Peer-mentoring of students in rural and low ses schools

8Method

In order to attempt to redress the lower participation in higher education of low-SES and rural students, and based on the literature on mentoring interventions, we chose to implement a school-based peer-mentoring program. The peers selected were recently graduated high school students who are now enrolled at Flinders University and who volunteered to participate in the program. Peer-mentoring was chosen because it has been shown to be effective in raising disadvantaged students’ aspirations for post-school study (Houston 1999, cited in DuBois 2011).

Participants

Forty-eight 14- and 15-year-olds (23 males) participated in the project at all four time points (when follow-up questionnaires were administered). All participants began the project while they were in Year 9 and completed the study when they were in Year 10. This represented an entire class from the semi-rural school and a sub-set of students from the low-SES school. The entire Year 9 participated from the semi-rural school. The low-SES students were chosen by teachers as those whom they judged may or may not attend university, depending upon their experiences across the next few years. Participation was entirely voluntary. Ethics approval was obtained for conducting the study and the parents of all students gave informed consent.

Schools

Students in two schools were involved, one low-SES school and one semi-rural area school in South Australia. The semi-rural area school approached but did not exceed the 80-km distance from a metropolitan region required for a rural school definition (Department of Education and Children’s Services 2009; Jones 2000). In 2006 the median weekly household income for the low-SES school district was $794, while the semi-rural school had a median weekly household income of $975, compared with a median weekly household income of $1027 Australia-wide (ABS 2012).

Mentors

As part of the Flinders University ‘Inspire Peer Mentoring’ program, university student mentors visited the two schools participating in this research. All mentors underwent a current police check and initial mentor training.

Mentoring

Across seven school terms, beginning in the students’ Year 9 classes, mentors visited the school once a week on average during regular school hours. The duration of each term was approximately 11 weeks, and mentoring sessions ranged from an hour to a half a day. Mentors exercised discretion in determining the most effective use of their time, but in general they formed friendships with students, answered questions about university, helped students with applicable areas of work and, where appropriate, mentored students on career possibilities; that is, mentors were free to use their time flexibly, but in a manner consistent with the underlying values of the program. Underpinning the mentoring were the following principles (adapted from Sipe & Roder 1999):

1 ‘Good mentors focus on building trust and friendship’ (Campbell 2006, p.13).

2 Effective mentors involve the young person in deciding how the time with the mentor is spent.

3 Since consistent and reliable mentoring is important, mentors will maintain a steady presence throughout the mentoring relationship.

4 The mentor should take responsibility for ensuring the continuation of the relationship.

5 Mentors should engage the mentored in learning activities that are also fun.

6 Mentors should show respect for the views of the young person.

7 Mentors should seek and apply help from program staff.

Of critical importance was that mentors did not seek to attempt to transform or reform the mentored, nor instil values different from or inconsistent with the young person’s home values. Because mentors were highly collaborative in their student−mentor relationships and activities, mentoring was highly individualised. For more details about the mentoring program, visit .

As mentoring was performed in small groups, students received different amounts of mentor contact, and mentoring fluctuated throughout the year. A questionnaire with self-report scales assessed individual student−mentor contact (1, none; 7, a lot).

Campus visits

On two occasions (once during the second and third terms in the first year of mentoring), students visited the university campus. These visits involved participation in structured activities (that is, scavenger hunt, appropriate teaching tasks). Teaching tasks were undertaken by university staff and involved the construction of origami cubes by following simple mathematical rules and participation in a physical education activity/game.

Measures

Students were asked to complete an identical questionnaire on four separate occasions. The questionnaire sought demographic information, as well as student responses to a number of critical questions, which are listed below. The first time point was obtained one week after the commencement of mentoring in the schools. This was undertaken at this time to reduce demand effects due to the students being unfamiliar with the mentors and the researchers. Subsequent measures were obtained at approximately six-monthly intervals. A complete list of measures is available in appendix A.

The following are the critical questions:

Mentor contact: two questionnaire items assessed, on a seven-point scale, the amount and perceived usefulness of the mentoring students had received (1, not at all; 7, extremely).

Estimated likelihood of attendance: two questions assessed students’ perceptions of how likely they were to attend a university or a TAFE institute following their completion of high school. Responses were given in percentage likelihood from 0 to 100% in 10% increments.

Cognitive distance: students reported how close they perceived Flinders University to be to them physically. Flinders University was chosen as it was the nearest university campus to the students’ locations and was the campus students visited for orientation sessions and where their mentors were students. The reason for using this scale is that past research has demonstrated that more desirable locations are remembered as being closer (Alter & Balcetis 2011). Students marked a line on a 72-mm visual analogue scale from 0 mm (closer) to 72 mm (further). Such scales have been found to be accurate, reliable and easily used by participants in both medical and psychological research (Carlsson 1983; Harvey, Kemps & Tiggemann 2005; Hill, Weaver & Blundell 1991; Price & McGrath 1983), and have also been found to be easily used by quite young children (Shields et al. 2003).

University in-group identification: two sets of five questionnaire items assessed the level of the students’ in-group identification with the university and with university students. Items were averaged across the ten seven-point items to give an average in-group identification rating. Example items for in-group identification included: ‘University students are just like me’ and ‘How much do you trust the people at university?’ (1, not at all, strongly disagree, to 7, almost completely, strongly agree).

Financial burden: three items assessed the financial burden of attending a university on a seven-point scale; these items were then averaged to give a financial-burden rating. A sample question was: ‘Financially, I can afford to attend university (1, strongly disagree; 7, strongly agree).

Understanding of university: using a seven-point scale four items assessed student understanding of what happens at a university. These items were averaged for an overall understanding rating. An example of an understanding question was: ‘I understand what happens at university’ (1, strongly disagree; 7, strongly agree).