What are the Long Term Effects of Peer Mentoring in College

Peer Mentoring in Higher Education

Ncube, Shaikh, Ames, McMorris and Bebko (2019) point out that at the higher education level, there are few programs provided by universities that allow students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to benefit from extra-curricular options. Ncube et al. (2019) sought to examine whether an autism mentoring program (AMP) could help ASD students in college have a better social support system. The researchers had 23 students who enrolled the AMP fill out a questionnaire, and from the responses the researchers saw that the students reported a high degree of satisfaction with the program. However, the researchers also used standardized measures to see if the participants actually had any increase in their social support system on campus. The problem that the researchers encountered was that even though the participants in the AMP expressed satisfaction with the program the program itself did not actually yield any significant or measurable results in terms of improving the social support system of participants.

Thus, what Ncube et al. (2019) found was that the mentor program for ASD students helped those students feel socially engaged so long as they were enrolled in the program but once the program was over the students were not any better situated to develop their social support system. This finding indicates that ASD students in college need more than just peer mentoring; they may need social support systems to be maintained for them, which is likely one reason the participants expressed interest in returning to the program. They wanted to have something in their lives that allowed them to regularly interact with another person, even if it was just with a mentor. This shows that ASD students in college desire and need a social life, but the issue is how to enable them to have one once the mentor program has ended. If the mentor program only provides a temporary solution without lasting impact, can it really be said to be an effective solution at all?

However, the study by Siew, Mazzucchelli, Rooney and Girdler (2017) shows that peer mentoring can help enrollees improve their communication skills of ASD students and reduce their apprehension about communicating in public. Communication apprehension was the biggest factor impacted by peer mentoring for this group. The researchers arrived at this finding by conducting pre-test and post-test interviews with the participants. Yet, the researchers did not show via a longitudinal analysis whether there were any lasting effects from the peer mentoring program for the ASD students. Instead, it simply highlighted the main area of benefit for the enrollees—a decrease in nervousness about being a student with ASD at college and having to communicate.

When compared to the study by Ncube et al. (2019), the study by Siew et al. (2017) shows that there is no question about the positive effects of peer mentoring for ASD students. Indeed, numerous studies have already shown this to be the case. What is needed is an answer to the question posited by Ncube et al. (2019) of whether there is a way to leverage the peer mentoring program into having a more positive, long-term impact for ASD students than that which is currently possible. The earlier study by Siew et al. (2017) does not tackle this question but takes only a short term, somewhat myopic view of the matter, celebrating the positive impact in terms of a reduction of communication apprehension—but what is needed is the maintenance of a social support system for ASD students, and that issue is not addressed by Siew et al. (2017). It is really only called for by Ncube et al. (2019).

One study that also points out the need for longer-term support systems is that by Shah, Mahboog and Ullah (2019). In their study, the researchers looked at the role of senior mentoring on undergraduate medical students with a focus on relieving stress for the younger learners. The researchers used purposive sampling across five different grade levels so as to hold a focus group discussion. The discussion yielded significant qualitative results, which makes this study different from the studies by Siew et al. (2017) and Ncube et al. (2019) which looked at quantitative data. The qualitative study by Shah et al. (2019) is interesting because it provides deeper insight into an issue that is relevant to peer mentoring—i.e., how to leverage mentoring services into something that actually has a long-term impact for those who are mentored.

Shah et al. (2019) found that what is needed for students to feel more relaxed and less stressed by their studies and environment is a congenial learning environment for their time as undergraduate medical students. Peer support is helpful but it is limited in terms of what it can actually accomplish, which is what Ncube et al. (2019) essentially pointed out. Shah et al. (2019) found that peer mentoring helps to provide some social support, but it does not actually change the nature of the environment, which remains laden with stress and other anxiety-ridden factors that induce undergraduates to remain overwhelmed and fatigued about what they are doing with their work. The study thus concludes that peer mentoring has a beneficial but limited impact, and colleges should do more to change their administrative ways so that a more congenial atmosphere can be developed for students.

An earlier study by Morales, Ambrose-Roman and Perez-Madlonado (2016) looks at the effect of peer mentoring that is based on a developmental-math focus, wherein 45 mentees were provided math-based instruction from peer mentors at a public urban university. The researchers found that the mentees benefited in numerous ways—including improved academic scores and improved social integration and sense of self-efficacy. Because this study is an earlier one conducted one year before the study by Siew et al. (2017), it does not answer any of the questions put forward by later researchers, such as Ncube et al. (2019) and Shah et al. (2019). Thus, it is important to consider the study in the context of coming at an earlier development of the literature on peer mentoring, when researchers were looking more at showing whether there was any kind of immediate impact on mentees who used peer mentoring services. Again, this study concludes like almost all other early studies that there is a beneficial impact, at least in the short-term, with respect to improving academic performance and sense of social integration. The issue that the study does not address, however, is whether there is any long-term benefit of peer mentoring. On the other hand, it does look at the role that mentors play in the process, and in this respect it is similar to the study by Griffin, Mellow, Glover, Carter and Hodapp (2016) who also focus on the peer mentor experience rather than on the mentee. The need to understand the process from the peer mentor was one that also existed commonly in earlier literature on mentoring, and this study by Morales et al. (2016) demonstrates a bit of that tendency. It shows that peer mentors were successful in providing training to mentees and that it could be viewed as a positive experience for mentors.

The study by Griffin et al. (2016) is typical of most early studies on peer mentoring as well: it acknowledges that peer mentoring programs are critical for supporting intellectually and socially challenged students on university campuses, but instead of exploring whether such programs have any long-term effects on mentees, it looks at what motivates mentors to take part in these programs. Thus, instead of verifying and validating the data regarding the positive effect of peer mentoring on student lives, it accepts short-term findings at face value and goes on to examine the unique characteristics that make up the personalities of those who volunteer to be peer mentors. The aim of the study by Griffin et al. (2016) is thus to better understand the peer mentor persona.

Griffin et al. (2016) used a mixed methods approach with 17 peer mentors and thus obtained both qualitative and quantitative data on the subject. The main motivations for these peer mentors were found to be the desire to express their personal values in action and the desire to increase their own sense of knowledge and understanding; lesser motivations were related to the desire to gain career-related experience. The main themes that the researchers identified in their research were that peer mentors were motivated by a sense of friendship, personal growth, community involvement, having experiences with people who had disabilities, and to get started on what would eventually be a career field for them. The study is helpful in understanding what motivates a peer mentor, but it does nothing to answer the questions that later researchers such as Ncube et al. (2019) and Shah et al. (2019) would have regarding the long-term utility or effect of peer mentoring on students.