The Effects of Developmental Mentoring and High School Mentors' Attendance on Their Younger Mentees' Self-Esteem, Social Skills, and Connectedness
Karcher, Michael J. (2005). Psychology in the Schools, v42 n1 p65-77. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ761792
-
examining44Students, grades4-5
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Cross-age Peer Mentoring)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Harter self-perception scale |
Cross-age Peer Mentoring vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
3.26 |
3.25 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 44%
Male: 56%
Study Details
Setting
The setting of the study was one middle school site in the United States that paired with a high school site, so that students in grades 8-12 could mentor fourth and fifth graders at the middle school site for a six-month period.
Study sample
The intervention group was comprised of 64% male and 36% female. 52% of the students were considered high risk. The comparison group was comprised of 50% were male and 50% female. Mentors included 39% male and 41% female high school students. Mentors were in grades 8 - 12. One mentor was biracial, one was Hispanic, and the remainder were Caucasian. No other demographic information was reported.
Intervention Group
In the developmental mentoring program high school students act as mentors to elementary school students. The mentoring took place on a one-to-one group format and was held twice a week. Meetings took place after school and lasted two hours. Mentees and mentor pairs were self-selected after a six-hour orientation session. Most mentees received their first or second choice mentor. The meetings started off with a group connectedness activity, a snack, and a group game or recreational activity. Mentors and mentees were paired for most of the meetings, but if one in the pair was absent, because of the group format, the other could continue to participate. Mentors followed a connectedness curriculum. Mentees conducted activities such as teacher interviews and reading and role playing stories from moral dilemma books. There was also a monthly Saturday event in which parents and families could join. These events included such activities as picnics, trips to the zoo, and other recreational activities that promote parent-chid interactions. The intervention included 48 after-school meetings, 6 Saturday events, with a total of 144 contact hours.
Comparison Group
The comparison group has business-as-usual after school program without the assignment of an older peer mentor, and the opportunity to participate in an alternative treatment program (tutoring that did not begin until after the present study was finished).
Support for implementation
The developmental mentoring program is an after-school program funded. It is a six-month program was derived from a two-year connectedness curriculum. Mentees and mentors self-select during a six-hour orientation session. Mentors received eight hours of training and also participate in two hours of monthly supervision. The mentoring relationships were supervised by a teacher or school counselor on-site. The program was structured such that activities for each session are outlined in advance, and parents are involved through take-home activities and bimonthly Saturday events.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).