Reflective journaling is frequently used in undergraduate settings to support self-development, identity exploration, and deeper engagement with learning. Although research often highlights the benefits of structural and collaborative reflection, students may not always interpret these practices as intended, particularly within mentorship programs. This study examined how underrepresented undergraduate agricultural science majors responded to a semester-long group journaling activity embedded within a mentorship program. The program was designed to increase awareness, understanding, and interest in the poultry industry, with peer mentorship serving as a central component of the program. The group journaling activity was intentionally designed to support program learning outcomes related to self-efficacy and sense of belonging. Over a 16-week semester, five students completed biweekly individual and shared journal prompts using a digital journaling platform, with a total of 4 individual and 4 shared prompts. Shared prompts allowed students to view and respond to peers’ posts, emphasizing collaborative reflection. A mixed-methods perception survey with Likert-scale and open-ended items was administered to assess student experiences with the journaling activity. Despite incorporating evidence-based design principles, the activity was met with resistance. Students reported that journaling felt more like an assignment than an opportunity for reflection, and many had difficulty engaging with the structured format. Collectively, our findings suggest that reflective journaling, even when grounded in evidence-based design, may be ineffective if the format and expectations do not align with students’ experiences. This highlights the need for flexible, student-centered approaches to reflection in mentorship programs.