PEER-MENTORING IN UK HIGHER EDUCATION.

1
Peer Mentoring In UK Higher Education Roz
Phillips Stirling University
2
Peer Mentoring Background information

• Peer Mentoring- Senior undergraduates guide and
  support incoming first year undergraduates
• In 2003 there were 35 PM schemes within UK higher
  education 19 were piloting.
• 61 were initiated for retention reasons as well
  as widening participation.

3
The Problem of Student Dropout

• Two targets for Higher Education set by the
  government to be met by 2010
• Widen participation
• Lower dropout rate
• The average dropout rate in the UK is 8
• USA research indicates 70 of dropouts occur
  within the first year
• HEFCE Non traditional students are most likely
  to withdraw.
• Performance indicators for the non traditional
  student strongly correlate with dropout

4
Moving to University

• Adjustment to university occurs at an academic,
  social and emotional level (Chickering, 1993)
• Students appear to be the most vulnerable during
  the first few days at university (Earwaker, 1992)
• During semester 1 new students are at increased
  risk psychological problems.

5
Tintos Theory of Student Withdrawal

• Integration is an important mediator between a
  student background and persistence
• Social integration is directly related to
• Persistence,
• Loneliness,
• Stress,
• Well being,
• Overall adjustment.

6
The Benefits of Social Support.

• Social support has often been identified as a
  buffer to stress (Cohen Wills, 1985)
• Perceived social support correlates with social
  adjustment, feelings of attachment and self
  esteem

7
Bringing it all together

• How may a Peer Mentor help?
• Aid in integration
• A buffer
• Role model

8
Aims and Objectives

• To conduct a controlled comparative evaluation of
  an established peer mentoring scheme in higher
  education.
• To assess any possible benefits of the peer
  mentoring scheme regarding student well being and
  adaptation to university.
• To determine the usage of the peer mentoring
  scheme within the first semester.

9
METHODOLOGY (Questionnaire survey of first year
students)

• 2 universities
• Both post 1960, one from the north of England and
  one from the south, matched on size and style -
  Non peer- mentoring (NPM N 100) and peer
  mentoring (PM N59).
• Mean age 19.81, 83 female and 85 white.

• Participants approached during welcome week
  shortly after they have met their PMs
• Re approached week 10 (T2) close to final exams.

10
Measures
PM Vs NPM
Wellbeing Adaptation
Coping Social Support Stress
Demographics Appraisals Pre-transitional
worries Mood
11
Results

• Significant differences between the universities
  on many of the demographic variables.
• Age
• Ethnicity
• Members of religion and club,
• Accommodation,
• Distance from home, and
• Individuals who are the first to go to university.

12
Peer Mentoring items

• MEETING
• 61 met their peer mentor within the first day
• 80 of meetings took place in halls
• 80 of meetings initiated by PM
• 50 had 1 hour or more
• T2 (10 weeks)
• 52 no longer had contact
• 10 saw their PM for 1 hour/week

13
How does a peer mentor help?

• Peer mentors are used mostly as tour guides
  during the first month
• From time 1 to time 2
• Decreases in support needed for external factors
• Increases in support needed for more personal
  reasons
• Increases in satisfaction
• Decreases in support needed

14
Week one stressors

• Highest stressors identified for coming to
  university finances, meeting new people, and
  self doubt.
• NPM university significantly more stressed over
  registration
• PM university significantly more stressed over
  homesickness and orientation to halls

15
Differences between the peer mentoring (PM) and
non peer mentoring (NPM) on the main dependent
variables
NPM PM Sig
Time 1
Coping 25.46 26.78 0.002
Time 2
Support 36.41 39.08 0.026
Stress 42.75 41.89 NS
Adaptation 85.22 93.71 0.003
Well Being 63.90 67.02 NS
Leaving 2.76 1.75 0.001
16
Simple Effects Analysis- Concentrating on halls

• Comparing the universities using students living
  in halls only
• Coping at time point 1 remains significant
• Wanting to leave remains significant
• Social support approaching significance
• College Adaptation NS Supports Tintos Theory
  of Adjustment to University

17
(No Transcript)
18
SUMMARY

• Self esteem decreased for NPM students only.
• PM students were greater integrated and reported
  higher levels of support
• Three times as many students from the NPM had
  seriously considered leaving university.
• Peer Mentoring helpful to all students within the
  first weeks and continued to be for a sub sample
  there after.

19
LIMITATIONS

• Only included two universities who had particular
  differing characteristics
• Sample bias
• Only social science students were involved
• Self reporting- social desirability?

20
FURTHER RESEARCH

• Expansion of work involving several universities
  within the UK.
• The attitudes towards introducing a peer
  mentoring scheme
• The introduction and follow up of a peer
  mentoring scheme
• The Peer Mentors perspective to the scheme