Ej 788475
Ej 788475
Ej 788475
ABSTRACT
RÉSUMÉ
(Allen, McManus & Russell, 1999) and satisfaction (Seibert, 1999). The
cognitive perspective emphasizes the effects of peer interaction such as
reciprocal peer tutoring on the development of cognitive skills such as
self-questioning (Fantuzzo, Riggio, Connelly & Dimeff, 1989) and study
habits (Berndt, 1999), and would account for the negative influence of
student characteristics such as lack of study skills and high levels of anx-
iety on cognitive processing (Hembree, 1988). Finally, a motivation
explanation proposes that peer mentoring influences self-efficacy and
help-seeking behaviour (Hayes, 1999; Karabenick& Knapp, 1999).
Two hypotheses were derived for the present study based on a
review of the literature on the sources of influence on educational out-
comes for first year students. First, it is expected that peer mentoring
would positively affect students' academic achievement. Second, it is
predicted that peer mentoring would increase the retention of mentored
students between freshman and sophomore years.
METHOD
Participants
Measures
of high school grades) and the university (in the case of final grades at
the end of the first year of study). Students who received grades lower
than 45 were assigned a grade of 45 for this study to eliminate the spuri-
ous effect of outliers.
Level of participation. This measure applies to the Peer Mentor
group only and was provided by the peer mentors halfway into the sec-
ond semester. The peer mentors were asked to assign a numerical rating
of 0 to 5 to each student in their group reflecting level of participation in
Peer Mentor-First Year Student activities and events. Surveys were then
collected and results tabulated. The rating system, with higher numbers
indicating higher levels of participation and each level subsuming the
previous one, was defined in the following manner: A "0" indicated that
students had not contacted their peer mentors at all; 1 indicated that the
first year student attended only the first large-group event (the program
kick-off); " 2 " was defined as attending only the 3 large-group events
(the k i c k - o f f e v e n t plus a large p i z z a - a n d - s t u d y g a t h e r i n g held in
November and late January); a rating of "3" indicated that the first year
student attended at least 3 other regularly scheduled small-group meet-
ings; a rating of "4" indicated that students were meeting their peer men-
tor at least once per month; a rating of " 5 " indicated that first year
students met with their peer mentors at least once every two weeks for
the academic year.
Retention. The number of students from each of the three groups
who returned and those who did not return for their second year of uni-
versity studies w e r e c o u n t e d . It should be noted that f o r the N o n
Applicant Control Group, only retention data and grades were obtained;
in other words, this group did not complete the Academic Motivation
Inventory or the demographic survey.
faculty, and to help first year students prepare for the academic chal-
lenges. This message was reinforced during the training phases and
weekly meetings for Peer Mentors. Team Leaders attended, on a rotating
basis, meetings of each Peer Mentor's group with the goal of introducing
themselves and their expertise/experience to the first-year students and
checking to make sure that tutoring was not being provided by the Peer
Mentors. The withholding of any tutoring was considered to be impor-
tant for two main reasons. First, it was determined early on that one of
the goals of the program was to help students get to know the resources
at the university and develop the study skills necessary for academic
success, and tutoring by the Peer Mentor would interfere with attainment
of these goals. Second, first year students may have expected that,
because they were meeting and receiving tutoring regularly, there might
be a positive impact on their grades, and this expectation might nega-
tively influence their academic success.
Program Features
Peer Mentors met weekly with other Mentors and a Team Leader for
their particular faculty. These meetings were standard across faculties
such that weekly topics followed the flow of the academic year, such as
p r o v i d i n g study tips a b o u t 2 w e e k s b e f o r e the first set of e x a m s .
Following this weekly Team Meeting, Peer Mentors would meet with
their first year students and pass on what they had learned, so that all
attendees were getting basically the same information and resources at
around the same time, across the campus.
Regular activities varied among Peer Mentors, but ranged from reg-
ular weekly meetings featuring study tips and introductions to campus
resources such as library services, to oflf-campus trips to visit profession-
als in their field such as dentists and lawyers (for groups with these pro-
fessions as a shared goal) to e n g a g i n g in volunteer work together.
Students who had a Peer Mentor were encouraged (through modeling
and support from their peer mentor) to take advantage of the many acad-
emic resources available on campus such as learning skills workshops
and library orientation sessions, and to get involved in the campus com-
munity (first t e r m ) and the o f f - c a m p u s c o m m u n i t y (second term).
Regular activities also included question and answer sessions with fac-
ulty members to inquire about areas of expertise, research interests, and
possibilities for student participation in research projects.
RESULTS
Table 1
Motivation and Previous Grade Means and Standard Deviations for the
Peer Mentored Group and the Applicant Control Group
( M = 68.65, SD = 10.68, a (3, 1126) = 3.63, p < .05), but not from the
Applicant Control Group (M = 69.32, SD = 11.05), a = 2.44, g < .05).
Figure 1
Grade as a function of peer mentoring and anxiety.
76 -i
74 -
72 - Jzl<LLL
70 -
68 -
66 -
64 -
62 -
60
Peer Mentored Group Control Group
and High Anxiety students in the Control Group (çj = 6.01, p < .01).
Figure 1 illustrates the nature of the mean differences.
both information processing and study skills can improve through treat-
ments that include both cognitive-behavioural and study skills instruc-
tion (Hembree, 1988). Finally, the social influence explanation would
hold if it was discovered that first year students in the peer mentoring
program had a greater sense of belonging, or felt more comfortable with
their peer group, and this resulted in lowering the levels of anxiety
among high anxiety students so that this did not have a negative effect
on achievement. Of course, this relationship could be explained by a
combination of some or all of these factors, and none of the possible the-
oretical implications have been ruled out.
One important practical implication of the present study is in terms
of the best use of resources. When academic departments or units are
faced with limited resources and must make choices about which pro-
grams to fund, which students to help, and what outcomes may be influ-
enced, it may be helpful to have information that provides direction and
focus for decision-makers. The present research has promise in its ability
to target students who would benefit most from a peer mentoring pro-
gram, and so use existing resources wisely. In the case where the num-
bers of participants are not limited by resources, it may be important to
know, as was found in this case, that peer mentoring worked particularly
well for some students (i.e. those high in anxiety).
The final point here is that the results of peer mentoring on retention
and academic achievement have only been evaluated in the short-term.
These students will be assessed throughout their entire university educa-
tion, to evaluate the longer term influence of mentoring, as effects may
not emerge until the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th year of study.
These evaluations are just part of the further research that needs to
be carried out in order to make firm conclusions about mentoring pro-
grams at university. Jacobi (1991) concluded her call for further research
in this area by providing a long list of questions that have yet to be
answered about mentoring and academic outcomes, and reminds us that
until such research is done, the concept of mentoring remains unclear
and imprecise and the effectiveness of mentoring in promoting under-
graduate academic success is assumed rather than d e m o n s t r a t e d . ^
References
Allen, T.D., McManus, S.E. & Russell, J.E. (1999). Newcomer
socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships as a source of support.
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 54, 453—470.
Bank, B.J., Slavings, R.L., & Biddle, B. (1990). Effects of peer, faculty,
and parental influence on students' persistence. Sociology of Education, 63
(July), 208-225.
Berndt, T.J. (1999). Friends' influence on students' adjustment to school.
Educational Psychologist, 34( 1), 15-28.
Culler, R.E. & Holahan, C.J. (1980). Test anxiety and academic
performance: The effects of study-related behaviors. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72(1), 16-20.
Fantuzzo, J.W., Riggio, R.E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L.A. (1989). Effects of
reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment:
A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 173-177.
Hayes, E. F. (19998). Mentoring and nurse practitioner student self-
efficacy. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 20(5), 521-535.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects and treatment of test
anxiety. Review of Educational Psychology, 58( 1 ), 47-77.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A
literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 505-532.
Karabenick, S.A. & Knapp, J.R. (1991). Relationship of academic help-
seeking to the use of learning strategies and other instrumental achievement
behavior in college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 221-230.
Kulik, C.C., Kulik, J.A., & Shwalb, B.J. (1983). College programs for high
risk and disadvantaged students: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of
Educational Research, 53, 397-414.
Lin, Y-G., & McKeachie, W.J. (1970). Aptitude, anxiety, study habits and
academic achievement. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17(4), 306-309.
McCormick, E.J., Jeanneret, P.R. & Mecham, R.C. (1989). Position
Analysis Questionnaire. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Research Foundation.
McKeachie, W.J. (1984). Does anxiety disrupt information processing or
does poor information processing lead to anxiety? International Review of
Applied Psychology, 33, 187-203.
Perry, R.J. & Penner, K.S. (1990). Enhancing academic achievement in
college students through attributional retraining and instruction. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82(2), 262-271.
Ragins, B.R. & Cotton, J.L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A
comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 529-550.
Seibert, S. (1999). The effectiveness of facilitated mentoring: A
longitudinal quasi-experiment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 54, 483-502.
Tremblay, P.F. (1998). Development and construct validation of the
academic motivation inventory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Western Ontario, London, ON.
Upcraft, M.L. (1989). The freshman year experience: Helping students
survive and succeed in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stimulation Valence. Students who obtain a high score on this scale are
stimulated, excited, and inspired by the academic experience [e.g., "Most of my
school projects have been very stimulating experiences"^), "The lecture mater-
ial presented in courses is very dry"(-)].
Mastery Valence. Students who obtain a high score on this measure recog-
nize and value the development of new skills and knowledge [e.g., "I want to
become a very knowledgeable person"(+), "Learning just for the sake of
becoming more educated is a waste of time"(-)].
Recognition Valence. Students who obtain a high score on this measure
derive satisfaction from the recognition they receive from peers, teachers, par-
ents, and others [e.g., "1 like to impress my teachers"(+), "Recognition in uni-
versity means very little to me"(-)].
Acquisition Valence. Students who obtain a high score on this scale per-
ceive value in academic work for its possible material rewards and future
opportunities [e.g., "I value education because it is the key to my future finan-
cial success"(+), "Money motivates me very little to do well in school" (-)].
Self-Efficacy. Students who obtain a high score on this scale are confident
about their capability to do well in school [e.g., "1 have the ability to be success-
ful in university"(+), "Most of the time I feel insecure about my performance in
schooI"(-)].
Facilitating Anxiety. Students who obtain a high score on this scale are
worried and concerned about their studies and progress. However, they are not
distressed to the point where their attention is sabotaged. Instead, these students