Printable Version
Web Link - http://www.cur.org/Publications/AIRE_RAIRE/reed.asp 

 
Peer Mentors in Faculty/Student Research Projects and in the Classroom

Peter J. Russell, Professor of Biology
Jon W. Rivenburg, Director of Institutional Research
Carol F. Creedon, Professor Emerita in Psychology
Gena Anderson '99, Graduate Student, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
Natalie A. Yager '03, Graduate Student, Master of Arts Program in the Social Sciences (MAPSS), University of Chicago

Reed College
Portland, OR 97202


Creating the Peer Mentor Program 

The curricula for the biology, chemistry, physics and psychology departments at Reed College share a common underlying philosophy that the research component should be incorporated at all levels. At the introductory level, courses include laboratory sections led by the professor responsible for the course, in which students learn basic research techniques and research design. Students write lab reports that are evaluated by the professor. Faculty members introduce primary research material along with textbook material. Because of the reliance on primary materials in courses, it is relatively easy for Reed faculty to incorporate emerging scientific developments into their teaching.

In mid- and upper-level courses, students propose research, indicate analyses, anticipate outcomes, and discuss implications. The upper-level courses, in particular, emphasize primary research material. Most upper-level courses require independent research designed and executed by students, often working together in groups. These experiences prepare students for the senior thesis research project.

All students must complete a thesis in order to graduate - the thesis is not an honors course or an optional capstone project. Many students choose Reed because of the promise of doing an undergraduate thesis in their senior year. Seniors work with faculty advisers to develop a research project that is based on a carefully defined question. Students must defend their final thesis document in an oral examination by faculty members in the department and faculty in a related discipline and an unrelated discipline. In the sciences, early exposure to research is essential to develop the laboratory skills and problem-solving mindset that make original research possible.

Support for student research opportunities and student access to equipment has been a natural outgrowth of the thesis requirement. The college recently created an institution-wide undergraduate research expense endowment available to all juniors and seniors for costs associated with student research. Students are also supported with faculty grants and college funds to do research in on-campus faculty laboratories during the summer, an important complement to the regular academic program.

The science laboratories at Reed are among the best equipped of any undergraduate college in the United States. More important than the equipment itself, however, is Reed’s philosophy of access. While sophisticated instruments in university laboratories are often available only to graduate students and faculty, Reed undergraduates have complete access to all equipment. Upper division students receive keys to laboratories and offices, and these facilities are often used around the clock. This enables Reed students to become familiar with instrumentation techniques not commonly available to undergraduates and gives them a distinct advantage in more advanced scientific environments.

Together, these institutional decisions have contributed to the integration of research and education at Reed. Faculty members’ research keeps them current in their fields and forms the basis of their classroom teaching and of independent research in courses and of senior thesis research. The students’ research efforts contribute to, reinforce and invigorate those of the faculty, bringing the relationship between research and teaching full-circle.

Research-oriented teaching is labor-intensive. It demands independence and maturity on the part of students, and requires that there are ample opportunities for students to receive advice and guidance. In order to support this level of interaction and support, the college strives to maintain a ten to one student–faculty ratio. However, Reed experiences enrollment fluctuations from time to time, and recent large enrollments have meant that faculty members have had a less time for one-on-one student interaction.

In order to help address these concerns, Reed initiated an Undergraduate Research Peer Mentor program, with the support of NSF-AIRE funds. This grant enabled Reed to incorporate the peer-mentoring program into its science courses. The goals of the program were to provide more individualized attention for students and to permit the faculty to introduce a greater diversity of independent research projects.

Students between their junior and senior years, and occasionally between their sophomore and junior years, applied to become peer mentors and were assigned to work with a faculty member. During the summer, the students immersed themselves in the research experience by working for ten weeks with their faculty sponsors on research projects. The summer experience included course planning with faculty and a summer seminar in which they shared information about instructional techniques and discussed problems. During the academic year, these students spent up to eight hours per week serving as peer mentors in courses taught by the sponsoring faculty. The peer mentor and faculty member worked together as a team to instill refined and comprehensive research skills in the students. 

The peer mentor role was designed to contrast with that of a graduate teaching assistant at a large university in several important ways. Mentors were expected to interact with their students on a one-to-one basis. These interactions were to focus on teaching, experimental design, statistical analysis of data, and the written presentation of research findings in the style of professional journals. Finally, the Reed student mentors, and the students whom they would mentor would be peers of similar age, status, and commitment to the scientific enterprise. By structuring the role in this way, faculty members hoped to strengthen rapport among the students, intensify interest in the particular science, and prompt the mentored students to identify with the career goals of their mentors, many of whom are headed for graduate school.

Faculty members expected the program to benefit students at all levels. With students who possessed less research experience, peer mentors could assist with the steps required to design and implement a project. With intermediate-level classes, faculty members hoped to be able to expose students to more sophisticated projects by involving the mentors. 

History and Research on Peer Tutoring

Peer tutoring in the United States has long been used in the college setting, dating back to 1640, when the first paid student tutor was hired by Harvard University “to counsel and befriend the younger lads” (Dwyer, 1989, p. 30, in Mann, 1992). In the 1960s, with the resurgence of educational innovation in the United States, peer tutoring gained great popularity at all levels of schooling. More recently, educators have begun to experiment with different types of peer tutoring, trying to fit the method to the specific needs and abilities of their students. 

Goodlad and Hurst (1989) and Topping (1998) note that academic peer tutoring at the college level takes many different forms. Surrogate teaching, common at larger universities, involves giving older students, often graduates or advanced undergraduates, some or all of the teaching responsibility for undergraduate courses. Proctoring programs involve one-on-one tutoring by students who are slightly ahead of other students, or who have successfully demonstrated proficiency with the material in the recent past. Cooperative learning divides classmates into small groups, with each person in the group responsible for teaching others, and each contributing a unique piece to the group performance on a task. Reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT), a more specific version of cooperative learning, has pairs of classmates tutor each other.

Despite the continued popularity of college student peer tutoring, little comprehensive research seems to exist on its effectiveness and benefits. The research that does exist, however, has found that peer tutoring is highly cost-effective (Levin, Glass, and Meister, 1987, in Lidren, Meier, and Brigham, 1991) and usually results in substantial gains for participants, both academically and socially (Cohen and Kulik, 1981). 

Although it is often assumed that peer tutoring primarily benefits those who are tutored, Goodlad and Hirst (1989, p. 57) point out that both the recipient and the tutor make significant gains. For the tutor, benefits result from reinforcing existing knowledge of fundamental concepts and gaining a better understanding of a field of study. In addition, tutors develop a sense of personal efficacy, gain insight into the teaching/learning process, and discover meaningful applications of the subject matter. For recipients of tutoring, the advantages include individualized instruction, more contact time with a teacher (tutor), the opportunity to discuss material and ask questions in a non-threatening and supportive setting, and interaction and bonding with peers (Goodlad and Hirst, 1989; Lawson, 1989; Schmidt and Moust, 1995).

One explanation for the success of many peer-tutoring programs may lie in the social and cognitive congruence between the tutor and the recipient (Schmidt amd Moust, 1995). Social congruence refers to the ability of the tutor to “seek an informal relationship with the students and display an attitude of personal interest and caring” (p. 709). Cognitive congruence is “the ability to express oneself in the language of the students, using the concepts they use and explaining things in ways easily grasped by students,” in addition to a “sensitivity concerning the difficulties that students may come across while dealing with a problem or with the content relative to the problem” (p. 709). However, these advantages are not sufficient to ensure a successful tutoring relationship. Tutors must also possess knowledge about the subject and have a sense of how to best facilitate interactions with their students. Tutors who receive training in these two critical areas are often more successful in teaching other students than are untrained tutors (Fitch, 1992; Mann, 1992).

It is important to note that the majority of peer-tutoring programs for students are intended to complement, not replace, regular classroom instruction. Topping (1998, p. 46) cautions that tutoring should never be a substitute for professional teaching. Damon and Phelps (1989) describe an ideal learning atmosphere as a rich blend of peer and adult instructional strategies.

Participation in Reed College’s Peer Mentoring Program

Over the course of the four-year grant, 59 students and 21 faculty members from biology, chemistry, physics and psychology participated in the NSF-AIRE peer-mentoring program. While the program met the overall goals of providing more individualized attention for students and permitting faculty to introduce a greater diversity of independent research projects, the program’s implementation and impact varied within each department.

 
In psychology, the program transformed the department. The department had not previously had a significant summer research program. A total of 31 psychology students were supported by NSF-AIRE over the grant period, with 5-11 students doing research with faculty each summer. 

The biology department produced the second largest cadre of peer mentors. Among the science departments at Reed, biology has had the longest history of student involvement in faculty research, with all faculty members running year-round research programs. The department has received 11 years of grant funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) for research/education activities, including support for about 10 student researchers each summer. Since many faculty members already had an HHMI student working with them, the biology department could only provide placement for 3–6 peer mentors each summer. As a result, fewer faculty and students experienced the peer mentoring aspects of the AIRE program during the academic year. 

The chemistry department has a number of research active faculty members, and has traditionally supported many students in the summer from departmental funds. At the same time, the number of majors is much smaller than in biology and psychology. As a result, fewer students were eligible to become peer mentors. 

Figure 1: Reed students in the chemistry lab.

 
The physics department prides itself on focusing on teaching rather than research. The department has been highly successful in its efforts to create a positive environment for the teaching of undergraduate physics. (To read a profile of Reed’s physics department prepared by the National Task Force for Undergraduate Physics, see www.aapt.org/Projects/ntfup/casestudies.cfm ) Few physics peer mentors were appointed in the program, and their involvement focused directly on teaching specific laboratory activities.

Assessments of the Program

Over the course of the grant, the college completed three assessments of the program, each covering a different set of departments (see web.reed.edu/nsfaire/assessment.html ).

Psychology, 1999-2000: In the psychology department, eight students worked with five faculty members through the AIRE program during the summer of 1999 and then became peer mentors during the 1999-2000 school year. As assistants in both introductory psychology and advanced courses, the student mentors performed a variety of jobs. These jobs included one-on-one or group tutoring of students regarding course content, advising students in planning and carrying out independent research projects, helping faculty to design and pilot experiments for use in course labs, providing technology/resource support for computer or laboratory equipment, and serving as laboratory and classroom assistants. Student mentors also worked with students in four different courses (with class sizes ranging from 9 to 29) and with 5 senior thesis students in psychology. To prepare for these jobs, student mentors participated in summer training that included collaborating with faculty to plan and conduct summer research, updating course materials, designing course experiments and lessons and increasing expertise in areas such as statistics, computer programming, laboratory technique, and research skills.

In the fall of 1999, the psychology faculty and student mentors completed surveys to reflect on the summer training and expectations for the program in the upcoming school year. Faculty members involved in the mentoring program predicted that the program would have a considerable impact on students in the department, both mentors and those enrolled in courses. One faculty member wrote, “I think that the upper-level course that I teach will be much stronger with the student mentor's assistance. She and I have worked together closely this summer to update and strengthen class handouts and to teach her statistics and computer skills. She will be an excellent extra resource for students next year.” Another faculty member emphasized the importance of this program in creating a stronger connection “between course and lab work. Students will be able to have a more hands-on research participation with the help of the mentor.” In general, faculty reported that the mentoring program would be most important in providing extra resources and more individual attention for students in classes and labs, and in enabling students to become more active learners through increased participation in independent research projects in the coming year.

Student responses to a survey administered at the end of the 1999 summer training indicated a high level of satisfaction with the summer training. Almost all students reported that their experience as a mentor would likely have a moderate or significant impact on their performance as students. One wrote, “I have gained a lot of skills that will definitely help me in my other psychology courses, my thesis, and in other disciplines. The area that I have been focusing on is such an important part of psychology that being well learned in it can only benefit me.” Another student reported, “The mentoring program has given me a chance to participate in research that I otherwise would not have had the opportunity to be involved in. It has broadened my view of the field and helped me narrow in on my academic interests.” Although a few worried that it would be difficult to meet the time commitment during busy periods in the school year, students were generally very optimistic about their continued participation in the program in the upcoming year.

At the end of the 1999-2000 school year, all psychology faculty members and students who participated over the past year were asked to reflect on their experience in the program. All student mentors who responded to a survey reported a high level of satisfaction with the program. When asked to rate their mentoring experience on a scale of 1 to 4 (from very unfavorable to very favorable), on average the respondents rated their experience very favorably. These students reported that the mentoring experience resulted in a deeper understanding of their area of study and increased confidence in their ability to communicate with others and explain course material. In addition, students reported acquiring valuable skills from which they were able to benefit in very concrete ways. One student wrote, “My participation in the NSF-AIRE program resulted in gaining experience in an entire sub-field of psychology that I had no previous experience with. The (computer) programming skills I attained over the summer have been of use in my own class projects, as well as in obtaining additional employment.” Another student reported that the skills and knowledge gained from the mentoring experience had greatly helped her complete her senior thesis project. When asked for suggestions for improving the, mentors reported that they would have benefited from more interactions with other student mentors and more explicit instruction or experience regarding effective tutoring strategies.

Faculty who responded to a survey also reported a high level of satisfaction with the program and a realization of their earlier favorable expectations. One faculty member noted the benefits experienced by student mentors: “It was a good experience and a confidence builder for the student mentor to be knowledgeable about lab techniques and to impart that knowledge to other students.” Another wrote that the “excitement generated by truly ‘independent’ projects in [my] upper division course was energizing and convincing — I ‘d often been skeptical of the trade-off between the engagement generated by (students’) ‘ownership’ and the frequent failure of (their) less structured research projects.” Faculty members reported that they planned to continue their participation in the program in the 2000-2001 school year. One professor reported, “I definitely plan to have a mentor for my course next spring. I have found it to be of great assistance.” Although there were some small problems reported in the program over the last year (e.g., a lack of clarity regarding the reports to be submitted by student mentors, the amount of time to be dedicated to more formalized training in areas such as pedagogy and computer skills versus research), the psychology faculty felt confident that these issues could be successfully resolved in the upcoming year in order to make the program even more successful. One faculty member wrote: “I think (the mentoring program) has tremendous potential. I’m looking forward to seeing how it works out this next year, and I’m very optimistic.”

Students in the psychology department who came in contact with the student mentors were also asked to complete a survey. Students found the program to be helpful, especially in connection with laboratory work and in the design and implementation of research projects. One student reported, “Having a mentor around to provide expertise in the labs was extremely useful, since they were far more familiar with the equipment and protocols than I. They were also good to bounce ideas off of when the instructor wasn't available.” Another student described the assistance given by the student mentor in designing a research project: “The mentor had experience with a similar experiment and was able to offer much assistance.” Others reported that student mentors provided computer-related technical help, assisted students in understanding course content and completing assignments. One student reported that the student mentors “were all incredibly helpful. The help of one of the mentors was integral to my (senior) thesis.”

Congruent with previous research on peer tutoring programs, these faculty and student responses indicate that all sides benefited. Faculty members were able to train students to be knowledgeable assistants in their summer research, and benefited from their help as laboratory or classroom assistants during the school year. The student mentors and the students with whom they came in contact described benefits of the program similar to those discussed by Goodlad and Hirst (1989). Psychology students who received help from student mentors frequently mentioned that when they asked questions about class projects or labs, the mentors were especially helpful due to their past experience with similar tasks and in-depth knowledge about the subject. In addition, many of these students appreciated having both the professor and the student mentor available to help out. The student mentors benefited from working closely with a professor and gaining experience in an area of research, in reinforcing their knowledge by helping other students, and in providing them with a meaningful application of the knowledge gained in their studies.

At the end of its first year of implementation, the psychology department's program was viewed as a success. The program provided an opportunity for the student mentors to work closely with psychology faculty members to develop important research-related skills and to gain a rigorous understanding of an area of interest to them. In addition, the mentoring program allowed faculty members to provide additional support to students who were conducting research projects and who needed supplemental help in mastering course material. Those involved in all aspects of the program - faculty members, student mentors, and students who met with the mentors - reported that the program was an important asset and expressed support for its continuation.

Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, 2000-2001: This assessment focused on the students who participated in the peer mentor program in biology, chemistry and physics during the summer of 2000, and served as mentors during the 2000-2001 academic year. Nine faculty members in biology, chemistry, and physics selected 12 upper class majors to serve as mentors to 59 students, most of whom were taking upper level science courses. Of these nine faculty members, six participated in the 2000-2001 evaluation process. Three mentors and 25 students completed evaluation surveys.

These surveys were designed in consultation with the science faculty and included both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Some of the questions were borrowed from surveys administered the previous year in the psychology department, while others were newly designed to reflect mentoring in biology, chemistry, and physics. Faculty members and mentors were asked to identify their goals and expectations, specific mentoring jobs and duties, and their perceived impact of the mentoring program. In addition, student recipients of mentoring described and then evaluated their interactions with the mentors. The questionnaires were distributed to participants via e-mail in late March 2001. 

When asked to specify goals and expectations for the mentoring program, most faculty members reported benefits for the peer mentors, for the students, and for themselves. Faculty members’ goals for the peer mentors were straightforward: to expose their mentor to advanced research techniques in preparation for mentoring an upper level class, to have their mentor assist them with faculty summer research, and to design laboratory and course materials. Additionally, some faculty members wanted the peer mentor to experience working closely with students.

Consistent with the goals and expectations of the faculty members, the goals and expectations of the peer mentors included assisting students, working closely with a professor over the summer and school year, and improving their mastery of course materials. For all but one faculty member and for all of the mentors, their goals and expectations were realized from “fairly well” to “fully.”

Faculty members identified those peer mentoring activities that seemed to be of most help to the mentored students. The peer mentoring jobs most often mentioned were teaching students how to use lab equipment and assisting them in the design and implementation of their own research projects. Faculty members also noted that working closely with a peer mentor in the labs and receiving one-on-one tutoring were very important to the students. 

Peer mentors were asked to estimate the amount of time they spent carrying out their various duties. Only three mentors responded. Peer mentors spent from 3 to 4 hours per week working for the mentoring program. The mentors variously reported mentoring 6, 10, or 20 students during the year. Peer mentors were also asked which jobs they performed most effectively. They reported spending most of their time assisting students (either individually or in groups) with the design and implementation of individual research projects. They spent the next greatest amount of time working closely with a faculty member in connection with laboratories, tutoring groups, and helping students prepare lab reports. Out of 10 possible mentoring jobs, peer mentors reported that working closely with a faculty member, group tutoring, and assisting student research were the jobs in which they felt most effective. Advising independent student research projects was very highly rated by both faculty and peer mentors for mentor effectiveness.

Faculty members reported that the NSF-AIRE mentoring program had observable effects in the lab and classroom. Some noted the improved quality of professor-student interaction. Because mentors answered preliminary questions raised by students, there was extra time for the professor and student to discuss more complex ideas and questions. Thus, the peer-mentoring program permitted better use of the professor’s time. The peer mentors also made the labs run more smoothly, and because they were already familiar with advanced lab equipment (due to their summer training), faculty concern about damage to the equipment in the laboratory was greatly reduced. Faculty members also noted the ways in which the program contributed to the growth and development of their student mentors. Most faculty members found that the program had made “moderate” to “substantial” contributions to their peer mentors; only one believed the program made little or no such contribution. For example, “learning the important difference between the study of a physical science vs. the practice of it,” as well as “increased confidence gained in research capabilities,” were mentioned as substantial contributions to mentor growth. In addition, most faculty members believed that their peer mentor had a “moderate” to “substantial” influence on the development of those students who received mentoring. Because of their generally positive perception of the program, the majority of the faculty members surveyed said they hoped to participate in the NSF-AIRE mentoring program in the future. 

Students were lively and expressive in their evaluation of the peer-mentoring program. A large majority of students who evaluated the program reported that they interacted with the student peer mentors at least once or twice a week. Mentors provided assistance with lab work, homework, and clarification of assignments. One student remarked: “The lab consultations were invaluable as my Cell Biology class was rather large and we were often unable to ask the professor directly for help on smaller topics. Without the peer mentor, we would have been much more confused and direction-less during lab time.” Overall, the students saw their peer mentors as effective in furthering their comprehension of the subject matter. Most rated their peer mentors as “effective” or “very effective” although a few rated their mentors as “very ineffective.” 

When the students were asked if they would ever consider becoming peer mentors, most stated they would, but with qualifications. One student gave a very enthusiastic “YES!” adding that, “It would be a great opportunity to help my peers and it would also help me to learn the subject better...you don’t really understand something until you teach it!” Another student said, “I think I would enjoy being a mentor. I generally enjoy answering questions, helping people with their coursework and acting in the capacity of tutor/trainer/instructor.” On the other hand, some students felt that time would be a big constraint: “If I weren’t graduating this semester, I might consider becoming a mentor in the biology department. However, it does seem like a big time commitment for the mentor, which is a difficult thing to do when you have your own course load to deal with.” Another student expressed disinterest in mentoring: “Not really. I have enough of my own work to do. I also find that the mentors rarely know more than I do - if anything, they’ve had a year to forget it all. I don’t think I’d be in any better of a boat.”

Consistent with the first assessment of the program in psychology, evaluations of the 2000-2001 mentoring program in biology, chemistry, and physics were also very positive. The faculty members stressed improved professor-student interactions, the positive outcomes for peer mentors of working closely with a professor on advanced research techniques and later in assisting students to solidify course concepts. For those faculty members and peer mentors who responded to the survey, goals and expectations of the mentoring program were met far more often than not. Throughout the course of the school year, both faculty members and peer mentors found that mentors were most effective in helping students design their own independent research projects and in group and individual tutoring. Finally, student respondents were very receptive to the program. Most found it easier to discuss preliminary research questions with the peer mentor rather than the professor.

Criticism of the program was also voiced. One of the primary concerns was that of communication; some peer mentors were unsure of their specific duties, and some students in mentored classes were unaware that the program existed. To address this, faculty and students need to better understand the purpose of the program and what specific duties and responsibilities are expected of mentors. Ideally, this information should be provided at least once annually, at the start of the school year. As part of their decision-making and later training, prospective mentors might benefit from viewing videotapes of one or more particularly effective mentors at work as well as taped interviews with students describing especially helpful interactions with their mentors. In addition, all participants should agree to join in all our year-end evaluation processes. These measures would enable prospective mentors to make a realistic judgment as to whether the job will be suited to them and, once they are mentors, to serve most effectively. A monthly meeting for all peer mentors would facilitate the exchange of ideas and experiences in the labs. Such discussions assist the mentors in defining their roles. To recruit new peer mentors, a meeting at the end of the year between mentors and interested students is also recommended.

Biology, Physics, and Psychology, 2001-2002 

Twelve upper class students majoring in biology, physics, and psychology were selected to mentor students enrolled in upper level science and psychology courses for the third year of the program. Of the nine faculty members involved with the program, six submitted evaluation surveys. Seven peer mentors submitted evaluation surveys.

The surveys allowed both faculty and mentors to specify what kinds of duties peer mentors performed, how effectively they performed them, the impact the peer mentors had on the growth and development of students, and whether their goals and expectations for the program were met. Students who had worked with peer mentors described and evaluated their interactions. The surveys (developed with faculty input) contained multiple-choice and open-ended questions and were distributed via e-mail in late February. 

The goals and expectations of faculty members included training peer mentors to effectively show other students how to use equipment, providing peer mentors with research experience, and assisting in the completion of independent class research projects. The goals and expectations of the peer mentors primarily consisted of gaining further research experience, strengthening their own knowledge of the material, working closely with a professor, and offering assistance to other students. All of the peer mentors and faculty stated that their goals and expectations were met either “fully” or “fairly well.”

Peer mentors indicated having spent 1 to 8 hours per week working for the program, with an average of 4 hours per week. Mentors reported working with 3 to 30 students, with an average of 15 students. Mentors spent the majority of their time engaged in one-on-one tutoring and group consultation with students. The next greatest portion of their time was spent working closely with faculty members in connection with labs, teaching students how to use lab equipment, and instructing students about the function and purpose of lab equipment. Peer mentors rated themselves as most effective in one-on-one tutoring and working closely with a faculty member in connection with labs. Other peer mentors rated themselves most effective in holding office hours and helping to grade exams and lab reports. Faculty members, with three exceptions, rated peer mentors as effective in each job they performed.

The peer-mentoring program was effective in reducing the workload for four out of the seven faculty members who responded. Those who indicated that their workload had been decreased indicated that this left more time for such tasks as administering additional assignments that resulted in a more accurate evaluation of their students, and spending more one-on-one time with individual students. 

The majority of faculty indicated that the peer mentoring program “substantially” contributed to their student mentors’ growth and development as majors in their department. The remaining faculty all indicated that the contribution was “moderate.” Faculty members listed numerous specific ways in which the mentoring experience positively contributed to the growth and development of the peer mentors. Some of these included: “confidence building, aid in doing own research later, satisfaction in helping other students,” “give the mentors in the program a greater awareness of each other so they can discuss among themselves their successes and failures in assisting in the upper division courses,” and a “greater sense of accomplishment and self-confidence.” Two faculty members planned to continue participating in the program. One faculty member was to retire after this year and another was leaving and could not participate further. Another faculty member was uncertain, and two did not answer the question.

The opinions expressed by the faculty and peer mentors from the departments of biology, physics, and psychology regarding the peer-mentoring program for the 2001-2002 school year were positive overall. Nearly all of the faculty members and peer mentors indicated that the program had met their goals and expectations. Furthermore, the majority of faculty members believed that the peer mentors substantially benefited from the experience. The majority of faculty also reported a reduction in their workload as a result of having mentors available to assist students. Overall, these findings were consistent with the assessments of previous years.

Qualitative Assessment

In September 2002, after the end of the NSF-AIRE award, 11 of the faculty members who had participated in the program were invited to discuss their experiences with the program. This discussion was intended to illuminate the program’s strengths and weaknesses and provide a forum where we could discuss the program’s improvement and continuation.

Some of the group’s observations and recommendations included:

1. Summer research tends to be narrow and focused in scope while peer mentoring requires a broader knowledge base. Faculty members need to help their peer mentors integrate the research and mentoring experiences during the summer, so that the mentors can effectively aid students in the classroom.
    
2. Academic performance alone cannot predict a student’s abilities as a mentor. Faculty members should consider a student’s ability to work with others. 
    
3. Faculty members need to select peer mentors carefully. The program’s goal of easing the teaching workload and making faculty members more effective will only be possible if the student peer mentors are capable and quick learners.
    
4. The level of student enthusiasm rises with the degree of interaction with other mentors working on projects during the summer months. Greater interaction among the mentors contributes positively to the exchange of ideas and the cross-fertilization of projects. To continue to build this aspect of the program, faculty suggested having at least one meeting of the faculty and student peer mentors during the summer, and follow-ups during the academic year. 

Program Cost 

The direct costs for the peer-mentoring program totaled about $6,400 per student, including summer pay and fringe benefits, and academic year wages and benefits. This included a stipend of $1,000 for each participating faculty member. 

 
Conclusions

Mentor training should include opportunities to watch videotapes of mentors and faculty members who excel in displaying social and cognitive congruence, which several authors, including Schmidt and Moust 1995; Fitch, 1992; and Mann, 1992, emphasize is an important characteristic of successful mentoring. Ongoing training for mentors could include viewing videotapes of their own performance in the classroom, with feedback from faculty members and fellow mentors. Mentors can also engage in role-playing to practice the behaviors involved in social and cognitive congruence. Frequent self-evaluation during the training program would help focus on these behaviors. Some peer mentors in the psychology program recognized their need for more training and for more interactions with other student mentors. Such interactions could be easily achieved by scheduling weekly meetings of the mentors with or without the participation of faculty. The most successful mentors from the previous year should be actively involved in the training of the next year's mentors.

Overall, Reed College believes that the peer mentor program was highly successful. Not only did it improve the classroom experience for students enrolled in research-based courses in biology, chemistry, psychology and physics, it also strengthened the college’s summer research programs in these departments. Moreover, these results were obtained with only a minimal increase in spending. The majority of the costs were for summer student research, which is already a high priority for the college.

Due to the positive assessment outcomes above and the strong interest of faculty members, the college intends to continue the program. 

Reed College has created a website that describes this peer mentoring program in more detail at http://web.reed.edu/nsfaire/ 
 
 
The Institution
 
Reed College ( http://web.reed.edu/ ) is an independent, coeducational, non-sectarian college of the liberal arts and sciences in Portland, Oregon. A diverse population of 1,312 undergraduate students from across the country and abroad is enrolled at Reed this year. Among the class of 2007, six percent had been their high school valedictorians and sixty percent had graduated in the top ten percent of their class, with an average GPA of 3.8. Eleven percent of the students in this class are the first generation in their families to attend college and fifteen percent are ethnic minorities. Fifty-five percent receive financial aid, all of which is need-based. Reed’s pedagogical goal is to ensure that its graduates develop the motivation and skills to be independent, analytical lifelong learners who are prepared to excel in advanced degree programs and a range of careers. Hands-on research is important to all disciplines at Reed, not just the sciences. To graduate, all students must complete a senior thesis. Seniors work with faculty advisers to select and develop a research project that is based on a carefully defined question. Students must defend their final thesis document in an oral examination by faculty members in the department and related disciplines. 

The post-graduate performance of Reed students demonstrates the effectiveness of this program. Reed is second among the nation's colleges of the liberal arts and sciences in the production of Rhodes Scholars - 31 since 1915. Fourteen of Reed's Rhodes Scholars (45 percent) have been science majors. Reed students have been awarded 97 NSF fellowships, 23 Mellon grants, 53 Fulbright, 61 Watson and 16 Goldwater Scholarships. About sixty-five percent of all Reed graduates attend professional, medical, or business school. Reed ranks first in the nation in production of future Ph.D.s in the life sciences, second in chemistry and fourth in the physical sciences. Among all institutions of higher learning, it ranks third in the nation in all fields (Weighted Baccalaureate Origins Study, Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium). 

Each year, about 28% of Reed’s students graduate with undergraduate degrees in mathematics or natural sciences. In 2002-03, 291 students completed their undergraduate degrees at Reed. The seventy-six students in the sciences were distributed among biology (36), chemistry (6), mathematics (7), physics (12), biology/chemistry (13), chemistry/physics (1), and math/physics (1).
 
 
Acknowledgements
 
The authors extend their gratitude to all of the Reed faculty members who participated in the peer mentor projec, to all of the students who became peer mentors and the National Science Foundation for the AIRE grant that contributed to this program.
 
 
References

Carsrud, A.L. (1984). Graduate student supervision of undergraduate research: Increasing research opportunities, Teaching of Psychology, 11, 203-205.

Cohen, P.A. and Kulik, J.A. (1981). Synthesis of research on the effects of tutoring. Educational Leadership, 38, 227-229.

Damon, W. and Phelps, E. (1989). Strategic uses of peer learning in children’s education. Peer Relationships in Child Development. T.J. Berndt and G.W. Ladd (Eds.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, 135-157.

Fantuzzo, J.W., Dimeff, L.A. and Fox, S.L. (1989). Reciprocal peer tutoring: A multimodal assessment of effectiveness with college students. Teaching of Psychology, 16, 133-135.

Fitch, M.A. (1992). Peer tutor training: A comparison of role playing and video evaluation for effects on student and tutor outcomes. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 1287.

Goodlad, S. and Hirst, B. (1989). Peer tutoring: A guide to learning by teaching. New York: Nicholas Publishing.

Lidren, D.M., Meier, S.E., and Brigham, T.A. (1991). The effects of minimal and maximal peer tutoring systems on the academic performance of college students. Psychological Record, 41, 69-77.

Lawson, D. (1989). Peer helping programs in the colleges and universities of Quebec and Ontario. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 23, 41-54.

Mann, A.F. (1992). A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a peer tutor-training course: A cognitive developmental model. (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2226.

Riggio, R.E., Fantuzzo, J.W., Connelly, S., and Dimeff, L.A. (1991). Reciprocal peer tutoring: A classroom strategy for promoting academic and social integration in undergraduate students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 387-396. 

Riggio, R.E., Whatley, M.A., and Neale, P. (1994). Effects of student academic ability on cognitive gains using reciprocal peer tutoring. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 529-542.

Schmidt, H.G. and Moust, J.H.C. (1995). What makes a tutor effective? A structural equations modeling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Academic Medecine, 70, 708-714.

Topping, K. (1998). Effective tutoring in America Reads: A reply to Wasik. The Reading Teacher, 52, 42-50.
 
 

Copyright © 2003 Council on Undergraduate Research. All rights reserved.