Enhancing Personal Tutoring: Peer ementoring

1
Enhancing Personal Tutoring Peer
e-mentoring Psychology Network 17/11/05

• Dr. Paula Hixenbaugh, Professor Hazel Dewart,
  Della Drees and Lisa Thorn

2
Overview

• Context of retention.
• Review of the personal tutoring system.
• What students want.
• What is e-mentoring?
• Evaluation of the system.

3
Student Retention Key Issues

• 30,000 UK students fail to get a qualification
  (NAO,2002)
• HEFCE (2001) identified first term/first semester
  as critical to student retention
• the greater the investment in this period the
  less likely a student is to leave, as they feel
  more supported

4
How Do We Provide Additional Support

• Is Personal Tutoring the Answer?
• What do students want from a personal tutoring
  system?
• A review at the Regent Campus, University of
  Westminster.

5
Review of the Personal Tutoring System

• Questionnaire first year students
• Questionnaire to all teaching staff
• Personal interviews with students
• Group discussion with course leaders

6
Student Questionnaire

• Response rate of 281
• 36.1 of students the first in their family to
  attend University
• 69.8 of students met their personal tutor during
  induction week
• 10.5 of students did not know the name of their
  personal tutor

7
Student Questionnaire (cont.)

• The vast majority of student report not needing
  to see their personal tutor although a small
  proportion have seen their personal tutor on 15
  or more occasions
• The data suggest that on the whole students want
  to see their personal tutor more than they need
  to see them

8
Need to See Personal Tutor
9
Want to See Personal Tutor
10
Student Questionnaire (cont.)

• 18.6 of students indicated that they had
  considered dropping out of University but had
  decided to stay.
• Financial difficulty (16.3)
• Volume/pressure/difficulty of work (14.3)
• Feeling overwhelmed (10.2)
• May be an overall lack of confidence in their
  ability to cope with demands of University.

11
Student Questionnaire (cont)

• Major source of support and advice was students
  own social support network.
• 26.3 of students did not discuss their concern
  with anyone.
• Only 2 of 38 students who responded to question
  listed their personal tutor.
• However students believe that tutor should
  provide both academic and personal advice

12
Conclusions

• Students want the personal tutoring system to be
  more structured and more active.
• Students want the system to provide regular and
  frequent scheduled meetings
• Students want feedback concerning their academic
  progress
• Students want tutors to be accessible,
  approachable and reliable

13
Good Idea But

• Large student numbers
• Limited resources
• How can we provide additional support for
  students which is beneficial but cost effective?

14
The e-mentoring project

• An innovative scheme offering free mentoring (via
  e-mail) to all first year Psychology students by
  their peers in third year.

15
Objectives

• To offer first year students an effective support
  system from people who understand their
  perspective.
• To provide third year students with training and
  experience of mentoring, and to enable them to
  use the University experience for the benefit of
  others.

16
What is mentoring?

• Mentoring is a deliberate pairing of a more
  skilled or experienced person with a lesser
  skilled or experienced one, with the agreed-upon
  goal of having the lesser skilled person grow and
  develop specific competencies Murray, M.
  (1991). Beyond the Myths and Magic of Mentoring
  How to Facilitate an Effective Mentoring
  Program. New York Wiley

17
Benefits for mentees

• Study assistance and one-to-one help
• A way of increasing academic confidence
• First hand knowledge of what is to come
• A chance to maximise learning potential
• Access to sources of information
• Feeling supported

18
Benefits for mentors

• Professional mentoring training
• Enhancement of CV
• Sharpened leadership and interpersonal skills
• Knowledge of University support systems
• Utilisation of University experiences
• Being an integral part of the research team
• Certificate of participation

19
Why e-mail?

• Inherent characteristics suited to mentoring
• Virtual 24-hour access.
• Substantial time/financial advantage.
• High frequency of communication makes for
  effective mentoring. Clawson (1980)
• Ease of use.
• The facility to store, refer, quote or review.
• The communication style is non-intimidating.(McCo
  rmick Leonard, 1996).
• Relevance to the student environment.

20
Training

• Two group sessions
• what mentoring IS and IS NOT.
• own experience as first year students.
• communication skills including attending,
  understanding and basic empathy.
• not to feel rejected if communication diminishes.
  
• awareness of possible danger signals and ethical
  issues that may arise.

21
Allocating mentees

• Mentor/mentee pairings were anonymous.
• Each mentor had 4 to 6 mentees.
• Mentors and mentees both signed the same contract.

22
Evaluation

• Measures taken from three groups
• Baseline (from first level students the year
  before the scheme started)
• Mentees
• Mentors

23
Quantitative measurement

• Mentees and baseline
• Self-esteem
• Self-efficacy
• Confidence/anxiety
• Financial concerns
• Social integration
• Academic ambition (drive)
• Satisfaction (with the University)
• How useful was the scheme for them?

24
Qualitative open ended questions

• Mentors and mentees
• What they thought of the project?
• How the scheme could be improved?
• What was the most useful aspect of the scheme?
• What they thought of the Bulletin Board?

25
Results 2003-4 Intake

• Feedback sheets were completed by 101 students.
  Eight-three students said that they felt that
  they could contact their mentor. Fifty
  respondents said they had contacted their mentor
  at least once.
• Responses to items on feedback questionnaire (n
  101)

26
Results 2003-4 Intake

• Of the 51 students who reported no mentor
  contact, 47 gave reasons.
• The most frequent reason given was that they did
  not need to.
• Responses to item on feedback questionnaire
  asking students to give reasons for not
  contacting their mentor (n 47)

27
Results 2003-4 Intake

• When asked if they thought the e-mentoring scheme
  was a good idea of the 99 who responded, 89 said
  yes, 10 said no. Students were also asked if they
  would be prepared to act as mentors in their
  final year. Of the 83 who responded, 68 said yes,
  15 said no.
• Responses to items on feedback questionnaire (n
  101)

28
Results 2003-4 Intake

• All fifty respondents gave reasons for contacting
  their mentor.
• One student stated that the reason they had
  contacted their mentor was because they were
  considering dropping out. This student went on to
  complete the year.
• Reasons respondents gave for contacting their
  mentor (n 50)

29
Results 2003-4 Intake

• Quotes from mentees reasons for contacting their
  mentor
• They contacted me to check everything was OK,
  I replied with a question about the weighting of
  1st year marks towards final degree
•  
• I asked for advice with workload a view of
  what the course is like in the final year and
  second year
•  
• Was concerned about doing assignments mentor
  said not to worry as 1st year is about learning
  and improving those skills
•  
• I had problems with research methods needed
  reassuring
•  
• Because he was there

30
Results 2003-4 IntakeHigh mentor contact group
vs no mentor contact group

• The high mentor contact group showed a
  significant elevation in self-esteem across the
  year in comparison the no mentor contact group
  (n1 24, n2 14, p 0.032)
•  
• Mean self-esteem scores for the two groups at
  induction and at the end of the year.
•  
• Classified as participants who contacted their
  mentor by email on three or more occasions

31
Results 2003-4 IntakeHigh mentor contact group
vs no mentor contact group

• The mean self-efficacy score for the high mentor
  contact group was greater than that of the no
  mentor contact group (n1 24, n2 13, p
  0.038)
• Mean self-efficacy scores for the two groups at
  induction and at the end of the year.
•  
• Classified as participants who contacted their
  mentor by email on three or more occasions

32
Results Baseline vs 2002-3 intake

• There was a significant elevation in satisfaction
  with university across the year for the 2003-4
  intake in comparison with the baseline intake (n1
  22, n2 38, p 0.025)
•  
•  
• Percentage increase from induction in mean
  responses on satisfaction scores for 2003-4 and
  control intakes

33
Summary

• Relatively easy to implement
• Benefits for both mentor and mentees
• May increase social integration
• May be beneficial for feelings of self-esteem and
  self-efficacy
• Provides additional support for students in a
  cost effective system