Mentors in an Undergraduate Psychology Course

1. 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.

2. 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 University of Windsor Ontario, Canada

3. 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

4. Mentors in the Classroom • Curricular peer mentoring • 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, ). • 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? • 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

5. 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

6. Measures • Demographics • National Survey of Student Engagement (revised) (NSSE) • Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) • This instrument examines several aspects of motivation related to learning, such as goal orientation and self-efficacy. • Student Attitudes toward Group Environments (SAGE) • 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.

7. Results Group Comparisons Engagement and Academic Performance

8. Group Engagement • Does mentorship positively influence student engagement in terms of group work? • 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

9. 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

10. Academic Performance • Did the mentorship program positively impact student academic performance? • There was a significant interaction between the course type and evaluation type. • F=52.85(2), p<.001;η 2=.18 • 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. • F=42.33[1], p<.001;η 2=.08

11. Results Mentorship Feedback Student Feedback on Mentorship Components

12. 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. Qualitative Data and Follow-up

13. Breakout Interactions

14. Breakout Interactions

15. Conclusion • Mentorship and performance • Positively impacted student performance • Mentorship Engagement • Increased social and group engagement • Breakout Sessions • Perspective taking • Autonomy, competence development, and social support

16. In Practice Mentorship in Action Experiences, examples and YOU!

17. Student perspective on being in a course with mentors • Benefits of breakout sessions • Small interactive learning environment • Welcoming • Non-threatening • Increases a sense of community in a large class • Facilitates group discussion and peer interaction • 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

18. 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

19. Breakout Sessions • Mentors • Attend each lecture • Prepare a structured session focusing on current material • Conduct Breakout sessions • Facilitate group assignments • The Group • 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

20. 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!!!!

21. 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), 31-38. 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.

22. Questions