The Benefits and Costs of Peer Mentoring for College Students

Peer Mentoring in Higher Education

Collier (2017) explains that peer mentoring is an effective method for facilitating success for college students because it has a positive effect on the learner’s morale and increases the student’s satisfaction with the university. This is essentially the same finding as that of Flores and Estudillo (2018), who note that peer-to-peer mentoring programs can assist first year college students in their academic and social goals. Peer mentoring provides support for learners by giving them a reliable shoulder to lean on, and it gives them motivation to become more socially connected on campus. Both researchers have found this to be true over the course of their studies.

Students with autism can also be assisted through peer mentoring, according to the study by Siew, Mazzucchelli, Rooney and Girdler (2017). Siew et al. (2017) used a single group pre-test, post-test design with qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the outcomes of peer mentoring among ten college students with autism. Interviews were conducted along with questionnaires answered, and the focus of both was on how the students experienced the peer mentoring program and what impact the program had on the students’ general anxiety, state communication apprehension, perceived communication competence, and communication apprehension both prior to, and five months after the program began. Siew et al. (2017) found that the autistic students who received peer mentoring felt more supported socially speaking and nervousness about communicating. The main limitation of the study, however, was that it did not use a control group and so the implication of causation is made, i.e., that the program is what caused a change in feeling about social support or in nervousness about speaking. However, just because there is a correlation between the program and the changes does not mean the program was the main reason for the change.

The lack of a control group is often a limitation of most studies of this kind. Fruiht and Chan (2018) for instance, investigated the role that community members, relatives, and educators play in first-generation college goers’ educational outcomes by looking at 4181 participants’ data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent and Adult Health, the focus being to test differences in supports received between first-generation, continuing-generation, and non-college students. This is as close to a type of control as the majority of studies on peer mentoring among college students gets. It is not quite a control group analysis, but rather a kind of comparative group assessment. Randomized control trials with a double blind, placebo-controlled trial are considered the gold standard of trials, but they are infrequently done by researchers because they require a great deal of time, preparation and have ethical implications that are difficult to reconcile in today’s day and age. Thus, limitation by lack of control is not uncommon and most studies suffer from this limitation.

Regardless, the study by Fruiht and Chan (2018) does reveal that mentorship among adolescents can help to strengthen relationships between students and parents, but it also found that first-generation college students received less support from mentors with respect to identity than continuing generation students. This suggests that it is important for mentors to realize that first-generation students should be supported from their peer mentors in terms of how they see themselves simply because they themselves are venturing into unchartered waters and have no one to back them up in what they are doing. Their parents did not go to college and so they do not have a sympathetic or empathetic family member at home who understands what they are up against. Instead, they have to figure things out for themselves and this can wear on their sense of self and how they identify themselves. Peer mentors should able to provide support by helping first-generation college students feel positive about their choice to go to college and yet this is something that first-generation college students are not getting (Fruiht & Chan, 2018). That is one of the major findings that distinguishes the research study of Fruiht and Chan (2018) from others who have delved into the peer mentoring topic.

Roberts and Birmingham (2017) took a different approach from Siew et al. (2017) in that they sought to examine and explore the act of mentoring among autistic college students who are mentees. The researchers interviewed the participants, both mentors and mentees, of the Autism Mentorship Initiative at Simon Fraser University. The aim of their research was to discover the most important themes for participants so that others could better understand where peer mentorship can help the most. The findings that Roberts and Birmingham (2017) uncovered by interviewing 9 mentees and 9 mentors was that in order to have a mentee-centered approach to peer-mentorship, mentors should focus on these five themes: 1) The Natural Progression of the Relationship, 2) The Supportive Mentor, 3) The Meeting Process, 4) Identifying and Implementing Goals, and 5) Learning Together. While Siew et al. (2017) mainly focused on whether peer mentorship was effective at aiding autistic students in making them feel more confident socially and helping them achieve academically, Roberts and Birmingham (2017) focused on the five most important aspects of mentoring autistic students that both mentors and mentees found to be essential in the process. Relationship development was very pivotal in the success of the peer mentorship program, and this was supported by the mentor who showed empathy and positive assistance. The way in which the mentor and mentee conduct their first meeting sets the tone, furthermore, and should be conducted in a way that makes the mentee feel safe and secure, confident and comfortable. The next most important aspect of the process is the process of identifying the goals the mentee and mentor want to achieve and then developing a path towards those goals. Finally, the idea of learning together—i.e., that both the mentee and the mentor are learning—is something that really makes the process all the more valuable for participants. Mentors should thus be sure to show their mentees that they are getting something positive out of the experience as well (Roberts & Birmingham, 2017).

The study by Gunn, Lee and Steed (2017) is more in alignment with the study by Stiew et al. (2017) in terms of identifying benefits and outcomes of peer mentorship; however, it focuses on peer mentors as well as on mentees. It is exploratory like the study by Roberts and Birmingham (2017) in the sense that it is not looking to test any hypotheses but rather to identify what participants see as the pros and cons of peer mentoring. The findings show that for mentors the biggest benefit was in getting to be a role model for others. However, at the same time, mentors identified role modeling as also the biggest challenge. For mentees, the biggest benefit of peer mentoring was that they received emotional and psychological support, which helped them to feel more confident about attending university. However, the biggest challenges for mentees were that academic and knowledge support were still a struggle. This finding departs somewhat from the findings of other researchers, like Collier (2017) and Flores and Estudillo (2018), who found that academic success is a main benefit for mentees. The study Gunn et al. (2017) shows that not every mentee receives the necessary academic support and that instead peer mentoring becomes more of a way for the student to socialize and feel connected to other peers.

One explanation for this difference in findings could be the method employed or the sample used. But another explanation could be that the programs themselves were different and the mentor-mentee relationship different as a result. There are myriad factors that could potentially go into affecting the outcome of the peer mentoring program, which is why it is very important for researchers to describe all the variables in detail that could possibly go into determining outcomes. This is rarely done, unfortunately, and instead researchers will focus on a few factors or themes to the neglect of others. What could really be useful in this field of inquiry is a phenomenological study that provides an immersive experience for the reader so that the entire gamut of variables is explored. The challenge and limitation of phenomenology is that it does not always translate well to the wider public. It provides a window into an individual’s experience but what is still needed is a finding that is generalizeable. To achieve this type of finding, the study by Collier (2017) is of some assistance.

Collier (2017) looks at three different aspects of peer mentoring that make it appealing to participants. The first two aspects of peer mentoring that participants take into consideration are cost and the availability of mentors. Both of these aspects are concerned with resources as Collier (2017) points out. That means that efficiency of resources is a top concern of participants, and is of equal concern with that of effectiveness of the program. The cost-benefit analysis of peer mentoring is thus something that participants do consider. The third main aspect of peer mentoring that is important to participants is the conformity of perspective between the mentor and the mentee. Mentees do not want mentors who do not share the same perspective as them on life and the importance of being at college. The approach taken by the mentor is thus very critical in terms of how participants judge the value of peer mentorship. If the mentor does not come across as credible, it negatively affects the appeal of the program. If the advice of mentors is unlikely to be followed by mentees, it negatively affects the appeal of the program as well. There has to be a degree of understanding between the mentor and the mentee so that they can be positively connected. This all depends upon the type of mentor that is participating in the program and the type of mentee that is participating. But even beyond type is the importance of individual consideration. Every mentor and mentee is going to be different, with personality, views, values and so on all shaping that person’s perspective. Experience, knowledge, communication skills—these are all factors in how connected the two become as well. So it is more than just understanding type, it is also about understanding the person. Collier (2017) shows this quite well in the study, and this is an important point that is made here that is not adequately addressed in other studies that aim to make blanket and generalized statements about the value or merits of peer mentorship. At the end of the day, it really does all come down to the mentor and the mentee, who they are as people, what they want out of the relationship, and whether they can connect and relate in a positive manner so that trust, confidence, and academic and social support are effectively provided.

Wright et al. (2019) also look at the impact of peer mentoring on autistic students but they do some from the perspective of the graduate students who engage in mentorship. Particularly, Wright et al. (2019) look at the philosophies of graduate student mentors and the perceptions of these mentors after working with autistic students in the program. This is an important study because it is hypothesized that there exists a correlation between personal philosophy and perception, and so it stands to reason that if the personal philosophy of mentor is of a certain caliber then the perception of the experience of mentoring will also be of a certain caliber. It is critical relationship that expands and builds on the findings of Collier (2017). The critical piece of focus is that there is a philosophy of education that has to be considered in the mentorship process. If the mentor lacks a critical philosophy, then the process of mentoring is likely to be less fulfilling all the way around. One of the most common outcomes among the participants in the study, however, is that the mentors experienced personal insight into their own selves as a result of mentoring others. This accomplishment overall gives off a positive or favorable view of mentoring, but it does not say much about what mentees get out of the relationship. The emphasis on the mentor side of the equation risks tipping the scales in a more subjective albeit positive direction than a more objective view of peer mentoring might actually give. This is the danger in the study by Wright et al. (2019) and it is one that some studies are able to avoid, though not all. In order to explore the experience of mentoring, researchers tend to hone in on the subjective and thus neglect a more objective approach to what peer mentoring can do.

Moschetti, Plunkett, Efrat and Yomtov (2018) do give a more objective view of peer mentoring in their quantitative-qualitative analysis of peer mentoring’s effect on social capital among a particular population of college students—namely, the Latina/o and Hispanic college student population. The findings of the study showed that students who engaged in peer mentoring felt they had more social capital than those who did not. Mentored students felt more integrated into the college after the mentorship ended and they felt that they had more academic and social support than did students who did not engage in mentoring. Again, this is the type of study that is helpful in showing that there are objective, quantitative ways to look at the data on peer mentoring—but one of the problems of this type of study is that it implies causation where only correlation can be assessed. Identifying causation between variables depends upon a very tightly controlled randomized trial where the variables are examined in a controlled environment, and this is simply not the case for the study by Moshetti et al. (2018) or any other study on the topic of peer mentoring.

One study that does approach the topic of peer mentoring from a different perspective is that of Shah, Mahboob and Ullah (2019) who look at the fact that students in a medical program at college experience a great deal of stress, and when asked about ways to reduce stress levels students reply that peer support is one way that could help. Thus, Shah et al. (2019) take an indirect route to examining the benefits of peer mentoring. Instead of tackling the subject head-on, they approach it from the standpoint of alleviating stress among students. How can stress be alleviated? The establishment of a congenial educational environment is one way to alleviate stress, according to the students. The findings of Shah et al. (2019) suggest that students are lacking that type of environment and they believe that peer support could be a solution to the problem.

Peer support is one of the advantages or benefits of peer mentoring according to most of the studies that review it. This is evident in the research of Collier (2017), Flores and Estudillo (2018), Fruiht and Chan (2018) and others. Deshler, Fuller and Darrah (2019) also support this notion that peer mentoring provides peer support for college students. Deshler et al. (2019) developed their own peer mentoring program, implemented it on a college campus to test its viability, and found that students who received peer mentoring from the program benefited in terms of increased academic success and feeling of social support on campus. Deshler et al. (2019) thus took a novel approach to the issue of peer mentorship by creating their own program approach and showing that it can help to provide the kind of support students are looking for.

The study by Deshler et al. (2019) is an important one because it answers the need described by Shah et al. (2019) for peer support so that students can reduce their stress levels. Deshler et al. (2019) show that peer mentoring is a way for students to reduce their stress and feel more at ease with their environments and their academic challenges. What is important to note about their study, however, is that they are not taking into consideration personal issues and challenges that can impact some mentees and some mentors. They are not considering, for instance, the challenges faced by autistic students in college the way that Roberts and Birmingham (2017). They are not considering the impact of college stress on first-generation students or on a particular segment of the population the way Fruiht and Chan (2018) and Moschetti et al. (2018) do. These are important distinctions to consider because there are always going to be factors to consider when it comes to peer mentoring.