Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This research aimed to explore the importance of mentorship from the perspectives of mentees in a REEU program focused on circularity in agri-food systems. We used a case study design that included all students (N = 9) who participated in this REEU during the Summer of 2024. A focus group was conducted during the final week of the program. We identified seven themes that contributed to how participants conceptualized the role of mentorship: (a) Guidance and Support in Mentorship, (b) Multi-Level and Multi-Tiered Relationships, (c) Independence and Personal Growth, (d) Effective Communication, (e) Challenges and Adaptability, (f) Preparation for Future Careers, and (g) Importance of Informal Learning Experiences. Facilitators of REEU and similar programs can find our results helpful in examining how they approach mentoring. Our findings show how Social Cognitive Theory can be applied to examine the critical part that mentors play in the environment in which students learn. Our discovery of multi-tiered mentorship shows the complexity of learning environments. Our study examines a novel multi-disciplinary REEU program focused on circularity in agri-food systems. Our research presents an original view by looking at mentorship in multidisciplinary programs.

Keywords

undergraduate students research mentoring multidisciplinary case study SDG 12: responsible consumption and production

Introduction

Research and Extension Experiences for Undergraduates (REEUs) are high-impact educational practices that enhance students’ science identity and deepen their understanding of scientific inquiry (Linn et al., 2015). These experiences are often engaging and interactive, allowing students to apply scientific concepts in real-world contexts, collaborate with mentors and peers, and develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Thiry & Laursen, 2011).

Mentorship is essential for positive experiences in REEU programs (Byars-Winston & Dahlberg, 2019; Estrada et al., 2018; Fluker et al., 2024; Mabrouk & Remijan, 2023; Montealegre et al., 2025; Speth et al., 2022). Faculty and graduate students typically serve as mentors in REEUs, guiding undergraduate researchers in learning technical skills, designing experiments, and interpreting data (Linn et al., 2015; Montealegre et al., 2025). In some instances, technicians and post-docs also mentor REEU students (Montealegre et al., 2025; Raman et al., 2016). However, practical undergraduate research mentoring extends beyond technical training; it can potentially be a transformative relationship that fosters mutual growth, learning, and professional development (Estrada et al., 2018; Manzanares et al., 2023; Ragins & Kram, 2008; Speth et al., 2022).

Beyond skill acquisition, REEUs offer a range of personal and academic benefits (Estrada et al., 2018; Montealegre et al., 2025). For example, Russell et al. (2015) found that 83% of students who participated in REEUs reported increased confidence in their research skills, while 88% gained a stronger understanding of how to conduct research. Additionally, nearly one-third of respondents (29%) developed new aspirations for pursuing a Ph.D. after participating in a REEU. These findings highlight the broad impact of research experiences on students’ academic and career trajectories. Mentorship within REEUs plays a crucial role in transmitting professional values, ethical research principles, and disciplinary norms (Fontanier et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2015; McKean et al., 2024).

Mentorship is a foundational component of effective REEUs, shaping students’ academic, professional, and personal growth (Fluker et al., 2024; Mabrouk & Remijan, 2023; Montealegre et al., 2025; Speth et al., 2022). A strong mentor-mentee relationship guides research methodologies and fosters a sense of belonging within the academic community (McKean et al., 2024; Nelson et al., 2024). Effective mentorship extends beyond technical instruction, helping students navigate research challenges, build confidence, and better understand potential career pathways (Donaldson et al., 2023; Packard, 2016). Mentors serve as role models, offering insights into professional expectations, ethical considerations, and long-term goal setting (Byars-Winston and Dahlberg, 2019). Research has shown that mentorship is pivotal in student retention and success, particularly for underrepresented groups in research-intensive fields (Lopatto, 2007; McKean et al., 2024; Sadler & McKinney, 2010). Matching mentees with the right mentor is also important (Montealegre et al., 2025). When well-structured and intentional, mentorship transforms REEUs from research experiences into meaningful, developmental opportunities that prepare students for graduate education and future careers. Understanding how students conceptualize mentorship within REEUs is essential for enhancing mentor training programs and ensuring that research experiences are supportive and impactful.

Despite extensive research on the benefits of REEUs, a gap exists in understanding how students conceptualize mentorship within these experiences. Much of the existing literature focuses on the outcomes of REEU participation, such as increased confidence, content knowledge, and research skills (Russell et al., 2015; Sadler & McKinney, 2010; Speth et al., 2022). However, fewer studies explore the qualitative dimensions of the mentor-mentee relationship from the student perspective. While prior research has established that effective mentorship plays a critical role in student success and retention (Lopatto, 2007; Mabrouk & Remijan, 2023; Packard, 2016), there is limited insight into how students perceive, interpret, and internalize mentorship as part of their research experience. Additionally, mentorship models vary widely, ranging from faculty-led supervision to peer and graduate student mentoring (Montealegre et al., 2025). Little is known about how these different structures influence student engagement and learning. By examining how students conceptualize mentorship and its role in their summer research experiences, this study seeks to address these gaps and provide insights to inform future mentor training programs and research initiatives.

Theoretical Framework

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) was utilized as the theoretical framework for this study (Bandura, 1986). SCT is relevant for understanding mentorship in REEUs because it highlights how students learn through social interactions, observational learning, and the development of self-efficacy, all of which are central to the mentor-mentee relationship and students’ growth in research settings (Bandura, 1986). SCT emphasizes the continuous interaction between personal factors, behavior, and the social environment, a principle known as reciprocal determinism, which is relevant in mentorship-rich environments such as REEUs (Bandura, 1978). A sociocultural approach to REEUs has been used to examine these learning experiences before by McDevitt et al. (2020, p. 2736), who noted that “the social and cultural experiences of REEUs are its greatest strength.”

Reciprocal determinism in the context of REEUs describes how mentors influence students during their research experience. Students’ characteristics, such as motivation, prior experience, and confidence, shape how they engage with research tasks and interact with mentors (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Asking questions, seeking feedback, demonstrating initiative, and being a self-starter can influence how mentors respond to and support students (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017).

Students in REEUs learn behaviors, norms, and attitudes related to research by observing their mentors. Bandura (1965) explained that learning is shaped by the actions observed and students’ ability to represent and find meaning in those actions mentally. This observational learning becomes especially impactful when students anticipate positive outcomes or future benefits from modeling those behaviors.

Self-efficacy is the personal judgment of an individual’s capability to perform a task or complete a behavior (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy develops in REEUs through both hands-on engagement and observational learning. When students witness mentors and peers successfully conducting research, their confidence increases. Bandura (1965) describes how observations, when combined with symbolization, the ability to represent actions and consequences mentally, allow students to internalize scientific behaviors and envision themselves as capable researchers. Observing mentors solving problems, receiving recognition, and navigating challenges reinforces students’ belief that they can succeed. This growing sense of competence strengthens motivation, persistence, and engagement in research, which are critical outcomes of mentorship in REEUs (Bandura, 1997).

Mastery experiences are situations in which individuals complete tasks successfully and overcome challenges, and they are often the most influential source of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In REEUs, students build self-efficacy through direct involvement in authentic scientific tasks such as designing experiments, analyzing data, or presenting findings. These experiences serve as concrete proof that they can perform as scientists. When paired with supportive mentorship, mastery experiences strengthen technical skills, foster science identity, and increase students’ motivation to pursue advanced research or academic goals. Bandura (1997) posits that repeated success in challenging situations builds enduring confidence more than any other source.

SCT provides a valuable lens through which to examine how participants in a REEU conceptualize mentorship and its role in their summer research experiences. Within this context, mentorship is a key environmental influence on students’ behavior, self-efficacy, and identity development. As students observe mentors modeling research practices, receive encouragement and feedback, and engage in research themselves, they construct personal understandings of what mentorship means and how it supports their growth. Through this reciprocal process where personal, behavioral, and environmental factors continuously interact, students develop individualized conceptions of mentorship grounded in their lived experiences. SCT allows this study to explore how students define mentorship and perceive its impact on their learning, development, and future aspirations.

This research aimed to explore the importance of mentorship from the perspectives of mentees (students) in a REEU program. Guided by SCT, one question guided our inquiry: How do participants in a REEU conceptualize mentorship and its role in their summer research experiences?

Methods

We used a case study design to realize the purpose of this research (Creswell & Poth, 2016). The bound case was all students (N = 9) who participated in the Fostering Circularity and Digitalization Skills in Future Agri-Food Systems (CD-Skills) REEU during the Summer of 2024. The CD-Skills REEU is a multidisciplinary program housed in the Agricultural and Biological Engineering department in [college] and places students in departments across the [university]. Participants are recruited from across the United States. Each participant is placed in a lab and assigned a primary faculty mentor (PI) with whom they work closely all summer. Participants also regularly interact with the post-docs, graduate students, and technicians in those labs. A summary of participant placement is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant Placements in the CD-Skills REEU in the Summer of 2024.

Participant	Gender	Home university	REEU placement department
1	Female	Michigan State University	Agricultural and Biological Engineering
2	Female	University of Florida	Food Science
3	Male	University of Illinois	Agricultural and Biological Engineering
4	Female	University of Florida	Agricultural and Biological Engineering
5	Female	Virginia Tech University	Horticultural Sciences
6	Female	University of Tennessee	Agricultural and Biological Engineering
7	Female	Auburn University	Agronomy
8	Female	University of Florida	Agricultural and Biological Engineering
9	Female	University of Florida	Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Key activities in the CD-Skills REEU include: (a) an individual research project conducted under the supervision of their faculty mentor, (b) weekly workshops on circularity and digitalization topics hosted by the REEU staff, (c) weekly “coffee hours” hosted by different faculty mentors to explore their work, and (d) a group project with the other REEU participants focused on food waste. The REEU staff also provides an online Mentor Academy for faculty mentors and any post-docs, graduate students, and technicians identified by faculty mentors.

Research activities were approved by the [university] IRB office (IRB202102651), and informed consent was obtained from each participant. Data were collected using a focus group conducted at the end of the summer with all nine participants. It lasted approximately 60 min. A member of the REEU staff, a social scientist who did not directly mentor any participants, conducted the focus group. It was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The moderator’s guide was developed to explore mentorship in general and then to understand their individual experiences with mentorship in the CD-Skills REEU. The moderator’s guide was developed based on existing literature (Houser et al., 2013; Montealegre et al., 2025; Raman et al., 2016; Speth et al., 2022) and the needs of program staff to continuous program improvement. All program staff for the REEU reviewed the moderator’s guide.

We used the criteria for trustworthiness established by Lincoln and Guba (1985) to ensure the rigor of this study. Credibility was established through prolonged engagement and peer debriefing. Transferability was established by providing a thick description of the program and placements for participants. Dependability was established with an inquiry audit from researchers not directly involved in data collection and analysis. Confirmability was established through a reflexivity statement (see below).

Data were analyzed through multiple rounds of coding. Our first-cycle coding involved in vivo coding to capture perceptions using the words of participants (Saldaña, 2021). For first-cycle coding, we used Microsoft Copilot to generate initial themes following the procedures suggested by Hamilton et al. (2023) and Morgan (2023). Our prompt was:

You are an experienced qualitative researcher. The data you will analyze provides participants’ responses to the prompt "[insert question from below]?" Please read the entire data set first. The task is to conduct a thematic analysis of responses to the prompt. Provide a summary of each theme with a description of the rationale used to create themes. Please provide three to four examples from the participants for each theme. Please present the output as a table. Data is in the uploaded file.

Separate analyses were conducted with Copilot for each of the questions we asked during the focus group. The specific questions were:

How would you define mentorship?

Who provided mentorship to you throughout the summer?

In what ways do you think mentorship affected your experiences this summer, either positively or negatively?

Assume you are the PIs in the lab in the future. How would you manage to ensure that the student had a good experience?

Thinking about your experience this summer, what had the biggest impact on you?

How would you describe what you learned this summer to a non-scientist?

This initial process yielded 27 initial themes. As a second step during first-cycle coding, one of the researchers reviewed the focus group transcript and the Microsoft Copilot outputs and refined initial themes. Next, we used axial coding for our second-cycle coding to organize initial themes into overarching themes that synthesized across the six questions asked in the focus group (Saldaña, 2021). This process resulted in seven themes.

Subjectivity Statement

Researcher 1 is a graduate student in agricultural education. He values the role of mentorship in teaching and learning contexts. He was not involved in the CD-Skills REEU program at all. He was recruited to conduct the data analysis, providing an interpretation of the data that was not biased by his prior participation in the program. Researcher 2 is a professor of agricultural education who specializes in teaching and learning in higher education. He believes in the value of high-impact learning experiences and has researched the impacts of these activities for over 20 years. He is a Co-PI on this project but does not host participants in his lab. He developed a training program for the mentors who hosted these students in their labs. Researcher 2 also developed the moderator’s guide and conducted the focus group. Researchers 3 and 4 are assistant professors in agricultural and biological engineering. They are the PI and a Co-PI on this project. They both value the importance of undergraduate research. They each hosted one of the participants in their lab. They reviewed the moderator’s guide before we collected data, but they did not participate in data collection or analysis. They both also served as peer debriefers. Collectively, our team of four researchers fulfilled distinct roles in the research process, which allowed us to manage our subjectivity. Researcher 1 conducted the data analysis. He was not involved in the CD-Skills REEU program. He did not know any of the participants or Researchers 3 and 4. Researcher 2 designed the focus group protocol and collected data. He had occasional contact with participants during the CD-Skills REEU program. He also met frequently with Researcher 1 throughout the data analysis process. Researchers 3 and 4 had the greatest involvement in the CD-Skills REEU program and were most familiar with the participants and their experiences throughout the summer. They reviewed the analysis periodically to ensure our interpretation was consistent with their observations throughout the CD-Skills REEU program. Potential conflicts of interest were mitigated by restricting the PI and primary Co-PI (Researchers 3 and 4) from data analysis and ensuring peer debriefing protocols.

Results

The thematic analysis of participants’ responses to various prompts about their mentorship experiences during REEUs revealed several overarching themes. These themes highlight different aspects of mentorship and its impact on participants, providing insights into their conceptualizations and experiences. These themes are guidance and support in mentorship, multi-level and multi-tiered relationships, independence and personal growth, effective communication, challenges and adaptability, preparation for future careers, and the importance of informal learning experiences.

Theme 1: Guidance and Support in Mentorship

Participants consistently emphasized that effective mentorship provides crucial guidance and support throughout their research experiences. Mentors are pivotal in helping participants navigate their tasks, understand complex concepts, and build confidence in their abilities. Participants indicated that the initial stages of their research were characterized by uncertainty and a steep learning curve. Effective mentorship provided the direction needed to overcome these initial challenges. Regular meetings, structured guidance, and informal support were essential to effective mentorship.

One participant shared, “I would have been lost without my mentors. They were both really helpful.” Another echoed this sentiment: “Looking back at when we started, I had no idea what I was doing. That’s all because of my mentors.” These statements describe the importance of mentors in providing the necessary support to help mentees feel more capable and less overwhelmed.

In contrast, not all experiences were positive. Some participants experienced periods of low mentor engagement, leading to frustration and a lack of support. “Our mentor was pretty busy and absent at times. We felt lost at the beginning but got more guidance in the second month,” one participant noted. This highlights the variability in mentorship experiences and the significant impact of mentor availability on mentee confidence and performance. Having consistently available mentors was crucial for participants’ sense of stability and ongoing learning. It was evident that the quality of mentorship could significantly influence the trajectory of the research experience, underscoring the need for structured and reliable mentor engagement, especially early in the REEU experience.

Theme 2: Multi-Level and Multi-Tiered Relationships

Mentorship in research settings is often a multi-tiered and multi-level process involving various roles, ranging from primary investigators (PIs) to graduate students, lab technicians, and peers. Each level of mentorship offers unique insights and support, creating a comprehensive and supportive network for mentees. Participants frequently mentioned the central role of PIs in guiding their research projects. “The main source of mentorship was the main PI,” one participant stated, emphasizing the importance of PIs in providing overall direction and oversight.

Graduate students also play a significant role in day-to-day mentorship. One participant shared, “I worked alongside one of the PhD candidates and saw him more on a daily basis than my main mentor.” This highlights the accessibility and immediate support provided by graduate students, which complemented the broader guidance from PIs.

Lab technicians were another critical source of mentorship, particularly in providing practical, hands-on training. “I had more of a mentor-mentee relationship with the main technician in the lab,” one participant noted, indicating the value of technicians’ expertise in specific techniques and equipment. This hands-on mentorship was instrumental in building practical skills and understanding the nuances of lab work.

Peers also offered informal mentorship and collaborative learning opportunities. “I got help from Ella. We were working on similar [R] code, and she showed me how her code worked,” one participant said. This peer mentorship created a collaborative environment where participants could share knowledge and support each other.

This multi-tiered mentorship framework allowed participants to receive well-rounded support, addressing different facets of their research and personal development. Participants describe contrasting experiences with those who served as their primary mentors, but all discussed how mentorship influenced their overall experience.

Theme 3: Independence and Personal Growth

Effective mentorship involves fostering independence and personal growth. Participants described a journey from relying heavily on their mentors for guidance to becoming more autonomous researchers capable of handling tasks independently and learning from their mistakes. Participants often needed more hands-on guidance at the start of their research experiences, particularly when dealing with new and complex tasks. One participant explained, “At the beginning, maybe a bit of handholding, but eventually, you go out on your own and apply what you’ve learned.” This transition from dependence to independence was critical to their growth as researchers. However, not all participants had the same experience. Some felt frustrated when they were not provided sufficient guidance at the beginning of the experience. One participant noted, “we found out a lot of information a week before it started. It was stressful to plan traveling.”

Mentors who encouraged autonomy and supported participants in thinking critically and solving problems independently were highly valued. This approach allowed participants to develop a sense of ownership over their projects. “I felt like I had a major role in the project and gained a sense of accomplishment,” one participant shared, reflecting the pride and satisfaction of meaningful involvement in their research.

The balance between providing guidance and promoting independence was essential in helping participants build confidence and resilience. “It’s about being independent but also being comfortable to come back and reassess what you’ve done so far,” another participant noted. This iterative process of trying, assessing, and refining their work was integral to their personal and professional development. Mentors who successfully navigated this balance were able to foster both competence and self-reliance in their mentees, preparing them for future challenges.

Theme 4: Effective Communication

Communication emerged as a cornerstone of effective mentorship. Participants emphasized the need for consistent, transparent, and accessible communication channels with their mentors. Effective communication helped set clear expectations, provide timely feedback, and foster a trusting and collaborative mentor-mentee relationship.

Participants appreciated mentors who informed them about key aspects of research, including expectations, timelines, and project goals. “I wish we had a timeline of deliverables and a document outlining what we’re supposed to do,” one participant suggested, highlighting the need for structured guidance.

Casual modes of communication, such as texting, were often preferred for day-to-day interactions over more formal emails. “Texting was good between me and the PhD student. It was more of a friendly relationship,” one participant stated. This informal communication helped build rapport and made mentors more approachable.

In contrast, inconsistent or poor communication was a significant source of frustration for some participants. “There was a period where I didn’t hear from my mentor,” one participant recalled, emphasizing the importance of regular and reliable communication. Instances of mentors being unreachable through email or failing to provide timely updates led to confusion and stress. Clear and ongoing communication was crucial for maintaining a productive and supportive mentor-mentee relationship, helping to prevent misunderstandings and ensuring that mentees felt supported throughout their research journey.

Theme 5: Challenges and Adaptability

Participants encountered a variety of challenges during their research experiences, including initial frustration due to unclear guidance, significant knowledge gaps, and logistical issues. Adaptability and resilience were key to overcoming these challenges and making the most of their mentorship experiences.

The initial stages of the REEU were often marked by confusion and frustration due to unclear guidance. “At the start, the guidance wasn’t very clear, and I found that frustrating. But by the end, I was more comfortable with looser constraints,” one participant explained. This highlights the importance of clear initial direction and the ability to adapt to less structured environments over time.

The knowledge gap between mentors and mentees was another significant challenge. “Our mentors know so much about the topic, and we come in knowing nothing. It’s hard to make it simpler for us to understand,” one participant noted. This gap made it difficult for mentees to grasp complex concepts and required mentors to find ways to simplify and explain the material effectively.

Logistics, such as late notifications, difficulties with accommodation, and lack of preparatory information, added to the stress and challenges faced by participants. “It was hard for out-of-state students to get food. A meal plan would have been helpful,” one participant mentioned, pointing to practical considerations that impacted their overall experience. In response to these challenges, participants developed adaptability and resilience. They learned to navigate their research environments, seek out additional resources, and adjust to varying levels of mentor engagement. “Despite the initial challenges, I learned to adapt and became more comfortable with the process,” one participant shared, reflecting on the growth that came from overcoming obstacles.

Theme 6: Preparation for Future Careers

Mentorship during the REEU impacted participants’ preparation for future academic and career paths. The skills, knowledge, and confidence gained through hands-on research and professional development activities were pivotal in shaping their career aspirations and readiness.

Professional development activities, like attending conferences, designing projects, and presenting research findings, were highlighted as critical components of the research experience. “Going to the conference in Charleston was huge for me. I learned a lot and got to see the professional side of things,” one participant explained. These experiences provided valuable insights into the professional world and reduced anxiety about future career settings.

The opportunity to engage in substantial research tasks contributed to participants’ sense of preparedness for future academic paths. “I feel more prepared for graduate school. Writing a research article was valuable,” another participant noted. Hands-on experiences, such as writing and presenting research, helped participants develop essential skills and gain confidence in their abilities.

Participants also reported gaining clarity on their career goals and feeling motivated to pursue further research or education. “I learned what I want to do after college. This experience solidified my decision,” one participant shared, indicating the long-term impact of the mentorship on their career trajectories. These experiences often served as pivotal moments in shaping participants’ academic and professional goals, providing a clear direction for their future endeavors.

Theme 7: Importance of Informal Learning Experiences

Informal learning experiences, such as social interactions, group activities, industry tours, and casual conversations with mentors, were highly valued by participants. These experiences provided opportunities for collaborative learning, networking, and gaining diverse insights outside formal research tasks.

Social interactions and group activities were crucial for building connections with peers and mentors. “More opportunities to work as a group earlier in the program would have helped us connect better,” one participant suggested. Collaboration and social activities helped participants feel more integrated into their research communities and facilitated peer support.

Industry tours and field trips were highlighted as particularly informative and beneficial. “I enjoyed the industry tours and field trips. They were very informative,” one participant commented. These activities offered participants a broader perspective on their field of study and an understanding of real-world applications of their research.

Casual conversations with mentors also contributed to a more comfortable and productive mentorship experience. “My mentor would text me for meeting times, which felt better than formal emails,” one participant noted. Informal interactions helped build rapport and made mentors more approachable, enhancing the overall mentorship experience. These informal learning experiences complemented formal research tasks and enriched participants’ educational journeys, providing a well-rounded view of their field and its practical applications.

Discussion

Overall, we identified seven themes that contributed to how participants in the CD-Skills REEU conceptualized the role of mentorship in their summer research experience. These were: (a) Guidance and Support in Mentorship, (b) Multi-Level and Multi-Tiered Relationships, (c) Independence and Personal Growth, (d) Effective Communication, (e) Challenges and Adaptability, (f) Preparation for Future Careers, and (g) Importance of Informal Learning Experiences. Themes are bolded in the discussion below for easy navigation. The findings illustrate the multifaceted nature of mentorship in undergraduate research experiences. Effective mentorship encompasses not just guidance and support but also fostering independence, ensuring clear communication, and providing professional development opportunities. Participants’ experiences emphasized the importance of a multi-tiered mentorship structure, adaptability to challenges, and the value of informal learning experiences. These insights can inform future mentor training programs, ensuring that research experiences are both supportive and impactful for undergraduate researchers.

In the Guidance and Support in Mentorship theme, participants emphasized how their mentors were critical in the overall quality of their summer research experiences. When viewed from an SCT lens (Bandura, 1986, 1997), mentorship and mentors were key environmental factors that contributed to the growth and development of each participant, or in the absence of effective mentorship, to feelings of frustration and low self-efficacy (Nelson et al., 2024). Our findings support the existing research that highlights the importance of mentorship in science (Estrada et al., 2018; Lopatto, 2007; Montealegre et al., 2025; Packard, 2016; Ragins & Kram, 2008; Speth et al., 2022). The role of establishing expectations should be shared by the mentee and mentor (Manzanares et al., 2023), meaning that students should be coached on how to be good mentees.

The theme Multi-Level and Multi-Tiered Relationships , highlighted the complexities of the mentorship environments for each participant. In some instances, post-docs, graduate students, and lab technicians provided more mentorship than the assigned faculty mentor. These multifaceted relationships highlight the complexity of the environmental factor in SCT (Bandura, 1986, 1997). The phenomenon of multi-tier mentoring relationships has received much less attention in the literature. Linn et al. (2015) noted that faculty and graduate students often mentor undergraduate researchers, typically through didactic relationships. Our results suggest that there are multiple mentoring relationships at play for each undergraduate researcher, which aligns with what Montealegre et al. (2025) and Raman et al. (2016) reported. A pluralistic mentoring environment should be expected in REEU programs. Interestingly, Raman et al. (2016) found that students reported that having a graduate student as their primary mentor had a positive impact on their experience, whereas having a faculty member as their primary mentor had a negative impact, further underscoring the importance of examining mentorship more broadly. Planning for a pluralistic mentoring environment can plausibly mitigate negative mentoring experiences (Mabrouk & Remijan, 2023).

In the Independence and Personal Growth theme, participants expressed how they valued structure and support early in the experience, but as they gained confidence and skills, they were given more autonomy. This is a classic example of using a scaffolding approach (Vygotsky, 1978). Connecting this to SCT, effective mentorship (environmental factor) impacts a person’s self-efficacy (personal factor) and skills (behavioral factor; Bandura, 1986, 1997). Our findings are congruent with other research, which showed developing a science identity (Linn et al., 2015) and gaining technical skills (Fluker et al., 2024; Johnson et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2015; Sadler & McKinney, 2010).

The theme of Effective Communication emerged as a critical part of the overall experience for each participant. Clear communication was key to setting the expectations for the overall experience. Additionally, different forms of communication were used with different people. Poor communication was also highlighted as a key impediment to a good experience. From an SCT perspective, communication is the link between mentors (environmental factors) and the participant (personal factor; Bandura, 1986, 1997). Our findings align with Raman et al. (2016), who noted the importance of communication to the overall REEU experience. Communication is a two-way process, and Manzanares et al. (2023) suggested that if mentees proactively ask questions and advocate for themselves, they will have a better overall experience. Communication is a key feature of effective mentoring relationships (Byars-Winston & Dahlberg, 2019; Speth et al., 2022).

In the theme of Challenges and Adaptability , participants expressed some of the challenging things they faced, particularly early in their summer research experience. Some of the challenges focused on unclear expectations and logistical challenges. Although frustrating, several participants noted that these challenges gave them opportunities to solve problems and grow. Connecting this to SCT, external challenges (environmental factors) led to growth in confidence and self-efficacy (personal factors; Bandura, 1986, 1997). It is important to note that REEU programs at [university] typically have access to a university-wide summer program that provides all housing, food, and entertainment programing for all REEU participants on campus. However, this program was not offered during the summer of 2024, meaning that these tasks fell on individual REEU program staff. Our findings highlight the role of mentors in reducing challenges and helping students learn how to overcome obstacles, which is consistent with Packard’s (2016) findings.

The theme of Preparation for Future Careers outlined how participants viewed the role of mentorship in helping them prepare for their future careers and how it affected their aspirations. Participants described experiences like academic conferences, scientific writing, and scientific presentations. Several participants reported they now have clear goals for their future. This theme outlines an example of how mentorship (environmental factor) impacts a person’s goals (personal factor; Bandura, 1986, 1997). Our results align with previous research, which showed that REEUs can impact students’ career aspirations (Fontanier et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2015).

The theme Importance of Informal Learning Experiences highlighted how the complete experience impacted participants, not just the formal, planned learning experiences. Participants discussed how they learned from each other. They also valued the group field trips, which provided informal opportunities to learn alongside other participants. In the end, they valued interacting with their mentors in less formal ways, allowing them to form better personal relationships. Viewing this through SCT highlights the complexities of how all the people, plus the planned and unplanned learning experiences (environmental factors), contribute to growth in participants (personal factors; Bandura, 1986, 1997). The importance of building relationships both inside and outside their individual labs is supported by prior research (Manzanares et al., 2023; McKean et al., 2024; Nelson et al., 2024).

The themes identified in this study highlight the complexity of mentorship and its critical role in shaping participants’ academic, professional, and personal growth. Understanding these themes can help improve the design and implementation of mentorship programs, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of undergraduate research experiences. The detailed insights provided by the participants underscore the diverse and dynamic nature of mentorship, reflecting its profound influence on the development of future researchers and professionals.

Our results provide insights that the CD-Skills REEU program should consider. First, a pluralistic mentoring environment should be assumed, and mentor training should be provided to all faculty, post-docs, graduate students, and technicians. This is currently offered on a voluntary basis, but this research highlights the importance of multi-tiered mentorship. Second, participants valued the opportunities to interact with each other informally. We should look for ways to offer more of these opportunities. Third, because communication was central to the REEU experience, we should overtly address this with mentors and mentees as a part of the onboarding process. We currently require a mentoring compact between faculty and participants. We should amend this to outline expectations for communications explicitly. Finally, the challenges faced by participants in the summer of 2024 related to logistics should be shared with administrators of the university-wide program to support REEUs and emphasize the importance of continuing to offer this program.

Our results are based on a single case study of nine participants in a single REEU program in one summer. Future research should examine the importance of mentorship from the perspectives of participants in other REEU programs. Most notably, the pluralistic mentoring environment should be investigated at a much deeper level to understand this complex phenomenon.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Jason C. Dossett

Ana D. Martin-Ryals

Ziynet Boz

T. Grady Roberts

Ethical Considerations

This research was approved as Exempt by the University of Florida IRB (#202102651).

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by USDA/NIFA (Award# 2022-67037-36641), Fostering Circularity and Digitalization Skills in Future Agri-Food Systems Workforce, Ziynet Boz, PI.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence was used in the following ways: (a) Microsoft CoPilot was used to conduct initial thematic analysis and (b) Grammarly was used to review and edit writing.

References

Bandura

(1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 589–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022070

Bandura

(1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33(4), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.33.4.344

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.

Byars-Winston

Dahlberg

M. L.

(Eds.) (2019). The science of effective mentorship in STEMM. National Academies Press. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31958221/

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.

Donaldson

J. L.

Gwinn

K. D.

Stephens

Chmely

S. C.

Moody

(2023). A summer agricultural research program enlarges community college students’ perceptions of agricultural careers. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 4(3), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.315

Estrada

Hernandez

P. R.

Schultz

P. W.

(2018). A longitudinal study of how quality mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM careers. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066

Fluker

Perez-Felkner

McCoy

(2024). Students’ perceptions of their engineering identity development and REU summer program experiences: An equity-centered analysis [Conference session]. 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–40969

10.

Fontanier

Hentges

Brandenberger

Dunn

Maness

Mitchell

Moss

Zhang

(2019). REEU programs provide hands-on horticulture science opportunities. Crop Science, 59(6), 2357–2364. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2019.05.0351

11.

Hamilton

Elliott

Quick

Smith

Choplin

(2023). Exploring the use of AI in qualitative analysis: A comparative study of guaranteed income data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231201504

12.

Houser

Lemmons

Cahill

(2013). Role of the faculty mentor in an undergraduate research experience. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61, 297–305. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-420.1

13.

Johnson

W. B.

Behling

L. L.

Miller

Vandermaas-Peeler

(2015). Undergraduate research mentoring: Obstacles and opportunities. Mentoring & Tutoring Partnership in Learning, 23(5), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2015.1126167

14.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

15.

Linn

M. C.

Palmer

Baranger

Gerard

Stone

(2015). Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science, 347(6222), 1261757. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261757

16.

Lopatto

(2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(4), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039

17.

Mabrouk

P. A.

Remijan

M. G.

(2023). Critical traits of graduate student mentors affecting students’ science identity development in an NSF-funded research experiences for undergraduates (REU) program. Mentoring & Tutoring Partnership in Learning, 31(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2023.2164988

18.

Manzanares

Peña

Kobak

K. C.

Stratton

M. B.

(2023). Ten simple rules for students navigating summer research experiences for undergraduates (REU) programs: From application to program completion. PLoS Computational Biology, 19(11), e1011573. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011573

19.

McDevitt

A. L.

Patel

M. V.

Ellison

A. M.

(2020). Lessons and recommendations from three decades as an NSF REU site: A call for systems-based assessment. Ecology and Evolution, 10(6), 2710–2738. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6136

20.

McKean

Almodovar

Schultz

Melgar

Wickramasinghe

(2024). Undergraduate research and mentoring in separations [Conference session]. 2022 ASEE Midwest Section Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-660-45190

21.

Montealegre

Roberts

T. G.

Martin-Ryals

Boz

(2025). Research experiences for undergraduate students: The role of mentorship in transferring circularity and digitalization skills, attitudes, and knowledge in food systems. NACTA Journal, 68(1), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v68i1.220

22.

Morgan

D. L.

(2023). Exploring the use of artificial intelligence for qualitative data analysis: The case of ChatGPT. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231211248

23.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24622

24.

Nelson

Vielma

Browning

(2024). Building research self-efficacy in undergraduate students through authentic research experiences [Conference session]. 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–43084

25.

Packard

B. W. L.

(2016). Inclusive, intentional mentoring. Psychology, 43, 663–670.

26.

Ragins

Kram

(2008). The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice. Sage Publications, Inc.

27.

Raman

D. R.

Geisinger

B. N.

Kemis

M. R.

de la Mora

(2016). Key actions of successful summer research mentors. Higher Education, 72, 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9961-z

28.

Russell

J. E.

D’Costa

A. R.

Runck

Barnes

D. W.

Barrera

A. L.

Hurst-Kennedy

Sudduth

E. B.

Quinlan

E. L.

Schlueter

Iskhakova

Haining

(2015). Bridging the undergraduate curriculum using an integrated course-embedded undergraduate research experience (ICURE). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar4. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-09-0151

29.

Sadler

T. D.

McKinney

(2010). Scientific research for undergraduate students: A review of the literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39, 43–49.

30.

Saldaña

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.

31.

Schunk

D. H.

DiBenedetto

M. K.

(2020). Motivation and social-emotional learning: Theory, research, and practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832

32.

Speth

Ramirez Ii

Ibach

Lee

Sandall

Mamo

Keshwani

Lambe

Matkin

Schacht

(2022). Student perceptions of mentoring practices during undergraduate research experiences. NACTA Journal, 66(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v66i1.25

33.

Thiry

Laursen

S. L.

(2011). The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9271-2

34.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Exploring Mentorship in Research and Extension Experiences for Undergraduates (REEU) Programs Focused in Agri-food Systems

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Framework

Methods

Subjectivity Statement

Results

Theme 1: Guidance and Support in Mentorship

Theme 2: Multi-Level and Multi-Tiered Relationships

Theme 3: Independence and Personal Growth

Theme 4: Effective Communication

Theme 5: Challenges and Adaptability

Theme 6: Preparation for Future Careers

Theme 7: Importance of Informal Learning Experiences

Discussion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Artificial Intelligence

References