A developmental view of mentoring talented students in academic and nonacademic domains

Attracting and developing STEMM talent toward excellence and innovation

This article provides an overview of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medical sciences (STEMM) talent development from first exposure to a STEMM domain to achieving eminence and innovation. To this end, a resource-oriented model of STEMM talent development is proposed as a framework. It includes a three-stage phase model based on Bloom (1985), with the main focus on interest development in the first stage, skill acquisition toward expertise and excellence in the second stage, and style formation toward eminence and innovation in the final stage. A literature review shows that from an educational perspective, each phase is mainly characterized by the focus that Bloom postulated. However, it is important that all three stages (i.e., interest development, skill acquisition, and style formation) occur in a stage-typical manner. To explain how these primary objectives of STEMM development can be supported through STEMM talent education, Ziegler and Stoeger's (2011) educational and learning capital framework is used in the proposed resource-based model. A literature review shows that consistent provisioning of the resources specified in the model is necessary for individuals to complete a learning pathway to STEMM eminence and innovation.

Dropping out of an online mentoring program for girls in STEM: A longitudinal study on the dynamically changing risk for premature match closure

Premature closure of mentoring relationships decreases positive effects of mentoring or can even lead to negative effects for mentees. Past studies retrospectively investigated mechanisms of premature match closure. However, a deeper understanding of the dynamics that lead to premature match closure is still missing. In our study, we longitudinally examined the preprogram characteristics, program adherence, as well as program communication and networking behavior of girls (N = 901, M = 13.80 years) who took part in a 1-year online mentoring program in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), comparing girls who dropped out of the program prematurely (N = 598) with girls who were considered as non-dropouts (N = 303). We used survival analysis methods to simultaneously analyze time-independent characteristics and time-dependent dynamics of mentees' communication and networking behavior. Besides mentees' interest in STEM and compliance with program specifications, a frequent and steady communication with their mentors decreased the risk for premature match closure, especially, if it focused on STEM. Mentors' mentoring experience, mentees' program-wide networking and their networking with other mentees reduced the risk for premature match closure. Regarding the STEM focus of networking, we found competing influences, which need to be further explored in future research.

Unlocking the transformative power of mentoring for youth development in communities, schools, and talent domains

Mentoring is a highly individualized educational measure that can support youth development in communities, schools, and talent domains. Depending on the target population, goals, structure, and medium, mentoring for youths can differ considerably. This article first reviews the main types of mentoring programs and practices for youth development in communities, schools, and talent domains. Despite the popularity of mentoring programs, many programs fail to realize the full potential of mentoring as meta-analyses consistently show relatively small effects of mentoring. The discrepancy between the potential and actual effect of mentoring is referred to as the mentoring paradox. Crucial aspects that are held responsible for the mentoring paradox, such as adequate planning and implementation of mentoring programs, adherence to research-based mentoring practices, as well as quality assurance of mentoring programs through systematic program research and evaluation are described. Finally, implications on how to professionalize mentoring are provided for different stakeholders.

Postgraduate perspectives on mentoring undergraduate researchers for talent development

Undergraduate research experiences are critical for the talent development of the STEM research workforce, and research mentors play an influential role in this process. Given the many life science majors seeking research experiences at universities, graduate and postdoctoral researchers (i.e., postgraduates) provide much of the daily mentoring of undergraduate researchers. Yet, there remains little research on how postgraduates contribute to talent development among undergraduate researchers. To begin to address this knowledge gap, we conducted an exploratory study of the experiences of 32 postgraduates who mentored life science undergraduate researchers. We identified four factors that they perceived as enabling undergraduate researcher talent development: undergraduate researcher characteristics, research project characteristics, and mentoring implementation as well as outcomes for both the postgraduate and undergraduate. We then describe a team-based approach to postgraduate mentoring of undergraduate researchers that attends to these factors to provide an example that practitioners can adapt or adopt for their own research groups.

Key issues in professionalizing mentoring practices

Mentoring has experienced a tremendous upswing over the past decades, which has only recently slowed down somewhat. One possible factor explaining mentoring's popularity are numerous case studies suggesting that it is one of the most effective ways of helping individuals to develop. Meta-analyses indicating effect sizes for mentoring that are below what would theoretically be possible appear to contradict the success stories, however. This circumstance raises questions about the professionalization of mentoring practices. We focus on seven key issues for future efforts at professionalizing mentoring. Key issues 1 and 2 address observation of the state of the art within formal mentoring when programs are planned and implemented: the consideration of recent research and of best practices. While both areas can overlap, they provide complementary sources of pertinent information for the professionalization of mentoring. Key issues 3-6 address the need to align mentoring activities to the specific context and goals of individual mentoring programs by observing idiographic program characteristics, mentoring dynamics, the orchestration of mentoring goals, and the provision of mentoring resources. Finally, key issue 7 highlights ongoing evaluation as the basis of the effective, continuous improvement of mentoring programs.