An overview of my M.A. thesis on the effects of Peer Mentoring on student success.

1. Effects of Peer
Mentoring on Student
Success
Katherine Casey
San Jose State University

2. Graduation Rates of
First-Year Students

3. Graduation Rates of
First-Year Students
Full-time
Part-time
GPA <2.0
Remediation
Attrition

4. Graduation Rates of
First-Year Students
60
45
Full-time
30
Part-time
GPA <2.0
15
Remediation
Attrition
0
<6 yrs <8 yrs

5. Graduation Rates of
First-Year Students
60
45
Full-time
30
Part-time
GPA <2.0
15
Remediation
Attrition
0
<6 yrs <8 yrs
Attrition not
due to skill level at entry.
(SJSU OIR, 2008; Tracey & Sedlacek, 1986).

6. Factors Related to
Attrition

7. Factors Related to
Attrition
Social
Support

8. Factors Related to
Attrition
Social
Support
Knowledge of
Campus Resources

9. Factors Related to
Attrition
Social
Support
Knowledge of
Campus Resources
Stress
(American College Health Association, 2003;
Cooke, Bewick, Barkham, & Audin, 2006)

10. Factors Related to
Attrition
Social
Support
Knowledge of
Campus Resources

11. Factors Related to
Attrition
Social
Support
Knowledge of
Campus Resources
First-Year Programs
(FYP)
Peer Mentoring (PM)

12. First-Year Programs
(FYP)
Goals

13. First-Year Programs
(FYP)
Goals
Social
Support

14. First-Year Programs
(FYP)
Goals
Social
Support Knowledge of
Resources

15. First-Year Programs
(FYP)
Goals
Social
Support Knowledge of
Resources
Graduation

16. First-Year Programs
(FYP)
Goals
Social
Support Knowledge of
Resources
Graduation
Attrition

17. Peer
Mentoring

18. Peer
Mentoring
More
experienced
student

19. Peer
Mentoring
More
experienced
student

20. Peer
Mentoring
More
experienced
student
Less
experienced
student

21. Peer
Mentoring
More
experienced
student
Less
experienced
student

22. Peer
Mentoring
More
experienced
student
Guidance
Less
experienced
student

23. Peer
Mentoring
More
experienced
student
Guidance
Academic
Less
experienced
student

24. Peer
Mentoring
More
experienced
student
Guidance
Academic Personal
Less
experienced
student

25. Peer
Mentoring
More
experienced
student
Professionalism
Guidance
Academic Personal
Less
experienced
student

26. Peer
Mentoring
More
experienced
student
Professionalism
Guidance
Academic Personal Role Model
Less
experienced
student

27. Peer
Mentoring
More
experienced
student
Professionalism
Guidance
Academic Personal Role Model Resources
Less
experienced
student

28. San Jose State
University (SJSU)

29. San Jose State
University (SJSU)
PM

30. San Jose State
University (SJSU)
FYP
Classrooms
PM

31. San Jose State
University (SJSU)
FYP
Classrooms
PM
Peer
Mentor Center
(PMC)

32. Research Questions
Do FYP classes with PMs help students
more than FYP classes without PMs?

33. Research Questions
Do FYP classes with PMs help students
more than FYP classes without PMs?
Does the perceived helpfulness of PMs
affect participant ratings of social
support and knowledge of campus
resources?

34. Method: Participants
Fall 2009 Metropolitan University
Scholar’s Experience (MUSE) students
at SJSU

35. Method: Participants
Fall 2009 Metropolitan University
Scholar’s Experience (MUSE) students
at SJSU
FYP students with a PM in the
classroom

36. Method: Participants
Fall 2009 Metropolitan University
Scholar’s Experience (MUSE) students
at SJSU
FYP students with a PM in the
classroom
FYP students without a PM in the
classroom

37. Method: Materials
Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ)
Test-Retest Reliability = .90
(Sarason et al., 1983)
Knowledge of Campus Resources
Questionnaire specific to SJSU
Where, when, how’s of utilizing
relevant resources
Pretest: Spring 2009 MUSE
students

38. Method: Design
2 x 3 or 2 x 4 Factorial Between-
Subjects

39. Method: Design
2 x 3 or 2 x 4 Factorial Between-
Subjects
Post-Hoc Blocking Variable:
Perceived High quality vs. Low
quality Peer Mentoring
Perceived High quality vs. Neutral
vs. Low quality PM

40. Research Design 1

41. Research Design 1
Level of PM

42. Research Design 1
Level of PM
Measures

43. Research Design 1
Level of PM
PM(H) PM(L) NPM
2x3
Pre-test
Difference Difference
Soc -
scores scores
Post-test
Measures
Difference Difference Difference
Res scores scores scores

44. Research Design 2

45. Research Design 2
Level of PM

46. Research Design 2
Level of PM
Measures

47. Research Design 2
Level of PM
PM(H) PM(N) PM(L) NPM
2x3
Pre-test
Difference Difference Difference
Soc -
scores scores scores
Post-test
Measures
Difference Difference Difference Difference
Res scores scores scores scores

48. Hypotheses
Students in MUSE classes with a PM:

49. Hypotheses
Students in MUSE classes with a PM:
1) SSQ

50. Hypotheses
Students in MUSE classes with a PM:
2) Knowledge
1) SSQ
of Campus
Resources

51. Hypotheses
Students in MUSE classes with a PM:
2) Knowledge
1) SSQ
of Campus
Resources
3) Change scores =
Perceived helpfulness

52. Limitations

53. Limitations
Self
Report

54. Limitations
Self
Report
Social
Desirability

55. Limitations
Self
Report
Gender
Social
Desirability

56. Limitations
Quasi-
Self
Experimental
Report
Design
Gender
Social
Desirability

57. Limitations
Quasi-
Self
Experimental
Report
Design
Gender
Social Pre-Existing
Desirability Groups

58. Limitations
Quasi-
Self
Experimental
Report
Design
Gender
Social Pre-Existing
Desirability Groups
Unequal
Sample
Sizes

59. Limitations
Quasi-
Self
Experimental
Report
Design
Gender
Social Pre-Existing
Desirability Groups
Group Unequal
Differences Sample
Sizes

60. Limitations
Quasi-
Self
Experimental
Report
Design
Gender
Social Pre-Existing
Type
Desirability Groups
of
Class
Group Unequal
Differences Sample
Sizes

61. Limitations
Quasi-
Self
Experimental
Report
Design
Gender
Social Pre-Existing
Type
Desirability Groups
of
Class
Group Unequal
Differences Sample
Sizes

62. Limitations
Quasi-
Self
Experimental
Report
Design
Gender
Social Pre-Existing
Type
Desirability Groups
of
Class
Group Unequal
Differences Sample
Sizes

63. Limitations
Quasi-
Self
Experimental
Report
Design
Gender
Social Pre-Existing
Type
Desirability Groups
of
Class
Group Unequal
Differences Sample
Sizes

64. References
The American College Health Association National College
Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA)
(2005). Spring 2003
reference group report. Journal of American College
Health, 53(5).
Cooke, R., Bewick, B. M., Barkham, M., Bradley, M., &
Audin, K. (2006). Measuring, monitoring and managing the
psychological well-being of first year university
students. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 34,
4.
San Jose State University Office of Institutional
Research. (2008). OIRblog, Spring Newsletter, 1-16.
Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B.
R. (1983). Assessing social support: The social support
questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
44(1), 127-139.
Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1986, April). Prediction
of College Graduation Using Noncognitive Variables by Race.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American