DUAL MODEL OF ACADEMIC ADVISING AND MENTORING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Abstract

The digitalization of higher education creates a paradoxical situation: on the one hand, MOOCs, adaptive learning platforms, and large language models expand access to knowledge and enable the individualization of learning pace; on the other hand, they increase the risk of depersonalization of the educational process and social isolation among students. At the same time, progressive educational trends (Liberal Arts, researchbased learning) emphasize the importance of personalized academic support for the development of critical thinking, research culture, and conscious choice of an educational trajectory. However, the model of intensive individualized mentoring characteristic of elite universities remains unattainable for most institutions due to its high cost and the substantial human and time investments required. This makes the development of realistic models of academic support particularly relevant – models that combine the effectiveness of personalization with the resource constraints of mass higher education. Purpose. To develop a model differentiating the functions of academic advising and mentoring in higher education and a strategy for its phased implementation considering the organizational culture of Ukrainian universities. Methods. Comparative analysis, theoretical synthesis based on the dialectical principle of unity of opposites. Results. It is proposed to combine two functionally differentiated but flexibly integrated roles: an academic advisor provides adaptation support for cohorts in the first year, while a mentor guides the formation of individual educational trajectories no later than the second year of study. The model is based on the dialectical principle of unity of opposites (guided integration ↔ autonomous choice, group ↔ individual, stability ↔ challenge) and represents a realistic compromise between ideal continuity of support and limited resources. Conditional differentiation over time allows for: distinguishing executor competencies, optimizing faculty workload, and preserving opportunities for early academic engagement. Successful implementation is ensured by three pillars: administrative support, balanced faculty motivation (material and value-based), and a culture of quality instead of formal control. Typical institutionalization pitfalls and preventive strategies are identified. The phased implementation strategy involves a hybrid trajectory from a pragmatic start to a value-based self-sustaining system. Conclusions. The transition from the «adaptation or mentoring» dichotomy to a dual model based on role composition through functional differentiation and flexible integration.