Win-Win Peer Mentoring and Tutoring

¶ … Win-Win Peer Mentoring and Tutoring Program; a Collaborative Model

The Big Buddies program is a peer mentoring tutoring project designed to decrease the school dropout rate and increase youth interest in volunteerism. Susan Dennison review this program in the article "A win-win peer mentoring and tutoring program; a collaborative model." This important works can provide an example that can be used to develop similar programs in other areas of the country. The following review examines the quality of the research project as presented in the article.

The first area that will be explored is the literature review. The literature review provides the rationale and development of the theoretical underpinnings of the article. The literature review for Dennison's article presented an excellent summary of research from both a historical perspective and in a modern context. It is comprehensive and provides an organized overview of theory regarding state of the art mentoring programs at the time of the research. It highlights the development of current theory on peer mentoring. Dennison's article was published in the year 2000. However, many of the articles referenced in the literature review were over 10 years old at the time the article was written. More recent articles would have provided a better underpinning for the development of the literature review.

The purpose of the article is to describe the Big Buddies program and to report the results of a program evaluation. It is apparent that the research will use a case study approach, although this is not clearly stated in the purpose statement. This type of research design does not have t clearly defined independent and dependent variable, as in a comparative or empirical study design. Aside from these formal elements, the study lacked a clearly stated hypothesis. It is simply a review of another research evaluation conducted by the Big Buddies program in the selected community setting.

In the Program Evaluation Design, the hypothesis is not stated. Therefore, the purpose of the study is not clear. It is apparent from the context of the section that the "quasi-experimental" design is mean to evaluate the effectiveness of the Big Buddies program using a non-equivalent control group design. However, the lack of a formal hypothesis and accompanying set of research questions hinders the ability of the researcher to determine if the study in deed met its implied goals and objectives.

The sample selection criteria for the research study used two groups of 25 "at risk" elementary students. The test was repeated using two groups of 25 "at risk" high school students as well. It is not known if the study population was sufficient to be representative of the school population, as this information was not provided. The intention of increasing the reliability of the method by repeating the study with different age group was a good idea, but unfortunately did not work due to the inability to obtain two matched groups.

It is not known what elements of the selection criteria determined that a student is "at risk." Little Buddies consisted of third and fourth grade students, as teachers felt that these grades represented the initial emergence of risk factors for school drop out. The importance of early intervention and the transition from elementary to middle school were supported by evidence in the literature review. However, it may be noted that no rationale or evidence was presented for this particular age group through empirical studies. Therefore, this factor may be subject to an error of assumption on the part of the teachers and the researcher, who stated that it became apparent at this age with no evidence to support this claim in the literature review. Presentation of research to support these claims would add to the credibility of these selection criteria. The literature review discussed risk factors for drop out extensively and presented studies that investigated risk factors for drop out. However, the research design did not clearly tie this research to the study examined by Dennison.

Students considered at-risk were chosen by the school and proper parental consent was obtained. It is not known how at risk students were chosen. Therefore, it cannot be determined it sample bias existed in the sample population. This lack of information regarding the study population makes it difficult to determine if any delimitations existed as well. Selection of Big Buddies was different from that of Little Buddies. Eligible students were required to be junior or seniors and members of the National Honor Society. This significantly limited the sample pool from which to obtain Big Buddies. However, it was felt that a certain level of maturity was needed to work with at risk children. Once again, more research needs to be presented to support this position.

It is not known if the maturity level of the mentor affected the quality of the program. Studies in the literature review indicated a positive benefit for the mentor as well as the Little Buddy, but no literature was reviewed that supported the importance of "maturity" in the mentor and the effectiveness of the tutoring. It is apparent that this criteria was intended to assure that the mentors chosen were of high enough academic standards to understand their role and the material that needed to be presented. However, a quantitative approach to determining academic ability and "maturity" would have added to the reliability of the research study. It is assumed that members of the National Honor Society have these qualities, but it is not known for the purpose of this research study. This factor may have significantly affected the external validity of the study.

A pretest/posttest format was chosen for the study. The tests used scales to assess self-esteem, school attitude, and classroom behavior. The scales used were developed by other researchers and had known reliability values that were within acceptable limits for use in the research study. The scales chosen have established appropriateness for the age group in the study.