Mentorship Pedagogy: Using Relational Engagement to Build Student Self-Efficacy
Introduction
Self-efficacy in higher education has emerged as a critical measurable outcome, commanding significant attention from educators and researchers alike. Arum et al. observe that increasing student capacity and competency is becoming more complex:
“In today’s complex global economy, a combination of flexible thinking and content knowledge is necessary to respond effectively to real-life situations encountered in work and civic life. In this age of excessive (mis)information, institutional grades and subsequent wages alone do not capture the full potential of student development nor can they serve as a basis to make accurate inferences regarding overall growth occurring in programs of study. In other words, good grades and high paychecks are inadequate indicators of student success.”[1]
In addition to the changing global environment, learner emotional health is increasingly recognized as influencing the learning process, and this emotional mindset of learning must be motivated, regulated, and nurtured. Jesús Alonso-Tapia, Diana Abello, and Ernesto Panadero note that when students adequately regulate their emotions alongside their learning, they “achieve more in-depth knowledge, aim at achieving learning goals and obtain higher performance.”[2]
These findings underscore the need for comprehensive approaches that enhance traditional practices. While many interventions in pedagogical methods and curriculum design support emotional regulation and self-efficacy, Christian educators have a unique opportunity to go further. By adopting a relational mentorship engagement, they can foster greater integration of faith with learning, addressing the holistic development of students in ways that align with Christian values and worldview. This mentorship approach aligns with Broughton, Plaisime, and Parker's assertion that mentorship should be intentionally used to influence the whole person, including character formation and human development.[3] While their perspective is not explicitly Christian, it resonates with many aspects of a Christian worldview, offering a foundation upon which Christian educators can build a more comprehensive and spiritually integrated approach to fostering self-efficacy in higher education.
In light of these considerations, this paper argues that by adopting a mentorship pedagogy that prioritizes relational engagement, educators can holistically nurture student self-efficacy by addressing cognitive, emotional, and spiritual dimensions. This approach not only responds to the complex demands of modern education but also aligns with the holistic development goals inherent in Christian higher education.
Theoretical Foundations of Self-Efficacy
Albert Bandura conceptualized self-efficacy as a theory for behavioral change to explain how one’s beliefs about personal efficacy affect one’s capacity and competency:
People make causal contributions to their own psychosocial functioning through mechanisms of personal agency. Among the mechanisms of agency, none is more central or pervasive than people’s beliefs of personal efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations. Efficacy beliefs influence how people think, feel, motivate themselves, and act.[4]
Bandura found that self-efficacy is a significant causal factor in personal growth and that “such [efficacy] beliefs contribute significantly to human motivation and attainments.”[5] Deep relational connections build self-efficacy by providing examples for successive generations, imbuing them with the confidence to learn, grow, and become who they long to be. Bandura’s work referred to relational connections as an “interdependence of lives” or “interlocking social relationships” that provide structure for the course of life and model self-control for internalizing “life-agency.”[6] Although Bandura did not apply this relational connection as a formal mentorship pedagogy, he illustrated self-efficacy with anecdotal relationship stories where positive and healthy filial relationships yielded higher levels of self-efficacy.
Bandura originally applied self-efficacy theory directly to education in four processes: the students’ view of themselves, the teachers’ view of themselves, the teachers’ view of the collective instructional efficacy, and the general efficacy characteristics and attitudes of student bodies.[7] Zimmerman connected self-efficacy to relational engagement; “Schools must go beyond teaching intellectual skills—to foster students’ personal development of the self-beliefs and self-regulatory capabilities to educate themselves throughout a lifetime.”[8] Zimmerman demonstrated that social comparison and relational modeling strengthen the learner’s academic performance.[9] Others have also applied self-efficacy widely in various disciplines, particularly in secondary and post-secondary education learning environments where mentorship and self-efficacy more easily interact. For example, mentorship training improves intrinsic self-efficacy in teachers.[10]
Mentorship relationships improve teacher retention, reduce barriers to professional development, and increase overall job satisfaction.[11] Formal mentorship experiences among physical therapists lowered burnout rates while elevating self-efficacy perception and practice.[12] Intentional mentorships significantly increase undergraduate learner self-efficacy, even to the point of causing learners to study further at a graduate level.[13] This connection between relational mentorship and self-efficacy has become so marked that Doreen Sams et al. have called for a “relationship pedagogy,” where mentorship strategies are deployed in various ways to create “pedagogies of engagement” to elevate self-efficacy.[14]
Self-efficacy and relational mentorship work well together. Although the theory of self-efficacy and the practice of relational mentorship do not encapsulate biblical teaching methods, they do reflect aspects of New Testament education models.
Theological Foundations of Mentorship Pedagogy
Christian educators will need to fashion their mentorship pedagogy to reflect a biblical worldview. For example, self-efficacy should not be interpreted as simple self-reliance or self-sufficiency. The goal of becoming like Christ motivates and informs all Christian education so that educators invest themselves in others so that others become like Christ.[15] Paul called others to follow him only as he followed Christ.[16] Mentors may build self-efficacy through relational engagement so learners can independently believe and become like Christ.
Relational Engagement
Christian theology influences relational engagement in several ways: the relational image of God, biblical mentorship models, and the need for emotional stability in spiritual maturity. First, educators can reflect the image of God through relational engagement. The image of God must be understood as more than a structural concept; rather, it must be grasped as a relational connection intrinsic to human existence.[17] God is a relational Being, and He has created humankind to be relational. Christian educators do not merely transfer information; they influence people by involving themselves with others.
Relational engagement occurs throughout the Bible. Most biblical examples model relational mentorship for training next-generation ministry leaders or Christian education within the Church, demonstrating formal and informal relational mentorship used to inform beliefs and model behavior.[18] Formal classroom environments will differ significantly from biblical anecdotes, but elements of biblical mentorship scaffold well with secondary and post-secondary learning.
Relational engagement can increase emotional stability alongside spiritual formation. One should not project his or her emotional experiences or development as though they reflect the nature and disposition of God.[19] God’s emotional state is always “invulnerable and perfect,” and He depends on nothing outside of Himself. In contrast, students’ emotional maturity and cognitive learning usually grow in tandem.[20]
Emotions are not primitive impulses to be controlled or ignored, but cognitive judgments or construals that tell us about ourselves and our world. In this understanding, destructive motives can be changed, beneficial emotions can be cultivated, and emotions are a crucial part of morality. Emotions also help us to work efficiently, assist our learning, correct faulty logic and help us build relationships with others.[21]
Therefore, personal relationships are among the most significant influences on elevating students’ functional expertise and emotional stability.[22] Emotional wholeness is not the ultimate goal, but it does form “an inherent part of what it means to be a person,” and educators should intentionally pursue emotional stability as part of the students’ spiritual formation.[23] Educators may then use relational engagement to elevate self-reliance and spiritual formation.
Integrating Faith and Learning through Mentorship
Educators integrate faith with learning through life-on-life connections. When used as an intentional pedagogy, relational mentorship enables educators to influence students holistically through human connection and deliberate conversation. This mentorship pedagogy of engagement allows institutionalized educators to influence learners with skills development and elevated self-efficacy.[24] Ironically, when educators involve themselves personally with their learners, they enable them to grow independently.
Mentorship has often been used in ministry education to integrate faith and learning. Keith Koteskey researched best practices in ministry mentorship and discovered a similar benefit for self-efficacy. Koteskey describes mentorship as “interactive, dialogical relationships” and found that this relational pedagogy is one of the most effective means of integrated learning for training the next generation of ministry leaders.[25] Although Koteskey’s work focused on a narrow field within post-secondary education, his observations apply well for leadership training in other environments.
Mentorship Pedagogy Applied in Leadership Training
Mentorship pedagogy may be used effectively in various learning environments to increase student self-efficacy. Timothy Ponce cites Ellen Ensher’s understanding of mentorship as an academic pedagogy: “Corporate mentorship… is a two-way relationship in which the mentor acts as one in a network of professional relationships that helps the protégé make progress toward their professional goals while the protégé offers a fresh perspective to the mentor by virtue of their lack of experience.”[26]
Although Ponce references a “hybrid pedagogy” within an organization, the practice may extend further.[27] Christian educators may intentionally affect holistic student self-efficacy by developing a mentorship pedagogy in several ways. Koteskey’s definition of ministry mentorship is useful for a broader context within Christian education: “Mentoring refers to a specialized, intentional adult learning process for effectiveness in ministry that occurs within the context of personal relationship.”[28] Christian educators will want to reflect a connected worldview that aims for human flourishing.
Build Rapport and Cultivate Trust
Mentorship is more than a relational connection; it builds rapport and cultivates trust through authentic engagement. Michael Beer calls intentional vulnerability “courage.”[29] Educators who demonstrate personal vulnerability may increase their students’ emotional intelligence and empathy. Beer observed that leaders transform others by building trust, which is often best accomplished when leaders or educators reveal their humanity.[30]
Educators also build trust through active listening and open communication. Michael Bungay Stanier applies active listening throughout The Coaching Habit and summarizes the need and value of listening: “Ask the question. (And then shut up to listen to the answer.)”[31] Although Stanier teaches the ask-then-listen skill for organizational leaders, secondary and post-secondary educators may easily apply his seven questions to build rapport and cultivate trusting relationships.[32] For example, Stanier’s Kickstart Question (“What’s on your mind?”) can be invaluable for letting students open up and initiate the topics to be discussed and the problems to be solved.
Address Emotional Barriers to Learning
Mentorship is more than a skills development platform; for Christian educators, it must also address emotional barriers unique to learning. Beside the myriads of emotional obstacles that students may bring into the learning environment, common institutional barriers to learning (e.g., status, role, and distance) also present challenges.[33] To overcome these barriers, educators may use a mentorship pedagogy to teach emotional regulation.
Educators can help students move through the learning process by enabling them to regulate themselves. Self-regulated learning (SRL) focuses on acquiring and synthesizing knowledge, but SLR may also motivate whole-person development.[34] For example, when assigning graded summative assessments, the educator can coach through formative steps that are graded for completion only. In this way, the educator may nurture the learning process so the learner can make “mistakes” and ask questions without feeling pressured to perform or produce.[35] This relational involvement provides emotional regulation for the student in the active assessment, and it actively illustrates to students how to coach and guide others in future workplace scenarios and life challenges.
Educators may also use a mentorship pedagogy to provide emotional support and encouragement. Relational involvement must not replace academic responsibility but should accompany the academic workload. The cyclical nature of SRL—prepare, perform, appraise—demands “comprehensive and continuing support” on the part of the educator.[36] But academic discipline and objective assessments do not automatically elevate self-efficacy. Instead, self-assessment strategies and intentional observation practices enable mentorship-focused educators to support the students in regulating their learning.[37]
Facilitate Academic and Personal Growth
Mentorship provides more than affirmation and camaraderie; it aims for academic and personal growth. This growth can be in several ways. Objective goals, ranging from hard skills to emotional intelligence, have become a hallmark of modern education.[38] Mentors instill personal goal-setting and accountability, but they also connect these outcomes to personal growth. One way to do this is by providing constructive feedback beyond skills development. Academic environments usually have robust assessment schedules, but a relational mentorship pedagogy can add more informal layers. For example, Beard highlights how informal feedback can aid assessment outside of traditional assessment tools: [39]
Employing supervisors should offer regular feedback opportunities as they oversee student work experiences. They enhance students’ learning by scheduling supervisory meetings with the intern throughout the internship. These sessions can enable students to ask questions, resolve problems, report on their progress, receive training and instructions, and receive advice related to their future career plans.
Even though these examples come from a work environment and internship experience, they could easily be adapted for a mentorship pedagogy within a traditional learning environment. Educators can quickly adjust this feedback practice as a mentorship pedagogy by asking frequent non-quiz questions, resolving problems together as a class or teacher-learner pair, reporting on assignment progress in a class setting, providing training and instructions on the assignment in class before a grade is assigned, and talking through the career implications of the current class so students can apply what they are learning.
Educators may also facilitate personal growth alongside academic outcomes by encouraging self-reflection and a personal growth mindset. Educators who integrate a mentorship pedagogy within traditional teaching environments can enable students to self-reflect and encourage them to grow.[40] Personal involvement with learners allows them to develop independently; the learners’ self-efficacy is accomplished by building learners.
Implications and Conclusion
Mentorship pedagogy is not a singular method but an integrated practice. Using mentorship pedagogy will not singularly enable self-efficacy in learners, but educators may improve learners’ self-efficacy by integrating relational engagement in various teaching methods. Christian educators may further increase the integration of faith with learning by combining relational engagement with academic instruction.
Practical challenges exist for implementing mentorship as a pedagogy. First, mentorship pedagogy is generally limited to secondary and post-secondary learning environments with adult or young adult learners. Bandura noted that self-efficacy is best acquired by those processing, weighing, and integrating “diverse sources of information concerning their capability” and then regulating their choices and behaviors accordingly.[41] Although educators may mentor younger learners, mentorship pedagogy requires learners to synthesize information, extrapolate meaning, and internalize the learning experience for present and future applications. The second challenge arises from the nature of secondary and post-secondary education; the content is usually unique to the discipline, and learning environments are usually heavily structured. Traditional higher education's content and context may naturally work against relational mentorship, but aspects of these challenges can be overcome.
Adopting a mentorship pedagogy practice in Christian higher education will yield significant benefits. First, this approach aligns with holistic development goals by fostering cognitive, emotional, and spiritual self-efficacy. It moves beyond knowledge transfer and cultivates self-aware learners who can better integrate faith and learning. Second, the relational nature of mentorship pedagogy further reflects the Christian understanding of humans as relational beings, and implementing this approach of life-on-life engagement should enhance the distinctiveness of Christian institutions. Third, this approach can increase vital human development qualities. Students may develop stronger people skills, emotional intelligence, and empathy. As students experience relational engagement in mentorship, they become equipped to mentor others, creating a positive ripple effect.
Although implementing mentorship pedagogy may present challenges and require institutional cultural shifts, the potential benefits are substantial. By fostering self-efficacy through relational engagement, mentorship pedagogy can transform students, institutions, and communities, offering a promising path that honors academic excellence and spiritual formation.
[1] Richard Arum et al., “A Framework for Measuring Undergraduate Learning and Growth,” Change (Taylor & Francis Ltd, November 2021); summarizing the findings of Richard Arum et al., “Ensuring a More Equitable Future: Assessing Student Learning and Growth in Higher Education” (Postsecondary Value Commission, 2021), https://www.postsecondaryvalue.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/PVC-Arum-FINAL.pdf.
[2] Jesús Alonso-Tapia, Diana M Abello, and Ernesto Panadero, “Regulating Emotions and Learning Motivation in Higher Education Students,” International Journal of Emotional Education 12, no. 2 (November 2020): 74.
[3] Broughton, Plaisime, and Parker insist that mentorship must be intentionally used to influence the whole person, including character formation and human development. Although their perspective does not reflect a Christian educator’s worldview, their observations are broadly consistent with many aspects of a Christian worldview. Robin S. Broughton, Marie V. Plaisime, and Melissa C. Green Parker, “Mentorship: The Necessity of Intentionality,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 89 (2019): 317–20, https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000412.
[4] Albert Bandura, ed., Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Reprint edition (Cambridge University Press, 1997), 2. Bandura originally introduced self-efficacy as a theory for behavioral change: Bandura, Albert. Albert Bandura, “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Review 84, no. 2 (1977): 191–215.
[5] Bandura, Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, 3.
[6] Glen H. Elder Jr., “Life Trajectories in Changing Societies,” in Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, ed. Albert Bandura, Reprint edition (Cambridge University Press, 1997), 51.
[7] Albert Bandura, “Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning,” Educational Psychologist Vol. 28, no. 2 (Spring 1993): 117–48, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3.
[8] Barry J. Zimmerman, “Self-Efficacy and Educational Development,” in Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, ed. Albert Bandura, Reprint edition (Cambridge University Press, 1997), 202.
[9] Zimmerman, 206.
[10] Dara M. Hall, Michelle A. Hughes, and Amy D. Thelk, “Developing Mentorship Skills in Clinical Faculty: A Best Practices Approach to Supporting Beginning Teachers,” Teacher Educators’ Journal Vol. 10 (Spring 2017): 77–98.
[11] Rachel Renbarger and Brenda K Davis, “Mentors, Self-Efficacy, or Professional Development: Which Mediate Job Satisfaction for New Teachers? A Regression Examination,” Journal of Teacher Education and Educators Vol. 8, no. 1 (April 2019): 21–34.
[12] The study also found that those formally mentored self-reported their burnout, possibly demonstrating higher levels of self-awareness. Matthew Pugliese et al., “Mentorship and Self-Efficacy Are Associated with Lower Burnout in Physical Therapists in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study,” Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions Vol. 20 (September 27, 2023): 27, https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.27.
[13] Doreen Sams et al., “Empirical Study: Mentorship as a Value Proposition (MVP),” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Vol. 10, no. 2 (July 31, 2016), https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2016.100207. Sams et al. found that “colleges and universities that purposefully support undergraduate mentoring relationships, in which faculty members serve as mentors (as opposed to postdocs and graduate students), have the potential to produce students with a competitive advantage,” largely through elevating their self-efficacy.
[14] Sams et al.
[15] Elmer and Elmer understand educational Christlike influence to occur when “beliefs and behavior begin the fusion into integrity, character, and wisdom.” Muriel I. Elmer and Duane H. Elmer, The Learning Cycle: Insights for Faithful Teaching from Neuroscience and the Social Sciences (IVP Academic, 2020), 8, 194.
[16] This “following,” or modeling practice, is a common theme in Paul’s writings (Romans 14: 19; Philippians 3:12; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9; 1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:22).
[17] The integral relational connection of the Godhead has long been established. “With the teaching and authority of Scripture as our basis, we utilize the works of theologians such as Ray Anderson, Colin Gunton, Miroslav Volf, Stanley Grenz, Karl Barth, F. LeRon Shults, Katherine Tanner and others who share this relational understanding of the imago Dei.” Jack O. Balswick, Pamela Ebstyne King, and Kevin S. Reimer, The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective, 2nd edition (IVP Academic, 2016), 36.
[18] Such relational mentorship has also been shown to yield significant results in self-efficacy across a wide range of disciplines: Tammy D. Allen and Lillian T. Eby, eds., The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach, 1st edition (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). Anne Brockbank and Ian McGill, Facilitating Reflective Learning: Coaching, Mentoring and Supervision, 2nd edition (Kogan Page, 2012). Laurent A. Daloz, Mentor: Guiding the Journey of Adult Learners, Second Edition, 2nd edition (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012). Deborah F. Beard, “Assessment of Internship Experiences and Accounting Core Competencies,” Accounting Education 16, no. 2 (June 2007): 207–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280701234625; Lois J. Zachary and Lisa Z. Fain, The Mentor’s Guide: Facilitating Effective Learning Relationships, 3rd edition (Hoboken, New Jersey: Jossey-Bass, 2022). Beverley Oliver et al., “The Graduate Employability Indicators: An Australian Perspective,” in Proceedings of AuQF2010: Quality in Uncertain Times (Australian Quality Forum 2010 - Higher Education: Quality in Uncertain Times, Melbourne, Australia: Curtin University of Technology, 2010), https://research.usq.edu.au/item/9zyy0/the-graduate-employability-indicators-capturing-broader-stakeholder-perspectives-on-the-achievement-and-importance-of-employability-attributes.
[19] Brian S. Borgman, Feelings and Faith: Cultivating Godly Emotions in the Christian Life (Crossway, 2009), 32.
[20] Borgman, 32.
[21] Borgman, 26; citing Matthew A. Elliott, Faithful Feelings: Rethinking Emotion in the New Testament (Kregel Academic & Professional, 2006), 54.
[22] Sams et al., “Empirical Study,” 2.
[23] Balswick, King, and Reimer, The Reciprocating Self, 26.
[24] Sams et al. introduce a similar phrase in their article abstract: “Undergraduate education must offer pedagogies of engagement to meet needs of the competitive global workforce and post-baccalaureate programs requiring advanced research and analytical skills. Many universities and colleges recognize the critical need for undergraduate engagement in research and participation in professional world experiences to cultivate aptitudes required in the 21st century.” Emphasis added. Their work focused on developing learners to become more marketable through increased self-efficacy. Sams et al., “Empirical Study,” 1.
[25] Koteskey did not directly research self-efficacy or mentorship as a formal pedagogy. However, he measured outcomes similar to self-efficacy goals, such as the learners’ ability to become effective, and he referred to mentorship as an intentional training practice. Keith Koteskey, “Ministry Mentoring Matters: Best Practices for Mentoring New Pastors” (DMin thesis, Asbury Theological Seminary, 2022), 5–6, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2677635213/97F85FBF2E114F24PQ/3?accountid=7073.
[26] Timothy Ponce, “A Pedagogy of Mentorship: Removing Academic Shame by Helping Students Reach Their Goals, Not Ours,” Hybrid Pedagogy, June 2021, https://hybridpedagogy.org/a-pedagogy-of-mentorship/.
[27] “[Hybrid pedagogy] is a place to discuss critical digital pedagogy by advocating for students and fostering awareness of academic hierarchies. We work together to enact an understanding of co-teaching within a community of mutual respect.” Ponce.
[28] Koteskey, “Ministry Mentoring Matters,” 22.
[29] Michael Beer, “Transformational Leadership Requires Courage,” Leader to Leader, no. 96 (March 2020): 33–38, https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20490.
[30] Beer, 35.
[31] Michael Bungay Stanier, The Coaching Habit: Say Less, Ask More & Change the Way You Lead Forever (Box of Crayons Press, 2016), 53.
[32] Stanier teaches a progression of seven questions that may be used to mentor or coach: 1) The Kickstart Question: What’s on your mind? 2) The AWE Question: And what else?) 3) The Focus Question: What’s the real challenge here for you? 4) The Foundation Question: What do you want? 5) The Lazy Question: How can I help? 6) The Strategic Question: If you’re saying Yes to this, what are you saying No to? 7) The Learning Question: What was most useful for you? Stanier, 200.
Mentorship and coaching themes are often intertwined in organizational leadership. For example, W. Kimryn Rathmell, Nancy J. Brown, and Richard R. Kilburg, “Transformation to Academic Leadership: The Role of Mentorship and Executive Coaching,” Consulting Psychology Journal 71, no. 3 (September 2019): 141–60, https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000124. Also see Ann Rolfe, “Coaching and Mentoring - What Is the Difference?,” Training and Development 42, no. 5 (October 1, 2015): 12–13.
[33] Allen and Eby, The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring, 123–24.
[34] Natalia Edisherashvili et al., “Supporting Self-Regulated Learning in Distance Learning Contexts at Higher Education Level: Systematic Literature Review,” Frontiers in Psychology 12 (January 18, 2022): 2, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.792422.
[35] Merriam and Baumgartner call this “meaning-making” or “spiritual development,” where the mentor guides the learning journey. They continue: “It is about relationship, support, and increasing the human spirit.” Sharan B. Merriam and Lisa M. Baumgartner, Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide, 4th edition (Jossey-Bass, 2020), 250–52. Citing Fenwick, T., English, L., & Parsons, J. (2001). Dimensions of spirituality: A framework for adult educators. In T. Nesbit (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (CASAE). Quebec, Canada: Laval University.
[36] Edisherashvili et al., “Supporting Self-Regulated Learning in Distance Learning Contexts at Higher Education Level,” 18.
[37] Edisherashvili et al. base their work on significant emotional regulation research: “The gap observed in the research of the SRL support was with regard to emotion regulation in online learning environments. It can be speculated that the reason for the under-investigation of this area might be due to its highly ‘hidden’ nature. For this reason, the ability to accurately detect the need for emotion regulation becomes important (Viberg et al., 2020). For the purpose of accurate measurement of emotion regulation a multidimensional approach has been suggested (Panadero et al., 2016), such as self-assessment, or naturalistic approaches, such as observation (if feasible), as well as facial expression analysis (Järvenoja et al., 2017), applied alongside with exploiting the potential of [Open Learner Modeling] OLM.” Edisherashvili et al., 17.
[38] “As with youth mentoring, student–faculty mentorships may be informal (Mullen, this volume) or formal (Campbell, this volume). Formal mentoring for undergraduates is increasingly popular in educational contexts and has a wide range of goals, including student retention, academic success, career development, and leadership development (Jacobi, 1991). Often those early in their academic career and/or minority students are targeted for participation (Cosgrove, 1986; Nagda et al., 1998). Formal mentoring programs also exist in graduate education as a means to enhance the graduate education experience (Boyle & Boice, 1998; Clark et al., 2000).” Allen and Eby, The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring, 16.
[39] Beard, “Assessment of Internship Experiences and Accounting Core Competencies,” 216.
[40] Mentorship is intrinsically self-reflective. Zachary and Fain, The Mentor’s Guide, 249.
[41] Bandura, “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” 212.
david mccrum
Vice President of Education | Biblical Ministries Worldwide
Professor of Missions and Church Ministries | Veritas Baptist College