University of Western Sydney
EVALUATION REPORT OF THE 2003
UWS STUDENT PEER MENTOR PROGRAM
Erst Carmichael
Neera Handa & Clare Power
Program Co-ordinators - 2003
Learning Skills Unit
Student Support Services
2006
Executive Summary
The 2003 Peer Mentor Program saw a rapid increase in the number of mentors trained, due to
the increased number of trainers available and to the involvement of the College of Law and
Business in the second semester training recruitment. Unfortunately, the second semester
program is not as well attended as the first semester program which meant a number of trained
mentors were unable to meet with first year student groups. However, other benefits of the
program became apparent.
For the first semester program in Introduction to Professional Practice (IPP), in the School of
Engineering and Industrial Design, the rate of withdrawal without penalty was noticeably
different between the group of mentored students (2%) and the non-mentored students (51%).
There were 269 students attending peer mentor sessions and 200 who did not attend.
Furthermore, the retention rate (based on those who achieved a Pass or more) was noticeably
higher for the mentored group (84%) than for the non-mentored group (50%) even when the
withdrawals were excluded from analysis. The mean GPA for the group who were mentored
(2.95) was found to be significantly higher statistically (at 99% confidence level) than for the
non-mentored group (1.71), even when the students who withdrew were excluded. Finally,
since marks were not available for this class, it was found that the mean grade (using the
midpoint) was statistically significantly higher for the mentored group (60.38) than for the nonmentored group (55.89) at a 95% confidence level.
For the program in Torts Law, in the School of Law, it was found that although the number of
students attending peer mentor sessions (N=27) was less than in IPP, the mentored group had a
better retention rate (88%), based on a Pass or more grade, than the non-mentored group (81%
of 158 atudents) when withdrawals were excluded. There were actually 14% of the mentored
group who “withdrew” or were graded “fail/discontinued”, while there was a much higher
percentage in the non-mentored group (36%) with these grades. Although it was not found to
be statistically significant, the mean mark in this subject for those who were mentored (64.08)
was higher than for those who were not mentored (61.82).
While the difference in retention rate cannot necessarily be attributed solely to the Peer Mentor
Program, it is possible that the program had a positive effect. Even in the second semester,
despite training too many mentors which caused some problems, there was a good response
from first year students. The subject that was more closely reviewed in terms of student success
rates was Introduction to Business Law (IBL) in the College of Law and Business. For the
group of 37 students who attended mentoring sessions it was found that the retention rate was
considerably higher (95% compared with 87%) and more students withdrew before the census
date from the non-mentored group.
As in previous years the feedback from first year students attending mentoring sessions
indicated that they found them useful. Those who did not attend indicated that time constraints
and timetable clashes were the main reasons for not attending. Others had not seen the value of
peer mentoring until it was too late. Mentor satisfaction with the program was positive, in spite
of the second semester problems. Issues raised by mentors are included in the recommendations
of this report.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 2
INTRODUCTION:
As a result of the $30,000 Equity Grant which was available for the Peer Mentor Program in
2002/3, a number of improvements were able to be incorporated into the program. For example,
the addition of eight new accredited trainers within the Office of the Dean of Students enabled
more mentors to be trained at the commencement of Autumn semester. Resources were also
increased to assist with training, and for promotion of the program.
The Acculturation Program in Autumn semester emphasised the transition to university and the
approach to studying in a particular field. First year students (mentees) in a core course subject
from a number of schools were offered the opportunity to participate in small group facilitated
sessions with a mentor who had successfully completed that subject. Mentors were trained for
13 core subject areas and 430 mentees attended these sessions in the Autumn semester. In the
Spring semester 114 mentors were trained and 79 mentees attended mentoring sessions in 12
difficult subjects (see Tables 1 & 2, p.6).
In the Autumn semester the participation rate was highest in the School of Engineering and
Industrial Design (SEID), in its core subject Introduction to Professional Practice. Students
were expected to attend the mentor program, and of the 469 enrolled students 269 attended one
or more session. For two other subjects with voluntary programs, Torts Law and Introduction to
Business Law, there were at least 30 students participating in each program.
Steering committee meetings
Each semester academics with a peer mentor program in their subject were invited to have a
meeting with coordinators of the peer mentoring program to organise and finalise the program
for the semester, and to provide feedback for the future. These meetings are an important
information sharing forum for the benefit of the contact lecturers and the program coordinators.
Training of Mentors (two day program in February & July 2003)
The training, with some adaptations, was fairly similar to that carried out in previous years,
with some adaptations to suit particular schools (Carmichael, 2003a). The Autumn semester
mentor training program included an extra session about promotion, including activities for
promotion in the Orientation Week and more instruction about establishing a group. The
training concepts and activities were based on Supplemental Instruction (SI), apart from the
guest speakers from the Student Association. The Student Training Workbook (Armstrong,
Tiernan, Carmichael, Farrell, Shores, Baines, Pastore, Handa & Power, 2003) was printed and
used during the training process, and the Trainers’ Manual (Power and Handa, 2003) assisted in
the preparation of training. Regular trainers meetings occurred before the training sessions. The
purpose of these meetings was to plan and review the training process and this included
suggestions from past mentors.
Presentation Nights for mentors (June & December 2003)
These events were arranged at the end of both semesters to present certificates and book
vouchers to acknowledge their efforts and to thank peer mentors. The presentations were
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 3
combined with the International Orientation Mentor program presentation of certificates. Staff
from Counselling and Learning Skills Unit and academics from the various subjects attended.
After the presentations focus groups with mentors who had agreed to stay back, were held to
evaluate the program. Information gained from the focus groups is included below.
New developments in 2003
A Web CT site was set up for new mentors to communicate with the trainers and among
themselves. Mentors discussed problems, shared ideas and asked for advice and suggestion
from their peers. It was also used to post announcements and updates on the upcoming events
and activities.
The existing web site for UWS Peer Mentoring was updated. A new website for peer mentoring
created by students for students was also introduced. This venture was taken up by two
motivated education mentors and turned out to be very useful for new students to get
information not only about the Peer Mentoring program but many other useful resources such
as public transport, study resources and provided a web space for communication.
The Contact Lecturer’s Manual (see Appendix 1) was produced by Erst Carmichael (2003b) for
lecturers in the schools who are involved with the program, outlining the program's aims,
processes, the roles and responsibilities of various participants and other related issues. This
was distributed to the lecturers involved in the Autumn and the Spring semester programs, and
was found to be useful. Other copies were distributed to interested academics in the schools.
An interactive Student Training Workbook was printed to be utilised during the training
process, and for mentors to take home as a resource. The Workbook was based on and
developed from the Supplemental Instruction (SI) handouts used in previous training sessions
from as far back as 1996. The contributions were from peer mentoring trainers both from the
Learning Skills and Counselling Units.
An instructive resource for trainers (The Trainers' Manual) was developed (Power and Handa,
2003) to assist in the organisation of mentor training and the training process. The Trainers'
Manual which was a work in progress in the first semester proved to be very helpful for new
trainers and was finished and distributed electronically to all the trainers.
As mentioned earlier, since the program was expanding it was becoming more difficult for the
Peer Mentoring Coordinator to administer the program, particularly in relation to the limited
workload time available and the limited Peer Mentoring budget. In one of the Steering
Committee meetings therefore it was decided that schools needed to share some of the
administrative responsibilities and the expenditure involved in book vouchers and catering. It
was also deemed necessary that two coordinators instead of one should share the
responsibilities of six campuses. Therefore the coordination of the program was passed on to
Neera Handa (responsible for Bankstown, Parramatta & Campbelltown) and Clare Power
(responsible for Penrith, Hawkesbury & Blacktown), in July 2003.
The schools/college which had the most successful participation rates also contributed funds for
the vouchers for mentors, in particular SEID and College of Law & Business (CLAB). They
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 4
became more involved with promotion of the program, particularly SEID, who attempted to
organise timetabling of the first year sessions, and provided venues for the sessions. However,
in the Spring program the unprecedented high number of mentors who were trained did not
attract an equally high number of mentees in some of the CLAB subjects where it was expected
that numbers would increase. This trend confirmed that the second semester traditionally does
not draw as many first year students in all to peer mentoring as does the first semester
acculturation program.
PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM:
i)
First year student participation rates were recorded from attendance sheets submitted
by mentors.
ii)
Results of participating first year students (mentees) for the subjects with the largest
groups (approximately 30 or more) were compared with the remainder of the first year
cohort for that subject.
iii)
Mentee questionnaires were posted to participants to assess the perceived benefits for
first year students.
iv)
Questionnaires were posted to trained mentors to assess the perceived benefits for
mentors, and suggestions for improving the program.
v)
FOCUS Groups for mentors were organised in both semesters. A debriefing of mentors
at the conclusion of the semester program was combined with a voucher presentation.
Recording of these debriefing sessions, with student consent, was carried out for
evaluation purposes.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 5
Evaluation findings:
(i) Participation rates for Student Peer Mentor Program 2003
The number of first year students attending mentoring sessions varied among subjects (see
Tables 1 & 2), with those attending the Engineering and Industrial Design program in Autumn
semester having the highest attendance rate. This was because the program was introduced to
first year students as an essential component of their course, and was timetabled by the school.
The implication was that it was compulsory, whereas all the other programs were voluntary.
Table 1. Autumn 2003
Mentors
trained
Accounting for Information Managers
1
Microeconomics
1
Engineering & Industrial Design (SEID) - IPP
41
Education
8
Torts Law
17
Nursing
9
Psychology 1A
11
Chemistry
10
Financial Institutions and Markets
4
Introduction to Business Law
4
Interpersonal Interaction (SASHS)
1
Management Foundations
5
Object Oriented Analysis (CIT)
1
Subjects
Total
113
Mentees
0
6
269
10
29
47
15
7
9
10
0
8
0
410
Table 2. Spring 2003
Mentors
trained
12
8
11
16
2
22
4
8
10
5
12
4
Subject
Criminal Law
Engineering Maths 1
Financial Applications
Introduction to Law
Introduction to Business Law
Macroeconomics
Management Foundations
Microeconomics
Psychology 1B
Spanish
Statistics for Science
Bachelor of Landscape M’ment & Conservation
Systems Agriculture
Total
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
114
Mentees
16
4
6
0
40
0
0
0
5
6
2
School run
program
79
Page 6
(ii) Results of participants in select subjects.
The results of first year participation in the program were examined in three subjects where
there were approximately 30 mentees, or more. The Nursing program in Autumn semester
covered two different subjects and neither of these subjects had thirty mentees.
INTRODUCTION TO PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE (IPP) - (Autumn Semester)
A total of 469 students enrolled in IPP in the School of Engineering and Industrial Design
(SEID). Although the peer mentor sessions were timetabled as part of the course, difficulties
with communication caused problems and resulted in many students not attending sessions. 269
students attended at least one peer mentor session. 200 students did not attend peer mentor
sessions. Of the 269 who were mentored, 6 (2%) withdrew without penalty (see Table 3
below). Of those who were not mentored, 102 (51%) withdrew without penalty (X grade).
The retention rate (those who achieved a Pass or more) for the mentored group was 82% (N =
269) and for the group who were not mentored was 25% (N = 200). When the students who
withdrew without penalty are excluded from this analysis, the retention (Pass plus grade) rate
for the group who were mentored was 84%, and for those who were not mentored was 50% .
This is a noticeable difference in results and retention rates. While the difference in retention
rate cannot necessarily be attributed to the Peer Mentor Program, it is significant that many
more students withdrew or discontinued from the group who did not attend mentoring sessions,
and that the mentee pass rate was considerably higher.
For this group of students in particular it was decided that GPA was a more telling result to use
in comparison of the mentored and non-mentored group, since the program was more
specifically “Acculturation” focussed, with an emphasis on creating a network of support for
each other and a “sense of belonging”. The mean GPA for the group who were mentored (2.95)
was significantly higher than that of the group who were not mentored (1.71). This was the case
for a comparison which included the students who withdrew without penalty, as well as a case
for comparison excluding all students who withdrew without penalty. There was also a
difference between the two groups when their mid point grades were compared. If the students
who fail/discontinued (E grade) are excluded from the groups then the mean grade (taken from
the mid point) for the mentored group was 60.38 (N= 244), while for the non-mentored group
the mean midpoint grade was 55.89 (N=61). This difference was also found to be statistically
significant.
Although these two groups of students (mentored and non-mentored) were independent, they
were not random samples. This may mean there is some bias, for example those who attended
mentor sessions may have already been more motivated to succeed. However, this does not
necessarily invalidate the results.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 7
Table 3. Comparison of mentored group and non-mentored group for IPP.
Number of students
Number withdrew
without penalty
Pass plus rate
Pass plus rate
(excluding
withdrawns)
Mean GPA
Mean Grade (midpoint)
Mentored
269 (57%)
6/269
(2%)
82%
Non-mentored
200 (43%)
102/200
(51%)
25%
Total
N=469
N=469
N=469
84%
50%
N=361
2.95
(N=263)
60.38
(N=244)
1.71
(N=98)
55.89
(N=61)
N=361
N=305
GPA/GRADE POINT AVERAGE ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF SESSIONS
ATTENDED.
Because of the larger numbers involved in the program in this subject the impact of attending
sessions on Grade Point Average (GPA) was also investigated. Evidence suggests that the
number of peer mentor sessions attended by each student is helpful in the learning process. The
table and graph below (Table 4; Figure 1) demonstrate the improved GPA average for those
who attended up to 6 mentoring sessions. Although there were not many students who attended
up to 5 or 6 sessions, there is a marked increase in the GPA average from one session to four
sessions.
Table 4. Comparison of GPA averages according to number of mentoring sessions attended.
Number of
Number of
sessions
students
GPA
0
200
1.47
1
94
2.46
2
79
3.02
3
56
3.26
4
31
3.27
5
7
3.98
6
2
4.11
Figure 1 (below) graphically represents the information in the table where N is the number of
students attending from 0 – 6 sessions. The average GPA of those who attended one or more
sessions was considerably higher than the average GPA of those who did not attend. The more
peer mentoring sessions students attended the higher the average GPA of the group.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 8
One Way
4.5
250
4
200
3.5
150
2.5
2
100
Mean Values
N Values
3
1.5
1
50
0.5
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mentee GPA
Figure 1. Mean GPA of mentees according to the number of sessions (Bishop, 2006).
TORTS LAW (Autumn Semester)
A total of 245 students enrolled in Torts Law in Autumn Semester. Of these 29 students
voluntarily attended mentoring sessions and 216 did not (see Table 4 below). Two students
(7%) of those who attended mentoring sessions, withdrew without penalty (W, X), while 58 of
those who did not attend mentoring sessions (27%) withdrew without penalty.
The retention rate (those who achieved a pass or more) for the mentored group was 83% and
for the group who were not mentored was 59%. When the students who withdrew without
penalty are excluded from this analysis, the pass plus rate for the group who were mentored
was 88%, and for those who were not mentored was 81%. Furthermore, of the 29 mentees four
(14%) withdrew or were graded “fail/discontinued”, while in the non-mentored group of 216
students seventy eight (36%) gained this grade. While the difference in retention rate cannot
necessarily be attributed to the Peer Mentor Program, it is noticeable that many more students
withdrew or discontinued from the group who did not attend mentoring sessions, and that the
pass rate was somewhat higher for the mentored group.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 9
Another difference in results can be seen when the mean mark for the subject is compared
between groups. Since the lecturer supplied the marks for this subject it was possible to
compare the groups on this basis. The mean mark for this subject for those who were mentored
was 64.08 and for those who were not mentored 61.82. However, this was not found to be a
statistically significant difference for the t-test. A comparison of grades indicates that those in
the mentored group gained a proportionally higher number of Credit grades (31%) than did the
non-mentored group (22%). Similarly the mentored group gained a proportionally higher
number of Pass grades (41%) than did the non-mentored group (31%).
Table 4. Comparison of mentored group and non-mentored group for Torts Law.
Number of students
Number withdrew
without penalty
Pass plus rate
Pass plus rate
(excluding
withdrawns)
Mean mark
Mentored
29 (12%)
2/29
(7%)
83%
Non-mentored
216 (88%)
58/216
(27%)
59%
Total
N=245
N=245
N=245
88%
81%
N=185
64.08
(N=25)
61.82
(N=138)
N=163
INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW (IBL) - (Spring Semester)
A total of 380 students enrolled in Introduction to Business Law in Spring Semester. Of these
40 students voluntarily attended mentoring sessions and 340 did not (see Table 4). Three
students (8%) of those who attended mentoring sessions withdrew without penalty, while 95 of
those who did not attend mentoring sessions (28%) withdrew without penalty. This is a similar
rate to that found in the first semester subject Torts Law.
The retention rate (those who achieved a pass or more) for the mentored group was 95% (N =
37) and for the group who were not mentored was 87% (N = 245), when the students who
withdrew without penalty are excluded from the analysis. While the difference in retention rate
cannot necessarily be attributed to the Peer Mentor Program, it is noticeable that proportionally
more students withdrew without penalty from the group who did not attend mentoring sessions,
and that the pass rate was considerably higher for the mentored group.
The mean mark for this subject for those who were mentored was 60.97 and for those who were
not mentored 57.88. However, this was not found to be significantly different for the t-test. A
comparison of grades showed that proportionally considerably more students gained Credit
grades in the mentored group (32%) compared to 26% in the non-mentored group. The
percentage of failures in the mentored group was also proportionally less (5% compared with
12%). Other grades were fairly similar.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 10
Table 5. Comparison of mentored group and non-mentored group for IBL.
Number of students
Number withdrew
without penalty
Pass plus rate
(excluding
withdrawns)
Mean mark
Mentored
40 (11%)
3/40
(8%)
Non-mentored
340 (89%)
95/340
(28%)
Total
N=380
N=380
95%
87%
N=282
60.97
(N=37)
57.88
(N=245)
N=282
Conclusion:
The results of the mentor program in the subject IPP in the School of Engineering and
Industrial Design conclusively suggest the benefits of the program for the school, in terms of
retention, and for the students in terms of GPA and grades. Similar trends are also evident for
the subjects Torts Law and Introduction to Business Law, though with their programs being
voluntary the number of students attending peer mentor sessions is less (up to 12% of the
class). However, these results overall are consistent with the results of Supplemental Instruction
programs around the world (see http://www.umkc.edu/cad ).
Furthermore, there are substantial qualitative findings to support the beneficial nature of the
program to both the first year student mentees, and to the more senior peer mentors. These
findings were gained through the distribution of two questionnaires to first year students in the
relevant subjects, one to those who attended mentor sessions and another questionnaire to the
whole cohort to establish why students did not attend. Mentors who took part in the program
were also sent a questionnaire for feedback (see below).
(ii)
Mentee questionnaires
First year students who did not attend – reasons given:
A questionnaire was distributed to first year students in the subjects where peer mentoring was
offered to gain feedback regarding reasons for not attending mentor sessions. A total of 245
students responded to the questionnaire from the subjects of Chemistry, Management
Foundations, Psychology 1A and Torts Law. All of these programs were voluntary. 30% of
these students were from a language background other than English, 55% were under 20 years
of age and 67% were female. 85% claimed that they were aware that peer mentoring was
offered in their subject, however only 18% attended sessions. The reasons students gave for
non-attendance fell into the following categories (Note: percentages calculated on total
sample).
1. Did not think it necessary (17%)
2. Too busy (34%)
3. Times clashed (18%)
4. Did not know about it (13%)
5. Other, including personal and miscellaneous reasons (4%)
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 11
Some of the responses from individual students included the following:
“I don’t study well in groups”; “It’s easier at home, I did not think it was necessary at the
beginning of the semester, now I realise it would of helped”; “I should have attended them after
lab report results”; “It takes time and I was not prepared to stay back as transport already takes
3 hours per day”; “I think if there were more sessions available more people would have
attended.”
Student comments regarding what would have encouraged them to attend sessions included:
“If it was compulsory and I would lose marks for it.”
“If I had more free time”. “If I was struggling. I think it’s a great idea for students that are
having trouble in the subject.”
“Students who have gone through it before telling us it was necessary.”
Comments from questionnaires sent to students who did attend
peer mentor sessions (mentees).
Thirty one (31) mentees from different subjects returned completed questionnaires. Most of
them (68%) had attended the first semester program and 61% had attended four or more
sessions. 84% of these students had found the mentor sessions useful, most indicating that they
had gained confidence in their studies. The following are comments from individual
respondents.
• The program was beneficial, particularly for 1st/2nd Year students. I wish in my first year
there were more mentoring programs.
• It created connections also with 2nd Year students. It’s always good to have older friends
when you’re at uni and my two mentors and myself are very close now. They made me
more confident in understanding how uni is different to school.
• Intro to Business Law was a complicated subject and to be able to talk to someone who had
done it was useful. Study tips given for the final exam and how to approach the assessments
were valuable.
• I found this to be a very useful thing. Uni was very overwhelming in the first few weeks
and this program helped me to know what was expected and also make some new friends.
Very valuable.
• I attended mainly to clarify for me what was expected of me for my assessment tasks. The
mentor group was helpful as it provided a basis on which I based my further assessment
tasks on.
• The mentoring sessions helped me greatly in my subject. I would not have passed the
subject without the help of the mentor. Thanks to the sessions I achieved a distinction in
Intro to Business Law. It would be good to have more available especially at the Blacktown
campus.
• I found the program very useful, as a first year student. It allowed me to meet new people
studying similar courses. I found it easier to bring my questions, concerns and problems to
the mentor and group, than to approach the lecturer etc. Mentors were very helpful, patient
and understanding.
• Mentoring session is very useful for the first year students. It gives more knowledge in the
subject students feel very comfortable.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 12
•
•
The peer mentoring program was extremely useful in that it helped with the transition from
high school to university life.
I found that it really helped me understand what was really involved in Law. Without
attending the student peer mentoring program, I definitely would not have passed this
subject. It was the best thing I could get involved in.
(iv) Mentor questionnaires
Twenty nine (29) mentors returned completed questionnaires. Several had not been able to
establish a group but had obviously learned something worthwhile from the training. 62% had
enjoyed the experience and most of these felt they had benefited in some way. The most
insightful way of understanding the benefits to mentors is to read the individual comments
below.
Comments from Mentor questionnaires
•
Being able to help students adjust to university
•
Seeing the student calm down and start to find her feet
•
Seeing people understanding where they didn’t before
•
Having the students appreciate my efforts and learning more from the sessions and finding
the subject being easier through mentoring
•
Interaction with students in other years and self improvement
•
I liked being able to help other students with their questions
•
Building communication amongst the new students
•
Meeting new people who I still see and talk to helps me revise for microanalysis and other
subjects
•
Learning a new skill
(v) Feedback from focus groups with mentors
Definition of a mentor by a mentor in the focus group:
A mentor is ‘just someone who’s been there before and has been through it all – it’s basically
just passing what they’ve learnt onto someone else’.
•
•
•
Forming the Groups
Mentors who ran all five sessions said that the ‘trend mostly has been by the second or
the third session the number dropped but then, numbers up again by the 4th and 5th week
as assignments were due’.
Some started later than the 2nd or third week, ‘so you can organise other people as well
as yourself’ and went up to the semester break.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 13
•
Activities in their sessions
•
•
•
•
Unit outline & Assignments
computer labs & library visits
question and answer sessions leading to discussion
some fun and communicative activities like, ‘we did hangman – that was good. We
used Law group. That was interesting. We did that probably twice. And that was fun.’
•
Issues for students/mentors
Content versus acculturation (what mentoring is about)
Many first year students were more focussed on content than acculturation, the
comments that mentors made about it:
•
•
•
Assignments
•
•
•
•
“Once students realise what mentoring was about then the ones who just
want answers usually leave.”
Students very time conscious, want value for time.
Students wanted assignments from mentors.
Some Mentors made it clear they weren’t there for assignment help, “need to
be definite at the first meeting so you don’t get hassled.”
Others said it wasn’t an issue.
Some said that the first year students would bring their own assignments in
and talk about them as a group and provide ideas and suggestions for each
other.
One mentor showed students his assignments from the previous year so that
students could see an actual written, marked assignment he did this aware
that the questions had been changed and ensuring that he collected all
assignments at the end of the session.
Group dynamics
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Some students wanted to be the focus of the group and weren’t, so they
left.
Very demanding students – verging on rude and being irate.
I had some people who, whatever you told them, they’d put into practice.
Others would just want to complain about their lecturer, and that’s all
they’d want to do for an hour. I had to keep redirecting them back to,
‘OK so you’ve got this problem – you don’t like your tutor or whatever.
What is it that you don’t understand?’
Promotion of the peer mentor program
•
Mentors want more advice and guidance on promotion.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 14
•
They wanted not only lecturers but tutors to support them as it was
important to promote their sessions both in tutorials as well as in
lectures.
Issues with rooms/time clash.
o Mentors find it difficult to run sessions which always fit in with their
own lectures and tutes.
o Finding an appropriate room or venue can be very difficult.
o Trying to fit in with tutorial registration can be difficult.
o ‘Timetabling is the biggest issue – and it doesn’t work if students have
had a long session of the subject beforehand’.
o Not being allowed to use the Library study rooms (an issue on
Parramatta campus).
•
Benefits for first year students (mentees) as perceived by mentors
o They get reassurance and feedback.
o Peer mentor sessions are confidence building.
o My one [mentee] was an international student as well, so she was a lot more
interested in acculturation. She wanted to know a lot of things that I thought
were trivial.
o Seeing other people in the same predicament, they don’t feel so alone or
isolated.
o ‘Just the passing on of knowledge. I never had any mentoring in my first
year, and just to have had someone there who could have told me simple
things like how to borrow a book from the library – that would have saved
me a lot of hassle. How to set out an essay properly; how to set out a lab
report – very basic things I had to learn the hard way, but if I had a mentor
who showed me in five minutes how to do that’…
•
Benefits for mentors
Gave them confidence and time management skills
o ‘It helped me a lot because it made me remember things’.
o I think it gives you a little bit of confidence..to see things the other
way around. ‘you do see things from a very different perspective –
you tend to see things a little bit more from a lecturer's point of view.
It’s just a different way of thinking.’
Study skills –
o Peer Mentoring - ‘one of the best ways to learn is to “teach” it. You
pretty much have to know it, so you have to repeat it, so you learn’
•
What have Peer Mentors gained from the experience?
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 15
o Making a difference & helping students.
o Making something complicated simple.
Comments
o
o
o
o
‘Knowing you’ve helped someone get through what you’ve been through.’
It was fun.
A good experience.
Most [mentors]said they would do it again.
Support from lecturers
o Most expressed that they felt supported however a few said that they did not
have much contact from their lecturers.
Support from ODS
o The debrief session was useful (general consent)
o ODS staff helpful (general consent)
CONCLUSION
The Peer Mentoring Program based on Supplemental Instruction, which had started in 1996 at
UWS, Nepean, has reached new heights in 2003 and has evolved into a wide ranging program
assisting many first year students in many subjects. Involvement of academics from various
schools and the Learning Skills and Counselling staff members who were trained in SI in 2002
has helped to shape the program. This year a large number of mentors were trained in both
semesters (February and July 2003). However many mentors did not manage to form groups,
especially in the second semester, as there was lack of awareness and interest from first year
students, especially in some Law and Business subjects where unfortunately the greatest
number of mentors were trained.
However, the program has worked extremely well in the first semester and in some subjects in
the second semester. It has not only benefited the new students from these schools but has also
benefited the students who mentored them. Success of the program naturally benefits the
school, and the participation of the second year and first year students as well as the committed
lecturers is a credit to each subject involved. As per the previous Peer Mentor Report for 2002
(Carmichael, 2004) and 2003 Steering Committee meetings, as well as mentor suggestions,
some the following recommendations are made.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 16
RECOMMENDATIONS:
o Importance of committed involvement of lecturers, tutors and schools in the program;
o Increased promotion of the program;
o Schools take responsibility for some administration i.e. referring students for
recruitment as mentors;
o A book voucher policy and schools’ contribution to catering for training be clarified,
that is that schools contribute for catering and half of the book voucher money. This
equates to $50 per student mentor;
o Consolidation of the program, especially in the second semester;
o
That the issue of compulsory versus voluntary programs be considered – perhaps in
terms of suiting the student cohort, and purpose of providing a mentor program;
o Offer school recognition to the mentors, as was used in 1999/2000 in Civil Engineering
where students received an extra certificate from the school and photo of their
presentation was placed on the school website.
References
Armstrong, L., Tiernan, J., Carmichael, E., Farrell, H., Shores, P., Baines, J., Pastore, C.,
Handa, N. & Power, C., (2003). Student Peer Mentoring Training Workbook. Office of the
Dean of Students, University of Western Sydney.
Bishop, G. (2006). Improving the retention of first year students. Unpublished master’s thesis.
University of Western Sydney.
Carmichael, E. (2003a) Student Mentoring Program Evaluation Report, 2001. (Internal Report)
Office of the Dean of Students, University of Western Sydney.
Carmichael, E. (2003b) Contact Lecturers’ Manual for the UWS Student Peer Mentor Program
2003. Office of the Dean of Students, University of Western Sydney.
Carmichael, E. (2004) Student Mentoring Program Evaluation Report, 2002. (Internal Report)
Office of the Dean of Students, University of Western Sydney.
Power, C. & Handa, N. (2003) The Trainers’ Manual for the UWS Student Peer Mentor
Program. Office of the Dean of Students, University of Western Sydney.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 17
Appendix 1
CONTACT LECTURERS’ MANUAL
For the
UWS STUDENT PEER MENTOR
PROGRAM 2003
Produced by Erst Carmichael
(Co-ordinator Student Peer Mentoring Program)
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 18
CONTENTS
1. Background to the Student Peer Mentor Program..........................................3
2. Brief description of program..............................................................................4
3. Role of mentor......................................................................................................5
4. Role of Contact Lecturer ....................................................................................6
5. Role of Co-ordinator ...........................................................................................7
6. Role of Office of the Dean of Students: ............................................................9
• Training
• Monitoring/Debriefing
• Evaluation
7. Promotion of the Program................................................................................10
8. Reference List ....................................................................................................10
9. Appendices: ........................................................................................................12
• Sample Recruitment Letter
• Supplemental Instruction (S.I.) at QUT
• Pages from the S.I. Manual from the University of Missouri - Kansas City
(note the faculty staff are more involved with training, monitoring and
evaluation in this scheme)
• Front page of UWS Student Peer Mentor Website:
http://www.uws.edu.au/about/adminorg/academic/ods/lsu/services_students/
peer_mentoring
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 19
1. Background to the Student Peer Mentor Program
Traditionally, mentoring has been seen as a “vehicle for handing down knowledge, maintaining
culture, supporting talent and securing future leadership” (Darwin, 2000). A number of
universities have found various mentoring programs to be helpful for first year students in the
current climate of large classes and less tutorial time (Playford, Miller and Kelly, 1999).
Similarly, such programs have been found to improve retention rates (O'Shea, 2002; Breen,
Drew, Pike, Pooley and Young, 2001) and empower first year students through learning with,
and from, peers (Culow, 1999). In the context of the current program, there will be an emphasis
on provision of opportunity for first year students to become “acculturated” to the university
setting and to develop independent learning strategies (Boyer Commission, 1998; Carmichael,
2001) in small group situations. The rationale for the inclusion of a student peer mentoring
program at UWS is based on the need for universities to address the high attrition rate of first
year students (Nagda, Gregerman, Jonides, von Hippel and Lerner, 1998; Bond, 1999).
Specifically, to provide an example from UWS, in the previous School of Civic Engineering
and the Environment (CEE) the rate of failure in a core first semester subject was found to be
between 66.9% in 1995 and 72.4% in 1997 (Shrestha, 1999, p. 344.). Thus, a program that
enables first year students to better cope with the transition to university was seen to be
necessary. Student peer mentoring has been found to be a successful strategy for improving
student retention rates and grades (Martin and Arendale, 1994; Parker and Montgomery, 1998;
Beasley, 1998, cited in Gardner, Kendall and Kendall, 1999).
At this point, it is important to differentiate between student peer mentoring and student peer
tutoring. Numerous schemes involving one or the other, or even a combination of mentoring
and tutoring, have been conducted in many universities in Australia and overseas (Dolan and
Castley, 1998; Goodlad, 1998; Bond, 1999; Pearson, 2000). Goodlad creates a distinction
between peer tutoring and mentoring in terms of, respectively, “academic learning” and “life
skills” (1998,p. 3).
In the Autumn Semester “Acculturation” program at UWS, the term “student peer mentoring”
refers to a program involving both concepts. The model for training mentors is based on
Supplemental Instruction, as developed in the USA (Martin and Arendale, 1994). Initially the
program provides a trained mentor, or “buddy” (Treston, 1999), to assist small groups of first
year students to adjust to the university learning environment. This may be as obvious as a tour
of the campus, finding one’s way around the library or computer laboratory or following a unit
outline. It is then hoped that mentoring sessions will progress to a stage where the mentor
facilitates discussion of learning strategies in that subject, such that the mentees become
involved in collaborative problem solving. On the other hand, peer tutoring is seen to be
content based, with the primary emphasis on teaching.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 20
Previously, mentoring programs have been trialled in various schools at UWS with
considerable success. For example, in 1998 the failure rate for first year students who were
mentored in the school of CEE (mentees) decreased by 20% compared to the previous year,
when no mentoring was available (Shrestha, 1999, p. 344). Moreover 83% of those mentees
agreed that mentoring sessions were useful. The following year, when a similar program was
available, 71% of mentees agreed that the program was useful (Carmichael, 2001). It is
anticipated that evaluation of the Student Peer Mentoring Program will include well
documented research, which assesses not only grades and attrition rate, but mentee and mentor
satisfaction with the program (Grant-Vallone and Ensher, 2000). As the mentor program is
being expanded across UWS this research will provide evidence of its benefits, and will
develop a possible prototype for future evaluation. Further research into mentoring and student
work experience in work place situations is a possible extension of this program (Baird and
Fetherston, 1999).
2. Brief description of program
The Student Peer Mentor Program at UWS has the potential to benefit first year student
retention rates, grades and adaptation to tertiary studies (Shrestha, 1999, Bond, 1999, Dolan &
Castley, 1998). Although at UWS there are Orientation Mentor Programs, including an
International Orientation Mentor Program (http://apps.uws.edu.au/international/support.html),
which basically cater for the students’ practical and social needs, the Office of the Dean of
Students (ODS) co-ordinates specific programs which have more focus on learning.
The Acculturation Program in Autumn semester is a combination of an “orientation” or
“buddy” model (see website of University of Central Queensland:
http://www.cqu.edu.au/cch/mentor.htm ) and the “Supplemental Instruction” (SI) model
from the University of Missouri – Kansas City (see website: http://www.umkc.edu/cad/). A
description of the Supplemental Instruction Program, as it was practised at Queensland
University of Technology, is included in this manual, and evidence of the success of SI
worldwide is available on the UMKC website.
In the Acculturation program, small groups of first year students meet weekly (over
approximately five weeks) with a trained mentor (usually a second or third year student who
has successfully completed a core first year subject). The initial emphasis is on practicalities
and social adjustment, such as what facilities are available, time management and networking
with peers in a non-threatening learning situation. Later sessions focus more specifically on
learning strategies, such as approaching assignments and preparing for exams.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 21
In Spring semester the Student Peer Mentor Program, Developmental Learning, follows the
S.I. approach more closely, with an emphasis on targeting traditionally difficult subjects. It
tends to be a smaller program, but is still currently only available in first year units, and again is
conducted over a 5 week period. The mentors are more senior students who have gained a
credit or more in the subject, and who assist with group discussions among the first year
students, facilitating collaborative learning. The focus is on "how" to learn in the subject not
"what" to learn. This type of group work fosters independent learning and critical thinking,
which are highly valued at university level.
3. Role of the Mentor
Mentors are not trained to be tutors, but rather facilitators of group discussion with an emphasis
on the processes of learning, for example how to solve a problem rather than providing the
answer to the problem. Mentors are trained to avoid the “expert” role, to redirect questions back
to the group and to encourage the development of strategies for finding answers. If the group
becomes an ongoing study group without the mentor, after the mentoring sessions are
completed, then it may be considered that the mentor has been highly successful!
Mentors benefit from the program, in that they gain skills from the training which are of benefit
in the workplace, such as positive interpersonal interaction in a group situation, and gain
greater understanding of their field of study. Although this is a voluntary program, mentors
receive a training certificate and a certificate of appreciation after they complete their sessions,
as well as a book voucher. The certificates are a valuable addition to their Resume.
Feedback from mentors in the year 2000 included comments such as:
“helped me to feel part of the university…”
“The mentees and I got on well, more like friends than anything else. I felt it was good for them
to have a familiar face around the campus who had experienced what they were going
through.”
"…the mentoring sessions were successful and should be run next year and in the years to
come."
It is often a challenge for mentors to redirect problem solving back to the group, and to guide
the first year students to explore various methods of researching information. However, the
development of these "leadership" skills is of benefit to the mentors for their future professional
careers. Many report that they have gained considerable confidence from the experience of peer
mentoring.
It is the responsibility of the mentor to be involved with promotion of the program, organisation
of the time and place for mentoring sessions, preparation for sessions and submission of
attendance sheets after each session. Attendance sheets are not handed in to the contact lecturer
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 22
(for confidentiality reasons) but are submitted to the Co-ordinator, via the Office of the Dean of
Students on their campus. The attendance sheets are a major source of information for the
evaluation process.
Mentors are advised of the importance of confidentiality, so that there is no association in the
first year students’ minds of mentoring with assessment. In the training sessions they are made
aware of setting their own boundaries for self protection. They are advised not to provide their
personal phone numbers, to avoid being rung out of hours, and not to make themselves “too
available” to mentees, to ensure they do not fall behind in their own studies. For this reason we
only recommend 5 weeks of sessions.
4. Role of the Contact Lecturer
The program can only exist in core subjects where there is a cooperating first year lecturer. The
role of the contact lecturer is crucial to the success of the program, especially in relation to
encouraging first year students to attend group sessions. Promotion of the program by lecturers
and tutors is best expressed as a “school endorsed activity” which can improve academic
excellence, create study groups and a sense of belonging, and help new students to understand
expectations at university. Promotion can take place at Orientation sessions, first lectures and
tutorials/practicals.
The mentors need to feel supported by the contact lecturer and by the school. The contact
lecturer is responsible for providing assistance to mentors regarding timetabled mentor sessions
if possible, room bookings where needed, opportunities to promote the program and ongoing
support for mentors during the 5 weeks of sessions. It is helpful to meet the trainee mentors
during the training, and to hold ongoing weekly meetings or, alternatively, establish regular
email communication. Regular communication with the mentors in your subject/school can be a
useful feed back mechanism, and feedback from mentors can be acted upon where necessary.
For example, if there is first year student confusion about lectures, assignments etc, they may
be more willing to speak to a peer than to an academic.
Comments from lecturers who have been involved with the program indicate that they perceive
the program to be highly successful for those first year students who participate. One
participating lecturer, Anne Maureen Scarff, even stated that feedback from mentors indicated
that ‘peer mentoring has been the most successful UWS initiative for students they have
experienced. If the program could be extended to other campuses this would be a real benefit
for the College of Law and Business students, especially first years.’
A checklist of possible tasks for a Contact Lecturer is as follows:
•
Express interest with Co-ordinator of Student Peer Mentor Program at least halfway
through the previous semester, to allow time for co-ordination of recruitment of
mentors and organisation of training
Y/N
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 23
•
Encourage 2nd or 3rd year students to provide name, ID and contact phone/email to
lecturer if interested in mentoring (students generally need to have achieved a credit or
more for the subject)
Y/N
•
Send list to co-ordinator of Student Peer Mentoring Program for follow up recruitment
letter
Y/N
•
Timetable for next semester includes several allocated “slots” for mentor sessions with
appropriate room bookings (important for Autumn Semester program if it is to
accommodate most new students)
Y/N
•
Attend second day of mentor training to meet mentors, observe training
Y/N
•
Set up feedback process with mentors (weekly meeting/emails)
Y/N
•
Promote program during Orientation, first few lectures/tutorials with emphasis on
benefits to first year students in terms of understanding expectations and improved
academic performance
Y/N
•
Remind mentors that they are NOT TUTORS but facilitators/”leaders” of a study
group, the aim of which is to encourage independent learning and critical thinking, as
well as networking with peers
Y/N
•
Support mentors during the 5 weeks of mentor sessions where needed
Y/N
•
Assist with evaluation process where needed
Y/N
5. Role of the Co-ordinator
The co-ordinator’s role is primarily to oversee the program UWS wide, from promotion of the
program the semester before it takes place to the training, monitoring and evaluation of the
program. The role can be broken into the following tasks:
•
Initial promotion of program via Mailboss and unit co-ordinators midway through each of
Autumn and Spring semesters
•
Liaison with lecturers/tutors to establish subjects to be involved in the program
•
Circulation of Contact Lecturers’ Manual and invitation to attend second day of training to
“observe”, and meet the mentors
•
Organisation of the recruitment of prospective mentors
•
Organisation of training of mentors, in collaboration with the ODS trainers and
administrative staff (room bookings, printing of certificates etc.)
•
Attend training to liaise with contact lecturers and mentors
•
Organisation of registration sheets for new mentors, Web CT for communication with
mentors, and among mentors, collation of email addresses of mentors into an address list
for direct communication
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 24
•
Organisation of posters and brochures for promotion
•
Organisation of the monitoring of mentor sessions by trainers
•
Collation of monitored information, attendance sheets for evaluation purposes
•
Ethics Clearance for evaluation
•
Updating of surveys and other instruments for evaluation
•
Distribution of surveys to mentors
•
Distribution of surveys to mentees
•
Gathering of information for the evaluation
•
Collaboration with administrative person for the recording and analysis of data
•
Writing of annual report
•
Organisation of Steering Committee meetings once per semester, including circulation of
agenda, minutes etc.
•
Budget proposal each year, administration of budget
•
Ongoing communication with lecturers and mentors involved with each program
•
Organisation of debriefing sessions Week 3 or 4 of semester
•
Updating of the Student Training Manual, Lecturers’ Manual and Trainers Manual
•
Organisation of certificates of appreciation, catering and speakers for the Annual
Presentation.
6. Office of the Dean of Students – Training, Monitoring,
Evaluation and Co-ordination of the Program
The major responsibility for the Office of the Dean of Students (ODS) lies with the training,
monitoring and evaluation of the program. The responsibility for the success of the program
within any one subject or school rests with the contact lecturer, the school and the mentors.
Co-ordination is managed within a Learning Skills Unit staff member’s workload.
•
The training of mentors in the Acculturation and Developmental Learning programs across
UWS is conducted by a number of Learning Skills lecturers, and Counsellors, from the
Office of the Dean of Students. Training generally takes place over two days and includes
revisiting the “First Year Experience”, simulated mentoring sessions and, where possible,
provides an opportunity for the trainee mentors to run a session themselves. There is also
information and discussion regarding Group Dynamics and Roles and Responsibilities. The
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 25
training is interactive, with a Manual provided for information and a space for students to
write notes for future reference. The accompanying sample Student Manual will indicate
the approach to training undertaken. As mentioned above the training is based on
Supplemental Instruction (SI) – see Appendices B. & C.
The trainers of students recruited for mentoring have successfully completed an S.I.
Supervisor’s Workshop. The training usually takes place in February, for the Acculturation
Program, and in July for the Developmental Learning Program.
•
The monitoring takes place over several weeks from Week 3 of semester. The trainers aim
to monitor each mentor once by sitting in on a session for ten or fifteen minutes to observe
the progress of the group. A follow up debriefing will be arranged on each campus for
Week 4 or 5 to allow for mentors to discuss the progress of their groups with each other and
with the co-ordinator and/or trainers. With the student mentors’ permission the main points
of the discussion are used in the evaluation.
•
Evaluation of the program has included quantitative analysis of participating first year
student grades and attrition rates, though not every year. Further quantitative analysis of
results of surveys of perceptions of the program, from both mentors and mentees, is usually
involved. Qualitative analysis of debriefing discussions, comments on surveys and possible
interviews with individual students have been undertaken in past years. Evaluation of
contact lecturers’ perceptions have not previously been undertaken, however, could be a
beneficial addition to the program. It may also be helpful for lecturers and the school to be
more involved in the evaluation process in the future. Ethics clearance is sought for
evaluative research on an annual basis.
7. Promotion of the program
The way in which the promotion of the value of mentoring is presented to the first year
students, will determine how many new students attend the sessions. Since most of the
programs offered in various schools are voluntary, students will only take advantage of the
mentor sessions if they appear to be beneficial to them. Thus, the promotion needs to include
the concept of a study group with guidance from an experienced peer, which may lead to a
greater understanding of expectations at university, to improved academic performance and an
opportunity to network with other students. If it is obvious that the lecturer and the school
support the program and openly encourage students to attend, response rates should be higher.
One school (SEID) is hoping to conduct a mandatory program, which has proven to be highly
successful in previous years. However, to do this it is necessary to have sufficient mentors, and
rooms, to accommodate 10 – 15 students each session.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 26
8. Reference List
Baird, C. & Fetherston, T. (1999) Mentor supported learning using authentic
experiences in a building design office. Conference proceedings: 2nd Regional Conference on
Tutoring & Mentoring. Perth, Western Australia, Sept 30th - Oct 2nd.
Breen, L., Drew, N., Pike, L., Pooley, J.A. & Young, A. (2001) Evaluation of the
School of Psychology Peer Mentoring Program - Semester 1, 2000. In A. Herrmann and M.M.
Kulski (Eds), Expanding Horizons in Teaching and Learning. Proceedings of the 10th Annual
Teaching Learning Forum, 7-9 February 2001. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf2001/breen.html
Bond, A. (1999) Student mentoring: Promoting high achievement and low attrition in
education and training. Leabrook, S.A.: NCVER
Boyer Commission. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for
America's research universities: The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the
Research University. http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/
Carmichael, E. (2001) Report on the Student Mentoring Program at UWS, 2000. Office
of the Dean of Students, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury campus, NSW.
Culow, V. (1999) Supplemental Instruction and statistics for marketers: a match made
in heaven? Conference proceedings: 2nd Regional Conference on Tutoring & Mentoring. Perth,
Western Australia, Sept 30th - Oct 2nd.
Dolan, J. & Castley, A.J. (1998) Students supporting students. SEDA Paper 105,
Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.
Gardener, J., Kendall, D. & Kendall, L. (1999) University of Tasmania Mentor Scheme:
An Evaluation, Student Services: Counselling Service, University of Tasmania.
Goodlad, S. (1998). Mentoring and tutoring of students. Stirling, VA: Kogan Page.
Grant-Vallone, E. & Ensher, E. (2000) Effects of Peer Mentoring on Types of Mentor
Support, Program Satisfaction and Graduate Student Stress: A Dydactic Perspective. Journal of
College Student Development. 41 (6), pp. 637 – 642.
Martin, D. & Arendale D. (1994) Supplemental Instruction (SI): Review of research
concerning the effectiveness of SI from the University of Missouri-Kansas City and other
institutions from across the United States. National Centre for Supplemental Instruction,
University of Missouri-Kansas City, Centre for Academic Development.
(http://www.umkc.edu/cad).
Nagda, B., Gregerman, J., von Hippel, W. & Lerner, J. (1998) Undergraduate StudentFaculty Research Partnerships Affect Student Retention, The Review of Higher Education 22
(1), pp. 55 - 72.
O'Shea, C. (2002) The Australian National University's undergraduate Peer Mentoring
Program. http://www.anu.edu.au/sign/SIGN_Report_August_2002.pdf
Parker, B. & Montgomery, D. (1998) The Engineering Opportunity Program at the
University of Wollongong, in Howard, P., Swarbrick, G. & Churches, A (eds) "Waves of
change: proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Engineering Education, 5th
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 27
Australasian Women in Engineering Forum, 5th National Conference on Teaching Engineering
Designers." pp. 399 - 403.
Pearson, M. (2000). Adapting the "Boyer model" for undergraduate study at the ANU:
Scope and issues. Canberra: Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods,
Australian National University.
Playford, J., Miller, V. & Kelly, B. (1999) Peer Assisted Study Programs (PASS).
Teaching and Educational Development Institute (TEDI) conferences: Effective Teaching at
University: Reflection on Practice/Practice for Reflection. Women's College, University of
Queensland, 1 - 2 November.
Shrestha, S. (1999) School of Civic Engineering and Environment, UWS - Nepean, peer
mentoring programme. Paper presented at 2nd Asia-Pacific Forum on Engineering and
Technology Education. Sydney. 4 - 7 July, 1999.
Treston, H. (1999) Peer mentoring: making a difference at James Cook University,
Cairns - it's moments like these you need mentors. Innovations in Education and Training
International. 36 (3) pp. 236 - 243.
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 28
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Recruitment letter (sample)
Office of the Dean of Students
20 December 2002
Dear Student
For Autumn Semester 2003, The Office of the Dean of Students, in collaboration with the School
of *, is hoping to recruit students as volunteer Student Peer Mentors. You have been
recommended by your lecturer, and are therefore eligible to be trained as a student peer mentor in
your school.
The program will offer support to first year students in your school with regard to becoming “acculturated” to the
university environment and to the study strategies that are useful in your discipline area. This support for first
year students will take place over 5 weeks during the semester through one hour sessions, which are facilitated
by a ‘peer mentor’. The mentor will be a second or third year student, such as yourself, who has been trained in
strategies for facilitating group discussions, and has information to pass on to new students about how the
university is organised. It is expected that there will be no more than 10 - 12 first year students in any one group,
though groups are often smaller. Mentors are not expected to be a content tutor, but rather a resource person
who will encourage independent learning through facilitating discussion about the university and how to study in
your field.
Students who have been involved in student mentoring programs in this and other universities, have found that
the training and experience gained through such programs are rewarding personally, and of benefit to their future
career. The benefits of mentoring have been found to include: increased confidence through a deeper
understanding of yourself and others, an opportunity to mix with a cross section of students and staff, and the
development of generic skills such as communication, listening, organising and interpersonal skills. The
University of Western Sydney greatly appreciates the involvement of its students in this program and will award
a detailed certificate outlining your skills for inclusion in your portfolio. You will also receive a book voucher at
the conclusion of the five weeks of mentoring.
The training schedule will commence in the first week of February, with two full days of training at EITHER
Parramatta, Penrith or Campbelltown campuses (see choices attached), and a follow up debriefing session (two
hours) later in the semester. We recommend that you do your training on your home campus if feasible, as you
will meet other potential peer mentors and thus be part of a possible support network. If you need more
information, could you please contact Erst Carmichael (02- 4570 1521) at the Hawkesbury Campus, or email
e.carmichael@uws.edu.au. We look forward to meeting you at the training session.
Erst Carmichael
(Co-ordinator Student Mentor Program)
Peer Mentor Program Report 2003
Page 29
TRAINING SCHEDULE FOR STUDENT MENTORING
PROGRAM
The Office of the Dean of Students is conducting the training for the Student Peer Mentoring
Program, in consultation with the contact lecturer for your school, in February 2003.
•
The training will take place over a two day period with a follow up “debriefing” session
later in the semester.
•
Training will include information about the program, expectations of mentoring in your
school, practical information about rooms etc. and information about group dynamics
and how to facilitate a session, including appropriate activities.
•
You will be provided with a free lunch, a “package” of written information and a
detailed certificate to take away from the training as well as contact information for the
staff who will be co-ordinating the program in your school.
You will need to confirm your attendance at the training by
completing the following form and faxing or mailing it by
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 to:
Fax:
Mail:
4570 1613 OR
Erst Carmichael, ODS Hawkesbury , Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC 1797
Student Peer Mentoring Program - UWS
Application Form to become a Student Peer Mentor
First Name .................................................... Family Name .............................................................
Student ID....................................
Email address
Phone number (mobile if available) .....................................................................................................
Address .................................................................................................................................................
Subject/s for mentoring ............................................................. School ..........................................
Campus/es for mentoring
.............................. Date
I would like to attend the following training session, between 10am and 4pm:
Penrith
Tuesday & Wednesday
4 & 5 February
Room P160
Parramatta
Thursday & Friday
6 & 7 February
Room EJb37
Campbelltown
Tuesday & Wednesday
11 & 12 February
Room
10.LR12
13/11/2007
Appendix B – Supplemental Instruction (S.I.) at QUT
Overview of Supplemental Instruction
An SI programme usually is directed towards historically difficult first-year
undergraduate course units. By focusing proactively on at-risk classes rather than
reactively on at-risk students (i.e. by adopting a “public health” rather than a
“medical” model), SI fosters systemic improvement and avoids being stigmatised as
remedial. However, SI is introduced only where the lecturer understands and supports
the programme.
SI is optional, and is open to all students enrolled in the selected course unit. A
student may attend as many SI study sessions as s/he wishes. To maximise both the
social and the educational benefits of the programme, no attempt is made to “stream”
students attending SI sessions on the basis of, e.g., their academic competence or
ethnicity.
Hour-long SI study sessions are held weekly. They are introduced in the first or
second week of semester, and are additional to regular class activities (lectures,
tutorials). To confirm the status of SI as a mainstream activity, sessions are held, if
possible, in the school or department that offers the course unit.
SI sessions are conducted by SI leaders, working singly or in pairs, with a student to
leader ratio preferably not greater than 12 to 1. Usually, SI leaders are second- or
third-year undergraduates who were successful in the same or a closely similar course
unit recently. They are selected by the lecturer on the basis of their interest in SI,
their inter-personal capabilities, and their academic competence.
Leaders complete typically 8-10 hours of relevant training prior to conducting their
first SI session, and further training is offered, as necessary, during the semester.
Usually, each leader conducts two SI sessions every week. They are monitored and
supported in this role by the SI supervisor, a trained professional staff member.
Leaders (re)attend all lectures in the course unit. They are paid for conducting SI
sessions and for (re)attending lectures.
At the first lecture, the leaders are introduced to the class by the lecturer, as
exemplary students. They model levels of comprehension, organisation and
commitment that are appropriate to mastering the content of the course unit. Leaders
are, and are perceived by other class members as, fellow students. Because leaders
play no part in student assessment, SI sessions take place in a relaxed, non-threatening
environment.
Using collaborative learning strategies to create an active, participative learning
environment, SI sessions aim to integrate how to learn with what to learn. Leaders
do not re-teach, or pose as experts or authority figures. Nor do they extend course
content beyond that introduced by the lecturer. Their primary role is to help students
to master course content collaboratively.
31
Erst Carmichael
Neera Handa & Clare Power
Program Co-ordinators - 2003
Learning Skills Unit
11/13/2007
Each SI group is responsible for setting its own agenda. Participating students acquire
learning strategies and study skills appropriate to the course unit, and enhance a range
of generic capabilities that are transferable to other learning environments and to work
situations. By semester’s end, the group should have become largely autonomous.
SI leaders constitute a feedback link between the students and the lecturer, enabling
the latter to re-visit in the next lecture content that has been poorly comprehended,
and/or to make timely adjustments to his/her teaching strategies.
Implementation of the SI programme is overseen by the SI supervisor. As well as
having a major role in the initial training of the leaders, the supervisor monitors their
performance and supports them in their leadership role. In addition, the supervisor is
responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of the SI programme.
Extensive evaluation of SI programmes across many universities and colleges
confirms that participating students generally out-perform non-participants, to a
statistically significant extent, with respect to academic attainment and course
completion.
May, 2001
For further information, please contact:
Emeritus Professor Ron Gardiner
Certified SI Trainer
Fios Consulting Group
4/330 Cavendish Road
Coorparoo, Brisbane 4151
Tel: (07) 3324 0166
Fax: (07) 3324 0177
E-mail: fios@eis.net.au
32
Erst Carmichael
Neera Handa & Clare Power
Program Co-ordinators - 2003
Learning Skills Unit
11/13/2007