Peer Mentor Program Initiative Pilot Year Discoveries: Two Approaches for Engaging Students through Peer Mentoring

Approach 1: Opt-in Model

Our pilot semester of the program used an opt-in model for first-year students, which we found to be challenging. Involvement in the program was optional for those enrolled in a first-year seminar. Over the course of the semester, all mentees would voluntarily engage in three 1:1 meetings with their assigned PM for a chance to be chosen as a scholarship recipient. The university holds a semesterly “Rebels Give” event, where local donors can contribute to high-impact causes, such as our program. Using a portion of these funds along with our provided budget, we incorporated an incentive of 10 $500 scholarships to be awarded to top participating mentees, selected by our 14 PMs and administrators. With the help of faculty, we emailed an advertisement of the opportunity to all COLA students to raise awareness. Given the structure of our first-year seminar courses for which we used as a basis of the program, each mentor mentored approximately 27 mentees. This ratio was initially perceived to be a constraint, as “most mentoring groups” typically contain about “15 mentees” according to Carvin (2011). Although this is best practice, our higher class totals in the fall along with budgetary restrictions led us to designate one PM per class. PMs were allocated an appropriate number of hours and pay to manage their cohort and were required to participate in team meetings with university faculty and university-wide training to ensure they stayed on track.

Steve Crabtree of Gallup mentions in “Six College Experiences Linked to Student Confidence on Jobs,” that having supportive relationships with mentors boosts students' assurance that they are gaining the skills and knowledge they will require in their working lives (2019).

Approach 2: Curriculum-Embedded Model

During the spring semester, rather than make the program an option for COLA first-year seminar students, we built the program into the course curriculum and found that model to be much more successful. By reducing the previous semester to its challenges and successes and analyzing surveyed feedback, our team was able to collaborate and reposition the program before the following semester. Along with required assignments, PMs were this time integrated into the class and 1:1 meetings were graded by COLA instructors based on participation. Mentors were still paid, but there were no longer scholarship offerings for freshmen participants. Instructors had the option of making the program constitute 10 percent or 25 percent of their course grade. Freshmen still met with their assigned PM for three 1:1 s, in addition to a fourth in-person meeting that would take place at a campus event in an effort to connect students to resources, campus opportunities, and activities. Our college's online coordinator built discussion modules into our online course platform, Canvas, of which freshmen were required to respond to 10 posts. At the end of the semester, freshmen were also graded on their reflection paper addressing how they were impacted by the role of a PM in their first year. For instructors who chose the 25 percent worth curriculum, we added a creative reflection project, showcasing the questions they answered in their reflection paper. In the spring, we also added the new position of Lead Peer Mentor. This undergraduate and former PM managed the team meetings, facilitated faculty-to-mentor communication, and monitored mentor-to-mentee progress. Including this role added an extra level of organization, communication with our director, and allowed our PMs to gain mentoring as well.

Comparison of Both Approaches

Both approaches allowed for a bond between academic and student affairs for greater learning outcomes but they also bore many differences. In model two, required assignments motivated mentees to experience the benefit of having a PM, allowing them to self-reflect on their goals and learning. Because COLA offers more first-year seminar courses in the fall than in the spring, we began the program with 541 freshmen students enrolled in a class eligible for one of our 14 mentors hired, with an average of 27 students per class. In the curriculum-based spring model, our numbers decreased to 61 mentees total and 6 PMs, an average of 10 per mentor. We also found that including what Carvin calls an “appropriate-sized group” allows for variation in student perspectives as well as dispels any intimidation. Figure 1 demonstrates how many freshmen students engaged with their mentors, i.e., responding to emails or meeting for any number of 1:1 s. We had a higher response rate of 95 percent when the program was built into the curriculum with smaller class sizes rather than the optional incentive with larger class sizes, which had a 29 percent response rate.

During the spring semester, rather than make the program an option for COLA first-year seminar students, we built the program into the course curriculum and found that model to be much more successful.

OPEN IN VIEWER

FIGURE 1.

Fall 2019 and spring 2020 program engagement comparison.

Many mentees told us that they didn’t know how beneficial a PM was until they actually met with one and only a small number of those who engaged with their mentor in the spring failed to complete all of the requirements. This leads us to believe that more students may have engaged with the program in the previous model had they met with the PM at least once. When students engaged by choice, the completion rate was much lower, shown in Figure 2. Although only 29 percent of students engaged with the program, 27 percent met for at least one 1:1, indicating that only 2 percent of students who committed to engaging in the program failed to continue onto their second meeting. This tells us that once a student meets with a PM, they will likely discover the benefit and enjoy the experience, leading to a longer-lasting relationship and greater sense of commitment. These supportive relationships are precisely what we believe will catapult us closer to our goal of increased retention rates, as both mentees and mentors reported feeling heightened motivation to reach their goals when they were held accountable in social groups.

We also found that including what Carvin calls an “appropriate-sized group” allows for variation in student perspectives as well as dispels any intimidation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

FIGURE 2.

Fall 2019 and spring 2020 program completion comparison.

Reflection and Discoveries

Student feedback from this program helped us determine greatly what works and doesn’t in mentorship relationships. In the first model, our faculty introduced the program option to the students but was idle in the program for the remainder of the semester. In the spring, our curriculum-based program directly addressed this by getting professors of first-year seminar courses directly involved. A PM adds a different facet to a mentee's collegiate experience than a professor does because there are commonalities and they can be more candid with each other as peers. However, having a professor present shows mentees that the mentoring relationship is one to be taken seriously, which contributed to our increased completion rates in the second semester.

We learned that adding interactive, inclusive discussion posts built an alternative avenue for students to communicate outside of traditional contact, although 64.75 percent of mentees told us they preferred texting and email communication with their PMs over calls, apps, or video chats. Contrarily, other students expressed feeling more comfortable utilizing our online modules and safer expressing concerns than in text or email. Offering various options for students allowed us to identify key issues our students are facing and hear their voices, allowing us to better cater programming to them in the future.

Many mentees told us that they didn't know how beneficial a PM was until they actually met with one and only a small number of those who engaged with their mentor in the spring failed to complete all of the requirements.

Limitations

Despite the numerous successes we have experienced, there were some limitations. Lack of engagement in the opt-in model was a primary drawback we endured, which ultimately initiated the replacement with the curriculum model. Not every student is intrigued by a scholarship, yet most participated when they were graded. In regards to our spring model's limitations, some mentors expressed that faculty changed aspects of the curriculum along the way to accommodate their unique teaching style and preferences, i.e., changing the number of required meetings, eliminating discussion posts, etc. Getting every administrator to follow consistent guidelines will be integral to the program's future and to the dissemination of information to our first-year students. Focusing only on first-year students has proven to be a limitation of ours, as shown in our mentees’ feedback. While placing PMs in first-year seminars have been conducive to our goals for the program and a majority of those students are underclassmen, first-year seminar courses are not restricted to first-year students by the university. One upperclassman first-year seminar student stated “I wish I had done this peer mentor program in the fall as an incoming freshman, as it defeats the purpose of doing it after you have already adjusted and been through the initial transition;” while a first-year student told us “it was nice to be taught by an upperclassman. I found it easier to talk to [my PM], and I genuinely felt more engaged.” Being able to make the program beneficial to all students regardless of class standing will be a focal point going forward.

This tells us that once a student meets with a PM, they will likely discover the benefit and enjoy the experience, leading to a longer-lasting relationship and greater sense of commitment.

Another limitation was our required fourth 1:1 meeting to be taken place at a campus event or activity. Some participants said this presented difficulties for students who had limited availability and were not able to attend offered events on campus. In addition, due to COVID-19 many students were unable to complete the campus event or activity and going into the fall of 2020 we had to eliminate that facet entirely due to remote learning changes. Exceptions were made for webinars, which we plan to offer as a substitute for a 1:1 in future semesters. We’ve since determined that three 1:1 s is more realistic for first-year students and should be an adequate amount of visits to establish a mentoring relationship. Our aim for the future is to have consistency in the areas we weren’t able to achieve in the program's pilot year.

The limitations we experienced with the program have taught us a great deal about what should change for the 2020–21 academic year. With insights from PMs and our alumni board, we have decided to require PMs to meet with an assigned alumni board member mentor, so they too can be mentored. Such “supportive relationships and relevant engaging learning experiences” according to Steve Crabtree, will foster “long-term outcomes” in our PMs, including increased confidence and career skills, which will strengthen their abilities during their service as a PM (2019). Another planned change is to provide PMs with specific discussion content for mentees during their 1:1 s. In the previous two semesters, mentors would discuss anything the freshman wanted. We found that participants would be better guided if there were planned discussion points for instances when mentees aren’t asking questions. Similarly, we will be implementing a 1:1 schedule so students stay on track to completing their requirements. During our pilot year, some freshmen waited until later in the semester to request a 1:1 with their PM, causing the upperclassmen to feel overwhelmed with meetings in the final weeks of classes. To address this issue, we will be adding deadlines to all required assignments in the program for a higher level of accountability within the curriculum.

One upperclassman first-year seminar student stated “I wish I had done this peer mentor program in the fall as an incoming freshman, as it defeats the purpose of doing it after you have already adjusted and been through the initial transition;” while a first-year student told us “it was nice to be taught by an upperclassman. I found it easier to talk to [my PM], and I genuinely felt more engaged.”

Implementation at Other Institutions

We believe the Peer Mentor Program would make a great addition to any college looking to improve student success and involvement. Key to implementation is attaining participation from full-time college staff to design PM training materials and program modules, enforce requirements, as well as track progress of the program and analyze the data for results. What is also unique about our program is that we were provided financial support from our administration. Having the option to offer wages to our PMs entices qualified and high-achieving students to apply for the role; however, all of our PMs divulged that they would have still participated in the program with or without compensation because of other, nonmonetary rewards. In the event that assistance is not available, implementation is still achievable by recruiting volunteer PMs. Similar to an internship, mentors can volunteer their time for the cause of the program in exchange for professional development from faculty or alumni board members, or involvement experience for their curriculum vitae.

Overall, this program has been a positive experience for our students, faculty, and staff. Our two models have taught us a great deal about what works in getting buy-in from faculty, developing our mentors, and investing in our student's success. Feedback has been positive and students are appearing to continue forward after their first-year seminar with increased confidence and excitement because of the work our mentors are doing. The latter model we used has shown to be effective according to our data, but we are continually refining and updating based on feedback from participants and budgetary changes. Because of its ease of modification, implementation is realistic for institutions of all types. We believe this program will continue to be a reliable asset to COLA as we excel toward our institution's goals of heightened retention and graduation rates.