280prospectus Presentation Fin Pdf

505 views

Published on

An overview of my M.A. thesis on the effects of Peer Mentoring on student success.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
505
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

280prospectus Presentation Fin Pdf

  1. 1. Effects of Peer Mentoring on Student Success Katherine Casey San Jose State University
  2. 2. Graduation Rates of First-Year Students
  3. 3. Graduation Rates of First-Year Students Full-time Part-time GPA <2.0 Remediation Attrition
  4. 4. Graduation Rates of First-Year Students 60 45 Full-time 30 Part-time GPA <2.0 15 Remediation Attrition 0 <6 yrs <8 yrs
  5. 5. Graduation Rates of First-Year Students 60 45 Full-time 30 Part-time GPA <2.0 15 Remediation Attrition 0 <6 yrs <8 yrs Attrition not due to skill level at entry. (SJSU OIR, 2008; Tracey & Sedlacek, 1986).
  6. 6. Factors Related to Attrition
  7. 7. Factors Related to Attrition Social Support
  8. 8. Factors Related to Attrition Social Support Knowledge of Campus Resources
  9. 9. Factors Related to Attrition Social Support Knowledge of Campus Resources Stress (American College Health Association, 2003; Cooke, Bewick, Barkham, & Audin, 2006)
  10. 10. Factors Related to Attrition Social Support Knowledge of Campus Resources
  11. 11. Factors Related to Attrition Social Support Knowledge of Campus Resources First-Year Programs (FYP) Peer Mentoring (PM)
  12. 12. First-Year Programs (FYP) Goals
  13. 13. First-Year Programs (FYP) Goals Social Support
  14. 14. First-Year Programs (FYP) Goals Social Support Knowledge of Resources
  15. 15. First-Year Programs (FYP) Goals Social Support Knowledge of Resources Graduation
  16. 16. First-Year Programs (FYP) Goals Social Support Knowledge of Resources Graduation Attrition
  17. 17. Peer Mentoring
  18. 18. Peer Mentoring More experienced student
  19. 19. Peer Mentoring More experienced student
  20. 20. Peer Mentoring More experienced student Less experienced student
  21. 21. Peer Mentoring More experienced student Less experienced student
  22. 22. Peer Mentoring More experienced student Guidance Less experienced student
  23. 23. Peer Mentoring More experienced student Guidance Academic Less experienced student
  24. 24. Peer Mentoring More experienced student Guidance Academic Personal Less experienced student
  25. 25. Peer Mentoring More experienced student Professionalism Guidance Academic Personal Less experienced student
  26. 26. Peer Mentoring More experienced student Professionalism Guidance Academic Personal Role Model Less experienced student
  27. 27. Peer Mentoring More experienced student Professionalism Guidance Academic Personal Role Model Resources Less experienced student
  28. 28. San Jose State University (SJSU)
  29. 29. San Jose State University (SJSU) PM
  30. 30. San Jose State University (SJSU) FYP Classrooms PM
  31. 31. San Jose State University (SJSU) FYP Classrooms PM Peer Mentor Center (PMC)
  32. 32. Research Questions Do FYP classes with PMs help students more than FYP classes without PMs?
  33. 33. Research Questions Do FYP classes with PMs help students more than FYP classes without PMs? Does the perceived helpfulness of PMs affect participant ratings of social support and knowledge of campus resources?
  34. 34. Method: Participants Fall 2009 Metropolitan University Scholar’s Experience (MUSE) students at SJSU
  35. 35. Method: Participants Fall 2009 Metropolitan University Scholar’s Experience (MUSE) students at SJSU FYP students with a PM in the classroom
  36. 36. Method: Participants Fall 2009 Metropolitan University Scholar’s Experience (MUSE) students at SJSU FYP students with a PM in the classroom FYP students without a PM in the classroom
  37. 37. Method: Materials Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ) Test-Retest Reliability = .90 (Sarason et al., 1983) Knowledge of Campus Resources Questionnaire specific to SJSU Where, when, how’s of utilizing relevant resources Pretest: Spring 2009 MUSE students
  38. 38. Method: Design 2 x 3 or 2 x 4 Factorial Between- Subjects
  39. 39. Method: Design 2 x 3 or 2 x 4 Factorial Between- Subjects Post-Hoc Blocking Variable: Perceived High quality vs. Low quality Peer Mentoring Perceived High quality vs. Neutral vs. Low quality PM
  40. 40. Research Design 1
  41. 41. Research Design 1 Level of PM
  42. 42. Research Design 1 Level of PM Measures
  43. 43. Research Design 1 Level of PM PM(H) PM(L) NPM 2x3 Pre-test Difference Difference Soc - scores scores Post-test Measures Difference Difference Difference Res scores scores scores
  44. 44. Research Design 2
  45. 45. Research Design 2 Level of PM
  46. 46. Research Design 2 Level of PM Measures
  47. 47. Research Design 2 Level of PM PM(H) PM(N) PM(L) NPM 2x3 Pre-test Difference Difference Difference Soc - scores scores scores Post-test Measures Difference Difference Difference Difference Res scores scores scores scores
  48. 48. Hypotheses Students in MUSE classes with a PM:
  49. 49. Hypotheses Students in MUSE classes with a PM: 1) SSQ
  50. 50. Hypotheses Students in MUSE classes with a PM: 2) Knowledge 1) SSQ of Campus Resources
  51. 51. Hypotheses Students in MUSE classes with a PM: 2) Knowledge 1) SSQ of Campus Resources 3) Change scores = Perceived helpfulness
  52. 52. Limitations
  53. 53. Limitations Self Report
  54. 54. Limitations Self Report Social Desirability
  55. 55. Limitations Self Report Gender Social Desirability
  56. 56. Limitations Quasi- Self Experimental Report Design Gender Social Desirability
  57. 57. Limitations Quasi- Self Experimental Report Design Gender Social Pre-Existing Desirability Groups
  58. 58. Limitations Quasi- Self Experimental Report Design Gender Social Pre-Existing Desirability Groups Unequal Sample Sizes
  59. 59. Limitations Quasi- Self Experimental Report Design Gender Social Pre-Existing Desirability Groups Group Unequal Differences Sample Sizes
  60. 60. Limitations Quasi- Self Experimental Report Design Gender Social Pre-Existing Type Desirability Groups of Class Group Unequal Differences Sample Sizes
  61. 61. Limitations Quasi- Self Experimental Report Design Gender Social Pre-Existing Type Desirability Groups of Class Group Unequal Differences Sample Sizes
  62. 62. Limitations Quasi- Self Experimental Report Design Gender Social Pre-Existing Type Desirability Groups of Class Group Unequal Differences Sample Sizes
  63. 63. Limitations Quasi- Self Experimental Report Design Gender Social Pre-Existing Type Desirability Groups of Class Group Unequal Differences Sample Sizes
  64. 64. References The American College Health Association National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA) (2005). Spring 2003 reference group report. Journal of American College Health, 53(5). Cooke, R., Bewick, B. M., Barkham, M., Bradley, M., & Audin, K. (2006). Measuring, monitoring and managing the psychological well-being of first year university students. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 34, 4. San Jose State University Office of Institutional Research. (2008). OIRblog, Spring Newsletter, 1-16. Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: The social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 127-139. Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1986, April). Prediction of College Graduation Using Noncognitive Variables by Race. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

×