| Mentoring and Coaching | Essay | | | |

Identify and evaluate the key factors which influence the effectiveness and strength of a mentoring relationship. |

This essay will start by defining mentoring, and giving a brief understanding of mentoring. This essay will then go on to identify and evaluate a number of key factors that may influence the effectiveness of a mentoring relationship. This essay will focus on the example of mentoring within schools and a learning mentor to be more specific.
Firstly this essay will look at the difference between coaching and mentoring. Both coaching and mentoring are processes that allow both individual and schools to achieve their full potential.
Coaching and mentoring share many
A range of factors relate to the effectiveness of learning mentor provision. They include the skills, experience and ability of the learning mentors, how the work links to broader provision within the school and beyond, and how the learning mentor is supported and trained.
The first part of an effective mentoring relationship is the match between the mentor and mentee. The whole point of a mentoring relationship is that the mentor has the same or similar experiences to the mentee. For example a child that is really struggling with achieving high grades at school may not be able to relate to a mentor that always succeeded at school (Johnson, Ridley and Charles, 2004, p 66-67).

The second factor that leads to effective mentoring is the expectations. What does the mentee feel they will get of these mentoring sessions? Does the mentee even know why they are there? This might be the case if at school a child has been forced in to mentoring because of lack of achievement or poor behaviour (Johnson, Ridley and Charles, 2004, p 67).

After a match has been made and the expectations have been made clear, the mentor should define relationship boundaries; this is so they do not overstep the boundaries. Here are important boundary issues to cover: (a) issues of confidentiality; (b) appropriate contexts for interaction; (c) regularity of contact; (d) acceptability of communication by