+
Mentors in an Undergraduate
Psychology Course
A comparison of Student Experience and
Engagement
* Portions of this presentation were presented at the Center
for Scholastic Inquiry Conference in San Francisco, CA in
April 2014.
+


University of Windsor

Ontario, Canada

Jill Singleton-Jackson, PhD

Associate professor of psychology at the
University of Windsor

Goal: To enhance the learning
experiences of my students while
maintaining academic rigor
Marc Frey

Graduate student in psychology

Presentation creator
Martene Clayton-Sementilli

Undergraduate psychology student

Mentor
Tyler Pickel

Undergraduate psychology student

Mentee
+
History and Context of Mentoring
in Higher Education

Mentor was Odysseus’ son Telemachus’ counselor and
teacher.

We now have a fairly wide interpretation of mentor as a guide
through stages, activities, and social developments.

Three theoretical perspectives:

Social – peer influence on persistence and
belongingness

Cognitive – tutoring and skill development

Motivation – autonomy
+
Mentors in the Classroom

Curricular peer mentoring


Why we studied this



Child Psychology – Fall 2012
Reflection assignment spurred us to dig deeper
 What and how students learn
 Pedagogy to empower student learning
Who can benefit from this information?


Peer mentoring is a widely used term that can refer to a variety of learning
activities and programs. Curricular peer mentoring is more specific as it is a
course-based form of peer mentoring that is intended as academic support for
students. Curricular peer mentoring has become more widely used in higher
education in the last decade (Smith, 2013, ).
Educators or anyone who is working with a population that needs to gain
experience in order to succeed
What will you leave with today?

The tools you need to start thinking about how you might use mentors in your
one courses
+
Methodology

We measured engagement, achievement, and experience of
students in an undergraduate child psychology course with
mentors in the classroom.

We compared this group to two sections of the same course
that did not have mentors in the classroom.

Fall 2012 – Mentors

Fall 2011 – No mentors

Winter 2013 – No mentors
+
Measures

Demographics

National Survey of Student Engagement (revised) (NSSE)

Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)


Student Attitudes toward Group Environments (SAGE)


This instrument examines several aspects of motivation related to
learning, such as goal orientation and self-efficacy.
The purpose of this measure is to assess student attitudes toward
small group learning.
Mentored Students Experience Questionnaire (MSEQ)

Questions developed by our team based on qualitative data collected
from mentored students’ reflection papers.
+
Results
Group Comparisons
Engagement and Academic Performance
+
Group Engagement

Does mentorship positively
influence student
engagement in terms of
group work?
NSSE Group Engagement
9
8
7

Mentored students reported
higher levels of group
engagement as compared to
non-mentored students.

t=3.88(120), p<.001; Cohen’s d= .71; η2=.11

Baseline group: M=5.83 SD=1.93

Intervention group: M=7.73 SD=2.45
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Baseline Group
Intervention Group
+
Social Engagement


Does mentorship positively
influence student
engagement in terms of
social interactions?
Mentored students reported
higher levels of social
engagement as compared to
non-mentored students.

t=3.31(120), p<.001, Cohen’s d= .60; η 2=.08

Baseline group: M=7.55 SD=2.56

Intervention group: M=9.02 SD=2.20
NSSE Social Engagement
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
Baseline Group
Intervention Group
Academic Performance


Academic Performance
Did the mentorship program
positively impact student
academic performance?
72
70
There was a significant interaction
between the course type and
evaluation type.

68
F=52.85(2), p<.001;η 2=.18
66


There were no differences between
the mentored and non-mentored
classes in midterm achievement.
There was a significant difference
between the mentored class and
non-mentored classes on the final
exam.

Mean Grade
+
2011
64
2013
2012 (Mentor)
62
60
58
F=42.33[1], p<.001;η 2=.08
56
Midterm
Final
+
Results
Mentorship Feedback
Student Feedback on Mentorship Components
+
Qualitative Data and
Follow-up

After the course, positive qualitative
themes resulted in further quantitative
inquiry.

Participants were asked questions
based on these themes and descriptive
characteristics were computed as a
follow-up.
+
Breakout Interactions
Breakout sessions allowed me to
learn from my peers.
Undecided
6%
Breakout sessions helped me
better consider the views of
others.
Undecided
4%
Disagree
14%
Disagree
18%
Agree
76%
Agree
82%
+
Breakout Interactions
Breakout sessions allowed me to
share ideas.
Breakout sessions created a
positive work environment.
Undecided
14%
Undecided
18%
Disagree
12%
Agree
74%
Agree
74%
Disagree
8%
+
Conclusion

Mentorship and performance


Mentorship Engagement


Positively impacted student performance
Increased social and group engagement
Breakout Sessions

Perspective taking

Autonomy, competence development, and social support
+
In Practice
Mentorship in Action
Experiences, examples and YOU!
+
Student perspective on being in a
course with mentors

Benefits of breakout sessions


Facilitates group discussion and peer interaction



Small interactive learning environment
 Welcoming
 Non-threatening
 Increases a sense of community in a large class
Active and interactive learning
Increases individual accountability for course content
Makes a large class seem small

Reduces intimidation factors
 Lecture intimidating place to speak out
 Professors can seem intimidating
 Students feel known
+
Mentors



Adaptation

New role

New environment

The ever-changing group climate
Reaching for new limits

Thinking outside of the box

Working outside of personal comfort zones

Problem solving

Working past personal doubts/insecurities
Learning to embody Leadership
+
Breakout Sessions

Mentors





The Group





Attend each lecture
Prepare a structured session focusing on current material
Conduct Breakout sessions
Facilitate group assignments
10-12 Mentees per Mentor
Break away from the class and work in the small group
Exchange contact information
Act as a resource and support to one another
The Environment




Collaborative
Low pressure
Intended to facilitate learning
Safe space to ask questions and make mistakes
+
How Can This Model Work For You?
 Outline

for how to develop a breakout session
(aka your take-away)
 Turn
and Teach
 LET’S TALK
ABOUT IT!!!!
+
References
Dutton, C. (2003). Mentoring the contexualization of learning-mentor, protégé, and organizational
gain in higher education. Education and Training, 45(1) 22-29.
Gannon, J.M., & Maher, A. (2012). Developing tomorrow’s talent: The case of an undergraduate
mentoring programme. Education and Training, 54(6) 440-455.
Lahman, M.P. (1999, November). To what extent does a peer mentoring program aid in student
retention? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association,
Chicago, IL.
Shea, Gordon F. (Ed.). (1997). Mentoring. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.
Smith, T. (Ed.). (2013). Undergraduate curricular peer mentoring programs: Perspectives on innovation
by faculty, staff, and students. Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books.
Siamack. S.,Davis, W.J., & Root, P.S. (2014).Developmental relationship programs: An empirical study
of the impact of peer-mentoring programs. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 7(1), 3138.
Tremblay , P.F., & Rodger, S,. (2003). The effects of a peer mentoring program on academic success
among first year university students. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 33 (3), 1-17.
Woodd , M. (1997). Mentoring in further and higher education: Learning from the literature.
Education and Training, 39(8-9) 333-343.
Wright, K.S. (1992). From the odyssey to the university: What is this thing called mentoring?
Association for Communication Administration Bulletin, 79, 42-53.
+
Questions