Journal for Policy & Market Research

I. Executive Summary: The State of Student Enterprise Mentoring Research (2023-2025)

The current landscape of entrepreneurship education demonstrates a critical shift from purely theoretical instruction toward practical, support-based mechanisms.[1] Contemporary research confirms the essential role of structured mentoring programs in fostering student entrepreneurial success. The efficacy of these programs is confirmed empirically, particularly in boosting entrepreneurial intentions, as detailed through models like the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [2], and in yielding tangible business outcomes such as revenue growth, market expansion, and venture sustainability over longitudinal tracking periods.[1]

A key structural finding is the advocacy for dynamic, multi-model approaches—specifically the Mosaic and Functional models—which are necessary to meet the complex, varied demands of modern venture creation.[3] Furthermore, to maximize developmental benefit, particularly for diverse student populations, programs must move beyond traditional technical guidance to integrate explicit psychosocial support and multicultural mentoring.[4]

The underlying causal mechanism driving successful enterprise outcomes is the development of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE).[5] ESE acts as a critical mediator, transforming external guidance into internalized confidence and competence application. ESE is shown to mediate the relationship between guidance and critical intangible success metrics, including intrinsic and extrinsic work satisfaction and the intention to stay in self-employment.[6]

Programmatic sustainability and effectiveness hinge on high administrative support [7], strategic and functionally focused mentor recruitment [8], and the deliberate leveraging of digital platforms. Technology is now recognized as a non-negotiable component for ensuring scalable outreach, rigorous progress tracking, and delivering tailored support.[9, 10] This synthesized analysis provides the foundation for strategic institutional policy development aimed at maximizing student enterprise success.

II. Conceptual Foundations: Mentoring as a Holistic Enterprise Development Pedagogy

2.1 Defining the Holistic Enterprise Support Framework

Enterprise development is not solely dependent on a single instructional format but rather optimized through the holistic convergence of multiple support modalities: mentoring, coaching, and tutoring.[4] These components address distinct facets of learning and skill development, forming a comprehensive framework necessary for enterprise success.[4] Mentoring typically focuses on long-term career perspective, providing psychosocial support, and role modeling, while coaching targets specific skill acquisition and performance improvement, and tutoring provides foundational knowledge transfer and technical guidance.[4]

Within higher education, mentoring has transitioned from an informal resource to a formalized, core pedagogical practice, particularly within Business Schools (B-schools) and institutions offering management programs.[11] This formalization aims for the cognitive, affective, and behavioral transformation of students, equipping them to evolve into capable professionals ready to manage both internal and external organizational challenges.[11]

2.2 Pedagogical Impact on Entrepreneurial Intentions and Behavior

Teacher mentorship in entrepreneurship education is increasingly regarded as a vital interactive pedagogy.[2] Research employing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) on university student data confirms that this mentorship significantly impacts a student’s attitudes and perceived behavioral control, which are the precursors to their subsequent entrepreneurial intentions, in alignment with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).[2] Interactive pedagogies allow students to take ownership of their own entrepreneurial reality, encouraging them to construct and store new information actively.[2]

The current literature suggests a critical operational gap in how faculty are integrated into this framework. If faculty are positioned as the primary agents of mentorship, they are inherently tasked with delivering the psychosocial, coaching, and tutoring components necessary for holistic enterprise development.[4, 11] However, traditional academic training heavily emphasizes knowledge delivery (tutoring). This creates a structural limitation: institutional reliance on faculty-led mentoring often fails to deliver the essential psychosocial and coaching elements necessary for the affective and behavioral transformation required of entrepreneurs, unless faculty are intentionally trained and incentivized to adopt roles as comprehensive developmental partners rather than solely subject matter experts.

Furthermore, student development research underscores that mentoring is especially crucial during the early stages of a student’s academic career.[12] This pre-venture creation period is pivotal for the exploration and crystallization of entrepreneurial career interests.[12] However, much extant research and resource allocation focus on students who are close to or have completed graduation, leaving a deficit in structured support for early-career student entrepreneurs.[12] Delaying formal, structured mentorship until a student has a viable product misses the crucial window for shaping foundational entrepreneurial attitudes, perceived control, and the early development of ESE.[2, 5] This recognition necessitates the immediate allocation of dedicated resources to formalized mentoring programs for first and second-year undergraduate enterprise students.[13]

III. Mapping Contemporary Enterprise Mentoring Models and Best Practices

3.1 A Typology of Structural Models for Enterprise Development

The complexity of contemporary startup ecosystems requires dynamic and adaptable mentoring structures. Current research identifies seven primary models that organizations can choose from, each designed to suit specific program goals and participant needs [3]:

• One-on-one Mentoring: The traditional model, pairing one experienced mentor with one less experienced mentee for deep skill development, career advancement, and holistic guidance.[3]

• Group Mentoring: One or more mentors guide multiple mentees simultaneously. This model is effective for internal networking and developing a pool of future leaders, especially when mentees share a common program or goal.[3]

• Peer Mentoring: Matching individuals of similar experience levels to provide mutual guidance and support.[14] This model excels at fostering psychological safety and knowledge sharing regarding common daily challenges and tasks.[14, 15]

• Reverse Mentoring: A junior employee mentors a senior counterpart, often used to help senior professionals stay current with new technologies and bridge generational divides.[3] However, the scope of reverse mentorship remains limited primarily to technology and generational values, restricting its applicability in complex fields like green business or sustainability unless integrated with other approaches.[7]

• Flash Mentoring (Speed Mentoring): Short, single-session meetings focused entirely on resolving a specific, immediate issue or challenge.[3] This allows high-value experts who cannot commit to sustained relationships to contribute meaningfully.

• Functional Mentoring: A project-based model where the mentee seeks a subject matter expert for a pre-defined, tangible outcome, such as drafting a grant proposal or building a specific program.[3]

• Mosaic Mentoring: A strategic hybrid approach where the mentee is encouraged to cultivate multiple mentoring relationships and pathways simultaneously (e.g., one-on-one, plus peer groups, plus functional consultations) to maximize learning and gain multi-disciplinary context.[3]

The contemporary complexity of venture creation, which requires competencies ranging from technical execution to managerial acumen and psychosocial endurance [16], confirms that no single mentor can provide all necessary guidance. Consequently, a key structural development is the recognition that institutions must move away from simple one-on-one programs as the default. The Mosaic Model is the essential operational framework for student enterprise programs, ensuring students build a diverse network that addresses the multifaceted challenges of startup growth.[3]

Table Title: Strategic Applications of Enterprise Mentoring Models

Mentoring Model	Primary Structure	Ideal Student Enterprise Goal	Strategic Advantage
One-on-one	Experienced professional/expert to individual student	Deep career advancement; holistic guidance	High customization and sustained support [3]
Peer	Two individuals of similar experience/level	Knowledge sharing; managing common challenges	Relatability and psychological safety [14]
Functional	Subject matter expert (SME) to student on a specific task	Achieving a tangible, project-based outcome	Targeted expertise with limited commitment [3]
Mosaic	Mentee uses multiple formal/informal mentors	Maximizing context; multi-disciplinary skill acquisition	Comprehensive perspective and resilience [3]

3.2 Prerequisites for Programmatic Success

Regardless of the model chosen, successful mentorship programs share a set of administrative and structural prerequisites.[7] The “three C’s” of mentorship—Clarity in goals and expectations, Communication between participants, and Commitment to dedicating time—are foundational.[3]

Operationally, success is contingent upon several shared characteristics [7]:

1. Administrative Commitment: Consistent, non-negotiable support from top-level administrators is required to sustain resources and commitment.[7]

2. Strategic Integration: Programs must not operate in isolation but be integrated within a broader institutional strategy for faculty or student development.[7]

3. Defined Framework: Clear mentorship goals and a structured framework of expectations must be established.[7, 17]

4. Voluntary and Participatory Pairing: Participation must be voluntary, and participants should be actively involved in the pairing process to enhance fit.[7]

5. Resource Allocation: Provision of essential resources, including an orientation for all participants to set expectations, a dedicated point-person to manage relationships and address issues, and continuous development opportunities.[7]

A crucial strategic deployment of resources involves the specialized application of the reverse mentoring model. While this model’s traditional use case is limited to technology and generational values [7], its application in enterprise programs must be strategic. Student ventures frequently involve areas such as sustainable entrepreneurship [18] or cutting-edge technology. In this context, junior entrepreneurs possess contemporary expertise in key growth areas (e.g., social media optimization, novel AI application, or the latest sustainable frameworks). Positioning the relationship as a mechanism where the younger student transfers platform-specific knowledge and generational market insights to senior industry mentors or investors transforms the interaction from an altruistic burden into a strategic self-benefit for the mentor, providing competitive intelligence and leveraging the model for the benefit of the entire ecosystem.[3]

IV. Empirical Efficacy: Outcomes and the Mediation of Self-Efficacy (ESE)

4.1 Measuring Tangible and Intangible Outcomes

The efficacy of student enterprise mentoring is measured through both tangible business metrics and critical intangible individual development outcomes.

• Tangible Outcomes: Longitudinal studies, which track cohorts of student entrepreneurs over sustained periods (e.g., three years), are vital for assessing hard business performance indicators. These include metrics such as revenue growth, successful market expansion, and overall venture sustainability.[1]

• Intangible Outcomes: Mentoring is explicitly designed to enhance individual competencies and affective development.[16] Key outcomes include improving communication and problem-solving skills, cultivating resilience and endurance, fostering self-efficacy and agency, and increasing entrepreneurial alertness crucial for identifying business opportunities.[16, 18] Furthermore, mentoring influences psychological states related to job tenure: it positively predicts intrinsic and extrinsic work satisfaction, the satisfaction of the need for autonomy, and the intention to stay in self-employment.[6]

4.2 The Critical Role of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE)

Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE), which is an individual’s belief in their ability to successfully execute necessary entrepreneurial tasks [5], is central to the efficacy pathway. Research strongly supports the hypothesis that entrepreneurial mentoring is positively related to ESE.[6] ESE, in turn, is hypothesized to mediate the relationship between mentoring and desired intangible outcomes.[6]

The accepted causal pathway is: Mentoring → Enhanced ESE → Superior Outcomes.

Mentoring improves the core competencies of novice entrepreneurs, but ESE is the psychological antecedent essential for the effective application of these competencies towards achieving superior business and personal outcomes.[6] Mentors develop ESE by providing crucial psychosocial mechanisms, such as offering vicarious experiences (presenting positive examples of success), employing social persuasion (providing positive feedback on progress), and creating opportunities for mentees to enhance competencies through social comparison and imitation.[19]

Table Title: Causal Pathway: Mentoring, Self-Efficacy, and Intangible Outcomes

Antecedent/Input	Process/Mechanism	Mediating Variable (The Efficacy Nexus)	Intangible Outcomes (Venture Success Proxies)
Entrepreneurial Mentoring (Guidance, Support, Vicarious Experience) [6]	Teaching the job, providing challenge, career counseling, social persuasion [11, 19]	Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE) (Belief in ability to perform entrepreneurial tasks) [5, 6]	Intrinsic Work Satisfaction, Satisfaction of Autonomy Need, Intention to Stay in Self-Employment [6]

4.3 Nuances and Contradictions in the ESE-Mentorship Link

While the theoretical link between mentoring and ESE mediation is robust [6], some empirical studies reveal important contradictions. Specifically, certain research has indicated that the mere presence of a mentoring relationship does not find significance in directly predicting ESE.[5]

This finding is crucial for program design. It suggests that general mentorship is insufficient; rather, the intervention must be intentional and focused. The lack of direct ESE prediction is theorized to occur because mentors may focus exclusively on technical or business coaching without being directly involved in the process of mentoring self-efficacy.[5] Therefore, ESE metrics (often measured through standardized ESE questionnaires) should be employed as a leading indicator of mentorship quality and fidelity, not just a general outcome. If a program successfully delivers tangible business guidance but fails to significantly increase ESE, it indicates that the mentor is neglecting the critical psychosocial component necessary for affective and behavioral transformation.[4]

Furthermore, establishing the long-term viability of mentoring’s impact remains an ongoing area of study. Although longitudinal data confirms the relationship between mentoring and ESE [5], research must continue to clarify whether this effect is sustained over the long term or merely transient.[5] Since entrepreneurial ventures operate over extended timelines (with some studies tracking success over three years [1]), the longevity of ESE is paramount. If ESE effects are transient, the venture’s ability to endure periods of uncertainty or crisis diminishes. This emphasizes that research must prioritize continuous longitudinal data collection far beyond the initial venture launch, demanding that programs shift their focus from immediate startup metrics to cultivating long-term psychological resilience through sustained mentoring and follow-up mechanisms.

V. Operationalizing Excellence: Program Design and Student Diversity

5.1 Customizing Mentoring for Diverse Needs and Academic Stages

Effective mentoring is fundamentally individualized, as student needs are profoundly influenced by demographic and contextual factors, including gender, race, ethnicity, age, prior work experience, family responsibilities, and socio-economic background.[20]

Moreover, the transition between academic stages dictates divergent needs. An undergraduate is typically a consumer of knowledge, focused on exploration and skill acquisition. In contrast, a graduate student is expected to become a producer of new knowledge, requiring professional training, specialized research guidance, and support for high-stakes activities like publishing and job searching.[21, 22]

This disparity necessitates specialized approaches. Undergraduates require a “Foundational Track” focused on career crystallization, developing foundational self-efficacy, and building resilience.[12, 16] Postgraduates, or students with mature ventures, require an “Advanced/Venture Track” focusing on specialized skills such as navigating academic life, teaching “politics,” sponsoring, and advanced career counseling.[11, 21] Using the same general mentorship pool for these vastly different developmental goals results in unmet expectations, confirming the need for dual-track programs to optimize mentor matching and resource allocation.[13]

A major structural deficiency highlighted in recent literature involves support for diverse student populations, specifically at Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs). A systematic review of Individual Development Plan (IDP) implementation at 504 MSIs revealed that, despite the use of crucial implementation strategies, psychosocial support and multicultural mentoring guidance were insufficiently addressed.[4]

Standardized IDP tools, designed for generic professional growth, are structurally inadequate for addressing the specific systemic and psychological barriers faced by diverse student entrepreneurs (e.g., managing funding biases or stereotype threat). This creates an intersectional failure point in support systems. Consequently, institutional programs must either radically customize IDPs to mandate focus areas on identity, bias management, and explicit psychosocial support, or develop culturally relevant development plans altogether. Addressing this is a critical factor for student retention and the long-term viability of enterprises founded by underrepresented populations.[4, 23]

5.2 Administrative Governance and Structured Support

The success and sustainability of mentoring initiatives are inextricably linked to robust administrative governance. Key requirements for a structured program include the provision of resources, clear guidelines, and comprehensive training initiatives.[17]

Successful programs rely on:

• Clear Goals and Expectations: Mandatory orientation sessions for mentors and mentees must be provided to set expectations and define the parameters of the relationship.[7]

• Dedicated Oversight: Programs require a clear point-person or coordinator responsible for answering participant questions, assessing the ongoing mentoring relationship, and addressing any issues that arise.[7]

• Continuous Evaluation: Evaluation data must be utilized to identify areas for improvement, ensure the program adapts to organizational changes, and maximize its impact on professional growth.[3, 24]

VI. Overcoming Programmatic Hurdles: Recruitment, Retention, and Sustainability

6.1 Challenges in Mentor Recruitment and Engagement

A persistent operational hurdle for student enterprise programs is the recruitment and retention of high-quality mentors, particularly experienced founders or venture capitalists (VCs).[25] Unlike other forms of volunteering, mentoring requires a sustained and relatively intensive commitment, often spanning several months or a full academic year.[8] This high barrier of commitment is compounded by the inability of student-led ventures to match the high salaries and comprehensive benefits packages offered by larger, financially stable corporations when competing for the same pool of exceptional industry individuals.[25]

Internal operational demands further challenge program stability, as studies reveal frequent issues such as limited time availability from participants, a lack of consistent student engagement, and recurring unmet expectations among mentees.[13]

6.2 Strategic Solutions for Recruitment and Retention

To overcome the challenge of intense commitment, programs must strategically adopt models like Functional Mentoring and Flash Mentoring, which enable time-constrained, high-value experts to engage without the requirement of a sustained, long-term relationship.[3]

Furthermore, recruitment messaging must align with the potential mentor’s psychological motivation, utilizing a functional approach [8]:

• Values: Appealing to altruistic motives and the genuine desire to support a specific community or cause.[8]

• Career: Highlighting the opportunity for mentors to demonstrate expertise, explore professional options, or network with promising future talent.[8]

• Understanding: Appealing to the desire to gain greater knowledge of contemporary challenges or emerging market trends.[8]

A strategic method for attracting high-caliber industry professionals is to actively transform the recruitment value proposition. Since student ventures cannot compete financially, programs must aggressively sell the mentorship experience as a high-level Reverse Mentoring opportunity.[7] Positioning the student engagement as essential market research or innovation scouting provides senior professionals with competitive intelligence on generational market shifts, emerging technologies, and disruptive business models. This transforms the engagement from an altruistic endeavor into a strategic self-benefit for the mentor, thereby increasing the likelihood of securing top-tier industry involvement.

For engagement and retention of current participants, administrators must [24]:

• Offer incentives for participation and provide formal recognition for contributions.[24]

• Strengthen communication channels between all participants.

• Provide comprehensive resources and support tailored to their specific needs.

• Celebrate milestones to sustain momentum and foster a positive, inclusive environment.[4, 24]

6.3 Program Sustainability and Assessment

The sustainability of formal mentoring programs within post-secondary institutions, ensuring long-term established programming year after year, is intrinsically linked to robust assessment and evaluation.[26] Successful programs require support from administrators and must integrate program evaluation within a comprehensive faculty or student development strategy.[7]

The reliance on data to secure administrative support and long-term funding creates an assessment-to-sustainability nexus. Program assessment must move beyond simple activity logs to rigorously prove longitudinal success, such as tracking venture outcomes over three years [1] or quantifying ESE uplift.[5] Technology plays a vital role here, as detailed in Section VII.

Table Title: Key Challenges and Mitigation Strategies for Program Engagement and Recruitment

Operational Challenge	Root Cause/Evidence	Strategic Mitigation Strategy
High Mentor Commitment Barrier	Mentoring requires sustained, intensive commitment over months/years [8]	Implement Functional and Flash Mentoring models; Adopt functional recruitment aligning with specific mentor motivations (Career, Values) [3, 8]
Lack of Student Engagement	Unmet expectations; limited time availability [13]	Utilize technology for remote flexibility; Establish clear goals [3]; Offer incentives and celebrate milestones [24]
Insufficient Support for Diversity	IDPs lack multicultural guidance and psychosocial focus [4]	Integrate explicit guidance on multicultural mentoring; create affinity/diversity mentoring tracks using technology [4, 10]

VII. The Digital Transformation of Enterprise Mentoring

7.1 Leveraging E-Mentoring Platforms

The integration of technology and the proliferation of e-mentoring platforms represent the next frontier in scaling enterprise support. Virtual interaction enhances reach and accessibility, overcoming geographic boundaries to connect students with specialized mentors globally, including CEOs, VCs, and subject matter experts who might otherwise be inaccessible.[9, 27] This is particularly critical for institutions seeking highly specialized venture capital or industry expertise outside their immediate location.

E-mentoring delivers substantial flexibility and cost-effectiveness. The freedom of location and time accommodates busy professional schedules, and online interactions are frequently less expensive than organizing face-to-face engagements.[9] Furthermore, virtual interaction facilitates inclusion, providing necessary access for students with disabilities or chronic conditions who may face physical barriers in traditional, in-person settings.[27]

7.2 Technological Facilitation and Data-Driven Management

Modern mentorship platforms utilize advanced features to streamline administration and ensure program quality. Algorithms are employed to optimize the mentor-mentee matching process, speeding up application screening and reducing administrative effort.[27]

Technological tools transform mentoring into a data-driven pedagogical intervention. Software platforms, such as Qooper or Graduway [10], provide essential governance functions:

• Tracking: Monitoring mentee progress, achievements, and engagement data remotely.[9, 17]

• Evaluation and Analytics: Collecting structured participant feedback and generating analytics dashboards that track measurable impact and identify areas requiring personalized support.[9, 10]

The capacity of technology to provide structured data collection is essential for institutional policy. Given that inconsistent mentorship quality can lead to a failure in ESE prediction [5], digital platforms provide the capability to collect real-time data on engagement frequency, duration, and structured feedback. This allows administrators to intervene swiftly, provide mentor retraining, or adjust pairings based on measurable effectiveness. This capability directly enhances the reliability of the efficacy pathway (ESE development).[5, 9]

Crucially, technology is the only scalable solution for addressing the documented gap in psychosocial and multicultural mentoring guidance.[4] Finding local, culturally competent mentors for every unique demographic need (based on identity, ethnicity, or disability status [20]) is logistically challenging in traditional models. E-mentoring bypasses geography, allowing institutions to recruit and match mentors specifically based on shared identity or background, thereby fostering crucial “psychological similarity”.[4, 27] HEIs must, therefore, prioritize digital platforms capable of robust affinity or diversity mentoring tracks and algorithmic matching based on relevant identity metrics.[10]

VIII. Strategic Recommendations for Institutional Leadership

Based on the synthesis of structural, empirical, and operational findings, institutional leaders should adopt the following strategies to design and sustain high-impact student enterprise mentoring programs:

8.1 Prioritize Efficacy through Process, Not Presence

The focus must shift from merely documenting the existence of a mentor to verifying the delivery of effective psychological and developmental processes.

• Mandatory ESE Training and Validation: Implement mandatory, standardized training for all formal mentors (faculty and industry professionals) focused specifically on techniques proven to boost Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE), including mastery of social persuasion and providing targeted opportunities for vicarious learning.[6, 19] Program assessment must subsequently shift metrics from tracking meeting frequency to quantifying measurable ESE gain as a quality indicator.[5]

• Structural Psychosocial Integration: Eliminate standardized, generic Individual Development Plans (IDPs) in favor of plans that are radically customized to track and prioritize psychosocial development and provide explicit multicultural guidance, particularly for student populations from Minority-Serving Institutions.[4, 20]

8.2 Adopt the Mosaic Model and Strategic Recruitment

Mentoring efforts must reflect the complexity of modern startup needs by utilizing structural pluralism and optimizing external mentor time commitment.

• Implement the Mosaic Standard: Establish the Mosaic Model as the institutional default for enterprise students, ensuring that every venture is supported by a portfolio of specialized mentors (one-on-one, peer, and functional experts) to cover both holistic career needs and specific technical requirements.[3]

• Functional and Reverse Recruitment: To attract highly sought-after industry experts (VCs, senior founders), utilize the Functional Mentoring and Flash Mentoring models, offering them limited-scope, high-impact consulting opportunities. Simultaneously, market the engagement as a Reverse Mentoring pathway, emphasizing the strategic value for the mentor in gaining competitive intelligence on emerging technologies and generational market trends.[3, 7, 25]

8.3 Digital Governance and Dual-Track Assessment

Programmatic sustainability must be secured by leveraging technology for specialized deployment and rigorous, data-driven assessment.

• Establish Dual-Track Programs: Segregate mentoring resources into a Foundational Track (focused on exploration, ESE development, and resilience for undergraduates) and an Advanced Track (focused on scaling, specialized research, and professional guidance for postgraduates and mature ventures). This ensures tailored support and prevents resource misalignment.[12, 21]

• Invest in Digital Infrastructure for Sustainability: Mandate the use of a dedicated e-mentoring platform (e.g., Qooper, Graduway) capable of algorithmic matching based on functional and demographic criteria, rigorous progress tracking, and generating detailed analytics.[10] This data is essential for validating longitudinal program efficacy (tracking venture performance over multiple years) and securing the necessary administrative and financial support for institutional longevity.[7, 26]

——————————————————————————–

1. Assessing the Impact of Mentorship Programs on Student …, https://www.abacademies.org/articles/assessing-the-impact-of-mentorship-programs-on-student-entrepreneurial-success-a-longitudinal-study-17112.html

2. Evaluating Mentorship-based Learning in Entrepreneurship Education – ePrints Soton, https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/457156/2/Article_1670_Evaluating_Mentorship_based_Learning_in_Entrepreneurship_Education.pdf

3. Mentoring Models: 7 Types + How to Use Them in the Workplace …, https://www.togetherplatform.com/blog/7-mentoring-models-every-mentorship-program-should-know-about

4. Editorial: Mentoring, coaching, and tutoring as an enterprise – Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2024.1382129/full

5. Role of Education and Mentorship in Entrepreneurial … – Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.775227/full

6. Exploring the Link Between Mentoring and Intangible Outcomes of Entrepreneurship: The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy and Moderating Effects of Gender – PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7347798/

7. Faculty-Mentoring-Models-and-Effectives-Practices-Hanover-Research.pdf, https://www.hanoverresearch.com/media/Faculty-Mentoring-Models-and-Effectives-Practices-Hanover-Research.pdf

8. Why mentor?: New study has surprising implications for mentor recruitment and retention, https://www.evidencebasedmentoring.org/why-mentor-new-study-has-surprising-implications-for-mentor-recruitment-and-retention/

9. Mentorship in the Digital Age: How Technology Can Enhance the Mentor-Mentee Relationship – PushFar, https://www.pushfar.com/article/mentorship-in-the-digital-age-how-technology-can-enhance-the-mentor-mentee-relationship/

10. Top 10 Online Mentoring Platforms (Updated for 2025) – Qooper, https://www.qooper.io/blog/top-10-online-mentoring-platforms

11. (PDF) A model for student mentoring in business schools – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235296748_A_model_for_student_mentoring_in_business_schools

12. Full article: Mentoring functions and entrepreneur development in the early years of university – Taylor & Francis Online, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665009

13. Undergraduate university students mentoring program: experiences of mentors and mentees – Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2024.1486398/full

14. The Potential of Peer to Peer Mentoring and How to Design Your Program | Chronus, https://chronus.com/blog/peer-to-peer-mentoring

15. A Structured Approach to Mentoring Tertiary Level Entrepreneurship Students: A Literature Review – International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/a-structured-approach-to-mentoring-tertiary-level-entrepreneurship-students-a-literature-review/

16. Student Learning Outcomes – Entrepreneurship and Innovation | Lake Forest College, https://www.lakeforest.edu/academics/majors-and-minors/entrepreneurship-and-innovation/student-learning-outcomes

17. Structuring An Effective Mentorship Program: 6-Steps to Success – Qooper, https://www.qooper.io/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-structuring-an-effective-mentorship-program

18. Exploring the Impact of Sustainable Entrepreneurial Role Models on Students’ Opportunity Recognition for Sustainable Development in Sustainable Entrepreneurship Education – MDPI, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/4/1484

19. Coaching and mentoring to foster self-efficacy for early-stage survival-driven entrepreneurs, https://sajbm.org/index.php/sajbm/article/view/4884/3338

20. A Guide for Students How to Obtain the Mentoring You Need – Office for Faculty Excellence, https://ofe.ecu.edu/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/277/2021/08/a-guide-for-students-how-to-obtain-the-mentoring-you-need.pdf

21. Graduate Student Mentoring Guide – Rackham Graduate School – University of Michigan, https://rackham.umich.edu/downloads/student-mentoring-handbook.pdf

22. Full article: The importance of mentorship in higher education: An introduction to the symposium – Taylor & Francis Online, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15236803.2023.2260947

23. 10 Key Strategies to Improve Student Retention – Higher Education Marketing, https://www.higher-education-marketing.com/blog/10-key-strategies-to-improve-student-retention-in-higher-education

24. How to Increase Mentoring Program Engagement – MentorcliQ, https://www.mentorcliq.com/blog/increase-mentoring-program-engagement

25. Recruitment Challenges and Strategies For Venture Backed Startups, https://eliterecruitments.com/recruitment-challenges-strategies-for-venture-backed-startups/

26. Creating a sustainable mentoring program – EWU Digital Commons, https://dc.ewu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1531&context=theses

27. E-Mentoring Platforms: Leveraging Technology to Deliver Mentoring Solutions for Youth – S4YE, https://www.s4ye.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/S4YE%20Knowledge%20Brief%20Online%20Mentoring%20Platforms%20Final%20Final%281%29.pdf