Success in college is not simply a matter of students demonstrating academic ability. In addition, students must master the ''college student'' role in order to understand instructors' expectations and apply their academic skills effectively to those expectations. This article uses data from focus groups to examine the fit between university faculty members' expectations and students' understanding of those expectations. Parallel discussions among groups of faculty and groups of students highlight important differences regarding issues of time management and specific aspects of coursework. We find definite incongruities between faculty and student perspectives and identify differences between traditional and first-generation college students. We argue that variations in cultural capital, based on parents' educational experiences, correspond to important differences in each group's mastery of the student role and, thus, their ability to respond to faculty expectations. The conclusion discusses the theoretical and practical implications of considering role mastery a form of cultural capital.

The differentiated model builds on Burke's control system model by emphasizing the importance of multidimensionality and how role usage variation affects identity formation. In a study of 146 entering university students, differentiating the college student role into multiple meaning dimensions results in signi cant variation in degree of role identi cation improvement. This model ties differences in role use in interaction to identity formation by specifying that the self-referent feedback necessary for role/identity discrepancy reduction must come from members of a speci c referent group who consider the role "real" based on its usefulness as a resource for accomplishing group goals.

Both hierarchical (e.g. student-faculty member or student-adviser) and peer (e.g. student-student) mentoring are recognized as best-practice strategies for promoting college student success. Formal mentoring programs utilizing both approaches can be found on many campuses. In the current institutional context of scarce or stagnant resources, college and university presidents and administrators face the challenge of determining which mix of programs to support even though little comparative research on the effectiveness of these approaches exists. This article examines three characteristics of a peer mentoring approach that encourage its greater use. The first two characteristics, cost and the availability of a larger number of potential mentors, relate to concerns about the efficient use of resources. The third characteristic, development of a common perspective, relates to questions concerning the relative effectiveness of different mentoring approaches. Peer mentors and mentees are more likely than participants in hierarchical mentoring relationships to share a common perspective with regards to how they understand and enact the college student role. Differences in perspective impact the process of student identity acquisition, perceived mentor credibility, and the likelihood of mentees following their mentors' advice. Higher education researchers are urged to conduct studies exploring the relative effectiveness of both approaches and how to best combine approaches in complimentary ways to help administrators make informed decisions.

No abstract

Background and purposes The education and training of early career biomedical translational researchers often involves formal mentoring by more experienced colleagues. This study investigated the nature of these mentoring relationships from the perspective of mentees. The objective was to understand the challenges and issues encountered by mentees in forming and maintaining productive mentoring relationships. Method Three focus groups (n=14) were conducted with early career researchers who had mentored career development awards. Thematic analysis identified, categorized, and illustrated the challenges and issues reported by mentees. Results The range of mentee challenges was reflected in five major categories: 1) network—finding appropriate mentors to meet various needs; 2) access—structuring schedules and opportunities to receive mentoring; 3) expectations—negotiating the mechanics of the mentoring relationship and its purpose; 4) alignment—managing mentor-mentee mismatches regarding interests, priorities, and goals; and 5) skills and supports—developing the institutional supports to be successful. Conclusions Mentoring relationships created for academic training and career development contend with tasks common to many other relationships, namely recognizing compatibility, finding time, establishing patterns, agreeing to goals, and achieving aims. Identifying challenges faced by mentees can facilitate the development of appropriate trainings and supports to foster mentoring relationships in academic and career settings.