Peer Mentoring in Relation to University Connection and Retention of

Latino/a Students: Mixed Methods Quasi Experimental Design

Adriana GarciaProgram Coordinator

Rafi EfratProject Director

Dani Yomtov & Scott PlunkettProgram Evaluator

Value of Higher Education

College graduates compared to high school graduates Earn 61% more across their careers (Baum & Ma, 2007)

Significantly lower unemployment rates (United States Department of Labor, 2011)

More knowledge of world affairs and decreased prejudice (Rowley & Hurtado, 2002)

Pay more in taxes, more likely to vote, and less likely to be incarcerated (Baum & Ma, 2007)

Less likely to rely on government assistance (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1998)

California State University Northridge

Urban, comprehensive university in Los Angeles. 1 of 23 campuses in CSU system Hispanic Serving Institution

32.7% Latinos (2008)

In 2008, 6-year graduation rate of CSUN students was 41%; 34% for Latino/a students CSU average = 49% all students; 41% Latino/a students. CSUN’s graduation rate is 19th in CSU system; graduation rate of

Latino/a students is 20th.

1-year retention rate of CSUN freshmen is 71%; the CSU average = 79%.

Building Connections for Success

5-year grant Increase Latino/a freshmen retention and graduation

rates by 10-11% over 5 years. Institutionalize the components of the program.

Building Connections for Success

Peer Mentoring?

An intervention strategy that pairs one or more students (i.e., mentees) with a more experienced student (i.e., peer mentor) (Terrion & Leonard, 2007)

Peer mentoring has been associated with: Better social integration and ability to cope with stress (Allen,

McManus, & Russell, 1999)

Higher academic achievement (Ahmed, 2011; Leidenfrost, Strassnig, Schabmann, Spiel, & Carbon, 2011; Salinitri, 2005)

Better student retention (Ward, Thomas, & Disch, 2010)

Increased knowledge of campus resources (Alonso, Castano, Calles, & Sanchez-Herrero, 2010)

CSUN’s Peer Mentoring

Unique Aspects of CSUN’s Peer Mentoring

Summer training for MentorsFaculty training on how to interact and utilize the Mentor effectivelyUniversity 100 classesDiscipline based cohortsMentors

Welcome strategiesModel appropriate student behaviorMentoring interactions

Evaluation Fall 2012

• IRB approved• Quasi Experimental Design

• Pretest Peer Mentoring Posttest• Pretest No Peer Mentoring Posttest

• Email link to online survey• Raffle incentive (fifteen $15 gift cards)• 1071 students

• 460 pretests (42%), 364 posttests (33%)• 304 matched sets (28%)

• Posttest to the peer mentees asked additional open-ended questions

Sample Characteristics

162 with a peer mentor; 142 without a peer mentor

69.1% female students Mean age = 18.1 69.4% first generation college students 63.8% Latino, 11.5% Asian, 9.5% Caucasian,

7.2% Armenian/Middle Eastern, 6.6% African American, 1.4% mixed/other

ANCOVAs Comparing Mentored Students vs. Non-Mentored Students

Qualitative Responses: Percent of Participants Who Mentioned Each Perceived Benefit

Qualitative Responses: Percent of Participants Who Mentioned Each Suggested Improvement

Suggested Improvements % Nothing, good as is 35.0 More involvement/more contact outside of class/be in class more often 19.7 More events/assignments/activities 8.9 More informative/more knowledgeable/better advice 7.0 More mentors overall 7.0 More focus on academics/help with classwork 5.1 More one-on-one meetings with students 5.1 Don't know/not sure/N/A 5.1 Mentors can be more sociable/approachable 4.5 Unnecessary to have them/make it optional/less meetings 3.2 Get students involved/ take students to events on campus (sports, etc.) 2.5

Ratings of Peer Mentors

Please rate the peer mentor. Very Low Low Average High Very High

Had a positive attitude. - .6% 5.1% 22.2% 72.2% Was respectful. - - 3.8% 20.9% 75.3% Cared about my academic success. .6% 2.5% 10.8% 15.8% 70.3% Involved the students. .6% 1.9% 7.6% 21.5% 68.4% Was approachable. - .6% 4.5% 21.8% 73.1% Answered questions. - 1.3% 7.0% 17.7% 74.1% Was responsive. - .6% 5.7% 19.0% 74.7% Overall rating of the peer mentor. - 1.3% 3.8% 18.4% 76.6%

1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = average, 4 = high, 5 = very high

Conclusions

Qualitative and quantitative data suggest the peer mentors are viewed positively by the students in the University 100 class.

The students with peer mentors (compared to those without) feel significantly more connected and integrated to the university, and feel they have someone to turn to for academic and emotional support.

Suggested improvements include more involvement outside of class, more mentors in general, and more informed mentors (e.g., academics, careers).

www.buildingconnectionsforsuccess.org