their case, giving them access to
training and advancement which they could not realize by themselves. It should be
noted, though, that there are times when the mentee may be more knowledgeable than
the mentor. Younger persons often have a greater knowledge of and facility in using

computers and other technologically-focused tools. In such cases, older persons could
find themselves being mentored by younger people.
In mentoring relationships within a church setting, such as in the LDN program,

age may or may not play a factor. What qualifies a person to serve as a mentor, or
discipler, of another is oftentimes the length of being a spiritual leader. He/she may have
journeyed for a longer period of time on the spiritual road and therefore is sought out for
spiritual guidance. Data, though, show more older mentors than mentees. It can be

concluded that these older persons probably also have had more experience, then, on this
spiritual journey.

Table 4 shows that more mentors were ordained than mentees. Since the LDN
program was developed to train men and women so that they could become ordained

evangelists, it naturally follows that fewer of them have an ordination status already.

Their mentors logically would be men and women who have already attained this status.

102

The majority of mentors in the LDN program are ordained, though four of them are not.
In summary, the findings in Tables 2-4 are consistent with what was expected
from the data since mentees would be expected to be younger than their mentors, in the

beginning of their professional careers, and would have less education, or experience,

than those who were mentoring them.

Qualities of the Mentoring Relationship

Three qualities of the mentoring relationship were examined in Table 5. These
were length of time served as a mentor or mentee, the frequency of meeting over a six-

month period, and the length of orientation.

Length of time served 3&1 mentor or mentee.

The data showed that the mentees perceived a longer time serving as mentee than
the mentors did as mentors. It can be concluded that the mentoring experience places
greater time demands on the LDN mentee than it does on the LDN mentor. This may be
a reflection of the mentors’ being more familiar with the situation and therefore able to
be more efficient in the time that they spend. Also, the data suggests that the mentee, as
the learner in the situation, has a larger agenda to be achieved. The mentee could
possibly be putting more time and energy into the relationship than the mentor since
he/she sees himself/herself as the partner in the relationship who has more to learn. It
could also be concluded that the mentee’s perception is the result of the mentee having a

lower knowledge base or experiential base to call upon and therefore he/she indeed

exerts more effort and time into the relationship.

Frequency of Meeting,

103

The responses from both mentor and mentee groups were similar for the
frequency of mentoring meetings over a six-month period. It can be concluded that both
groups perceived meeting the same number of times meeting in the mentoring
relationship over a six-month period. This data do not assist us in any way in evaluating
the quality of those meetings nor the content of those mentoring sessions. The only fact

we can deduce from the data is that both mentors and mentees perceive that they have

met the same number of times over a six-month period.

Length of orientation.
Mentors and mentees were asked to report on the length of orientation they had

received prior to going into their mentoring relationships. The mentor group reported
many more hours of orientation than the mentee group. This finding is consistent with
the literature which shows that more emphasis in the past has been placed on training the
mentor for his/her task than for the mentee for his/her task. Most books and articles on
the tOpic of mentoring focus on the mentor. This phenomenon can be explained in

several ways.

1) Historically it was assumed that mentors played the pivotal role in the mentoring
relationship. Mentors were seen as the experts who shared from their wisdom.
Knowles states, “the behavior of the teacher probably influences the character of
the learning climate more than any other single factor,” (Knowles, 1970, p. 41) A
statement like this reinforces the pivotal role given to the mentor in a mentoring
relationship, which is seen as a form of learning. This reinforces the premise that

mentors require more mentoring for their role than mentees do since their role is

oftentimes seen to be more critical in the relationship. Early forms of mentoring,

104

2)

3)

4)

such as the various forms of apprenticeship, point to the mentor as the “expert.”
It can be concluded, then, that the mentor would be expected to need more

orientation than the mentee in order for him/her to fulfill the expert role.

The mentee was known as a protégé, from the French meaning “one who needs
to be protected.” As long as some mentoring programs think of the mentee in
terms of protégé, then the length of orientation could continue to be minimal
compared to the length of orientation given the mentor. Oftentimes even the
beginning parts of the actual mentoring program are considered as a form of
orientation for the mentor while the same perception does not hold for the
mentee. The mentee traditionally would not see the mentoring relationship

necessarily as orientationally-focused.

It is only within the last fifty years that greater emphasis has been placed on the
mentee. Previously the mentee was seen as a passive participant in the mentoring
process while the mentor was the “doer.” The mentee was merely the object of
the mentoring relationship, someone to be acted upon. Only in recent times has
he/she been seen as the subject- not object- of the mentoring relationship, just as
much a proactive participant as the mentor, both being involved in a dialogical
transaction. As this recognition of the active role of the mentee becomes more

readily accepted, the amount of orientation may likewise increase for the mentee.

Within the LDN program itself, mentors received training for their task, but little
training was given to their mentees. Mentor training took two forms: 1) training
conducted by the researcher and one of his colleagues at mentor training

workshops, and 2) mentor training conducted by LDN regional coordinators, if

105

any. Not all coordinators necessarily trained mentors in addition to training given
by the researcher. The researcher was not involved in the training of all mentors.
Also, the researcher did no training of mentees to their task. Any reporting of
mentee training, then, is the result of training offered in the region. Even as
designers of the program, then, the researcher and his colleague had focused only

on mentor development. This could account for the reported difference in length

 

of orientation between the two groups.

Perceptions of the Mentoring Relationship

Table 7 focused on two perceptions of the mentoring relationship, one dealing

with the level of trust in the relationship and the other with a perception of mutual

benefit in the relationship.

Level of trust.

Both groups, mentors and mentees, have similar perceptions of the level of trust
in the mentoring relationship. They trust the relationship to a high degree. Mentor
perception of the level of trust showed a mean of 4.3 and mentee perception showed a
mean of 4.5. Both of these are high ratings. Trust would appear to be the first step, a

foundational step, in mentoring relationships. Without trust in the relationship, you have
nothing to build on. It is important that both mentors and mentees perceive a high level
of trust in the relationship if this relationship is to flourish and mature over time. Either
mentors were effectively trained in trust-building or they were innately skilled in this
area. The literature earlier showed the importance of trust-building in the early phase(s)

of a mentoring relationship. Without this, the relationship could not mature to where

106

frank dialogue could be carried out nor to the point where the mentor would feel

comfortable in challenging the mentee to greater productivity.

Mutual benefit.

Both groups, mentors and mentees, have similar perceptions of the degree of

mutual benefit in the mentoring relationship. Not quite as high a perception as in the
level of trust, nevertheless mentors had a mean score of 3.9 and mentees had a mean

score of 3.7. For a mentoring relationship to be sustainable over time, both parties in the
relationship need to perceive a benefit to the relationship. Both ask themselves, “What’s

in it for me?” Without seeing the benefit, there would be less interest in seeing the

mentoring continue. The mentee, for one, would want to see benefit because of his/her
role as an adult learner. One of the assumptions which Knowles makes about adult
learners is that they are desirous of immediate application. Also, he noted that adult
learners come to a learning experience for the purpose of solving or focusing on
problems. There must be some tangible result from this relationship, some benefit, for
the mentee to continue. Likewise, for a mentor to expend time and energy in the
relationship, he/ she must see some benefit accrued to himself/herself. It may originate
with the idea of generativity, of passing the baton to a new generation. Or the benefit
may be seen as something very personal in which the mentor for once in his/her life has
the opportunity to share with one who is willing to listen, a form of self-affirmation, a
sense that “I have something worth sharing with others.” To the extent that both mentor
and mentee see benefit in the relationship, the mentoring has rhyme and reason, has

purpose, has validation in their eyes.
In summary, regarding both level of trust and mutual benefit, the study has

107

demonstrated that both mentors and mentees had moderate to high perceptions of the
relationship. Both appear to be important for effective mentoring relationships. Without

mist in the relationship and without a sense of personal benefit, the relationship could be

short-lived and its value questioned by both parties.

Effectiveness of the Relationship

The next section of this chapter is concerned with the effectiveness of the
mentoring relationship. Two questions are posed:
1) Overall, how effective did mentors and mentees perceive the relationship?

2) How effective did mentors and mentees perceive the relationship in light of the six

mentor functions identified by Cohen?

The first question gives us an overall perception concerning the effectiveness issue.

The second examines specific mentor functions in light of mentor/mentee perceptions of
effectiveness.
Overall effectiveness.

As was earlier reported, the data showed a mean of 2.6 for mentors in overall

effectiveness and 2.2 for mentees. It was also noted that there was no significant
difference between the means of the mentor and mentee groups; both groups saw them
similarly; they saw the overall effectiveness of their relationships as low. This is
certainly disconcerting for those who have designed the LDN mentoring program. This
could reflect on the length or quality of mentor training that was given or it could reflect
on the mentors’ ability to exercise the mentor role, defined by the skills and behaviors

found in the six mentor functions. It can be concluded that mentors may enter the

108

 

relationship with a lowerer expectation level than the mentees or that the mentees enter
with a higher expectation level than doe the mentors.

An apparent incongruity comes to light when you consider that the data showed
that both mentor and mentee groups gave a moderate to high rating for level of trust in
the relationship and for the degree of mutual benefit while the perception of overall
effectiveness in the relationship was, nevertheless, strikingly low.

One would not expect to see such a low overall rating, given the recorded high
level of trust and mutual benefit in the relationship. It could be explained that skill in the 9!
mentoring relationship has nothing to do with how mentors and mentees ultimately
judged the relationship. On a relational level, both groups were able to give moderate to
high ratings on trust and mutual benefit while giving low ratings for the skills that go
into the mentoring, namely the six mentor functions. The mentors, although apparently
not skilful in the mentor functions, had enough personality to be able to create a sense of
trust and a feeling of mutual benefit.
To interpret this overall effectiveness score, it is important to also look, then, at
the effectiveness scores for each of the six mentor functions. What follows next is a
discussion on the mentor/mentee effectiveness ratings for each of the six mentor

fimctions.

Relafimship Emphasis mentor function.
According to Table 9, mentors perceived the Relationship Emphasis mentor
function as “effective” with a mean rating of 2.7, although this rating is not strikingly
high. Mentees perceived the Relationship Emphasis mentor function lower than mentors

and rated it “less effective” with a mean rating of 1.8. Reflecting on Cohen’s description

109

of the relationship emphasis as a mentor function which “conveys through active,
empathetic listening a genuine understanding and acceptance of student’s feelings,”
(Cohen, 1993:75), one would question if mentors generally understand the behaviors
essential for effectiveness in establishing a strong relationship with the mentee. Cohen
has identified these behaviors as responsive listening, the use of open-ended questions,
the giving of descriptive feedback, and nonjudgmental, sensitive responses. This finding
suggests that mentors, as a group, do not spend sufficient time in developing relationship
behaviors. Again, it could also suggest that sufficient training in this mentor function
was not given to the would-be mentors before they began their mentoring relationship
with a mentee. Also, if this survey was answered at the beginning of a mentoring
relationship, mentor and mentee may not have had sufficient time to establish a
workable mentoring arrangement.

Although both mentors and mentees rated the relationship emphasis very low,
mentors perceived themselves more effective in this function than did the mentees. It
could be suggested that mentors may not be very open to feedback from their mentees.
Through such feedback, growth could occur and the mentoring relationship could
become more effective. Given the reported perception of a high level of trust, though, it
would not seem consistent with the data to attribute the low scores in this first mentor

function to a lack of honest feedback-giving or honest feedback-receiving.

Information Emphasis mentor function.
According to Table 10, both mentors and mentees perceived the Information
Emphasis mentor function as “effective.” Analysis of these data showed no significant

difference between the ratings of mentors and the ratings of mentees. Again these are not

110

strikingly high scores. They are rather neutral, non-confrontive, “safe” scores. Cohen
(1993, p. 80) describes the specific behaviors which make up the Information Emphasis
mentor function. These are behaviors to help the mentor gain an understanding of the
mentee through the collection of information about the mentee. The mentor wants to
know the present learning situation of the mentee. He/she asks questions in order to
understand the background of the mentee. He/she asks probing questions as well as
offers direct-type statements regarding mentee problems to solve or solutions which the
mentee could try. Another behavior mentioned by Cohen is that of restating mentee
comments to assist in helping to clarify an understanding of the facts. Cohen also
encourages the mentor to rely on facts in the decision-making process - hence a concern
for information. The data showed that the mentors perceive that they are using an
Information Emphasis, but not very effectively. This is supported by the mentees’ rating
of their mentors.

It can be concluded that the mentors have not cultivated the Information
Emphasis mentor function behaviors to warrant higher effectiveness scores. Mentors in
their orientation may need more understanding about the Information Emphasis mentor
function. Mentors may need to practice developing the particular skills that relate to the

Information Emphasis mentor function if these mean scores are to rise dramatically.

facilitative Focus mentor function.

According to Table 11, in the F acilitative Focus mentor function, mentors
perceive a “very effective” rating whereas the mentees perceived an “effective” rating
for their mentors. The F acilitative Focus mentor fimctions described by Cohen include

those where the mentor is seen as a guide who poses hypothetical questions to help the

111

mentee expand his/her views. The mentor helps the mentee to uncover underlying
assumptions for statements which he/she makes. The mentor presents various viewpoints
to an issue, measures the mentee’s level of commitment to established goals, and helps
the mentee in analyzing reasons for his/her goals and preferences. The mentor, therefore,
needs practice in exercising these behaviors. Perhaps the mentor has not taken the time
necessary to fully understand the mentee in order to understand the questions that need
to be asked or to help the mentee uncover his/her underlying assumptions for statements
made. Possibly the mentor is incapable of seeing several sides to an issue and therefore
cannot help the mentee to see various viewpoints.

It can be concluded that the mentors need more knowledge about the F acilitative
Focus mentor function and need more practice in utilizing the corresponding skills for
this mentor function. The orientation that the mentors receive should include this

knowledge base and exercises using the appropriate skills.

Confrontive Focus mentor function.

The confrontive focus mentor function is one in which the mentor “respectfully
challenges students’ explanations for or avoidance of decisions and actions relevant to
their development as adult leamers,” (Cohen, 1993, p. 75). Cohen lists the
accompanying behaviors as:

“Careful probing to assess psychological readiness to benefit from different points
of view.

Open acknowledgment of concerns about negative consequences of constructive
criticism on relationship

Confrontive verbal stance aimed at primary goal of promoting self-assessment of

112

apparent discrepancies
Selective focus on most likely behaviors for meaningful change
Attention to using least amount of carefully stated criticism necessary for impact

Comments (offered before and after confrontive remarks) to reinforce belief in

positive potential for growth beyond current situation,” (Cohen, 1993: 81)

According to Table 12, the mean rating for both mentors and mentees showed
that the mentoring relationship was “less effective.” This was the lowest rated mentor
function among the LDN mentors and mentees discussed so far in this section. It can be
concluded that this is far from being the “safest” function of an effective mentor. Its very
label, “confrontive focus” can be understood very negatively. Mentors probably find this
function to be the least desirable to exercise in the mentoring relationship. Mentors
prefer to be liked. Confrontation, or challenge, would scare most mentors away for fear
of diminishing what they hope to be a meaningful and positive relationship. Also, these
behaviors for many mentors do not come naturally. They appear conflictive or
judgmental. They appear to put up walls between mentor and mentee. Or the mentor
could perceive that the mentee is not ready to be confronted and therefore, growth would
not result from this confrontation. The mentor might be concerned that the use of these
behaviors could be counterproductive for the relationship and for the mentee.

Part of the low scores in this function could be attributed to the ethos of the
Christian Reformed Church itself which could mitigate against a healthy exercise of this
function. The confrontive focus could be perceived from its most negative view, as high
criticism of the mentee by his/her mentor. In the Christian Reformed Church, pastors are

taught not to “lord it over another.” The mentor sees the mentee as a pastor-in-training,

113

and therefore, could find criticizing him/her to be a prohibition, a taboo, therefore
subconsciously forcing the mentor to limit his/her use of this particular mentor function.
This would occur only when the most negative aspects of this mentor function are
exercised, when constructive criticism tums to a negative form.

Whatever may be the reason(s) for the low score in the confrontive focus mentor
function, it can be concluded, though, that the mentor fails to exercise this function fully
and, as a result, this relationship will be difficult to develop and that the mentee will

have difficulty in growing through this relationship as it is presently practiced.

Mentor Model mentor function.

For the Mentor Model mentor function, both the mentors and mentees registered
ratings showing this mentor function as “effective.” This mentor fiinction rating was
only moderate or average in effectiveness. The mentor in the Mentor Model mentor
function serves as a role model for the mentee. Cohen says that the Mentor Model
mentor function is demonstrated by the mentor sharing from his/her own experiences of
success and failure and demonstrating that both success and failure contribute to a
person’s learning. He also states that the mentor has a “direct, realistic assessment of
positive belief in ability to pursue stated objectives.” In other words, the mentor has
much to offer the mentee through sharing how he/she overcame difficulties and
ultimately grew through those difficulties. The mentors need to exude a passion in the
mentoring relationship. They need to communicate their desire to see the mentees grow
through this role model relationship.

It can be concluded that the LDN mentors fall short of being very or highly

effective role models, and the mentees are very well aware of this. Either the mentors do

114

not have enough training in being a role model, in how to self-disclose, or the mentors
have little to offer and are improperly positioned as mentors. A serious examination of
the present mentors is called for to determine if they have adequate training in
knowledge and skills pertinent to the Mentor Model mentor function or if the reason for

the low ratings results from mentors who really are inadequate to the task.

Student Vision mentor function.

Both groups rated the Student Vision mentor function as “effective.” Neither
score, though, was very high. The purpose of the Student Vision mentor function is to
stimulate “students’ critical thinking with regard to envisioning their own future and to
develop their personal and professional potential.” (Cohen, 1993, p. 76). The mentor
demonstrates the corresponding following behaviors: 1) making statements which
require the mentee to reflect on his/her present and future learning goals; 2) asking
questions that help the mentee clarify his/her ability to manage change; 3) reviewing
with the mentee his/her choices based on an assessment of options and available
resources; 4) commenting related to analyzing the problem solving strategies of the
mentee; 5) demonstrating verbally confidence in the positive decisions which the mentee
has made; 6) showing respect for the mentee’s ability to determine his/her preferred
future; and 7) encouraging the mentee in developing his/her talents, and in pursuing
his/her dreams for the future.

It can be concluded from the ratings for the Student Vision mentor function that
the mentor exercises behaviors that correspond with this mentor function. The mentor
understands the goals of the mentee and is capable of assisting the mentee in

accomplishing those goals, but not to a high degree. In any educational experience,

115

change is inevitable. How a mentee handles change has a lot to do with his/her grth
from that change. What a mentor understands or does not understand about the process
of critical thinking and transformational learning will either enhance the mentee’s
positive change or hamper it. The mentor probably does not fully understand change
process and therefore is of only some assistance to the mentee in this critical stage of

learning in the LDN.

Summary

Neither the overall effectiveness score nor the ratings in the six individual mentor
functions rated the mentor as highly effective in the mentoring relationship. The mentors
and mentees both usually perceived the mentor as average, or “effective,” in his/her
mentoring relationship. It can be concluded that more training by mentor trainers or
more skills development by the mentors themselves is called for, particularly in the six
mentor functions. Additionally, much more attention needs to be given to developing the
skills base for exercising the confrontive focus mentor firnction, even if only to raise the
score to “effective.” This was the lowest rated mentor function of the six and therefore

requires even more attention than the others.

Differences in Effectiveness Scores Using Factors

In this next section, differences in the reported effectiveness scores using
selected variables will be discussed. These selected variables were age, degree of mutual
benefit, level of trust, frequency of meeting, length of orientation, and level of education
attained. The first to be discussed will be mutual benefit because of the findings

reported.

116

Mutual benefit as a variable in effectiveness.

 

This variable was by far the most striking of the six factors in effectiveness that
were analyzed. Mutual benefit as a factor in effectiveness strikingly affected how the
mentors and mentees perceived the mentor frmctions. There was significant difference in
ratings in four of the six mentor functions between the mentor group who perceived low
benefit and the group that perceived higher benefit. These four mentor firnctions were
the relationship emphasis function, the information emphasis function, the mentor model
function, and the student vision function. The p-values for the difference in these four
functions were respectively .029, .020, .026, and .005 .The most significant difference
was in student vision. The higher mutual benefit mentor group rated effectiveness in

these four mentor functions higher than did the lower mutual benefit mentor group.

Mutual benefit as a factor in effectiveness affected how mentees perceived five
of the six functions: the relationship emphasis function, the information emphasis
function, the facilitative focus function, the mentor model function, and the student
vision function. The p-values for the difference in these five functions were respectively
.005, .006, .010, .003, and .011. Mentees with a high perception of benefit rated the
effectiveness in these five functions higher than did their counterparts in the lower

mutual level group.

The confrontive focus emphasis firnction was not one of the functions affected by
mutual benefit. Mentors were obviously avoiding confrontive behaviors in their

relationships.

As was discussed earlier in this chapter, mutual benefit plays an important role in

setting the stage for an effective mentoring relationship. This was further affirmed in this

117

section as it was noted how mutual benefit as a factor of effectiveness affected how
mentors and mentees both perceived the mentor functions. For the LDN mentors and
mentees, mutual benefit as a factor of effectiveness was very important. The following
paragraphs show how mutual benefit played an effective role in the above named mentor

functions.

In terms of the Relationship Emphasis mentor function, Cohen ( 1993, p. 75)
explains that the purpose of this function is “to create a psychological climate of trust
which allows students (who perceive mentoring as listening and not judging) to honestly
share and reflect upon their personal experiences (positive and negative) as adult
learners.” In this study, where both mentor and mentee sensed open dialogue and the
sharing of personal experiences, both mentor and mentee perceived some degree of

mutual benefit in the relationship.

In terms of the Information Emphasis mentor function, Cohen (1993, p. 75) states
that the purpose of this function is “to ensure that advice offered is based on accurate
and sufficient knowledge of individual differences.” Both mentor and mentee, involved
in a sharing of information, and the giving of advice in personal as well as professional
areas, saw a mutual benefit The mentor possibly sees the relationship as an opportunity
to share from his/her wide range of experiences and offer suggestions to one who shows
great promise. The concept of generativity, of the mentor investing in the life of another,
may also be a factor in this relationship while the mentee possibly sees the relationship

as an opportunity to learn from one who has already walked the path.

In terms of the F acilitative Focus mentor function, Cohen (1993, p. 75) describes

the purpose of this function as “to guide students through a reasonably in-depth review

118

and explanation of their interests, abilities, ideas, and beliefs.” The benefit to the mentee
is his/her reflection on those interests, abilities, ideas and beliefs under the guidance of a
caring mentor. Such a reflection or review might not naturally occur without this initial

nudging by a facilitating mentor. At the very least, that review or reflection might not be

in—depth, only superficial, were it not for an insistent mentor.

In terms of the Mentor Model mentor function, Cohen (1993, p. 76) describes the
purpose of this function as “to motivate students to take necessary risks (make decisions
without certainty of successful results) and to continue to overcome difficulties in their
own journey toward academic and career goals.” The mentor could perceive this
relationship as an opportunity to experience the joy of serving as a role model for one
who has begun the journey. The mentor may even project on the mentee some of the
goals and dreams which remain unfulfilled in his/her own life. The mentor has already
discovered for himself/herself that life is full of risks, but necessary in order to reach
one’s goals and is desirous of sharing that truth. For the mentee, the benefit comes in the

receiving of permission from an older, wiser mentor to risk it all for a preferred future.

In terms of the Student Vision mentor function, Cohen (1993, p. 76) says that the
purpose of this function is “to encourage students as they manage personal change to
take initiatives in their transition(s) through life events as independent adult learners.”
This purpose is based on critical reflection, reflection on the past and reflection on the
future. For the mentor, the benefit comes in the equipping of the young mentee to think
critically. For the mentee the benefit comes in learning how to think critically and

envision the future.

Shea (1994, 1997, 1999) discusses in detail in his works the importance of both

119

mentor and mentee seeing a benefit to the relationship, that for many this function is the
driving force behind the relationship. Phillips-Jones (2000c) specifically emphasizes the
benefits of mentoring for the mentor. Mentors often ask “What’s in it for me?”
Mentoring relationships like any relationship that require the investment of time and
energy, prove to be more effective when there is a perception of benefit for both parties.
In summary, both mentors and mentees who perceived a higher degree of mutual
benefit from the relationship also give higher effectiveness ratings for most of the

mentor functions.

Age as a variable in effectiveness.

The study showed that older mentees saw higher effectiveness in the
Relationship Emphasis and Mentor model mentor functions than did the younger
mentees. How to account for this? Concerning the Relationship emphasis mentor
function, older mentees, as adult learners, perhaps had more experience in the practice of
learning and projected this on their mentoring relationship. They were more willing to be
pliable, to learn from their mentors, than were the younger mentees. They entered into
the relationship with a maturity which allowed them to be more open to the leading of
their mentors.

Concerning the Mentor Model mentor function, the older mentees were more
willing to listen and learn from their mentors’ self disclosures. In spite of any mentor
deficiencies, the older mentees more ofien looked to their mentors as role models than
did the younger mentees.

Older, more mature mentees could be responding more positively in the

relationship and be more willing to take advantage of whatever the mentor has to offer.

120

With age often comes more tolerance and a respect for those who appear to have learned
much in the course of their journeying.

LDN mentees, particularly older ones, would see in the mentor a spiritual guide
who has much to offer. Since the mentors are predominantly ordained pastors and
evangelists, they serve as role models in ways which nonordained mentors could not
Younger LDN mentees might be less apt to “follow the lead” of a mentor simply for lack
of maturity, while older mentees see the significance of following those who have been
credentialled, who have arrived, and are willing to share from their vast treasure house
of experience.

The data showed that the age of the mentor did not have an effect on the ratings
of the six mentor functions. It can be concluded that mentors in general saw themselves

the same, and this attributed to similar effectiveness ratings in the mentor fiinctions.

Level of trust as a variable of effectiveness.

 

As a factor in effectiveness, level of trust had no effect on the mentor or mentee
perceptions of the mentor functions. Mentors in both levels of trust, high and low
groups, had very similar ratings in all of the functions. Mentees in both levels of trust,
high and low groups, also had very similar ratings in all of the functions. The level of
trust made no significant difference on how mentor groups perceived the functions nor
on how the mentee groups perceived those functions. In other words, scores in the six
functions for both high and low mentor and mentee groups were relatively similar.

Even though trust was earlier identified as “very effective” to “highly effective”
in mentoring relationships, it is not a factor that appears to strongly influence

perceptions of the mentor functions. This appears to be a contradiction. It can only be

121

explained in these terms: As a stand-alone factor, for the respondents to the two surveys,
the level of trust was important and effective in the relationship. As an influencing factor
affecting perceptions in the six functions, trust does not seem to play an important role.
It certainly does not have the affect that mutual benefit does. Perhaps trust was not as
fully developed as it could have been, and thus was not reflected in the perceptions of

the six functions.

F remncv of meeting as a variable of effectiveness.

Frequency of meeting as a factor in effectiveness did not significantly affect how
the mentors or mentees perceived the mentor functions. Perception scores for both
mentors and mentees were quite low. There was no significant difference between the
low frequency of meeting group compared to the higher frequency of meeting group for
either mentors or mentees in the six mentor functions.

The quality of the meeting time, then, is called into question. It could be assumed
that the more one met, the better the mentoring relationship would be reflected in the six
functions. This, however, was not the case. It can be concluded that the mentoring
sessions were perhaps ineffective so that the frequency of the sessions had little affect on
how mentors and mentees perceived the six mentor functions. Frequency of the sessions
would only contribute to effectiveness to the degree that the mentoring sessions
themselves were effective. Greater care must be taken in the design of the mentoring
sessions so that greater effectiveness is perceived. Mentoring sessions need a format and
cannot be left to spontaneous actions by the mentors or spontaneous responses by the

mentees. Each mentoring session needs to have a purpose and a plan of action.

Length of orientation as a variable of effectiveness.

122

As a factor of effectiveness, the length of orientation did not appear to have much
affect on mentor and mentee perceptions in the mentor functions. There was no
significant difference between those with less orientation and those with more
orientation in how the mentors or mentees perceived the six functions. It can be
concluded that the orientation received was of poor quality, or that it was not
meaningful, since the length of orientation had no visible affect on mentor and mentee
perceptions in the six functions. Greater care in designing an orientation program needs
to be taken. The components of a mentoring orientation for mentors need to be well
thought out and need to reflect the skills and behaviors of the six mentor fimctions. The
orientation program for mentees also needs to be well designed, taking into account the

appropriate behaviors expected of mentees in effective mentoring relationships.

Level of education attained as a variable of effectiveness.

As a factor of effectiveness, the level of education attained did not affect how
mentors or mentees perceived the mentor functions. How much or little education one
has does not seem to affect how mentors or mentees perceive the effectiveness of
mentors in the six mentor functions. It ca be concluded that mentees do not rate their
mentors’ effectiveness on the level of education he/she has attained as much as on other
factors and variables. Education alone does not necessarily make one an effective

mentor.

Summm

The only variable which significantly affected how mentors and mentees
perceived the mentor functions was mutual benefit. Where both mentor and mentee

perceived a higher benefit to the relationship, this was reflected in their perceptions in

123

most of the mentor functions, in four for the mentor and five for the mentee.

Concluding Observations

Cohen’s Principles of Adult Mentoring Scale (PAMS) was found to be a useful
tool for partially measuring a mentor’s perception of effectiveness in mentoring
relationships.
PAMS proved to be useful in giving an overall effectiveness rating for the mentoring
relationships as well as individual effectiveness ratings in the six subscales which Cohen
had identified in his research. An adaptation of this scale for use with mentees gave an
additional second-sided perception for a more holistic view of the mentoring
relationship, seeing the relationship not only through the eyes of the mentor but also
through the eyes of the mentee. Combining this measurement tool with questions
regarding other variables that could play a difference in the effectiveness of the
relationship gave the researcher a much wider angle lens through which to evaluate the
effectiveness of the mentoring. In order to enhance the success or effectiveness of
mentoring relationships, all possible tools should be utilized through as many angles as

possible.

Recommendations

Recommendations for the LDN Mentoring Program
The findings of the research and data analysis point toward the need for more
effort in the training of mentors and mentees for their specific tasks within the

relationship. The findings also point toward the need for some form of accountability in

124

the relationship. Designers of mentoring programs will need to concentrate, then, on

these two specific areas: training and accountability.

Training.

Both mentors and mentees need to receive better and more orientation to their
particular tasks. Since mentors in the LDN program reported having received more
orientation to their task than mentees received to theirs, the LDN program in the future
should emphasize training for both mentors and mentees. In order for mentees to “come
into their own” in the mentoring relationship, it is important for them to understand their
role. It is important for mentees to see themselves as proactive participants in an
ongoing, transactional process.

Present orientation did not prove to be effective and leaves much to be desired.
Mentors would benefit from reading material not only about mentors but also mentees.
The more the mentor understands the mind of the mentee and his/her role in the
relationship, the better the mentor is equipped to facilitate the relationship. LDN mentors
need to become mentee-focused instead of j ust mentor-focused.

Mentors and mentees should read about Cohen’s six mentor functions in order to
understand what they are experiencing. As they come to understand these functions,
their purposes and respective behaviors, the better they are able to function effectively in
their respective roles in the mentoring relationship. Scores of “effective” or “less
effective” in the mentor functions present the mentors with a challenge to improve their
mentoring skills in most of the six mentor functions. This will also help mentors and
mentees to have the same expectations for the relationship.

Role-playing a mentoring session could be employed to increase a mentor’s

125

potential effectiveness with respect to the behaviors reflected in the six mentor functions.
This needs to be followed by appropriate evaluation of the role-play so that mentors can
learn from this experience. Evaluations can be verbal or by means of a checklist
enumerating the six mentor firnctions and giving effectiveness score for the mentor’s
role-play in each of these firnctions. Mentors could also be asked to give a self-
evaluation of their performance within the role-play. If combined with the former, it is

best if the mentor first evaluates himself or herself before others give their evaluation.

To better understand the specific function of Student Vision mentor function, the
mentor should become better acquainted with Schon’s (1984) “Reflection-in-Action”
model of critical reflection, or Mezirow’s (1991) “Perspective Transformation” model,
or versed in Brookfield’s (1984, 1986, 1989, 1995 ) writings on the process of critical
reflection. Any combination of these teachings would benefit the mentor and further

equip him/her for living out the behaviors essential to this mentor fiinction

Mentors and mentees both need more training in the skills and behaviors relevant
to the Confrontive Focus mentor function. This mentor function was consistently rated
low in effectiveness by both mentors and mentees. Mentors will need more orientation
regarding the Confrontive Focus mentor function. Mentors will also need hands-on
practice in using the skills that accompany this mentor function. The behaviors will need
to be second nature. Rather than think about the possible negative consequences of
confrontation, mentors will need to respond automatically with the appropriate actions
and words. When the skills are used effectively, this mentor function can only enhance
the mentoring relationship. In essense, there needs to be practice in “truth telling.”

Mentors need to learn how to challenge, how to exercise the behaviors which Cohen

126

described for this mentor function. Mentees need to learn how to respond appropriately
and to grow from the use of this mentor function. Additional practice in the use of
appropriate skills will enhance the rising of effective scores for this mentor function.
LDN mentors will need to overcome the fear that their actions in the confrontive focus
are misconstrued as “lording it over another.” Rather, they need to explain to the mentee
why these behaviors are being carried out so that the mentee can see how he/she will
grow as the mentor challenges appropriately.

Part of the training should center on the importance of trust and mutual benefit in
any mentoring relationship. As the data have shown, both of these factors by themselves
were rated moderately high to high by both mentors and mentees. There is always room
for improvement.

The data also showed how the degree of mutual benefit influenced how mentors
and mentees perceived effectiveness in the mentor functions. Training needs to emphasis
that there are some benefits to both mentor and mentee in a mentoring relationship, thus

setting the groundwork for a positive beginning.

Accountability.

Both mentors and mentees need to be held accountable for their roles in a
mentoring relationship. One way of realizing this is through the writing of a mentoring
contract in which the specifics of the relationship are stipulated. Such specifics could
include the purpose of the mentoring relationship, the date when the mentoring will
begin, the specific day or time of the week when mentor and mentee will meet, an
understanding of the roles of both mentor and mentee, and what is acceptable and not

acceptable within the relationship.

127

Regular coaching sessions for mentors should be scheduled by a “mentor of
mentors.” This coach would help the mentor to think critically about the relationship and
to offer suggestions regarding direction and next steps in the relationship. Qualifications
for a mentor’s mentor need to be established and training to be a mentor’s mentor is
essential. In essence, the mentor’s mentor should be an effective mentor himself or

herself, exercising effectively the six mentor functions.

Overall, the mentors rated themselves higher than the mentees did in
effectiveness. They may have felt that their years of experience equipped them for
mentoring while the mentees saw areas in which the mentors could improve. Honest
ongoing evaluations of the relationship, therefore, are called for if both mentor and
mentee are to see the mentoring relationship in its true light. Such evaluations could be a
combination of self-evaluations, peer evaluations and mentee evaluations. Periodic self-
evaluations will serve to correct errant behaviors or to affirm positive mentoring
behaviors. These can be either verbal or written. Periodic peer evaluations for mentors
allow for fellow mentors to observe and recommend since mentors can mentor each
other. Mentee evaluations of their mentors in the six mentor functions identified by
Cohen allow for mentors to have a better understanding of how the mentee rates the

mentor’s effectiveness.

Those who train mentors also need to be held accountable, in this case, for the
quality and duration of the training they give to the mentors and mentees. The data
showed that length of orientation did not effect how mentors and mentees perceived the
effectiveness of the relationship. This suggests that the quality of the orientation needs to

improve. The LDN Mentor and Mentee Surveys serve not only to rate the mentor in

128

his/ her mentor role, but also serve as benchmarks for rating the effectiveness of the
training received to their role.

The data showed that frequency of meeting did not influence the quality of the
mentoring relationship either. This suggests that greater care in designing the mentoring
sessions needs to be implemented. Mentors, therefore, need to be held accountable
regarding the content of the mentoring sessions and trainers need to be held accountable

for their role in equipping the mentors for this task.

Recommendations for Further Research

The size of the respondent pool, thirty mentors and thirty-two mentees, turned
out to be too small for as rigorous an analysis as the researcher would have liked. If this
study were to be repeated, it would be important to find a larger population to use for a
similar analysis or to consider ways of encouraging a higher response rate. of the present
census.

Future research could ask how a mentee’s overall satisfaction in the relationship
influences the effectiveness ratings for the six mentor functions. The LDN Mentee
Survey also measured for mentee satisfaction in the mentoring relationship by means of
four questions, but data were not included for use in this analysis.

Future research could be conducted on the mutual benefit factor by means of a
qualitative analysis to understand why this particular factor proved significant among the
test population in overall effectiveness and in many of the mentor functions.

Knowles (1984, pp. 62-63) states that the assumptions one makes about adult
learners can affect how we interact with them. Research could be conducted to

determine how a mentor’s assumptions about the mentee as an adult learner affects a

129

mentor’s interactions with his/ her mentee.

Would mentors and mentees respond differently to the LDN surveys if the
surveys were given to them at different times? Zachary (2000, p. 49) reports that all
mentoring relationships occur in several phases, ofien in three or four. It would be useful
to determine to what extent the perceptions of the mentoring relationship change or do
not change over time. One could further determine if relationships appear to mature or to
be more effective over time or not by means of a longitudinal study of those perceptions.

A study could be conducted on the mentee population to determine to what
extent a mentee’s readiness to be mentored makes a difference in the effectiveness
ratings of the relationship. Little research has been conducted which shows if this

readiness makes a difference or not in effectiveness perceptions.

130

APPENDICES

131

APPENDIX A
ADVANCE NOTICE LETTER

Date

Address

City, State, ZIP
Recipient
Address

City, State, ZIP

Dear Name

Within the next 15 days you will be receiving a survey regarding your role as
mentor or mentee in a Leadership Development Network (LDN). You have the right to
not participate in this survey if you so choose. If you decide to do so, your participation
in filling out this survey and returning it promptly will help Gary Teja, the investigator,
in completing his PhD. research into the area of characteristics of effective mentoring. It
is hoped that the findings in turn will help make the mentoring component of LDNs
stronger and more effective.

At all times the responses you make to the survey will be kept confidential.
Reports of research findings will not permit associating you by name with specific
responses or findings. Although your identity will be known to me since each survey is
numbered, at no time will you as an individual be highlighted or cited by name. Data
gathered will be reported only in the aggregate so that individual subjects may not be
identified or associated with the data provided.

A good response rate is needed from those who receive the survey in order to
make this research as reliable as possible. Please look for the survey in the mail. Thank
you for considering participating in this study.

Gary Teja, the researcher

Christian Reformed Home Missions

132

APPENDIX B

COVER LETTER

Date
Address
City, State, ZIP

Recipient
Address
City, State, ZIP

Dear Name

About two weeks ago you received an advanced notice that a survey on
mentoring would be in the mail. You now have in your hands the promised survey. If
you agree to participate, the survey should only take about 15 minutes to complete.

The survey is part of a doctoral research project on mentoring. Your participation
in this survey is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. By
returning a completed survey, you will be indicating your consent to participate in this
research project. This is a one-time participation. You will not be contacted for any
further information beyond this survey.

The information you provide will be confidential. At no time will you be
identified by name with your survey responses. The surveys will be used by the
researcher only for purposes of the study. Where it is necessary to identify a particular
respondent, this will be done by using terms such as Mentee #1 or Mentor #1.The
surveys are numbered (coded) in order for the researcher to match mentor with
mentee(s) since matched mentor/mentee analysis is part of the study. All returned
surveys will be kept in a secure location. Your privacy will be protected to the fullest

extent allowable by law.

A self-addressed stamped envelope is provided for you to return the survey.
Please return the completed survey within the next 10 days.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the researcher, Gary
Teja, Christian Reformed Home Missions, 2850 Kalamazoo Ave SE, Grand Rapids, MI

49560, e-mail: teiag@crcna.org, (616) 224-0825.

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or
are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact—anonymously, if you wish—Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-

133

2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

 

At the completion of the research a copy of the findings from the cumulative
surveys will be sent out to all participants.
Thank you for considering participating in this study.

Sincerely,

Gary Teja, the researcher

134

APPENDIX C

F OLLOW—UP CARD

Date
Address
City, State, ZIP

Recipient
Address
City, State, ZIP

Dear Name

You recently received an LDN mentor or mentee survey in the mail. The due
date has passed and a completed survey from you has not yet been received. In the event
that you do want to participate, another copy of the survey is enclosed as well as a self-
addressed stamped envelope.

Please consider taking fifteen minutes to fill out this important survey. Again,
your participation is completely voluntary. Since matched mentor/mentee analysis is part
of the study, without your participation, the researcher will not be able to do a matched
mentor/mentee analysis on your particular mentor/mentee pair.

Thank you for considering participating in this study.

Sincerely,

Gary Teja, the researcher

135

1)

2)

3)

4)

APPENDIX D

PANEL OF EXPERTS
The following persons served as the panel of experts in the field of mentoring:
James Osterhouse, M.Div., Lombard, Illinois.

Rev. Osterhouse is the Leadership Development Specialist for Christian
Reformed Home Missions. Rev. Osterhouse oversees the Leadership
Development Networks (LDNs) and conducted mentor training workshops

throughout the US. and Canada.

Joel Hogan, B.A., Grand Rapids, Michigan

Mr. Hogan is the Director of Leadership Development and Training for Christian
Reformed World Missions, overseeing mentoring for Christian Reformed

missionaries around the world.

Jeffrey Stam, D. Missiology, Hudsonville, Michigan.

Dr. Stam is founder and former director of Set Free Ministries and presently
pastor of Friendship Chapel. Dr. Stam has spent a decade in mentoring

relationships.

Robert deVries, D. Min, Ph. D., Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Dr. deVries is professor of church education at Calvin Theological Seminary. He
is also director of the Master of Arts programs at the seminary and former
director of field education, involving placing seminarians in mentoring

relationships with pastors.

136

APPENDIX E
LDN Mentor Survey
This survey should take you no more than 15 minutes to fill out. Please fill out
each item. Section One asks for basic information and Section Two asks for your

perceptions regarding your mentoring.

SECTION ONE
1. How long have you been a mentor? __ #_fl
2. Have you previously participated in a mentoring relations/rip?
_Yes
No

2a. If yes, please describe.

3. Regarding your present mentoring relationship, what orientation did you receive
about being a mentor?

_None
or
hours

01'

137

Sir

days

In a 6-month period, how many times would you typically meet with your mentee
in your present mentoring relationship?

_times

4a. Thinking about those times, were they:
_too few

_about right

_too many

()n a scale fiom I to 5, with 5 being the highest, how would you rate your
present mentoring relationship in terms of trust?
No trust High trust

1 2 3 4 5

()n a scale from I to 5, with 5 being the highest, how would you rate your
present mentoring relationship in terms of mutual benefit?
No mutual benefit High mutual benefit

1 2 3 4 5

Your age _—
What is your highest level of education ?
_Grade school certificate

_High school diploma

138

_Some college
_College degree

_G raduate study

_Graduate degree
9. What role do you have in your local church? __________M**_h
l 0. Are you an ordained minister or evangelist? ___Yes__ No.
SECTION TWO

For each of the statements (below) circle one of the following choices:
Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always
Choose the one that is most representative of your actual behavior as a mentor. * Your
answers should be based on your current mentoring experience in the LDN and should
reflect your views on yourself as a mentor. If you have very little experience as a
mentor, your answers should be based on how you would probably interact at this time

with a mentee.

1 1. I encourage mentees to express their honest feelings (positive and negative)
about their academic and social experiences as adult learners.

Never Infiequently Sometimes Frequently Always
I 2- I discuss with mentees who are discouraged (due to poor learning performance
or other difficulties) the importance of developing a realistic view of learning

that can include both successes and disappointments, mentioning other mentees
who have been fiustrated as learners but still continue their learning.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always
13- 1 ask mentees for detailed information about their progress in learning.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

14- I refer mentees to others to obtain information they need in order to advance
their learning.

139

16.

17.

I8.

19.

20.

21-

22-

23.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I attempt to be verbally supportive when mentees are emotionally upset.
Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I suggest to mentees that we establish a regular schedule of meeting times.
Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I make a good deal of eye contact with mentees.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I suggest that mentees who indicate concerns about serious emotional or
psychological problems meet with a professional counselor.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I ask mentees to explain (in some detail) the reasons for their study plans and
ministry choices.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I encourage mentees to provide a good deal of background information about
themselves—theirformer studies, successes and problems in learning, and
spiritual formation up to this point.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I inquire in some depth about the mentee 's study strategies and, if necessary,
oflers practical suggestions or refer them for help to improve their learning
performance.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

[ explain to mentees that I really want to know what they as individuals honestly
think about issues such as balancing study commitments and other commitments
so I can offer advice specific to them.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I arrange my meetings when possible with mentees at times when I will probably
not be interrupted very much by telephone calls or other people.

140

24.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

3].

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always
I explain the need to explore learning options and methods to mentees who have
insufficient information about their possibilities.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I encourage mentees to consider diflerent forms of training that they have not yet
explored to develop their personal interests.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I point out inconsistencies in mentees ’ explanations of why their learning goals
(both academic and spiritual) were not achieved if I believe my comments will
help them develop better coping strategies to deal with their problems.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I try to stimulate mentees to do more rigorous critical thinking about the long-
range implications (time commitments and lifestyle changes) their ministry
choices may have for increasing the complexity of their lives.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I explain to mentees why they should discuss (even with someone else) significant
learning or spiritual problems they are presently confronted with even if they
prefer not to deal with these issues.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I offer recommendations to mentees about their personal learning needs based
on specific information provided by them during our meetings.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I follow up on mentees ’ decisions to develop better personal learning and
spiritual strategies by asking questions (and oflering comments, if appropriate)
about their actual progress at later meetings.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I tell mentees when I think their ideas about ministry choices or learning
concerns are very clearly based on incomplete or inaccurate information.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

141

32.

33.

34.

36.

37.

3 8.

39.

I attempt to guide mentees in exploring their own personal commitment to career
or learning interests by posing alternative views for them to consider.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I verbally communicate my concerns to mentees when their negative attitudes
and emotions are expressed to me through such nonverbal behaviors as eye
contact, facial expressions, and voice tone.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

O

I discuss mentees 'general reasons for being involved in the LDN and then focus
on helping them identify concrete learning and spiritual formation objectives.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I provide a reasonable amount of guidance in our discussions so that mentees
will explore realistic options and attainable learning goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I ask mentees to review their strategies for managing the changes in their lives
(such as impact of increased time pressures on personal relationships or ability
to handle current ministry role) while they pursue their “dreams ” regarding
learning goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I question learners’ assumptions (especially about ministry options and the value
of education) as a way of guiding them through a realistic appraisal of the extent
to which their important ideas and beliefs are based on adequate personal
experiences and facts.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I discuss my own ministry-related experience as a way
of helping mentees think about and carefully examine their ministry options.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I share with mentees personal examples of difliculties I have overcome in my own
individual and professional growth if these experiences might provide insights
for them.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

142

40.

4].

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

I engage mentees in discussions which require them to reflect on the new
competencies they will need to achieve their future goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I point out (using personal examples as well as stories about mentees) that
achievement in the LDN is primarily based on personal commitment (rather than
just “luck ") to mentees who are having problems completing the work but
appear unrealistic about the amount of discipline and energy needed to cope
with the pressures of the work and study load.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I express my personal confidence in the ability of mentees to succeed if they
persevere in the pursuit of their learning and ministry goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I confi'ont mentees with the reality of continued or probable negative
consequences in a direct but supportive manner when they repeatedly do not
follow through on their stated intentions to deal with personal or spiritual issues
or studies.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I encourage mentees to use me as a sounding board to explore their hopes, ideas,
feelings, and plans.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I engage mentees in discussions aimed at motivating them to develop a positive
view of their ability to function now and in the fitture as independent, competent
adult learners.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I use my own experience (personal as well as references to other mentees I have
mentored) to explain how the LDN courses and ministry activities they believe
will be boring, too demanding, or not relevant, could be valuable learning
experiences for them.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I offer mentees constructive criticism if I believe their avoidance of problems and

decisions is clearly limiting their growth as adult learners, both academically
and spiritually.

143

48.

49.

50.

5].

52.

54.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I encourage mentees to make well-informed personal choices as they plan their
own learning and ministry goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I explore with mentees who express a lack of confidence in themselves the ways
in which their own life experiences and faith walk might be a valuable resource
to help them devise strategies to succeed as learners within the LDN
environment.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I assist mentees in using facts to carefully map out realistic, step-by-step
strategies to achieve their learning and ministry goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I share my own views and feelings when they are relevant to the situations and
issues I am discussing with mentees.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I listen to criticism from mentees about LDN policies, regulations, requirements,
and even colleagues without immediately attempting to offer justifications.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I ofler comments to mentees about their inappropriate behavior if I have a
reasonable expectation that they are prepared to work on positive change and
will most likely experience some success as a result.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I inform mentees that they discuss “negative " emotions such as anxiety, self-
doubt, fear, and anger in our meetings.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always
I express confidence in mentees ’ abilities to achieve their educational goal,
especially when they are having personal dqficulties in fulfilling their learning

responsibilities due to outside pressures (work, family, relationships).

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

144

58.

59.

60.

6].

62.

63.

I question mentees ' decisions and actions regarding their learning-related issues
and problems as well as spiritual concerns when they do not appear to be
appropriate solutions.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I discuss the positive and negative feelings mentees have about their ability to
succeed as adult learners.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I ofier as few carefully chosen criticisms as possible when I try to get mentees to
understand the often-dyfficult-to-accept connection between their own self-
limiting (defeating) behaviors and their inability to solve a particular problem.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I ask probing questions that require more than a “yes ” or “no ” answer so that
mentees will explain (in some detail) their views regarding their learning
progress and plans.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I explore with mentees the extent of their commitment (such as willingness to
spend time and energy) as adult learners in achieving their educational and
spiritual goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I base the timing of my "‘confi'ontive " questions and comments to mentees on my
knowledge of their individual readiness (often related to the stage of our
relationship) to benefit fiom discussions about clearly sensitive issues.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I discuss my role as a mentor with mentees so that their individual expectations
of me are appropriate and realistic.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I try to clarify the problems mentees are explaining to me by verbally expressing
my understanding of their feelings and then asking if my views are accurate.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

145

64. I ask mentees to reflect on the resources available to them to help them manage
their lives ejfectively while they pursue their LDN goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

65. I emphasize to mentees, especially those who appear uncertain about what to
expect from our meetings, that one of my important goals is to assist them in
reaching their own decisions about spiritual, academic and ministry goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

146

APPENDIX F
LDN Mentee Survey

This survey should take you no more than 15 minutes to fill out. Please fill out
each item. Section One asks for basic information about the mentoring relationship;
Section Two asks for your perceptions of the mentor; Section Three asks for your level

of satisfaction in the relationship.
SECTION ONE
I. How long have you been a mentee?

_years _months

2. Have you previously participated in a mentoring relationship as a mentee?

yes

110

2a. Ifyes, how many times?

 

3. Regarding your present mentoring relationship, what orientation did you receive
regarding being a mentee?

_None
or
_hours
or
___days

147

Pr

In a 6-month period, how many times would you typically meet with your
mentor in your present mentoring relationship?
times

4a. Thinking back to those times, were they:
_too few
_about right
_too many
On a scale from I to 5 being the highest, how would you rate your present
mentoring relationship in terms of trust?
No trust High trust
1 2 3 4 5
On a scale fi'om I to 5, with 5 being the highest, how would you rate your present
mentoring relationship in terms of mutual benefit?
No mutual benefit High mutual benefit
1 2 3 4 5
How was your mentor assigned to you?
__My choice.
_Shared decision.
_Someone else’ choice.

Your age __

What is your highest level of education?

_Grade school certificate

148

_High school diploma
_Some college
__College degree

_G raduate study

_Graduate degree

I 0. Are you already an ordained evangelist or minister?
_Yes
_No

SECTION TWO

For each of the following statements (below) circle one of the following choices:

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always
Choose the one that is most representative of your mentor. * Your answers should be
based on your current mentoring experience in the LDN and should reflect your views of
your mentor.

II. My mentor encourages me to express my honest feelings (positive and negative)
about my academic and social experiences as an adult learner.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I 2. When I am discouraged (due to poor learning performance or other difliculties),
my mentor discusses with me the importance of developing a realistic view of
learning that can include both successes and disappointments, mentioning other
mentees who have been frustrated as learners but still continue their learning.
Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I 3. My mentor asks me for detailed information about my progress in learning.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

14. My mentor refers me to others to obtain information I need in order to advance
my learning.

149

I6.

17.

I8.

19.

20.

2].

22.

23.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always
va mentor attempts to be verbally supportive when I am emotionally upset.
Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always
My mentor suggests that we establish a regular schedule of meetings times.
Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always
My mentor makes a good deal of eye contact with me.
Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

If 1 indicate concerns about serious emotional or psychological problems my
mentor suggests I meet with a professional counselor.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor asks me to explain ( in some detail) the reasons for my study plans and
ministry choices.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

Il/Iy mentor encourages me to provide a good deal of background information
about myself—my former studies, successes and problems in learning, and
spiritual formation up to this point.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor inquires in some depth about my study strategies and, if necessary,
oflers practical suggestions or refers me for help to improve my learning
performance.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor explains to me that he really wants to know what I honestly think
about issues such as balancing study commitments and other commitments so
that he’she can offer advice specific to me.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor seems to arrange our meetings when possible at times when hel-“she
will not be interrupted very much by telephone calls or other people.

150

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor explains the need to explore learning options and methods to me if I
have insufficient information about my possibilities.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor encourages me to consider different forms of training that I have not
already explored to develop my personal interests.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor points out inconsistencies in my explanations of why my learning
goals (both academic and spiritual) were not achieved ifhe/she believes his/her
comments will help me develop better coping strategies to deal with my
problems.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor tries to stimulate me to do more rigorous critical thinking about the
long-range implications (time commitments and lifestyle changes) my ministry
choices may have for increasing the complexity of my life.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor explains to me why I should discuss (even with someone else)
significant learning or spiritual problems I are presently confronted with even if
I prefer not to deal with these issues.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor oflers me recommendations about my personal learning needs based
on specific information provided by me during our meetings.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor follows up on my decisions to develop better personal and learning
strategies by asking questions (and oflering comments, if appropriate) about my
actual progress at later meetings.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor tells me when he/lshe thinks my ideas about ministry choices or
learning concerns are very clearly based on incomplete or inaccurate

information.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

151

32.

33.

34.

36.

37.

38.

39.

My mentor attempts to guide me in exploring my own personal commitment to
career or learning interests by posing alternative views for me to consider.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor verbally communicates his/her concerns to me when negative
attitudes and emotions are expressed to him/her through such nonverbal
behaviors as eye contact, facial expressions, and voice tone.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor discusses my general reasons for being involved in the LDN and then
focuses on helping me identify concrete learning and spiritual formation
objectives.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor provides a reasonable amount of guidance in our discussions so that I
will explore realistic options and attainable goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor asks me to review my strategies for managing the changes in my life
(such as impact of increased time pressures on personal relationships or ability
to handle current ministry role) while I pursue my “dreams " regarding learning
goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

A/Iy mentor questions my assumptions (especially about ministry options and the
value of education) as a way of guiding me through a realistic appraisal of the
extent to which my important ideas and beliefs are based on adequate personal
experiences and facts.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor discusses his/her own ministry-related experience as a way of helping
me think about and carefully explore my ministry options.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always
My mentor shares with me personal examples of difficulties he/she has overcome

in his/her own individual and professional growth if these experiences might
provide insights for me.

152

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

46.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor engages me in discussions which require me to reflect on the new
competencies I will need to achieve my future goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor points out (using personal examples as well as stories about mentees)
that achievement in the LDN is primarily based on personal commitment (rather
than just on “luck ") if hershe notices that I am having problems completing the
work but appear unrealistic about the amount of discipline and energy needed to
cope with the pressure of the work and study load.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor expresses his—her personal confidence in my ability to succeed if I
persevere in the pursuit of my learning and ministry goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor confionts me with the reality of continued or probable negative
consequences in a direct but supportive manner when I repeatedly do not follow
through on my stated intentions to deal with personal or spiritual issues or
studies.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor encourages me to use him/her as a sounding board to explore my
hopes, ideas, feelings, and plans.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor engages me in discussions aimed at motivating me to develop a
positive view of my ability to function now and in the filture as an independent,
competent adult learner.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor uses histher own experience (personal as well as references to other
mentees he. she has mentored) to explain how the LDN courses and ministry
activities I believe will be boring, too demanding, or not relevant, could be
valuable learning experiences for me.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

153

 

4 7.

48.

49.

50.

5].

52.

53.

54.

My mentor ojfers me constructive criticism if her’she believes my avoidance of
problems and decisions is clearly limiting my growth as an adult learner, both
academically and spiritually.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor encourages me to make well- informed personal choices as I plan my
own learning and ministry goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

When I express a lack of confidence in myself my mentor explores with me the
ways in which my own life experiences and faith walk might be a valuable
resource to help me devise strategies to succeed as a learner within the LDN
environment.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor assists me in using facts to carefully map out realistic, step-by-step
strategies to achieve my learning and ministry goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor shares his/her own views and feelings when they are relevant to the
situations he» she is discussing with me.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor listens to my criticism about LDN policies, regulations, requirements,
and even colleagues without immediately attempting to offer justifications.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

Il/Iy mentor ofl'ers rne comments about inappropriate behavior if he/she has a
reasonable expectation that I am prepared to work on positive change and will
most likely experience some success as a result.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor informs me that I may discuss “negative ” emotions such as anxiety,
self-doubt, fear, and anger in our meetings.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

154

55.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

Il/h/ mentor expresses confidence in my abilities to achieve my educational goals,
especially when I am having personal difliculties in fulfilling my responsibilities
due to outside pressures (work, family, relationships).

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor questions my decisions and actions regarding my learning-related
issues and problems as well as spiritual concerns when they do not appear to be
appropriate solutions.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor discusses the positive and negative feelings I have about my ability to
succeed as an adult learner.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor ofiers as few carefully chosen criticisms as possible when he/she tries
to get me to understand the ofien-diflicult-to-accept connection between my own
self-limiting (defeating) behaviors and my inability to solve a particular problem
or issue.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor asks probing questions that require more than a “yes " or “no "
answer so that I will explain (in some detail) my views regarding my learning
progress and plans.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor explores with me the extent of my commitment (such as willingness to
spend time and energy) as an adult learner in achieving my educational and
spiritual goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentor bases the timing of his/her “confiontive ” questions and comments on
his/her knowledge of my readiness (ofien related to the stage of our relationship)
to benefit from discussions about clearly sensitive issues.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

Il/Iy mentor discusses his/her role as a mentor with me so that my expectations of
him/her are appropriate and realistic.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

155

 

63.

64.

65.

My mentor tries to clarifi/ the problems I am explaining to him/her by verbally
expressing his/her understanding of my feelings and then asking if his/her views
are accurate.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

Mv mentor asks me to reflect on the resources available to me to help me manage
my life eflectively while I pursue my LDN goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

If I appear uncertain about what to expect fiom oour meetings, my mentor
emphasizes that one of 'hisrher important goals is to assist me in reaching my
own decisions and about spiritual, academic and ministry goals.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

SECTION THREE

66.

67.

68.

69.

I feel satisfied in the mentoring relationship.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

My mentoring relationship has been a successfitl experience for me.
Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

Due to my experience in mentoring, I would recommend it to others.
Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

I had a positive outlook in my mentoring relationship.

Never Infrequently Sometimes Frequently Always

156

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albrecht, K. ( 1989). Teaching trainees how to think. In P. G. Jones (Ed), Adult
Learning in your Classroom (Second ed., pp. 45-48). Minneapolis: Lakewood
Books.

Allsop, T., & Benson, A. (1997). Mentoring for science teachers. Buckingham ; Bristol,
PA: Open University Press.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1995). Introduction to research in education
(Fifth Edition). Ft Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Aslanian, C. B., & Brickell, H. M. (1980). Americans in transition: life changes as
reasons for adult learning. New York: Future Directions for a Learning Society,
College Board.

Atcherson, E., & Jenny, J. (November 1983 ). What about mentors and women in
academe? Paper presented at the Annual Midyear Conference of the American
Educational Research Association, Temple AZ.

Ayers, W. (1986). Thinking about teachers and the curriculum. Harvard Educational
Review, 56(1), 49-51.

Baker, C. E. (1996). Leading women: how church women can avoid the leadership traps
and negotiate the gender maze. Nashville: The Abingdon Press.

Barnes, T., & Stiasny, M. (1995). Mentoring: making it work. Southampton: Bassett.

Beck, L. (1989). Mentorships: benefits and effect in career development. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 33(1), 22-28.

Becker, J. M. (1994). Mentoring high-risk kids. Minneapolis: Johnson Institute.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N. and Tarule, J. (1986). Women 's ways of
knowing: the development ofself voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Bergevin, P. (1967). A philosophy for adult education. New York: The Seabury Press.

Berry, T. (1988). The dream of the earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Bey, T. M., Holmes, C. T., & Association of Teacher Educators. (1990). Mentoring,
developing successful new teachers. Reston, Va.: Association of Teacher

Educators.

Biehl, B. (1997). Mentoring: confidence in finding a mentor and becoming one.
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

157

Bi llington, D. D. (1998). Seven characteristics of highly ejfective adult learning
programs. New Horizons for Learning. Available:
http://www.newhorizons.org/article_billington1 .htrnl [2000, 2/16/2000].

Bogart, C. A., & Rednar, R. L. (1985). How mentoring affects the professional
development of women in psychology. Professional Psychology, Research and
Practice(16), 851-859.

Boreen, J. (2000). Mentoring beginning teachers: guiding, reflecting, coaching. York,
ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Boston, B. O. (1976). The sourceror 's apprentice: a case study in the role of the mentor.
Reston VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Bova, B. M. (May-June 1984). Mentoring as a learning experience for adults. Journal of
Teacher Education, 35(3), 16-20.

Breen, P., Dolan, T., & Whitaker, U. ( 1975). The learning and assessment of
interpersonal skills: guidelines for administrators . Princeton: Educational
Testing Service.

Brookfield, S. D. (1984). Self-directed adult learning: a critical paradigm. Adult
Education Quarterly, 36(1), 60-64.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Brookfield, S. D. (1989). Developing critical thinkers: challenging adults to explor
alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Caffarella, R. (1993). Self-directed learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 5 7(Spring), 25-36.

Candy, P. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: a comprehensive guide. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Canton, M. E., & James, D. P. (1999). Mentoring in higher education: best practices.
[Pacifica, Calif: Canton Associates].

Christenson, P. (1999). Women 's way of mentoring. Unpublished M. Ed., University of
Alaska, Anchorage.

Coffman, R. A. (1998). Differences in mentor behavior as influenced by training and

158

mentor values for community college faculty participating in a mentor program.
Unpublished Ph. D., University of Houston, Houston.

Cohen, N. H. (1993). Development and validation of the principles of adult mentoring
scale for faculty mentors in higher education (mentors). Unpublished Ed. D.,
Temple University, Philadelphia.

Cohen, N. H. (19953). Mentoring adult learners: a guide for educators and training.
Melbourne FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Cohen, N. H. ( 1995b). The Principles of Adult Mentoring Scale. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 66(Summer), 15-32.

Collins, N. W. (1983 ). Professional women and their mentors. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Coombs, P. H., Prosser, R. C., & Ahmed, M. (1973). New paths for rural children and
youth. New York: International Council for Educational Development.

Cox, J ., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (Eds). (1985). Educating able learners: programs
and promising practices. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners: increasing participation and facilitating learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Daloz, L. (1986). Ejfective teaching and mentoring. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Daloz, L. (1999). Mentor: guiding the journey of adult learners (2nd ed.) San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc.

Daloz, L., Keen, C., Keen, J ., & Parks, S. (1996). Common fire: lives of commitment in a
complex world. Boston: Beacon Press.

Daloz, L. A. (1998). Mentorship. In M. Galbraith (Ed. ), Adult Learning Methods (pp.
353-372). Malabar FL: Krieger Publishing House.

Daresh. (1992, April 4-7). Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association
for Supervisor and Curriculum Development, New Orleans.

Darwin, A. (May 2000). Critical reflections on mentoring in work settings. Adult
Education Quarterly, 50(3), 197-211.

Dave, R. H. (Ed). (1976). Lifelong education and school curriculum. Elmsford, N.Y.:
Pergamon Press.

Davis, R. L. (1992). Mentoring: the strategy of the master. In B. Wilkinson (Ed. ), Almost
every answer for practically any teacher. Portland OR: Multnomah Press.

159

De Vries, R. (1987). A description of the nature and quality of assigned non-structured
mentoring relationships in independent work sites. Unpublished Ph. D., Michigan
State University, Lansing Nfl.

Deshler, D. (1998). Measurement and appraisal of program success. In P. S. Cookson
(Ed. ), Program planning for the training and continuing education of adults (pp.
301-328). Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.

Dettoni, J. (1994). What is spiritual formation? In K. Gangel & J. Wilhoit (Eds), The
Christian educator 's handbook on spiritual formation (pp. 11-20). Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House.

DiLeonardi, J. and Curtis, P. (1992). What to do when the numbers are in: a user’s guide
to statistical data analysis in the human services. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Douville, Helene (1998). Echelle des principes du mentorat adulte. In Doyon, Diane
(2000). Module 2 Programe interministe'riel de mentorat pour les gestionnaires
intermédiaires et DRH C, region du Québec. Montreal: Université du Quebec.

Duff, C. (1999). Learning from older women: how to benefit fiom the biowledge,
wisdom, and experience of female mentors. Saranac: Amacom.

Dunn, J. P. (1992). The winning teacher: metaphors from coaching. Teaching Professor,
6(9), 1-2.

Edwards, A., & Collison, J. (1996). Mentoring and developing practice in primary
schools : supporting student teacher learning in schools. Buckingham [England];
Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Eisner, E. W. ( I983). The art and craft of teaching. Educational Leadership, January
1983, 5-13.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: International Universities
Press.

Fairbanks, C. M., Freedman, D., & Kahn, C. (March-April 2000). The role of effective
mentors in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 102-1 12.

F eiman-Nemser, S. (January-February 2001). Helping novices learn to teach. Journal of
Teacher Education, 52(1), 17-30.

Field, L. (1989). An investigation into the structure, validity, and reliability of

Guglielmino’s self-directed learning readiness scale. Adult Education Quarterly,
39(4), 235-245.

160

Field, L. (1991). Guglielmino’s self-directed learning readiness scale: should it continue
to be used? Adult Education Quarterly, 41(2), 100-103.

Flannery, D., & Hayes, E. (2000). Women as learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), 151-
163.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury.

F rierson, H. T. (1997). Mentoring and diversity in higher education (Vol. 1). Greenwich,
Conn: JAI Press.

Furlong, J ., & Maynard, T. (1995). Mentoring student teachers: the growth of
professional knowledge. London; New York: Routledge.

Galbraith, M. (1991a). The adult leaming transactional process. In M. Galbraith (Ed),
Facilitating adult learning: a transactional process (pp. 1-32). Malabar FL:
Kreiger Publishing House.

Galbraith, M. (Ed.). (1991b). Facilitating adult learning: a transactional process.
Malabar FL: Krieger Publishing House.

Galbraith, M., & Cohen, N. H. (1995a). Issues and challenges confronting mentoring.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 66(Summer), 89-92.

Galbraith, M., & Cohen, N. H. (1995b). Mentoring: new strategies and challenges (Vol.
66): New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education.

Galbraith, M., & Zelenak, B. (1991). Adult learning methods and techniques. In
M.Galbraith (Ed.), Facilitating Adult Learning: A Transactional Process (pp.
103-133). Malabar FL: Krieger Publishing House.

Galvez-Hjomevik, C. (January 1986). Mentoring among teachers: a review of the
literature. Journal of Teacher Education, 3 7(1), 6-1 1.

Gehrke, N. J. (January 1988). On preserving the essence of mentoring as a form of
teacher leadership. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 43-45.

Goodlad, S., & British Petroleum Company ltd. (1998). Mentoring and tutoring by
students. London; Stirling, Va: Kogan Page.

Goodwin, L. D., Stevens, E. A., & Bellamy, G. T. (November-December 1998).
Mentoring among faculty in schools, colleges, and departments of education.

161

Journal of "I 'eacher Education, 49(5), 334-343.

Gratch, A. (May-June 1998). Beginning teacher and mentor relationships. Journal of
Teacher Education, 49(3), 220-227.

Gray, M. M. (Ed). (1989). Mentoring and coaching: an annotated bibliography. West
Vancouver, BC: The Mentoring Institute.

Gray, W. A., & Gray, M. M. (1985). Syntheis of research on mentoring beginning
teachers. Educational Leadership, I I, 37-43.

Gray, W. A., & Gray, M. M. (Eds). (1986). Mentoring: a comprehensive annotated
bibliography of important references. Vancouver, B. C .: International
Association for Mentoring.

Griffin, E. V., & Ervin, N. R. (1990). innovative practices and developments in student
mentoring (teaching manual ED323 893). Charleston: West Virginia State
College, Division of Student Affiars.

Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly,
41(3), 125-149.

Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale.
Unpublished Ph. D., University of Georgia.

Guglielmino, L. M., & Guglielmino, P. (1988). Self-directed learning in business and
industry: an information age imperative. In H. B. L. A. Associates (Ed), Self-
directed learning: applications and theory. Athens: Adult Education
Department, University of Georgia.

Guglielmino, L. M., Long, H. B., & McCune, S. K. (1989). Reactions to Field’s
investigation into the SDLRS. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(4), 234-245.

Hallesky, G. j. (2001). Formal mentoring for two-year, technical college students: an
analysis of mentor behaviors as perceived by mentors and mentees. Unpublished
Ed. D., Temple University, Philadelphia

Haring, M., & Freeman, K. (Eds). (1999). Mentoring unrepresented students in higher
education. Mahwah NJ: Larwence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Harragan, B. L. (1977). Games mother never taught you: corporate gamemanshipfor
women. New York: Rawson Associates Publishers, Inc.

Havighurst, R. J. (1972). Developmental tasks and education (3rd ed). New Yok:

McKay.
Healy, C. C.& Welchart, A.J . (1990). Mentoring relations: a definition to advance

162

research and practice. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 17-21.
Hechinger, G. (September 1979). A new-girl network for trustees. Change, 11(6), 21-22.

Hendricks, H., & Hendricks, W. (1999). As iron sharpens iron: building character in a
mentoring relationship. Chicago: Moody Press.

Hendricks, W. (Ed). (1996). Coaching, mentoring and managing. Franklin Lakes NJ:
Career Press.

Henning, M., & Jardim, A. (1976). The managerial woman. New York: Doubleday and
Company, Inc.

Hill, N. K. (1980). Scaling the heights: the teacher as mountaineer. Chronicle of Higher
Education, June 16, 1980, 48.

Houle, C. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Houle, C. (1992). The literature of adult education: a bibliographic essay. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Huffman, G., & Leak, S. (January 1986). Beginning teachers’ perceptions of mentors.
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 22-25.

Hunt, S. (1993). Spiritual mothering: the Titus 2 model for women mentoring women.
Wheaton: Crossway Books.

Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: a literature review.
Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 505-532.

Jadwick, D. (1997). The perceptions of effectiveness of mentoring relationships in
higher education (interpersonal competencies). Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton.

Jaworski, 3., Watson, A., & Mathematical Association. (1994). Mentoring in
mathematics teaching. London; Washington, DC: F almer Press.

Johnston, K. (2002). Why mentoring graduate students matters. The Graduate Post
(Spring 2002), 13-15.

Jones, C. A. (1999). A study of the effects of selected mentoring behaviors and
transactional dynamics on the supervision of four selected teacher education
programs. Unpublished Ph. D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Forth Worth.

Kent, C. (1999). Becoming a woman of influence: making a lasting impact on others.

163

Colorado Springs: NavPress.

King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1),
30-35.

 

Kleis, J., Lang, J ., Mietus, J. R., & Tiapula, F. T. S. (1973). Toward a contextual
definition of nonformal education. Nonformal education discussion papers, 3-6.

Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: andragogy vs. pedagogy.
New York: Association Press.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: a guide for learners and teachers. Chicago:
F ollett Publishing Company.

_ jt-eeeeées-q

Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: a neglected species. Houston: Gulf Publishing
Company.

Knowles, M. (Ed). (1985). Andragogy in action: applying modern principles of adult
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Knowles, M. (1986). Using learning contracts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard
Educational Review, 42(November), 449-496.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: developmental relationships in organizational
life. Glenview, 111.: Scott F oresman.

Labovitz, S. (1970). Treating Ordinal Data as Interval: The Assignment of Numbers to
Rank Order Categories. American Sociological Review, 35.

Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man 's life. New York: Knopf.
Lindeman, E. (1926). The meaning of adult education. New York: New Republic.

Lowe, S. D. (1987). Expanding the taxonomy of adult learner orientation. Unpublished
Ph. D., Michigan State University, Lansing, MI.

Lowe, S. D. (J anuary-March 1991). Expanding the taxonomy of adult learner
orientations: the institutional orientation. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 10(1), 1-23.

Lutz, L. (1997). Women as risk-takers for God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Marsick, V. J. (1991). Paradigms for critically reflective teaching and learning. In M.

164

Galbraith (Ed), Facilitating adult learning: a transactional process (pp. 75-102).
Malabar FL: Kreiger Publishing House.

Mawer, M. (1996). Mentoring in physical education: issues and insights. London ;
Washington, DC: F almcr Press.

McCormack, J. (2002). Building institutional mentoring programs. Paper presented at
the National Conference on Mentoring: Mentoring—Shaping People who will
Shape the World, Denver Seminary, Englewood CO.

McIntyre, D., Hagger, H., & Wilkin, M. (1993). Mentoring: perspectives on school-
based teacher education. London ; Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

Merriam, S. (Spring 1983 ). Mentors and proteges: a critical review of the literature.
Adult Education Quarterly, 33(3), 161-173.

Merriam, S., & Simpson, E. ( 1989). A guide to research for educators and trainers of
adults (Updated Edition ed). Malabar FL: Krieger Publishing House.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive
guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mezirow, J. (1991). T ransformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-
Boss Publishers.

Mokros, J. R., Erkut, S., Spichiger, L., & Spencer Foundation. (1981). Mentoring and
being mentored : sex-related patterns among college professors. Wellesley, MA:
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.

Nathan, J. (1990). Mentor program makes big connections. Pioneer Press Dispatch.

New-Church Development Department. (2000). New-church development guidelines.
Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Home Missions.

Noller, R. B., & Frey, B. R. (1983). Mentoring: an annotated bibliography. Buffalo:
Bearly Limited.

Odell, S. J ., & Ferraro, D. P. (May-June 1992). Teacher mentoring and teacher retention.
Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 200-204.

O’Donnell, J ., & Caffarella, R. (1998). Learning contracts. In M. Galbraith (Ed), Adult
learning methods (pp. 275-302). Malabar FL: Krieger Publishing House.

Otto, D. (1997). The gentle art of mentoring. Eugene OR: Harvest House Publishers.

Parks, S. D. D., & Parks, S. (2000). The big questions, worthy dreams: mentoring young

165

_‘.,_._a.

adults in their search for meaning, purpose, and faith (lSt ed). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc.

Peddy, S. (1999). The art of mentoring: lead, follow, and get out of the way (2"d ed).
Houston: Bullion Books.

Peterson, R. (Ed). (1979). Lifelong learning in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publisher.

Phillips-J ones, L. (2000a). The mentee '3 guide: how to have a successful relationship
with a mentor (Revised ed). Grass Valley, CA: The Mentoring Group.

Phillips-Jones, L. (2000b). The mentoring program coordinator’s guide: how to plan and
conduct a successful mentoring program (Revised ed). Grass Valley, CA: The
Mentoring Group.

Phillips-J ones, L. (2000c). Mentoring that makes a difference: what it is and how you
can do it [audio recording]. Grass Valley, CA: The Mentoring Group.

Phillips-J ones, L. (2000d). The mentor ’3 guide: how to be the kind of mentor you once
had—or wish you ’d had (Revised ed). Grass Valley CA: The Mentoring Group.

Phillips-Jones, L. (2000c). Strategies for getting the mentoring you need: a look at best
practices of successful mentees. Grass Valley: The Mentoring Group.

Phillips-Jones, L. (2001a). Planning, implementing, and evaluating a successful
mentoring program: a checklist of critical tasks. Grass Valley CA: The
Mentoring Group.

Phillips-J ones, L. (2001b). Skills for successful mentoring: competencies of outstanding
mentors and mentees (Revised ed). Grass Valley CA: The Mentoring Group.

Phillips-J ones, L. (20010). What every manager should know about mentoring: your
three mentoring roles to help employees excel. Grass Valley CA: The Mentoring
Group.

Pierce, G. (Spring 1998). Teaching teachers: a model for the professional development
of new faculty. Adult Learning, 9(3 ), 17-20.

Portner, H. (1998). Mentoring new teachers. Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin Press.

Pratt, D. (1993). Andragogy after twenty-five years. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 5 7(Spring), 15-24.

Reglin, G. L. (1998). Mentoring students at risk : an underutilized alternative education
strategy for K-12 teachers. Springfield, 111.: Charles C Thomas.

166

Reilly, J ., & Adams, C. (1997;). Mentorship: the essential guide for school and business.
Scottsdale: Gifted Psychology Press, Incorporated.

Reiman, A., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1998). Mentoring and supervision for teacher
development. New York: Longman.

Richardson, P. L. (1979). Lifelong education and politics. Washington, DC: American
Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Rodriguez, Y. E. G. (1995). Mentoring to diversity: a multicultural approach. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 66( Summer), 69-77.

Rogers, A. (1986). Teaching adults. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Rose, G. L. (1999). What do doctoral students want in a mentor? Development of the
Ideal Mentor Scale. Unpublished PhD, University of Iowa.

Salant, 0., & Dillman, D. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: Jon
Wiley & Sons.

Schaller, J. (Spring 1996). Mentoring of women: transformation in religious education.
Religious Education, 91(2).

Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: matching individual and organizational needs.
Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A. W. (1989). Improving higher
education environments for adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schmoll, B. (1981). A description of mentor/mentee relationships among persons
engaged in or preparing for professional roles. Unpublished Ph. D., Michigan
State University, Lansing MI.

Schon, D. (1984). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Schulz, S. (1995). The benefits of mentoring. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 66(Summer), 57-68.

Shea, G. (1999). Making the most of being mentored. Menlo Park: Crisp Publications,
Inc.

Shea, G. (1994). Mentoring: helping employees reach their potential. New York:
American Management Association.

Shea, G. (1997). Mentoring: how to develop successful mentor behaviors (2nd ed).
Menlo Park: Crisp Publications, Inc.

167

Sheehy, G. (1976). Passages. New York: Bantam Books.

Smith, E. P. (1986). Mentoring, networking, and the professional development of
African American graduate/professional students. THS Microfilm.

Smith, P., & West-Bumham, J. ( 1993). Mentoring in the eflective school. Harlow:
Longman.

Sokol, A. V., & Cranton, P. (Spring 1998). Transforming, not training. Adult learning,
9(3), 14-16.

Sriram, N. (1999). Inferential Statistics are Descriptive. Psycholoquy, 10(46).

Stalker, J. (1996). Women and adult education: rethinking androcentric reseach. Adult
Education Quarterly, 46(Winter 2), 98-1 13.

Stanley, P., & Clinton, J. R. (1992). Connecting: the mentoring relationships you need to
succeed in life. Colorado Springs: NavPress.

Stewart, D. (May-June 1992). Mentoring in beginning teacher induction: studies in the
ERIC data base. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 222-226.

Stoner, F. C. (1996). Relationship factors in mentoring learning transactions and felt
needs of adult learners as related to Pennsylviana Association of Adult and
Continuing Educators. Unpublished Ed. D., Philadelphia: Temple University.

Taylor, K., Marienu, C., & Fiddler, M. (2000). Developing adult learners. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Theriot, R. (1986). Personality and behavioral characteristics of effective, average, and
ineffective mentor relationships. Unpublished Ed. D., Bloomington: Indiana
University.

Thomas, D. (2001). The truth about mentoring minorities: race matters. Harvard
Business Review (April), 99-107.

Tice, L. (1997). Personal coaching for results: how to mentor and inspire others to
amazing growth. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Tisdell, E. (1993). Feminism and adult learning: power, pedagogy, and praxis. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 5 7( Spring).

Torres-Guzman, M. E., & Goodwin, L. A. (1995). Mentoring Bilingual Teachers.

Washington, DC (1118 22“d St, NW, Washington 20037): National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

168

Tough, A. (1968). Why adults learn: a study of the major reasons for beginning and
continuing of a learning project Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.

Tough, A. (1979). The adult ’s learning projects. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.

Vella, J. (1995). Training through dialogue. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Vella, J. (1997). Learning to listen, learning to teach: the power of dialogue in
educating adults (First Paperback ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Vella, J. (2000). A spirited epistemology: honoring the adult learner. New Directions in
Adult and Continuing Education, 85(Spring), 7-16.

Vogel, L. (2000). Reckoning with the spiritual lives of adult educators. New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, 85(Spring), 17-26.

Ward, T., Levine, S. J., Joesting, L., & Crespo, D. (1984). Nonformal education:
reflections on the first dozen years . Lansing: Michigan State University.

Watkins, K. E. (1989). Five metaphors: alternative theories for human resource
development. In D. Gradous & R. Swanson (Eds), Systems Theory Applied to
Human Resource Development (pp. 167-184). Alexandria: University of
Minnesota Training and Development Research Center and ASTD Press.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: five key changes to practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Weisbard, P. (1996, January 1996). Mentoring women in higher education, [Internet].
University of Wisconsin. Available: http://www.library.wisc.edu/1ibraries/
Womens Studies/bibliogs/mentor.htrnl [2001, February 27, 2001].

Wickett, R. E. Y. (2000). The learning covenant. New Directions in Adult and
Continuing Education, 85(Spring), 39-48.

Wildman, T. M., Magliaro, S. G., Niles, R. A., & Niles, J. A. (May-June 1992). Teacher
mentoring: an analysis of roles, activities, and conditions. Journal of Teacher
Education, 43(3), 205-213.

Wilkin, M. (1992). Mentoring in schools. London: Kogan Page.

Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Research methodologies for assessing mentoring, Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association,
Los Angeles.

169

Wunsch, MA. (1994). Mentoring revisited: making an impact on individuals and
institutions. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 5 7(Spring), 134.

Yamamoto, K. (1988). To see life grow: the meaning of mentorship. Theory into
Practice, 27(3), 1 83-189.

Zachary, L. (2000). The mentor ’s guide: facilitating effective learning relationships
(First ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Zimmerman, RI (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an
overview. Educational Psychologist, 85(3), 3-17.

170

       
  

 

BR

with

  

T'T‘llilli i.

  

“1 ii