Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

DOI 10.1007/s10648-013-9233-3

REVIEW ARTICLE

Toward a Conceptual Model of Mentoring Research:

Integration with Self-Regulated Learning

Dale H. Schunk & Carol A. Mullen

Published online: 25 June 2013

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract In this article, we present a model for academic mentoring research that incorporates
theory and research on self-regulated learning. Academic mentoring research has increased in
recent years, and researchers have linked mentoring with positive outcomes for protégés and
mentors. This research, however, has not investigated the process whereby mentoring exerts its
effects. An integration of mentoring with self-regulated learning seems valuable because self-
regulated learning researchers have employed methodologies to assess its dynamic nature. We
review assumptions of mentoring and self-regulated learning theories, representative mentoring
research studies, and methods of assessing self-regulated learning. Following presentation of
the mentoring research model, suggestions are given for types of research studies to identify the
operation of key processes before, during, and after mentoring interactions. We conclude with
implications of this integrated perspective for theory development and educational practice.

Keywords Mentoring . Self-regulated learning . Internalization . Co-regulation . Socially

shared regulation . Social cognitive theory . Mentor relationship theory

In this article, we present a model for academic mentoring research that incorporates theory
and research on self-regulated learning. We propose that the conceptual basis of and
processes involved in self-regulated learning are highly relevant to the aims and desired
outcomes of mentoring. We believe that theory and research on self-regulated learning can
provide the basis for a model for mentoring research with the goal of better exploring
mentors’ and protégés’ cognitions, behaviors, and affects that occur before, during, and after

D. H. Schunk (*)
Department of Teacher Education and Higher Education, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro,
410 School of Education Building, 1300 Spring Garden Street, Greensboro, NC 27412, USA
e-mail: dhschunk@uncg.edu

C. A. Mullen
School of Education, Virginia Tech, 226 War Memorial Hall (0313), 370 Drillfield Drive, Blacksburg, VA
24061, USA
e-mail: camullen@vt.edu
362 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

mentoring interactions. This introductory section provides an overview of the key points of
theories and research on mentoring and self-regulated learning and a rationale for an integrated
mentoring research model.
As generally understood, mentoring refers to interactions between more-experienced mentors
and less-experienced protégés, where mentors provide career (instrumental) and psychosocial
(relational) knowledge, advice, and support (Eby et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2007). The overall
goal of mentoring is to help people function effectively and achieve success in their professional
and personal lives.
The research model presented herein concerns academic mentoring, defined as the
involvement of post-secondary faculty, advisors, or supervisors in learning relationships
oriented toward career and personal development with students, graduates, or junior faculty
at the same or different higher education institution (Fletcher and Mullen 2012). Academic
mentoring is contrasted with academic teaching, advising, coaching, and counseling, all of
which do not imply the development of bonded and reciprocal relationships (Johnson 2007).
Mentoring has a long history, as evidenced by references to it in ancient writings (e.g., The
Bible, The Odyssey). Mentoring occurs commonly in daily life and numerous examples of
famous mentor–protégé pairs appear in literature, the arts, politics, athletics, and across pro-
fessions (Eby et al. 2007). But despite this historical and contemporary pervasiveness, mentoring
theory and research are of recent vintage. The scientific study of mentoring was prompted by
research in human development (e.g., Levinson et al. 1978). This research, along with early
research on mentoring in business contexts and with at-risk youth, supported the idea that
mentoring can play a key role in people’s lives (Eby et al. 2007). More recently, researchers
have expanded investigations of mentoring to include academic learning settings such as
university mentoring programs (Mullen 2008).
Mentoring theories conceive of mentoring as a dynamic and developmental process whereby
the relationship and interactions between mentor and protégé change over time. In line with this
perspective, researchers have investigated characteristics of effective mentors and protégés,
phases and outcomes of mentoring, and the roles of cultural and contextual variables in
mentoring interactions (Allen and Eby 2007). Mentoring research in academic settings has
examined aspects such as ways to recruit, prepare, and reward mentors; how to successfully
match mentors and protégés; ways to promote protégés’ professional and career successes; and
strategies for assessing mentoring programs (Mullen 2008; Noe 1988).
Although there is much mentoring research, it has not investigated in depth the hypoth-
esized dynamic nature of mentoring, that is, the behavioral, cognitive, motivational, and
affective processes that occur and change during mentor–protégé interactions. Several
factors seem responsible. Mentoring theories tend to focus on variables such as mentoring
functions, phases of mentoring relationships, and characteristics of mentors and protégés that
predict successful relationships. With few exceptions, researchers have not investigated how
these variables translate into processes during mentoring (i.e., which mentor and protégé
behaviors, cognitions, and affects occur and how they may influence one another). Thus,
although research has shown that mentoring is effective, it has not explained why. Second,
the data in most studies are based on retrospective self-reports of participants, often collected
well after mentoring interactions. Although such self-reports assess some self-regulatory
processes such as goal setting and strategic planning, self-reports are subject to forgetting
and memory distortions, thus failing to fully capture the nuances of mentoring interactions.
Third, developmental changes in mentoring processes over short- and long-time periods
have not been addressed. This focus is critical because these processes are apt to change with
time as mentor–protégé relationships become more complex. Finally, most mentoring
research has focused on traditional face-to-face, one-to-one interactions, and little is known
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 363

about how mentoring takes place informally or in non-traditional formats (e.g., groups, electronically),
which it commonly does.
Given that the primary goal of mentoring is to help protégés function independently, mentoring
seems to have a natural overlap with self-regulation, or individuals’ self-generated cognitions,
affects, and behaviors that are systematically oriented toward attainment of their goals (Sitzmann
and Ely 2011; Zimmerman 1998). Self-regulation includes such activities as setting goals,
applying and adjusting strategies to attain them, cognitively monitoring performance and prog-
ress, maintaining motivation and positive affects and beliefs about learning, and utilizing social
and environmental resources to help attain goals (Lord et al. 2010; Zimmerman 2000). These
activities are postulated to be important during mentoring interactions (Johnson 2007).
Self-regulated learning refers to self-regulation processes applied during a learning
experience, where the goal is a desired level of achievement (Sitzmann and Ely 2011).
When mentoring is done well, we might expect that self-regulated learning would play a
prominent role before, during, and after mentor–protégé interactions.
Beginning in the 1980s, researchers have identified self-regulated learning processes that
occur in academic contexts, investigated their operation during learning, and explored ways to
help learners develop and transfer them beyond the original learning settings (Zimmerman and
Schunk 2011). This body of research—most of which has been conducted in instructional
contexts—has shown that self-regulated learning processes influence academic motivation and
achievement (Boekaerts et al. 2000; Zimmerman and Schunk 2011).
We believe that using self-regulated learning theory and research as a basis for a mentoring
research model is valuable given the shortcomings of mentoring research and the fact that
mentoring stresses the development of self-regulated learning as an outcome. Further, the
methodologies used by researchers designed to capture the dynamic nature of self-regulated
learning (discussed later) seem ideally suited for assessing the hypothesized interactions that
occur during mentoring.
We confine the focus to academic contexts because mentoring and self-regulated learning have
been studied in these settings and the operation of self-regulated learning during academic
mentoring has importance for educational research and practice. Later we recommend research
directions that should help to establish the model’s generality across academic contexts. While this
model may be applicable to non-academic settings, we do not make a case for this generalization,
which would require adaptations to accommodate differences in contexts and populations.
We foresee several potential benefits of the model proposed and for our recommenda-
tions. Improved research on mentoring likely will yield better information on how
mentoring and self-regulatory processes operate and may lead to more-effective function-
ing by protégés. We also see a stronger academic mentoring research tradition leading to
an improvement in the quality of academic mentoring theory and practice with its
potential for long-term productivity and retention of individuals in the profession. We
further hope that this model may help self-regulated learning researchers expand their
focus beyond instructional contexts to, for example, self-regulated learning during formal
and informal mentoring.
In the remainder of this article, key assumptions and theoretical principles of mentoring
theories are reviewed, after which we summarize some research illustrating common themes
that have been addressed and the links to self-regulated learning. We discuss assumptions
and principles of self-regulated learning theories to include methods of assessment. A model
for research on academic mentoring is presented that integrates self-regulated learning
processes. Recommendations are given for types of research studies needed to identify
and clarify overlap between mentoring and self-regulated learning. We conclude with
implications of this integrated perspective for theory development and educational practice.
364 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

It is beyond our purpose to present a comprehensive treatment of theories of mentoring

and self-regulated learning. Similarly, the research reviewed is limited to studies that
illustrate the common themes addressed in mentoring research. More-extensive consider-
ation of mentoring and self-regulated learning theories and research is available elsewhere
(Allen and Eby 2007; Boekaerts et al. 2000; Fletcher and Mullen 2012; Ragins and Kram
2007; Zimmerman and Schunk 2011).

Mentoring Theories

Assumptions

Traditional theoretical perspectives conceived of mentoring as occurring in one-to-one mentor–

protégé interactions (dyads) and through informal contacts (Fletcher and Mullen 2012).
Mentoring has been classically viewed as a means of fostering protégés’ acquisition of
knowledge and skills to be used in trades and professions (Merriam 1983). Contemporary
theories of mentoring share some commonalities with theories of learning, self-regulation, adult
development, organizational behavior, leadership, and systems operation (Orland-Barak 2010;
Ragins and Kram 2007).
Although universities acknowledge the benefits of mentoring and often boast of their
mentoring programs, academic mentoring at times has been confused with other types of faculty
and student relationships (e.g., role models, advisors) that do not involve mentoring. In some
faculty–student mentoring research studies, mentoring has not been operationally defined,
further confusing mentoring with other types of supportive or developmental relationships
(Johnson et al. 2007).
Examination of mentoring theories reveals some common assumptions. One is that mentoring
is a dynamic, developmental, and often informal process through which protégés’ outcomes and
independence are enhanced as relationships with mentors become stronger. Another common
assumption is that mentoring relationships are not of the one-size-fits-all variety. Rather, they are
unique because the goals, settings, and relationships are not fully known or completely predict-
able and tend to change over time (Fletcher and Mullen 2012). Third, mentoring relationships are
socialized learning partnerships focused on protégé’s interests and growth (e.g., knowledge
attainment, professional networking, identity development), although mentors also may benefit
(Allen and Eby 2007). Lastly, theorists assume that mentoring occurs within a context and is
dependent on psychosocial and/or career-related supports that may be formal or informal (Allen
and Eby 2007; Mullen 2008). If formalized, mentoring operates as a type of organizational
learning in which protégés’ career aspirations and personal learning are structured in well-
planned programs with attainable and desirable outcomes (Mullen 2008).
There are numerous perspectives on mentoring. For example, personal learning theory
postulates that the development of personal learning (the learning of knowledge, skills, and
competencies that facilitate an individual’s personal development) is a function of mentor and
protégé characteristics (e.g., personality, demographic), features of the learning context (e.g.,
organization, diversity), and developmental functions that facilitate learning (e.g., relationship
quality, role modeling) (Lankau and Scandura 2002, 2007). Collaborative mentoring theory
emphasizes dyadic (i.e., paired) mentoring relationships and mentoring mosaics (circles), or
relational networks consisting of mentors and mentees in learning partnerships as co-mentors
who share power and leadership and engage in dialogue, constructive feedback, collegiality,
transparency, and authenticity while learning (Davis 2008; Easterly 2008; Johnson-Bailey and
Cervero 2002). The remainder of this section discusses mentor relationship theory because it
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 365

includes mentor functions that address self-regulated learning processes and because it often has
been used by researchers in academic settings.

Mentor Relationship Theory

Mentor relationship theory is based on pioneering research by Kram (1983, 1985, 1996),
who identified two broad classes of mentor functions: career and psychosocial. This
classification of mentor functions brought clarity to the field of mentoring, distinguishing
it from other types of interpersonal learning interactions.
Career functions are operationalized as mentor behaviors that foster protégés’ career devel-
opment and advancement, for example, sponsoring, coaching, enhancing visibility and exposure,
protecting, and providing challenging assignments (Scandura and Pellegrini 2007). Career
functions help protégés learn organizational rules and culture and assist with their planning,
networking, and job searching (Johnson 2007). Mentors who perform career functions with
protégés typically model, coach, and give feedback.
Psychosocial functions are intended to foster protégés’ psychological and social develop-
ment. Mentors perform psychosocial functions when they interact with protégés on a personal
level to enhance their self-efficacy, sense of identity, and overall job comfort through emotional
support (Johnson 2007). In fulfilling psychosocial functions, mentors may model, counsel, show
acceptance, and provide confirmation (Ragins and Cotton 1999), and they may actively listen,
criticize constructively, and encourage development (Nora and Crisp 2008). Psychosocial
functions are less well-explored than career functions; thus, their potential to support protégés’
development remains unrealized. But psychosocial functions are hypothesized to be important
for protégés’ career development (Clark et al. 2000).
Researchers have validated the distinction between career and psychosocial functions and
their relevance to positive mentoring relationships and desirable protégé outcomes (e.g., self-
efficacy, personal development, job knowledge; Ragins and Cotton 1999; Ragins and Kram
2007; Scandura 1992). Other conceptualizations construe mentoring functions somewhat
differently, but these perspectives are united in stressing the importance of functions. For
example, Scandura (1992) modified Kram’s (1985) theory to emphasize protégés’ aspirations
to become more like their mentors and, moreover, identified role modeling as a third mentoring
function. Research generally supports Kram’s (1985) hypothesis that protégés benefit from
mentoring when mentors take seriously and perform both career and psychosocial functions
(Scandura and Pellegrini 2007).
In addition to postulating the functions of mentors, mentor relationship theory addresses
the dynamic nature of mentoring—how relationships change over time. Kram (1983, 1985)
identified four mentoring phases: initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition. Men-
tor–protégé interactions begin with the initiation phase, with individuals learning about each
other’s personal styles and work habits. During this phase, which can take as long as 6 to
12 months, mentor and protégé clarify expectations of one another and develop knowledge
involving job-related tasks and performance appraisals.
Relationships that mature progress to the cultivation phase, which can last from 2 to 5 years.
Protégés learn from their mentors and advance in their careers, benefiting from mentors’ career and
psychosocial functions performed. Protégés gain knowledge and mentors benefit from a measure of
protégé loyalty and support, as well as satisfaction from transmitting knowledge to the next
generation (Scandura and Pellegrini 2007). The cultivation phase is predicted to be where most
mentoring benefits occur. Not coincidentally, it is also the most-researched phase (Scandura 1998).
The third phase—separation—involves a structural and psychological change such that
interactions decrease as protégés’ independence increases. Separation may last from 6 months
366 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

to 2 years and can come about when protégés move to another position or physical location,
although it also may result from problems in the mentoring relationship. This phase gives
protégés the opportunity to independently test and strengthen their autonomy and determine the
value of a long-term mentoring relationship.
After the separation phase, the mentoring relationship may no longer be needed, but a
fourth, redefinition phase, ideally emerges. During redefinition, the previous relationship
may develop into a peer-like collegial relationship characterized by informal contact, mutual
support, and even professional friendship (Chao 1997).
Researchers have found support for the existence of the four phases (Chao 1997; Pollock
1995); however, their lengths can vary considerably and phase progression is not always clearly
demarcated. Given that the phases were originally intended to apply to traditional (one-to-one,
face-to-face) mentoring contexts, they may not be entirely applicable to contemporary concep-
tions of mentoring involving multiple mentors, peer mentors, and mentoring via digital in-
terfaces (Scandura and Pellegrini 2007). Mentoring theorists realistically recognize that while
some mentoring relationships are long term and even life changing, others are short-lived and
may not be supportive (Eby et al. 2007).

Mentoring Research

This section discusses some representative mentoring research studies whose results are relevant
to self-regulated learning. A comprehensive review is not given here as this would extend
beyond the central purpose of this article. More-complete descriptions of mentoring research can
be found in other sources (e.g., Allen and Eby 2007; Fletcher and Mullen 2012; Ragins and
Kram 2007). The sub-sections that follow represent the primary themes or issues addressed in
mentoring research, although studies often have investigated issues in more than one category.

Phases of Mentoring

Mentoring researchers have addressed the phases of mentoring relationships, or their develop-
mental trajectories. Kram’s (1983) seminal study identified four phases—initiation, cultivation,
separation, and redefinition—as well as the roles of career and psychosocial functions in each
phase. Kram studied 18 mentor–protégé pairs in a public utility company. Each of the 36
participants was interviewed twice (2 h each session). Interviews with protégés focused on their
career history and influential relationships with mentors; interviews with mentors concentrated on
their relationships with protégés and how these fit into, and possibly influenced, the mentors’
careers.
The interview data showed that during the initiation phase (6–12 months), protégés reported
feeling cared for and supported and that they viewed their mentors with respect. Mentors
thought of protégés as persons with potential to learn and benefit from mentors’ guidance.
During the cultivation phase (2–5 years), career functions emerged first as mentors provided
coaching, challenging work assignments, protection, and increased exposure. Mentors also
reported a growing sense of satisfaction for positively influencing protégés. Protégés reported
viewing mentors as role models and, importantly for self-regulated learning, becoming more
confident in their ability to navigate successfully in the organization. Psychosocial functions
such as counseling and mutual problem-solving emerged, and protégés described changes in
their attitudes and values.
During the separation phase (6 months to 2 years), which can occur for structural (e.g., job
changes) or psychological reasons, some protégés reported temptations to return to their mentors;
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 367

however, for many this phase was characterized by feelings of greater competence and autonomy.
Some protégés expressed that they felt abandoned by their mentors. Mentors also reported a sense
of loss, as well as pride and satisfaction from seeing protégés succeed on their own. Eight of the
18 pairs in Kram’s study confirmed that the redefinition phase occurred, characterized by
friendship and collegiality. There was less reported evidence of career and psychosocial func-
tions, although there was occasional counseling, coaching, and sponsorship.
Chao (1997) investigated Kram’s (1983, 1985) mentoring phases and functions and their
relation to protégé outcomes. Participants were 428 college engineering graduates, of which
192 identified themselves as protégés in mentoring relationships. Participants completed
written surveys yearly over 5 years. They rated their perceptions of various career and
psychosocial functions performed by mentors, and they indicated which phase of mentoring
best fit their current situation. Protégés and non-protégés also rated various outcome variables
including career planning, career involvement, and organizational socialization.
Results showed that the hypothesized sequence of mentoring phases and the mean mentoring
phase lengths were consistent with Kram’s (1983) findings. Chao (1997) found a significantly
lower number of mentoring functions reported for the initiation phase compared with the other
phases and that both psychosocial and career functions increased after the initiation phase.
Participants in mentoring relationships made higher judgments on many outcome variables
compared with individuals who were not engaged in mentoring.

Effective Mentoring Variables

Some mentoring research has focused on identifying variables associated with effective
mentoring. For example, Ewing et al. (2008) studied 12 mentors (university lecturers and
professors) and 14 protégés (research associates and lecturers) who were paired for this study.
Participants met three times early on in the academic year and periodically afterward. At the end
of the program, participants submitted reflection papers about their experiences, and the
researchers met with focus groups to explore these experiences. Participants expressed concerns
about the time commitments but that the flexibility to schedule meetings was a positive feature.
Most protégés were women, many of whom expressed the desire to be mentored by women.
Protégés reported many benefits of the program including the self-regulatory processes of
setting goals, developing strategies for attaining them, managing time better, and increasing
confidence for being successful.
Allen and Eby (2003) surveyed members of professional associations who reported serving as
mentors (n=249). The surveys tapped respondents’ perceptions of aspects of mentoring. A
positive relation was found between mentors’ judgments of the quality of their mentoring and
their perceived similarity to their protégés in values, interests, and personality characteristics.
Perceived similarity is an important cue for gauging self-efficacy (Schunk and Pajares 2009).
There were no differences in quality of mentoring between mentors in formal versus informal
relationships, nor between mentors in same-gender versus cross-gender relationships. Duration of
the mentoring relationship was important for reported benefits in formal mentoring relationships,
but not in informal ones.
Noe (1988) examined the relations among protégé characteristics, quality of and gender
composition of the mentoring relationship, mentor–protégé time spent on mentoring, and
protégé outcomes (career and psychosocial). All participants held positions in K–12 school
systems. The protégés (n=139) were educators who desired to attain administrative positions,
whereas the 43 mentors were upper-level system administrators. Mentors observed protégés
participate in a simulation designed to improve administrative and interpersonal skills, after
which mentors provided feedback. Following the simulation, mentors were advised to continue
368 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

providing protégés with career information, support, and guidance. Mentors and protégés
completed a questionnaire (which included mentoring functions items) 6 months after the
initial session.
Results of factor analysis supported the career–psychosocial functions distinction identified
by Kram (1983). Other results revealed that protégés judged they gained more psychosocial
benefits than career-related benefits and that effective time spent in mentoring related positively
to perceived psychosocial gains. Contrary to prediction, protégés in cross-gender mentoring
relationships reported making better use of the mentoring experience than did participants in
same-gender relationships. Female protégés reported receiving greater psychosocial benefits
than did their male counterparts.
Working in an insurance company, Hirschfeld et al. (2006) investigated the relations of
mentors’ and protégés’ achievement motivation orientation (i.e., desire to attain success) and
avoidance motivation orientation (i.e., desire to avoid failure or the perception of low ability) to
their personal learning (which bears some similarity to self-regulated learning) and whether
mentoring functions mediated these relations. Personal learning was assessed with an instrument
developed by Lankau and Scandura (2002) and tapped job knowledge and interpersonal skills.
Mentors rated the extent they had engaged in various mentoring functions and displayed the
corresponding behaviors with their protégés.
Results from 61 mentor–protégé dyads showed that protégés’ achievement motivation was
positively related to their personal learning and to that of their mentors. Increased incidence of
mentoring functions related positively to mentors’ and protégés’ personal learning, with protégés
benefitting most when both they and their mentors held high achievement motivation. These
results imply that achievement motivation may affect the mentor–protégé relationship such that as
achievement motivation increases, mentors may be more motivated to engage in mentoring and
protégés may be more motivated to learn from their relationships. Although this study did not
address self-regulated learning, motivation is a key component of it (Schunk and Pajares 2009).

Relation of Mentoring Functions to Protégé Outcomes

Another common theme in mentoring research is the relation of mentoring functions to protégé
outcomes. For example, Lankau and Scandura (2002) investigated relations between mentoring
functions, personal learning, and protégé outcomes (satisfaction, retention) among 440 hospital
employees. Personal learning was assessed using a self-report inventory that measured relational
job learning (e.g., understanding the connection between one’s job and the jobs of others) and
personal skill development (e.g., self-regulating skills that promote better working relationships
such as communication and problem solving). Mentors rated mentoring functions with an
instrument that identified the extent to which career, psychosocial, and role-modeling functions
had occurred.
Protégés reported greater relational job learning than non-mentored persons. The role-
modeling function related significantly and positively to personal skill development. Results of
regression analyses showed that personal skill development fully mediated the relation between
role modeling and job satisfaction. This result implies that the more protégés were exposed to
modeled demonstrations of career roles, the better they may have learned self-regulatory strate-
gies for improving their working relationships, thereby experiencing greater job satisfaction.
Ragins and Cotton (1999) assessed the relations between mentoring functions and protégé
outcomes and also explored whether certain variables moderated these relations. The sample
consisted of 1,162 individuals in engineering, social work, and journalism, who completed a
survey that measured perceived mentor functions, satisfaction with mentoring, and various career
outcomes (e.g., promotions).
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 369

Results indicated that protégés with informal mentors reported that their mentors provided
more career and psychosocial functions than did protégés with formal mentors, and those in the
former group reported greater satisfaction with their mentors and more compensation. There
also were some differences depending on gender composition of the mentoring dyad. Notably,
male and female protégés with male mentors reported receiving more compensation than those
matched with female mentors. Ragins and Cotton (1999) suggested that the gender composition
of dyads may moderate the relation of career functions to protégé outcomes.

Cognitive Apprenticeships

Cognitive apprenticeships are apprenticeships aimed at teaching cognitive and metacognitive

processes in academic content areas such as reading and writing (Collins et al. 1989). Cognitive
apprenticeships typically include mentoring variables, although research on cognitive apprentice-
ships does not address mentoring per se. Given the relevance to mentoring and self-regulated
learning, research on cognitive apprenticeships is summarized here.
Whereas traditional apprenticeships focus on apprentices (protégés) learning from teachers
(mentors) methods for performing tasks in specific domains, cognitive apprenticeships move
beyond domain-specific knowledge and procedures to help protégés acquire a deeper under-
standing of concepts, engage in problem-solving processes, and learn how to apply skills
independently (i.e., self-regulated) in diverse settings. Cognitive apprenticeships include such
mentoring practices as modeled demonstrations, coaching, and feedback (Collins 1991; Collins
et al. 1989). In a cognitive apprenticeship, mentors often demonstrate and explain skills, after
which protégés perform them with guidance and assistance (scaffolding) from mentors as needed
to assist protégés’ performances. Mentors intentionally reduce (fade) support and protégés
practice skills independently. As they gain task experience, protégés make adaptations to address
different task aspects and to facilitate transfer of skills to diverse settings. This progression
closely parallels Zimmerman’s (2000) four-phase sequence of self-regulatory development
(described later).
Austin (2009) applied the cognitive apprenticeship model to a first-year doctoral seminar to
address both professional skills (e.g., critical scholarly reading, research proposal writing) and
psychosocial skills (e.g., socialization into the profession, interpersonal skills with cohort mem-
bers). Students met with the instructor weekly for 15 weeks. With respect to proposal writing, the
instructor provided examples of strong proposals (models) and coaching and scaffolding (e.g.,
feedback from instructor and peers) as students wrote proposal drafts. Students reflected on their
progress and problems encountered, and they practiced skills outside of formal meetings. Self-
reflections and independent practice are ways to develop self-regulation skills (Zimmerman
2000). Based on students’ reports and the instructor’s evaluations, students developed higher
confidence as scholars and capabilities to conceptualize research issues and frame questions.
Hunter et al. (2006) described a summer undergraduate research program that reflects the
cognitive apprenticeship model. Students (n=76) at four liberal arts colleges worked under the
guidance of faculty mentors who provided modeled demonstrations, coaching, encouragement,
and feedback. Students learned procedures to accomplish components of faculty research pro-
jects. Mentors tailored tasks to the interests of students and encouraged their initiative. As the
summer progressed, students became increasingly independent and able to work largely on their
own, characteristics associated with self-regulation. Students interviewed after the research
program reported gains in research skills, clarification of career plans, attitudes toward learning,
and “thinking and working like a scientist” (Hunter et al. 2006, p. 44). Faculty reports stressed
gains in the process of becoming scientists (i.e., the development of skills and attitudes necessary
for the science profession).
370 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

Peer Mentoring

Some mentoring studies have investigated the role of peer mentors, either alone or in combination
with regular mentors. The Writers in Training program (Mullen 2003) was implemented with a
cohort of 25 education doctoral students at different program stages. The students met as a group
with the mentor for 5 h biweekly where they received instruction and practice in academic
writing. The mentor performed various functions including modeling, coaching, and providing
feedback and encouragement, and students learned strategies for critiquing writing that they
practiced with one another. Of this group, 15 students completed a survey and were interviewed
to determine participants’ perceptions of the academic skills they had learned, their progress in
dissertation writing, their confidence for writing effectively, and support for their learning and
sense of control over it. Protégés judged that they learned from their faculty mentor and peers
skills for improving their writing and strategies for effectively analyzing writing (e.g., giving and
accepting feedback). They also reported that their learning goals were clear and attainable and that
participation strengthened their motivation to write and finish their doctoral degrees. Students
were encouraged to practice their skills (e.g., analyze the literature on their topics) outside of the
sessions to facilitate transfer.
These results were corroborated by a longitudinal study of this group, which experienced
changing membership due to students entering and graduating (Mullen and Tuten 2010).
Mentoring behaviors by the mentor and peers included explanations, modeled demonstrations,
and coaching of academic writing skills. Mentoring processes and outcomes were measured in
various ways including digital recordings and transcriptions of meetings, survey items designed
to assess the level of learning, and textual artifacts (e.g., written drafts and final versions).
Protégés reported heightened confidence that disciplinary knowledge had been learned,
improved writing skills, stronger identities as a scholar–practitioner, and a better under-
standing of the role of collaboration in learning. Students’ perceptions of their progress in
skill acquisition and motivation were validated with gains in academic productivity (e.g.,
dissertation writing, presentations, publications), retention and graduation rates, and career
promotions. Mullen and Tuten concluded that a shift had occurred over time in students’
self-regulated learning, from external regulation to guided self-regulation and finally to
increased self-regulation.
Parker et al. (2008) explored the related concept of peer coaching, which refers to a
developmental activity involving interaction between two or more peers to promote personal
and professional growth. Participants, who were 209 students enrolled in MBA leadership
and organizational behavior courses, completed online surveys about 6 months following
coursework that utilized peer coaching. In these courses, students engaged in various
activities including their pairing off after class activities to share their reactions and help
each other process their assessments from tests and exercises. They also engaged in peer
coaching with portfolio activities, whereby they provided feedback on internships and job
searches.
Students reported many benefits of peer coaching including support for personal and
professional goals, dealing strategically with change, increased confidence, and developing
interpersonal skills. About three quarters of them were satisfied with the peer coaching
experience. Student satisfaction also related positively to relational qualities in the pairing
such as being able to choose one’s peer coach and the extent that an emotional component
was part of the experience. Importantly, students who judged that peer coaching contributed
to their professional development also expressed motivation to engage in it in subsequent
courses. Several outcomes of this study (i.e., goal setting, using effective strategies) suggest
that students experienced gains in self-regulated learning.
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 371

Summary

Guided by the seminal work of Kram (1983, 1985), researchers have shown that mentoring
functions, when operationalized as mentors’ behaviors (e.g., modeling, coaching, providing
feedback), can lead to positive protégé career outcomes (e.g., learning, goal setting, career
development) and psychosocial outcomes (e.g., motivation, satisfaction, sense of identity).
The general research model employed is depicted in Table 1.
While the preceding sample of mentoring research studies provides some support for the
hypothesis that mentoring can help foster protégés’ learning of career and psychosocial skills,
this conclusion is offered tentatively for several reasons. Mentoring studies have relied heavily
on self-reported data (e.g., surveys, interviews) collected after mentor–protégé interactions.
These research studies provide correlational data that suggest the links shown in Table 1, but
they do not demonstrate causal connections. For another, there has been little effort to explain
how mentoring functions translate into mentor behaviors and how these, in turn, affect protégés.
The lack of mentor–protégé observations or other real-time assessments of mentor–protégé
interactions in mentoring research is noteworthy. Third, the roles of potential mediating vari-
ables (e.g., mentor and protégé cognitions and affects during interactions) remain largely
unexplored. The conceptual leap from mentor behaviors to protégé outcomes leaves potentially
influential cognitive and affective processes untapped. Fourth, most studies have not tracked the
same participants over time to ascertain how the behaviors, cognitions, and affects of mentors
and protégés change during the developmental progression through mentoring phases.
In short, the orientation of the extant mentoring research contrasts with an empirical approach
of investigating which variables may mediate and moderate the relation of mentor functions to
protégés’ outcomes. While mentors’ behaviors in the preceding studies may have contributed to
positive protégé outcomes, further research is needed to determine how this influence occurs.
Although mentoring researchers have not explicitly addressed self-regulated learning, the
mentor behaviors and protégé outcomes listed in Table 1 show that self-regulated learning
processes have been assessed in research. Further, the structure of mentor–protégé relationships,
the goal of mentoring to develop self-directed protégés, and the developmental progression of

Table 1 Classic mentoring research model

Mentor functions Mentor behaviors Protégé outcomes

Operationalized as Influence

Career Modeling Learning

Psychosocial Coaching Motivation (e.g., effort,
persistence)
Providing feedback Self-efficacy
Counseling Affects (e.g., comfort,
satisfaction)
Accepting and confirming Sense of identity
Listening Career development
Providing constructive criticism Self-regulation (e.g.,
planning, goal setting)
Encouraging
Sponsoring
Protecting
Increasing visibility and exposure
372 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

relationships whereby protégés assume greater control of their learning all suggest that self-
regulated learning is highly relevant to mentoring. Using the strong research tradition of self-
regulated learning to develop a mentoring research model to better explore self-regulated
learning processes seems not only plausible but also desirable.

Self-Regulated Learning

We propose that the literature on self-regulated learning offers a useful model to adapt for
mentoring research to better explore mentor–protégé interactions. To frame this discussion, we
discuss assumptions of self-regulated learning theories, self-regulated learning theories that have
been applied to academic learning contexts, and self-regulated learning research methodologies
that allow for investigation of key processes.

Assumptions

Theory and research on self-regulated learning in academic settings have been influenced by
various disciplines including management, education, and psychology (e.g., organizational,
clinical, cognitive). Early research on academic self-regulation was prompted by behavioral
self-control research on personal management and task completion (Karoly and Kanfer 1982).
Researchers have explored whether the same self-regulatory principles are applicable to
academic learning and performance (Zimmerman and Schunk 2011).
Theories of self-regulated academic learning differ in many ways but share common
features. One feature is that self-regulated learning involves being behaviorally, cognitively,
metacognitively, and motivationally active in one’s learning and performance (Zimmerman
2001). A second common feature is that self-regulated learning is a dynamic and cyclical
process comprising feedback loops (Lord et al. 2010). Self-regulated learners set goals and
metacognitively monitor their progress toward them. They respond to their monitoring, as well
as to external feedback, in various ways to attain their goals, such as by working harder or
changing their strategy. Attained accomplishments lead them to set new goals. Third, goal
setting triggers self-regulated learning by guiding individuals’ focus on goal-directed activities
and use of task-relevant strategies (Sitzmann and Ely 2011). Goals that include learning skills
and improving competencies result in better self-regulation than those oriented toward
performing tasks (Schunk and Swartz 1993). Lastly is an emphasis on motivation, or why
persons choose to self-regulate and sustain their efforts. Motivational variables are critical for
learning (Schunk and Zimmerman 2008).
Among the theories advanced to explain self-regulated learning in academic contexts are
social cognitive theory, information processing theory, and social constructivist theory. We focus
on social cognitive theory because it stresses aspects of self-regulation that have relevance for
mentoring in academic settings, particularly the dynamic type of interpersonal interactions and
processes that seem essential for facilitating protégés’ learning. Briefly, information processing
theory roughly equates self-regulation with metacognitive awareness or metacognition, which
involves individuals monitoring, directing, and regulating their actions toward goals (Paris and
Paris 2001). Winne and Hadwin (1998, 2008) and Winne (2001, 2011) developed an information
processing model of self-regulated learning that features goals (Greene and Azevedo 2007). This
model comprises three necessary phases (definition of task, goals and plans, studying tactics) and
one optional phase (adaptations). Social constructivist theory contends that individuals construct
knowledge and meanings based on their interpretations of situations (Cobb and Bowers 1999;
McCaslin and Hickey 2001). The social environment is a facilitator of learning (Tudge and
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 373

Scrimsher 2003), a hallmark of Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory. Self-regulated learning

involves learners constructing understandings in socially mediated contexts, which they may use
to direct their learning (Henderson and Cunningham 1994; Karpov and Haywood 1998; Moll
2001).

Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory situates human behavior within a model of interacting influences
comprising personal (cognitive; affective), behavioral, and social/environmental influences
(Bandura 1986). This model stresses the importance of proactively shaping one’s thoughts,
actions, and environments to bring about outcomes deemed important (Pintrich 2000), in what
is a dynamic process that seems highly applicable to mentoring.
Bandura (1986) postulated three aspects self-regulation: self-observations, self-judgments, and
self-reactions. Key self-regulation processes are goal setting, self-evaluations of progress, and self-
efficacy, or beliefs about one’s perceived capabilities to learn or perform actions at designated levels
(Bandura 1997). Individuals enter achievement situations with learning goals and a sense of self-
efficacy for attaining them. While engaged in learning, they reflect on their actions and judge their
outcomes against standards. Positive self-judgments (e.g., perceptions of acceptable learning
progress), along with the anticipated satisfaction of accomplishing the goal, enhance self-efficacy
and motivation. Criticism or negative self-judgments will not necessarily decrease motivation if
individuals believe they are capable of improving (Schunk 2001); learners may react to negative
self-judgments by working more diligently, using a better strategy, or seeking assistance.
Zimmerman’s (2000) three-phase cyclical model expanded Bandura’s perspective to better
encompass individuals’ actions before and after task engagement and reflect the dynamic
interplay of personal, behavioral, and social/environmental factors. The forethought phase pre-
cedes actual performance and includes self-regulatory activities that set the stage for action, such
as identifying goals, deciding which strategies to use, establishing favorable social/environmental
conditions, and feeling self-efficacious for learning. The performance (volitional) control phase
includes task engagement activities that affect attention and action. Learners implement task
strategies and monitor their performance outcomes. During the self-reflection phase (i.e., during
pauses and after tasks are completed), learners respond evaluatively to their efforts. They may
persist if they believe their strategies are working, but modify their strategies or seek assistance if
they deem learning progress inadequate. Self-reflections return learners to the forethought phase,
thus forming a loop in the cycle.
Pintrich’s (2000) social cognitive model comprises four phases: forethought, planning, and
activation; monitoring; control; and reaction and reflection. Within each phase, possible areas for
self-regulation are cognition, motivation and affect, behavior, and context. During the forethought
phase prior to task engagement, learners set goals and activate content and metacognitive knowl-
edge. Noteworthy motivational variables during this phase are goal orientations (reasons for
engaging in the task), self-efficacy, and perceptions of task difficulty, task value, and interest.
The monitoring and control phases occur during task engagement and involve metacognitive
awareness and monitoring of cognition, motivation and affect, behavior (e.g., effort, time man-
agement), and context (e.g., changes in conditions), as well as strategies for learning, managing
motivation and affect, exerting behavioral self-control, and changing the task or context. Following
task engagement, learners make cognitive judgments and attributions of their performances and
evaluate the task and context, after which they may return to the forethought phase.
Social cognitive theory predicts that self-regulated learning often develops beginning with
social (external) sources and shifting to self (internal) sources over four levels (Schunk and
Zimmerman 1997; Zimmerman 2000; Zimmerman and Schunk 2004). At the initial observation
374 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

level, learners acquire basic skills and strategies (although they may not be able to perform them)
from social sources such as modeled demonstrations and coaching. With practice, feedback, and
encouragement during the emulation level, learners’ performances approximate the models’
general forms. The major difference between these two levels is that learning transpires through
instruction and observation at the observation level, whereas at the emulation level learners
actually can perform the behaviors, albeit in rudimentary ways. Both sources are primarily social
because learners require exposure to actual or symbolic (e.g., televised, computer-based) models.
Learning is not internalized (i.e., not part of their self-regulatory systems); thus, learners require
external assistance to perform (Schunk 1999).
At the third, self-control level, learners can employ the skills or strategies on their own when
performing similar or related tasks. They continue to pattern their actions after those modeled by
teachers or mentors; they have yet to develop the capability for modifying their performances
based on adaptations they consider necessary in given situations. At the final self-regulation
level, learners adapt their skills and strategies based on their understandings of what alterations
may be needed under changing personal and environmental conditions. At this level, learners
have internalized skills and strategies. They can transfer their use beyond the learning setting,
adjust them to fit new contexts, and maintain their motivation through goal setting, perceived
goal progress, and self-efficacy (Zimmerman 2000). This progression from social to self sources
seems compatible with mentoring.
Internalization is a critical element in this social-to-self (external-to-internal) progression
(Schunk 1999). When knowledge and skills are internalized, they are under the learner’s self-
regulatory control. Although learning can occur without internalization—such as when learners
are directed what to do—internalization is necessary for maintaining self-regulated learning
over time and transferring it beyond the original context. Internalization results in learners with
personal (self) influences (e.g., goals, progress self-evaluations, task strategies, self-monitoring,
self-efficacy) that they can self-regulate to enhance their motivation and learning.
Although social cognitive theory emphasizes the social context of learning, researchers in this
tradition have focused more on learning by individuals rather than on how learners in a group
coordinate their self-regulated learning with others in the group. Group self-regulated learning
fits well with the growing educational emphasis on collaborative and peer learning (Rohrbeck et
al. 2003), as well as with mentoring theory and practice (Fletcher and Mullen 2012).
Researchers have begun to address the development of self-regulation in groups (Hadwin et
al. 2011; Järvelä and Hadwin 2013) and especially the roles of co-regulation and socially shared
regulation. Co-regulation refers to the coordination of self-regulation competencies among
people in social contexts (Hadwin et al. 2011; McCaslin and Hickey 2001). Individuals jointly
use their skills and strategies to develop new or expanded self-regulatory capabilities considered
useful in group or individual contexts. Participants influence one another’s self-regulated
learning. Although the context and learning dynamics are social, the result is individual learning.
Co-regulation seems especially beneficial in situations where the group has a defined goal
such as a collaborative problem solving task (Hadwin et al. 2011). Interactions that arise are more
spontaneous and transitory than those typically found in structured learning situations. That co-
regulation is potentially important for mentoring is supported by collaborative mentoring theory
(Bona et al. 1995). Hadwin et al. (2005) studied teacher–student meetings involving developing
a research portfolio. Over the course of a year, there was a decrease in teacher regulation and
increases in student regulation and co-regulated learning involving metacognitive processes.
In contrast, socially shared regulation refers to interdependent regulatory processes aimed at
attaining a mutual outcome (Hadwin et al. 2011). This type of regulation typically occurs in
collaborative settings. Individuals contribute their skills toward the goal of developing a self-
regulated learning group. To date, there has been little research on socially shared regulation
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 375

(Hadwin et al. 2011), although the recent research summarized by Järvelä and Hadwin (2013) on
the use of technology to promote interactions and collective actions among students is promising.
Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulated learning seem highly appropriate
to mentoring. The literature suggests that mentors attempt to help protégés acquire self-
regulated learning skills and encourage their use as protégés become more proficient (Allen
and Eby 2007). But as mentoring relationships become better established, mentors and protégés
may begin to regard each other as collaborators and co-regulated learning may become more
common as relationships are characterized by flexibility and informal contacts rather than by
prescribed formats and formal communications. Co-regulated and socially shared regulated
learning also may be especially useful in non-traditional contexts such as those involving peers,
groups, and electronic mentoring (Muijs et al. 2010; Wenger et al. 2002).

Research and Methodology

Many early studies of self-regulated learning focused on identifying the processes that learners
used and how these related to motivational and achievement outcomes (e.g., Pintrich and De
Groot 1990; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 1990). Researchers subsequently have examined
topics such as methods for teaching students self-regulated learning strategies and how students’
use of strategies affected achievement outcomes (e.g., Harris et al. 2006), effective procedures
for helping students to become more-proficient self-regulated learners (e.g., Zimmerman and
Kitsantas 1997, 2002), and how well self-regulated learning processes transfer across time and
tasks (e.g., Schunk and Swartz 1993).
Like much current mentoring research, early studies of self-regulated learning often depended
on questionnaires for determining the types of processes that students reported they employed, as
well as how often they reported their use and in what contexts. Commonly used were the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et al. 1991, 1993) and the Learning
and Study Strategies Inventory (Weinstein et al. 1987). These and other measures with established
reliability data serve to operationalize self-regulated learning processes. Compared with those
developed by researchers, standardized instruments also allow for comparisons across studies.
But as with many mentoring research studies, self-regulated learning questionnaires do not
capture the defining dynamic and cyclical nature of self-regulated learning, that is, how learners
change and adapt self-regulated learning processes while engaged in learning and afterward. To
accomplish these latter goals, researchers have utilized other assessment methods that have
been broadened in recent years with technology enhancements. We briefly explain these other
methods because they have potential to enhance the quality of mentoring research. To conserve
space, we cite but do not describe a representative research study for each method.

Interviews Self-regulated learning researchers have used interviews to assess learners’ self-
regulatory processes (Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 1990). Unlike questionnaires, interviews
allow learners to respond freely and do not force choosing among categories or assigning ratings.
Depending on when interviews are conducted, they also may capture students’ perceptions of
their self-regulatory processes close in time to when they presumably employed them.

Think Alouds Think alouds involve learners overtly verbalizing their thinking while learning
(Greene and Azevedo 2009). Think alouds, which capture learners’ verbalized cognitive
processing, do not depend on learners’ memories. Verbalizations typically are recorded and
transcribed to ensure accuracy of recording. Because verbalizing is itself a task, it may confuse
learners unaccustomed to talking aloud while learning. Giving learners practice and prompting
them when they stop verbalizing (e.g., “Keep talking”) help ensure continued verbalizations.
376 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

Observations Researchers have conducted observations of students while learning (Perry 1998).
Observations are transcribed and coded to identify the types and extent of self-regulation
processes. As stressed by social constructivist researchers and others, observations also allow
for capturing the role context may play in self-regulated learning. Observations in classrooms and
other settings involving more than one participant allow researchers to determine whether co-
regulation occurs and how it transforms into self-regulation, as well as processes at work during
socially shared regulation.

Traces Traces are observable measures of self-regulated learning that students create when
engaged in tasks (Winne and Jamieson-Noel 2002). Traces include marks made in texts, such as
when students underline, highlight, or write notes in margins (e.g., “See p. 23”; Winne and Perry
2000, p. 552). When coded, traces can indicate students’ use of self-regulatory processes such as
planning and monitoring. Computer technologies have expanded the range of traces available.
Researchers can collect measures of learners’ eye movements, time spent on material to be
learned, and the self-regulated learning processes they use.

Microanalytic Methods Microanalytic methods examine learners’ behaviors and cognitions in

real time during learning (DiBenedetto and Zimmerman 2010). Assessments, often administered
individually to students, have them respond to context-specific questions (e.g., “How sure are
you that you can make the next free-throw?”; Cleary 2011, p. 336). These questions may tap
measures of self-regulated learning before, during, and after task engagement. Learners’
responses may be recorded and scoring rubrics used to code responses that may be open- or closed-
ended. Assessment occurs concurrently with learners’ application of self-regulatory processes.

Diaries Diaries are written records that learners construct and which reflect their cognitions,
behaviors, and affects before, during, and after learning (Schmitz and Wiese 2006). Rather
than being a random collection of thoughts as the popular use of the word “diary” connotes,
diaries are intended to be instruments of scientific research for tapping learners’ perceptions
of variables influential for learning. Although learners can make diary entries at any time,
recordings often are collected before learning to assess pre-learning states and after learning
to assess both during- and after-learning self-regulatory processes.

Mentoring Research Model

This section presents a proposed mentoring research model that integrates mentoring with self-
regulated learning processes. Such an integration is desirable and conceptually plausible. Theory
and research suggest that mentoring and self-regulated learning goals are closely aligned—both
seek to develop independent learners. Further, mentoring researchers often assess self-regulated
learning outcomes such as planning and goal setting. Mentoring research that assesses the
operation of self-regulated learning may provide insight into how mentor functions and behaviors
exert their effects on protégé outcomes.
Table 2 presents the proposed model, which breaks mentoring interactions into pre-mentoring,
during mentoring, and post-mentoring times. These are consistent with theoretical phases of self-
regulated learning (e.g., Pintrich 2000) and correspond roughly with Zimmerman’s (2000)
forethought, performance control, and self-reflection phases.
The model assumes that before, during, and after mentoring interactions, mentors and
protégés engage in self-regulated learning. The processes shown in Table 2 are derived from
theoretical conceptualizations (e.g., Henderson and Cunningham 1994; Pintrich 2000; Winne
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 377

Table 2 Proposed mentoring research model

Pre-mentoring During mentoring Post-mentoring

Goal setting Mentoring processes (Table 1) Reflection (e.g., evaluation of progress,

self-efficacy, attributions)
Strategic planning Self-regulated learning processes Affect (e.g., satisfaction)
Knowledge activation Observational learning Transfer
Environmental structuring Practice
Self-efficacy Attention
Value and interest Self-instruction
Outcome expectations Metacognitive strategies
Affect (e.g., anticipation) Time management
Self-efficacy
Effort
Persistence
Help seeking
Affect

2001; Zimmerman 2000) and from the analysis by Sitzmann and Ely (2011). Based on theories
and research, Sitzmann and Ely (2011) formulated a heuristic framework of constructs that
constitute self-regulated learning, identifying three major types: Regulatory agents initiate self-
regulated learning toward its objective, regulatory mechanisms help promote goal progress in
an effective manner, and regulatory appraisals provide evaluative information on progress and
influence continued goal striving. Sitzmann and Ely’s framework identified one regulatory
agent (goal level), six regulatory mechanisms (attention, metacognitive strategies, time man-
agement, environmental structuring, motivation, and effort), and two regulatory appraisals
(attributions and self-efficacy). Although the processes listed in Table 2 are justified by theory
and research, we view them only as representative of a broader domain of potentially relevant
processes.
The mentoring research model hypothesizes that prior to mentoring interactions, mentors and
protégés are likely to engage in goal setting and planning of strategies for achieving goals. They
should activate knowledge pertinent to the anticipated interaction and plan ways to structure the
environment for achieving desirable learning. Self-regulatory motivational beliefs also should be
activated, specifically self-efficacy for being successful, value of and interest in mentoring,
outcome expectations (i.e., beliefs about the expected outcomes of actions), and affects involving
anticipation of the interaction.
The model proposes that mentoring interactions comprise both mentoring and self-regulated
learning processes. Mentoring processes are the mentor behaviors shown in Table 1. Self-
regulated learning processes may be employed by both mentor and protégé, although some
may be more appropriate for one of the mentoring parties. Protégés learn observationally as they
attend to and practice modeled skills. They may internally guide their behaviors through self-
instructions and use of metacognitive learning strategies. They are apt to be attentive to managing
time to accomplish their objectives for the session. On the motivational side, protégés may expend
effort, persist, seek further help as needed, feel self-efficacious as they perceive their learning
progress, and experience positive affect for their accomplishments or negative affect if they feel
progress is lagging. Effective mentors are likely to attend to elements of the interaction,
metacognitively monitor outcomes and adapt strategies as needed, and be cognizant of time.
378 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

Mentor behaviors Protégé self-regulatory

cognitions and affects
(Internalization)

Mentor self-regulatory Protégé behaviors

cognitions and affects
(Internalization)

Fig. 1 Process model of mentoring interactions

Mentors may expend greater effort with protégés and persist as needed. Mentors’ self-efficacy
should be strengthened, and they are likely to experience positive affect as they perceive protégés’
progress. Conversely, mentors’ self-efficacy and affect may suffer if the interaction is not leading
to desired outcomes.
Some self-regulatory processes that are likely to follow mentoring interactions are reflection,
affect, and transfer. Mentors and protégés may evaluate the progress made during the session, re-
evaluate their self-efficacy for working together successfully and learning, and form attributions
(i.e., perceived causes) for the outcomes of the session. Affective reactions may involve satis-
faction over progress made or dissatisfaction over lack of progress. Mentors and protégés may
attempt to transfer what they have learned to new content or problems and different situations.
Figure 1 depicts a process model of mentoring interactions. The figure is simplified to be
uncluttered; more explanation is given in the text. The model predicts that the influence of mentor
behaviors on protégé outcomes shown in Table 1 is mediated by the self-regulatory cognitions
and affects of mentors and protégés shown in Fig. 1. These mediational processes have been
unexplored in mentoring research, yet they offer a potential explanation for the effects of
mentoring. Exploring mediational processes is an important direction for future research, a point
to which we return later.
According to this model, during mentoring interactions, mentors’ behaviors (e.g., modeling,
providing feedback) are hypothesized to affect protégés’ self-regulatory cognitions and affects
(e.g., metacognition, self-efficacy, comfort), which in turn should influence their behaviors
(e.g., attending, observational learning, practicing). These behaviors are predicted to affect
mentors’ self-regulatory cognitions and affects (e.g., planning, satisfaction) as they assess
protégés’ learning and decide on next actions. Mentors’ cognitions and affects then are
hypothesized to influence their behaviors (e.g., listening, encouragement). This model high-
lights the dynamic and cyclical nature of self-regulation during mentor–protégé interactions.
Although we focus primarily on protégés, these interactions also have the potential to improve
mentors’ self-regulated learning.
For learning to become self-regulated, protégés need to internalize self-regulatory processes
for personal use and adaptation. Internalization is hypothesized to occur as a response to
mentors’ behaviors as protégés are engaged in the task. Thus, protégés may mentally repeat
guidance offered by mentors and develop their own strategy for accomplishing the task. As
protégés construct internalized self-regulators, they proactively seek feedback from mentors. For
example, if a mentor were explaining the importance of professional service, the protégé might
mentally develop a strategy for becoming involved (e.g., volunteer to serve on an association’s
committee or review proposals). The protégé then might discuss strategies with the mentor.
Internalization promotes not only self-regulated learning but also transfer of self-regulatory
processes outside of mentoring interactions.
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 379

We also hypothesize some variables that may moderate the influence of mentoring interactions
on mentors and protégés (Table 3), as suggested by mentoring theories and research (Johnson et
al. 2007). The research evidence for the moderating influence of these variables is mixed. Some
are associated with differential protégé outcomes, whereas the research evidence for others is
inconclusive. A point we return to is that research is needed to determine whether these variables
may affect the operation of mentoring and self-regulatory processes during mentoring interactions
(Table 2; Fig. 1), which researchers have not systematically explored.
Demographic variables have been suggested as potential moderators; in particular, gender and
ethnic minority status (Miller 2007; Ragins 2007; Sedlacek et al. 2007) may influence the
effectiveness of mentoring with women and members of ethnic minority groups experiencing
fewer benefits than men and members of mainstream groups. A key question is whether such
effects, if obtained, arise from gender and ethnicity as such or from differences in dyadic
composition (e.g., whether female protégés gain more from female than male mentors) that
may affect interactions. Mentoring research studies do not support such disadvantages (Allen and
Eby 2003; Johnson 2007). Some studies actually have found benefits of cross-gender dyads
(Noe 1988; Ragins and Cotton 1999). Research on minority status shows that mentoring
experiences may be different for minority group members (Sedlacek et al. 2007). Although
some ethnic minority protégés report a preference for ethnically similar mentors, cross-ethnicity
dyads seem to be equally effective (Johnson 2007). We suspect that with respect to demographic
variables, it is the quality of the mentoring interactions that is influential, but research is needed.
Another potential moderator is mentoring phase. Theory supports the point that mentoring
effects should depend on how well established the mentoring relationship is (Johnson 2007;
Kram 1983). For example, whereas the initiation phase is concerned with establishing the
mentor–protégé relationship and performing some career-related activities, the latter become
more intensive during the cultivation phase. The latter phase typically also includes expanded
psychosocial activities. The trust felt by protégés is likely to increase the better established the
relationship. Research supports the point that mentoring phases differ in both the number and
frequency of mentoring functions that occur (Chao 1997; Kram 1983). Thus, we might expect
differences in mentors’ and protégés’ behaviors, cognitions, and affects during mentoring
interactions as a function of the phase of mentoring and its concomitant quality.
Variables associated with the context of mentoring may moderate its potential influence. Two
contextual variables are whether the mentoring arrangement is assigned or voluntary and whether
it is formal or informal, with greater benefits reported for voluntary, informal interactions
(Johnson 2007). Mentoring programs in higher education match mentors and protégés based
on common interests or backgrounds and may have a formal structure with expected roles and
responsibilities of participants (Mullen 2008). On the other hand, individuals might enter into a
mentoring relationship voluntarily, and the conduct of sessions may be informal with few defined
parameters (Mullen 2005).
Research evidence on the relation of contextual variables to mentoring outcomes is mixed
(Allen and Eby 2003; Ragins and Cotton 1999). We predict that if such influence is found, it
occurs through the influence of contextual variables on mentors’ and protégés’ behaviors,

Table 3 Potential moderators of effectiveness of mentoring interactions

Demographic variables (e.g., gender, ethnicity)

Mentoring phase (e.g., initiation, cultivation)
Contextual variables (e.g., assigned/voluntary, formal/informal)
Epistemological beliefs (e.g., about what can be learned, benefits of mentoring)
380 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

affects, and cognitions. For example, it is possible that voluntary and informal arrangements
might be characterized by higher levels of self-regulatory processes (e.g., attention, metacognitive
strategies) and motivation (e.g., self-efficacy, effort, persistence) among participants compared
with assigned and formal assignments. Research employing the model portrayed in Table 2 and
Fig. 1 can address these issues.
The epistemological (or epistemic) beliefs about knowledge and ways of knowing that
mentors and protégés bring to the mentoring relationship also may serve as moderating
variables (Hofer 2002). Mentors and protégés hold beliefs about what can be learned in
mentoring, how mentoring may contribute to learning, what benefits may follow from
mentoring, and so forth. We might intuitively expect that participants who believe that
mentoring can facilitate their knowing and learning would be more likely to engage in self-
regulatory activities conducive to learning, such as paying attention, using effective strate-
gies, expending effort, persisting, building trust, and holding a high sense of self-efficacy for
learning.
Although epistemological beliefs are not self-regulatory processes, research has demonstrated
their relation to motivational and cognitive indexes of self-regulation (Hofer and Pintrich 1997).
For example, correlational research indicates that epistemological beliefs are related to positive
self-regulatory activities such as better cognitive strategy use and more-adaptive motivational
beliefs (Pintrich 2002). The role of epistemological beliefs in mentoring contexts is unexplored,
so we offer them as potential moderators to be investigated.

Recommendations for Mentoring Research

This section offers recommendations for mentoring research derived from the research we
reviewed and the research model presented. We suggest research investigating the operation of
processes during mentoring interactions, internalization and transfer of processes, mentoring in
non-traditional settings, and roles of potential moderator variables.

Mentoring and Self-Regulated Learning Processes

Clarification is needed on the processes that occur before, during, and after mentoring
interactions. The process model shown in Table 2 and Fig. 1 articulates a strategy for
mentoring research. Topics worthy of exploration include mentors’ planning of their in-
teractions with protégés, the beliefs and goals of mentors and protégés, how mentors’ plans
translate into actions and how mentors alter their actions based on protégés’ responses,
changes in mentors’ and protégés’ beliefs during interactions, and cognitive, behavioral, and
affective outcomes of mentoring interactions for mentors and protégés alike.
The research-tested methodologies summarized earlier may prove useful for exploring
these interactions. To address pre-mentoring planning, for example, participants might think
aloud and have their verbalizations recorded, after which they could be interviewed to
elucidate their thinking. Mentoring interactions could be recorded and at their conclusion
be shown to participants as they are interviewed. Using microanalytic methods, measures
could be collected periodically from participants during interactions. Although these data are
self-reports, they are real-time measures capturing engagement in interactions and immedi-
ately afterward, thereby not affected by memory or passage of time.
An example will serve to illustrate the type of data collection that could transpire. In this
scenario, a faculty mentor Andrea is working with a faculty protégé Sara who is preparing
documents for her review for reappointment. Andrea has reviewed Sara’s statement of
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 381

teaching philosophy; her pre-conference planning has focused on helping Sara better
connect her beliefs about teaching and learning with her course activities and assignments.
At their mentoring session, Andrea begins by giving an overview of the statements and
providing positive feedback on several aspects including its organization and clarity of writing.
This feedback strengthens Sara’s self-efficacy for successfully assembling her e-portfolio for
review. Then Andrea verbalizes a session goal—to help Sara better connect her beliefs about
teaching and learning with student activities.
In her teaching document, Sara stresses the idea of students being actively involved during
class and states that she intentionally employs strategies for engaging students in discussions,
has students assume some responsibility for the success of classes, and occasionally has them
role play. Andrea points out the need for specific examples to be included in the document. She
prompts Sara to identify a class and talk about how discussions were part of that. As Sara talks,
Andrea models the revision process, incorporating the idea that in her theories course last spring
each week Sara sent students in advance of each class questions for group discussion that
elicited critical thinking and application of principles to learning settings. Then she assists Sara
in rewriting this section to incorporate specific examples.
Following this part, they move on in the document to where Sara discusses class activities.
Andrea guides her to think of examples, which Sara does, revising the section. They proceed
this way through the document; Andrea prompts Sara to use the revision strategy “exemplify
your main points” and Sara rewrites the sections with Andrea’s modeling and feedback. By the
time Sara finishes, the document contains many specific examples and further revisions, which
Andrea has reviewed one last time.
This mentoring session exemplifies the dynamic and cyclical process model proposed
earlier as Andrea’s thoughts give rise to her verbalizations and behaviors, which in turn
affect Sara’s cognitions, affects, and behaviors and then Andrea’s cognitions, affects, and
behaviors. Researchers could employ observations, interviews, think alouds, microanalytic
methods, and other measures to assess participants’ information processing and knowledge
constructions, as well as changes in their beliefs and affects. This type of research could help
elucidate processes underlying protégés’ outcomes as a result of mentoring.

Internalization and Transfer

An important outcome of mentoring is for protégés to gain the career and psychosocial skills
and beliefs they need to continue to learn (i.e., be self-regulated learners) outside of
mentoring contexts. Such transfer of skills and beliefs depends on them becoming internal-
ized into protégés’ self-regulatory systems (Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman 2000), such that
protégés can use and adapt them on their own. Mentoring research has not explored
internalization. Although transfer has been investigated (e.g., Noe 1988), researchers have
yet to address how mentoring and self-regulatory processes affect it.
In the preceding example, measures could be collected from Andrea and Sara such as of their
evaluations of the progress made during the mentoring session, the strategies they planned to use,
and their self-efficacy for successfully using those strategies. As Sara revises her teaching
philosophy, she could respond to questions about her perceptions and strategy for doing a good
job revising it. Assuming Sara’s revision is done on a computer, trace methods used in computer-
based learning environments (e.g., Winne and Perry 2000; Zimmerman and Tsikalas 2005) could
be employed.
In line with these suggestions, longitudinal research that follows mentors and protégés could
clarify how self-regulated learning occurs and transfers over time. This type of research is labor-
intensive, but it seems essential for advancing our understanding beyond the present suggestive
382 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

level. Given our perspective that self-regulated learning is a dynamic and cyclical process rather
than an outcome (Sitzmann and Ely 2011), its operation changes. How mentors encourage
protégés’ self-regulated learning at the start of an academic block may differ from how they do it
by the end. We also expect that protégés will exert increasing self-regulatory control over their
processes and outcomes as the relationship matures. To the extent that protégés become better
self-regulated, it is expected that they would seek new learning opportunities within and outside
of their interactions with mentors.
To further explore transfer over time, mentoring researchers might want to move beyond the
cultivation phase—in which most research has been conducted—and examine mentoring pro-
cesses in the separation and redefinition phases. Although such long-term follow-up assessments
could be done with surveys, real-time measures are strongly encouraged. Protégés’ revision
strategies could be assessed as they revise documents during periods of separation from their
mentors. Should the mentoring relationships be re-established, mentor–protégé interactions could
again be studied to yield insight into how interpersonal dynamics have changed.

Mentoring in Non-traditional Settings

The current mentoring research landscape is dominated by traditional mentoring relationships

(i.e., one-to-one, face-to-face). But much academic mentoring occurs outside of formal contexts,
such as during informal and spontaneous meetings between mentor and protégé. Evidence is
needed on how mentoring and self-regulated learning processes may evolve in these and other
types of settings that do not follow a planned format. Researchers who examine mentoring in
informal contexts should explain how they operationalize mentoring functions because activities
in informal settings can reflect social functions (e.g., friendships) rather than mentoring (Johnson
2007).
Other non-traditional mentoring formats include multiple mentors, group mentoring, peer
mentoring, and electronic mentoring (e.g., texting, e-mail, social networking), all of which may
help broaden the appeal of mentoring among the diverse populations in higher education
(Fletcher and Mullen 2012). A research issue requiring investigation involves determining
how protégés who engage in different forms of mentoring combine and weigh the credibility of
these diverse learning experiences and relationships.
Mentoring research primarily has focused on benefits to individual protégés. But groups
are common in higher education, such as student researchers learning how to be an effective
learning laboratory team. Some research traditions and methodologies have the potential to
uncover group mentoring processes (e.g., cognitive apprenticeships). Research on groups
also may allow for investigations into the operation of co-regulation and socially shared
regulation (Hadwin et al. 2011), which have yet to be investigated in mentoring research.
Peer mentoring, which may occur individually or in groups, is attracting more attention
(Fletcher and Mullen 2012; Terrion and Leonard 2007). To the extent that protégés (e.g.,
doctoral students, non-tenured faculty) perceive peer mentors (e.g., more advanced doctoral
students, recently tenured faculty) as similar to themselves in important ways, then protégés
may acquire a heightened sense of self-efficacy for succeeding (Schunk and Pajares 2009).
Research that explores the processes that transpire during peer mentoring and protégés’
perceptions of the credibility of peer mentors could enhance understanding of its operation in
higher education.
Academic mentoring is increasingly taking place electronically, but to date there is little
empirical research on its effects (Berry and Marx 2010). E-mentoring typically is used as a
supplement to face-to-face mentoring; its numerous advantages include providing more-frequent
communication, reducing time for personal meetings, and offering a venue for developing a
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 383

relationship and exploring issues in a less-threatening manner (Johnson 2007). Although Single
and Single (2005) found benefits of e-mentoring for protégés’ job-related and interpersonal
skills, research is needed to determine how mentoring and self-regulatory processes operate
when mentors and protégés communicate virtually.
In the preceding example, Andrea and Sara may use e-mentoring during the breaks between
their sessions or even during sessions. As Sara revises her teaching philosophy, she may be
unsure of what to write and may e-mail Andrea. Andrea may respond with suggestions, such as
“Consider adding a transition paragraph at the top of page 4 that connects what you say at the
bottom of page 3 to the first paragraph on page 4.” Trace data collected from these electronic
interchanges may indicate metacognitive strategies and information processing, as well as
participants’ thought processes and motivational beliefs. This type of research could show
whether the mentoring and self-regulatory processes that occur during electronic exchanges
operate in ways similar to those in face-to-face interactions.

Role of Potential Moderator Variables

We recommend that mentoring researchers investigate potential moderating influences of vari-

ables on mentors’ and protégés’ interactions. Variables shown in Table 3 suggest some potential
moderators.
We noted that researchers have demonstrated relations of some moderating variables to
mentor functions and protégé outcomes but that evidence for other variables is inconclusive
(Allen and Eby 2007; Johnson 2007). In particular, we recommend the type of fine-grained
analysis shown in Fig. 1 to determine if these or other potential moderators affect the behaviors,
cognitions, and affects of mentors and protégés during interactions. Research on potential
moderators is important not only for developing conceptualizations of mentoring but also
because moderators (e.g., gender, ethnic background) often are used for pairing mentors and
protégés (Johnson 2007). We ask, do such pairing criteria contribute to the success of mentoring?

Implications for Theory and Practice

The integrated research perspective presented has potential implications for theory and practice
in higher education. This section discusses some theoretical adaptations and applications of
mentoring and self-regulated learning processes.

Theoretical Adaptations

One recommendation is that self-regulated learning and mentoring theories be adapted to better
capture the dynamic nature of the phenomena they are describing. Self-regulated learning
theories were developed against the backdrop of traditional learning contexts. As such, theories
tend to conceptualize self-regulated learning as skill learning and assess it as a characteristic of
the individual at a given moment. In line with this perspective, most self-regulated learning
research has been conducted in instructional contexts.
Sitzmann and Ely (2011) contended that a paradigm shift is needed in the study of self-
regulated learning. We agree, especially as it occurs during mentoring. Such a shift would focus
on self-regulated learning not as an outcome or state of the individual but rather as an ongoing
process or event not following a prescribed sequence of development. Figure 1 captures this
dynamic aspect during mentoring interactions. While traditional conceptions of self-regulated
learning may work reasonably well in mentoring contexts that primarily focus on instruction,
384 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

they may not fully capture the dynamics likely to develop, especially when mentoring involves
relational (interpersonal) issues and non-traditional contexts (e.g., informal mentoring, multiple
mentors, peer mentors, e-mentoring). We recommend that self-regulated learning theorists
address how self-regulatory skills operate and can be developed in settings where the focus is
less on academic skill learning and more on interpersonal dynamics (e.g., conflict resolution)
and other workplace issues (e.g., promotion seeking). The latter are important in academic
settings where junior faculty members and students must resolve disagreements with senior
faculty members. Self-regulated learning theories also should be adapted to include co-
regulation and socially shared regulation that occur in higher education contexts.
Mentoring theories emphasize structures, phases, and behaviors, rather than underlying
cognitive and affective processes. Most research has tested predictions in traditional settings
and focused primarily on job-related skills developed through face-to-face mentoring interactions
during the cultivation phase. There is little research on the separation and re-definition phases,
during which time protégés’ personal and self-regulated learning should enhance their capabilities
and build their relational networks. Researchers have not explored ongoing dynamic interactions
between mentors’ and protégés’ behaviors, cognitions, and affects that happen before, during, and
after mentoring interactions (Table 2; Fig. 1). Further, the existing mentoring literature offers little
guidance on ways to develop self-regulated learning, either in traditional or non-traditional
contexts. Based on Table 2 and Fig. 1, for example, mentoring theorists might clarify how
different mentor functions could assist protégés’ self-regulated learning to include both job and
relational skills, such as setting goals, managing time, structuring the environment to maximize
learning, and maintaining a sense of self-efficacy for learning.
We recommend that mentoring and self-regulated learning theories provide elaborated de-
scriptions of the process whereby self-regulated learning cognitions and affects are internalized
by learners. Internalization of the types of cognitive and affective variables shown in Table 2 is
critical. Without internalization, little self-regulated learning will occur by protégés outside of
their interactions with mentors. Benefits of mentoring for protégés are unlikely to transfer.
The self-regulated learning theories mentioned stress the importance of internalization. In
Zimmerman’s (2000) model, for example, the fourth level of self-regulatory development (self-
regulation) can be attained only when internalization of self-regulated learning processes occurs.
Information processing theory (e.g., Winne 2011) predicts that as cognitive networks and
structures become established, new information may be processed automatically. With practice
and the development of skills, learners can control memory structures activated and utilized.
Social constructivist theory predicts that learners construct understandings of situations and
presumably these understandings, once established, guide learners’ self-regulatory actions and
cognitions. As self-regulated learning theorists continue to refine conceptualizations of how
internalization occurs, mentoring theorists can discuss how mentoring activities promote inter-
nalization of self-regulatory skills. How can protégés activate and utilize these skills outside of
mentoring interactions for their continued personal learning and development, such as by
seeking new mentoring relationships or peer networks?
Theories of self-regulated learning and mentoring also should clarify the roles of potential
moderating variables. Theories of self-regulated learning assume that individuals are motivated to
learn, a general assumption made by all learner models (Bruner 1985). It is possible that if the
moderating variables shown in Table 3 are influential, they are so primarily by exerting motivational
effects during mentoring interactions.
With respect to epistemological beliefs, for example, theories might address how the beliefs
that mentors and protégés bring to their relationships affect the interactions postulated in Fig. 1.
Further, these interactions can be oriented toward helping learners develop beliefs that will
serve them well, such as about learning in the discipline (e.g., why it is important to read journal
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 385

articles) and self-views as professors and researchers. The development of such beliefs may
follow a similar progression as that for other self-regulation skills, but theories might hypothesize
how that process could unfold.
We suspect that protégés’ beliefs about themselves and their roles in their professions may
affect their self-regulated learning and skill development beyond their time being guided in
mentoring relationships. Such self-regulated learning is critical for continued professional devel-
opment, as protégés develop beliefs about the value of such activities as conducting research,
presenting papers at conferences, reading current research articles, and forming networks with
peers. Epistemological beliefs also are likely to include the importance of motivation and ways to
regulate it to remain productive. Theory and research on self-regulation of motivation (Schunk
and Zimmerman 2008) can be used to help guide theory development on ways to purposefully
enact and sustain career-long productivity.

Implications for Practice

Regardless of whether mentoring is a formal part of universities’ structures or emerges

informally, we suggest that mentors and protégés will benefit from receiving instruction on
effective mentoring and self-regulated learning processes substantiated by research. Formal
programs often match participants based on similarities in demographics (e.g., age, gender),
disciplines, and interests (Mullen 2008). Less attention may be given to processes that
need to unfold during mentor–protégé interactions for producing the desired outcomes of
mentoring.
A process-oriented mentoring approach would ideally promote understanding of and
emphasis on self-regulated learning because it educates participants about the processes that
are apt to lead to benefits for mentors and protégés (e.g., goal setting, metacognitive
strategies, encouragement, feedback). Mentoring training also could help parties understand
that self-regulated learning is important for short- and long-term success in the profession
and that through mentoring they can become better at self-regulated learning. For example,
during training participants could observe videos of interactions where mentors provide
coaching, modeled demonstrations, feedback, and encouragement. Videos might illustrate
protégés working under the guidance of mentors who verbalize strategies as they apply them
to tasks. This type of explicit instruction could model expectations for mentoring processes
and outcomes, as well as improve mentor–protégé interactions.
Our hope is that successful mentoring will enhance professional and career development.
Mentoring relationships are known to benefit mentors and protégés (Allen and Eby 2007).
To the extent that mentoring relationships address career functions, protégés may acquire
self-regulation skills useful for advancement. However, mentors also may apply these skills
to their own careers. Because of mentoring, it is possible that mid-career professors could
develop new research interests and motivation for pursuing them. Mentors may not only
learn from protégés but also experience higher self-efficacy by associating with protégés
seeking to become more efficacious and self-regulated.
Inculcating self-regulated learning in mentors and protégés also may serve the goals of
retention and advancement in the profession. Self-regulated learning skills that are internal-
ized can help people deal effectively with myriad challenges and feel more efficacious about
doing so (Schunk 2001). These challenges include the usual ones associated with higher
education (e.g., publications, research grants), as well as those that arise and require faculty
members and students to acquire new skills involving critical thinking and problem solving
(e.g., online teaching, program assessment). Better skills and higher self-efficacy can foster
motivation for continued learning (Schunk and Pajares 2009).
386 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

Conclusion

We have proposed a process model for academic mentoring research that incorporates theory and
research on self-regulated learning. We also have recommended future directions that can enrich
theory and research. Investigating cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, motivational, and affec-
tive processes that occur within and between mentors and protégés has the potential to advance
understanding of mentoring effects and produce short- and long-term benefits for mentors and
protégés. Given the current emphasis on academic mentoring, this conceptualization is timely, as
well as needed for ensuring that mentoring leads to the process and desirable outcomes for which
it is intended.

References

Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2003). Relationship effectiveness for mentors: factors associated with learning and
quality. Journal of Management, 29, 469–486.
Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (Eds.). (2007). The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: a multiple perspectives
approach. Malden: Blackwell.
Austin, A. E. (2009). Cognitive apprenticeship theory and its implications for doctoral education: a case
example from a doctoral program in higher and adult education. International Journal for Academic
Development, 14, 173–183.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Berry, J. E., & Marx, G. (2010). Adapting to the pedagogy of technology in educational administration.
Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 4, 245–255.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic.
Bona, M. J., Rinehart, J., & Volbrecht, R. M. (1995). Show me how to do like you: co-mentoring as feminist
pedagogy. Feminist Teacher, 9, 116–124.
Bruner, J. S. (1985). Models of the learner. Educational Research, 146, 5–8.
Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 15–28.
Clark, R., Harden, S. L., & Johnson, W. B. (2000). Mentor relationships in clinical psychology doctoral
training: results of a national survey. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 262–268.
Cleary, T. J. (2011). Emergence of self-regulated learning microanalysis: historical overview, essential
features, and implications for research and practice. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 329–345). New York: Routledge.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice.
Educational Research, 29(2), 4–15.
Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.),
Educational values and cognitive instruction: implications for reform (pp. 121–138). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading,
writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: essays in honor of
Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Davis, D. J. (2008). The mentorship of a sharecropper’s daughter: being young, gifted, and Black in academe.
In C. A. Mullen (Ed.), The handbook of formal mentoring in higher education: a case study approach
(pp. 73–83). Norwood: Christopher-Gordon.
DiBenedetto, M. K., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2010). Differences in self-regulatory processes among students
studying science: a microanalytic investigation. International Journal of Educational and Psychological
Assessment, 5, 2–24.
Easterly, D. (2008). Women’s ways of collaboration: a case study in proposal development. Journal of
Research Administration, 39, 48–57.
Eby, L. T., Rhodes, J. E., & Allen, T. D. (2007). Definition and evolution of mentoring. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby
(Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: a multiple perspectives approach (pp. 7–20). Malden: Blackwell.
Ewing, R., Freeman, M., Barrie, S., Bell, A., O’Connor, D., Waugh, F., et al. (2008). Building community in
academic settings: the importance of flexibility in a structured mentoring program. Mentoring & Tutoring,
16, 294–310.
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 387

Fletcher, S., & Mullen, C. A. (Eds.). (2012). The SAGE handbook of mentoring and coaching in education.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated
learning: new perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 334–372.
Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the
acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
34, 18–29.
Hadwin, A. F., Wozney, L., & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: a
social constructivist analysis of changes in student–teacher discourse about a graduate student portfolio.
Instructional Science, 33, 413–450.
Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of
learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and
performance (pp. 65–84). New York: Routledge.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of
struggling young writers: effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support.
American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295–340.
Henderson, R. W., & Cunningham, L. (1994). Creating interactive sociocultural environments for self-
regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and
performance: issues and educational applications (pp. 255–281). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Hirschfeld, R., Thomas, C., & Lankau, M. (2006). Achievement and avoidance motivational orientations in
the domain of mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 524–537.
Hofer, B. K. (2002). Personal epistemology as a psychological and educational construct: an introduction. In
B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge
and knowing (pp. 3–14). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge
and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.
Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2006). Becoming a scientist: the role of undergraduate research
in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91, 36–74.
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychology, 48,
25–39.
Johnson, W. B. (2007). On being a mentor: a guide for higher education faculty. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Johnson, W. B., Rose, G., & Schlosser, L. Z. (2007). Student–faculty mentoring: theoretical and methodo-
logical issues. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: a multiple
perspectives approach (pp. 49–69). Malden: Blackwell.
Johnson-Bailey, J., & Cervero, R. M. (2002). Cross-cultural mentoring as a context for learning. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 96, 15–26.
Karoly, P., & Kanfer, F. H. (Eds.). (1982). Self-management and behavior change: from theory to practice.
New York: Pergamon.
Karpov, Y., & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky’s concept of mediation: Implications
for instruction. American Psychologist, 53, 27–36.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. The Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608–625.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview: Scott,
Foresman and Company.
Kram, K. E. (1996). A relational approach to career development. In D. Hall & D. Hall & Associates (Eds.),
The career is dead—long live the career: a relational approach to careers. 157: 132.
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships:
content, antecedents, and consequences. The Academy of Management Journal, 45, 779–790.
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2007). Mentoring as a forum for personal learning in organizations. In B. R.
Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), Handbook of mentoring at work: theory, research, and practice (pp. 95–
122). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s
life. New York: Knopf.
Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010). Self-regulation at work. Annual Review
of Psychology, 61, 543–568.
McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Educational psychology, social constructivism, and educational
practice: a case of emergent identity. Educational Psychology, 36, 133–140.
Merriam, S. B. (1983). Mentors and protégés: a critical review of the literature. Adult Education Quarterly, 33,
161–173.
Miller, A. (2007). Best practices for formal youth mentoring. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell
handbook of mentoring: a multiple perspectives approach (pp. 307–324). Malden: Blackwell.
388 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389

Moll, L. C. (2001). Through the mediation of others: Vygotskian research on teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 111–129). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Muijs, D., West, M., & Ainscow, M. (2010). Why network? Theoretical perspectives on networking. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21, 5–26.
Mullen, C. A. (2003). The WIT cohort: a case study of informal doctoral mentoring. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 27, 411–426.
Mullen, C. A. (2005). The mentorship primer. New York: Peter Lang.
Mullen, C. A. (Ed.). (2008). The handbook of formal mentoring in higher education: a case study approach.
Norwood: Christopher-Gordon.
Mullen, C. A., & Tuten, E. M. (2010). Doctoral cohort mentoring: interdependence, collaborative learning,
and cultural change. Scholar–Practitioner Quarterly, 4, 11–32.
Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships.
Personnel Psychology, 41, 457–479.
Nora, A., & Crisp, G. (2008). Mentoring students: conceptualizing and validating the multi-dimensions of a
support system. Journal of College Student Retention, 9, 337–356.
Orland-Barak, L. (2010). Learning to mentor-as-praxis: foundations for a curriculum in teacher education.
New York: Springer.
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychology, 36, 89–101.
Parker, P., Hall, D. T., & Kram, K. E. (2008). Peer coaching: a relational process for accelerating career
learning. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 487–503.
Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 715–729.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego: Academic.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research on personal epistemology. In
B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge
and knowing (pp. 389–414). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (technical report no. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan, School of Education.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Pollock, R. (1995). A test of conceptual models depicting the developmental course of informal mentor–
protégé relationships in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 144–162.
Ragins, B. R. (2007). Diversity and workplace mentoring relationships: a review and positive social capital
approach. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: a multiple
perspectives approach (pp. 281–300). Malden: Blackwell.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of men and women in
formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550.
Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of mentoring at work: theory, research, and practice.
Los Angeles: SAGE.
Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions
with elementary school students: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240–257.
Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: an empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 169–174.
Scandura, T. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24, 449–467.
Scandura, T., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2007). Workplace mentoring: theoretical approaches and methodological
issues. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: a multiple perspectives
approach (pp. 71–91). Malden: Blackwell.
Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. S. (2006). New perspectives for the evaluation of training sessions in self-regulated
learning: time-series analyses of diary data. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 64–96.
Schunk, D. H. (1999). Social-self interaction and achievement behavior. Educational Psychology, 34, 219–227.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.
Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp.
125–151). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:361–389 389

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation at school (pp. 35–53). New York: Routledge.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: effects on self-efficacy and writing
achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 337–354.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational
Psychology, 32, 195–208.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: theory, research,
and applications. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Sedlacek, W. E., Benjamin, E., Schlosser, L. Z., & Sheu, H. (2007). Mentoring in academia: considerations for
diverse populations. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: a multiple
perspectives approach (pp. 259–280). Malden: Blackwell.
Single, P. B., & Single, R. M. (2005). E-mentoring for social equity: review of research to inform program
development. Mentoring & Tutoring, 13, 301–320.
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and
educational attainment: what we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 421–442.
Terrion, J., & Leonard, D. (2007). A taxonomy of the characteristics of student peer mentors in higher
education: findings from a literature review. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15, 149–164.
Tudge, J. R. H., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical, interpersonal,
and individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational
psychology: a century of contributions (pp. 207–228). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). LASSI: Learning and Study Strategies Inventory.
Clearwater: H & H.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Cambridge:
Harvard Business Press.
Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J.
Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theoretical
perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 153–189). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.
Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15–32). New York: Routledge.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.
C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk
& B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: theory, research, and applications
(pp. 297–314). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics
and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M.
Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). Orlando: Academic.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory
perspective. Educational Psychology, 33, 73–86.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview. In B. J.
Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theoretical
perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1–37). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: shifting from process
goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29–36.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through
observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660–668.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: relating grade,
sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2004). Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: A social
cognitive perspective. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition:
integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 323–349). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance.
New York: Routledge.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Tsikalas, K. E. (2005). Can computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) be used as
self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychology, 40, 267–271.