The document discusses the impact of mentoring on academically at-risk students and their academic outcomes. It summarizes several studies that found mentoring can positively impact students' attitudes, behaviors, and academic performance by improving relationships with teachers and parents and boosting academic self-confidence. However, one large study found no significant impacts of mentoring on academic achievement, engagement, or behavior. The effects of mentoring depend on characteristics of the students, mentors, and program context. The document also provides resources for mentors and an overview of a K-12 journey map for college and career planning.
1. Quality in Action K-12 Journey Map & the Impact of Mentoring on Academic Outcomes June 2, 2010 Mentoring Partnership of Minnesota
2.
3.
4. Panelists Mai- Anh Kapanke , Vice President of Marketing & Public Policy Mindy Twetten , AmeriCorps Marketing & Communications Specialist April Riordan , Director of Training and Community Partnerships
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. The Mentoring Sociomotivational Model Structure Involvement Competence Relatedness Autonomy -Seeking Help -Time Management -Examination Preparation -Attention in Class -Coping With Transitions Adjustment, Achievement and Persistence Characteristics of Proteges, Mentors, and Context Autonomy Support Characteristics of Mentoring Interventions Students’ Cognitive and Emotional Processes Students’ School Behavior Processes Academic Outcomes
10. AARS – Three major hypotheses Mentoring relationships improve attitudes toward school, academic confidence, self-concept, attitudes toward helping, feelings of school connectedness, representations of parental and teacher relationships, and perceptions of support from significant adults outside mentoring relationships. 1. Mentoring should lead to improved cognitive and socioemotional development
11. AARS – Three major hypotheses Participation in mentoring relationships is linked to higher attendance in class (but not sufficient to neutralize academic risk), fewer voluntary absences from school, lower aggressiveness, greater levels of social competence, greater vocational skills, greater participation in college preparatory activities and an overall greater likelihood of taking part in higher education. Also, greater rule compliance and ability to complete schoolwork 2. Mentoring process provides students with the opportunity to change and learn new behavioral strategies
12. AARS – Three major hypotheses Stronger effects for mentoring when AARS had more favorable life circumstances and better social and psychological functioning at the onset. Stronger impacts of mentoring for youth with initially low or moderate achievement levels. More positive effects on AARS adjustment for programs when mentors have backgrounds in helping professions. 3. Effects of mentoring on AARS personal and academic development are modulated by both internal and external factors (characteristics of AARS and of mentors; context of program)
13. AARS – Three major hypotheses Stronger effects for mentoring when AARS had more favorable life circumstances and better social and psychological functioning at the onset. Stronger impacts of mentoring for youth with initially low or moderate achievement levels. More positive effects on AARS adjustment for programs when mentors have backgrounds in helping professions. 3. Effects of mentoring on AARS personal and academic development are modulated by both internal and external factors (characteristics of AARS and of mentors; context of program)
14. AARS – Three major hypotheses Mentors’ efficacy beliefs, motivations for self-enhancement, income and marital status all can predict positive benefits/outcomes Mentors with interests in common with proteges more efficient in establishing close relationships and initiating significant intervention. Contextual characteristics like ongoing structured training for mentors, monitoring, involvement of parents may play role in effectiveness. Also duration, dosage, and mentor approach. 3. Effects of mentoring on AARS personal and academic development are modulated by both internal and external factors (characteristics of AARS and of mentors; context of program)
Page 443-445 in the Handbook Youth Mentoring According to the model, the degree to which a mentoirng intervention positively impacts school adjustment and academic achievement of AARS depends on improvements in feelings of competence, relatedness and autonomy in connection with the mentor. (p. 443… goes on to define C, R and A)
Page 445 – Opportunities to Improve Cognitive and Emotional Development
Page 446 Opportunities to Change and learn New Behavioral Strategies
Page 447 - Optimal Context for mentoring
Page 447 - Optimal Context for mentoring
Page 447 - Optimal Context for mentoring More positive effects when relationship style is opposite to that of the AARS; mentors more effective when presenting a challenging relational stance
http://www.rhodeslab.org/files/agents.pdf
The Big Brothers Big Sisters SBM (BBBS SBM) Impact Study (Herrera et al., 2007) This study, conducted by Public/Private Ventures, involved ten BBBS agencies nationwide and 1,139 youth in 4th through 9th grades, attending 71 different schools. About 80 percent of the youth received free or reduced-price lunch and/or lived in a single parent home; and 77 percent were having difficulties in at least one of four areas of risk assessed (i.e., academic performance, school behavior, relationships, and youth-reported misconduct). After the first school year of program involvement, during which youth received an average of about five months of weekly mentoring, teachers reported that participating youth improved more than their non-mentored peers in several aspects of their school performance and behavior (e.g., overall performance, quality and number of assignments turned in, skipping school, serious school infractions). Participating youth also felt more confident in their scholastic abilities. The size of these benefits was modest, although almost identical to that reported for the BBBS CBM program (Tierney, Grossman, & Resch, 1995). However, BBBS SBM benefited youth in only school-related outcomes; whereas BBBS CBM affected a much broader set of outcomes, including initiation of drug and alcohol use, and parent relationships. Yet, unlike the BBBS CBM study, the BBBS SBM evaluation included a six-month follow up assessment to test the durability of these changes. Similar to those few studies that have included an additional follow-up beyond the typical program dosage (e.g., Aseltine, Dupre & Lamlein, 2000), most of these SBM outcomes were not sustained into the first half of the second school year of the study, when about half of the youth were no longer receiving mentoring.
The Communities In Schools (CIS) Study of Mentoring In the Learning Environment (SMILE) Impact Study (Karcher, 2007b) In this study, the effect of providing youth SBM, in addition to other school-based support services, was examined with a sample of 516 predominately Latino(a) students in grades 5 through 12 attending 19 schools. Participants in the multi-component intervention run by Communities in Schools of San Antonio were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) supportive services alone; or (2) supportive services plus SBM. Therefore, unlike the BBBS SBM study described above, the CIS SMILE study examined the “additive” effect of providing a school-based mentor to youth who were already receiving other services, such as tutoring, group counseling, and enrichment activities. The duration of the SBM relationships in the CIS SMILE study were brief (typically eight meetings across three months), partly because the agency experienced barriers to retaining mentors. Relative to those youth who were not mentored, youth who were randomly assigned to receive a mentor improved in their self-reported connectedness to peers, self-esteem (global and present-oriented), and social support from friends. Other studies also have noted improvements in peer relationships (Curtis & Hansen-Schwoebel, 1999; Herrera, 2004; King, Vidourek, Davis & McClellan, 2002) as well as in attitudes toward or about oneself (Curtis & Hansen-Schwoebel, 1999; Karcher, 2005c; Portwood et al., 2005; King et al., 2002). The SMILE study did not find impacts in several other areas, including grades and attendance. The size of the program effects in this study also were small.