Faculty’s barriers to mentoring freshmen within an interinstitutional context: applying the theory of planned behavior

Figures & data

Table 1. Beliefs related to predictors of freshmen mentoring.

Predictor	Associated beliefs
Attitude
Cognitive	Mentoring will allow for personalized follow-ups
	Mentoring will show freshmen that they matter to the institution
	Mentoring will increase freshmen’s motivation, self-confidence, knowledge of resources, success/graduation, pressure, faculty’s understanding of freshmen
	Mentoring will reduce freshmen’s bad habits/dropout, autonomy/responsibility, faculty’s objectivity in assessments, equity among mentees (not all mentors are equally good)
	Mentors will review their teaching habits
Experiential	Faculty and students will experience quality relationships
	Faculty will feel empowered, overbooked, overloaded, responsible for mentees’ failure/dropout, a heightened sense of purpose
Perceived norm
Descriptive	Faculty whose character is suitable for accompaniment, those who are motivated will mentor freshmen
	Senior, junior, jaded/disillusioned faculty will not mentor freshmen
Injunctive Perceived behavioral control	Students, directors, some colleagues could expect faculty to mentor freshmen
Ability	Considering mentoring as worthwhile, being open-minded, having a working knowledge of the curricula, not aiming to impose one’s opinion, being trained in accompaniment, having good contact with students (listening/being empathetic) facilitates freshmen mentoring
Autonomy	Having the time, teaching mainly freshmen, being supported by the director, teaching small classes, being a full-time faculty in the institution, consideration of mentoring in advancing one’s career, being paid for mentoring hours/having assistants to compensate for teaching time facilitates freshmen mentoring
	Being on a different wavelength with some students, working in several institutions complicates freshmen mentoring

In order to avoid redundancy, beliefs related to an increase/reduction, to feelings and to facilitation/complications were combined but separated via commas.

Table 2. Stepwise multiple regressions of intention, attitude, injunctive norm and perceived ability on their predictors.

Variables	B	SE B	β	Partial R^2	F	df	Adjusted R^2
Intention (N=331)					82.93	5, 326	0.553***
Attitude	0.33	0.07	0.24***	0.03
Descriptive norm	0.19	0.06	0.14***	0.02
Injunctive norm	0.38	0.04	0.36***	0.11
Perceived ability	0.31	0.05	0.28***	0.04
Autonomy	0.13	0.04	0.13***	0.02
Attitude (N=325)					86.40	5, 320	0.568***
Quality relationship	0.03	0.01	0. 26***	0.07
Personalized support	0.04	0.01	0.34***	0.01
Review teaching habits	0.02	0.01	0.15**	0.01
Feeling proud if mentees succeed	0.01	0.01	0.11*	0.01
Impaired objectivity in assessments	−0.02	0.01	−0.09*	0.03
Injunctive Norm (N=327)					29.38	3, 324	0.207***
Directors	0.03	0.01	0.25***	0.03
Students	0.02	0.01	0.14*	0.01
Other faculty	0.02	0.01	0.15*	0.01
Perceived ability (N=331)					48.08	3, 328	0.299***
Considering mentoring as worthwhile	0.05	0.01	0.37***	0.12
Being trained in accompaniment	0.03	0.01	0.21***	0.04
Having a working knowledge of the curricula	0.03	0.01	0.19***	0.03

This table presents the last models retained by the analyses.

* (P<.05), **(P<.01), *** (P<.001).