Mentoring Students Issues - Essay Example

Running Head: MENTORING Mentoring s Mentoring Historically, students of African-American origin have lower graduation rates, higher attrition rates, and more reports of academic difficulty when compared with their majority counterparts (Chavez & Maestas-Flores, 2000; Clewell & Ficklen, 2002; Grayson, 2004; Levin & Levin, 2000). After 4 years of study, for example, only 19.4% of African American and 22.9% of Native American students earned bachelor's degrees, and after 9 years of study, 33.9% of African American and 33.2% of Native American students graduated with bachelor degrees. In 4 years, 43% of majority students earned bachelor degrees, and 47.3% of them earned bachelor degrees in 9 years (Grayson, 2004;). This national data provide ample evidence of limited gains and significant losses in the enrollment figures of African-American students in institutions of higher learning. These trends, evident over at least the last 15 years, plague institutions and persist despite recruitment and retention initiatives, as well as government-supported programs and legislative actions. This trend .is a clear imperative to colleges and universities to prioritize a commitment to diversity and to reexamine existing retention practices and programs. Tinto (2000) conceptualized retention as an interactional process between student and institution characteristics. When student and institution characteristics do not mesh, students experience isolation, have difficulty identifying and feeling part of the institution, and are more likely to withdraw. Academically successful students, who persist through graduation, have been found to successfully integrate into the academic and social culture of the institution they attend (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2001, 2002). This integration process increases student satisfaction with the institution, creates a sense of belonging at the institution, and creates a stronger commitment to the institution's educational goals and standards, leading to an increased involvement with learning (Levin & Levin, 2000). This integration process is difficult for African-American students, especially at predominately White institutions (Grayson, 2004; Mayo, Murguia, & Padilla, 2001; Sedlacek, 2002). Oftentimes, African-American students at predominately White institutions feel they are in a foreign land and experience predominately White institutions as foreign colleges with alien cultures and communities (Tinto, 2000). Over the past 40 years, students' characteristics have changed from White upper-or middle-class, academically skilled backgrounds to a complicated mix of socioeconomic, cultural, and academic-preparation backgrounds. Predominately White institutions often are unaware of the social, academic, and cultural needs of African-American students and of the barriers these students face in completing their 4-year degree. All too often, these institutions continue business as usual without addressing these needs and barriers (Phillip, 2000). It is not uncommon for African-American students in these environments to feel isolated, to question their academic ability, to experience inferiority feelings, and to question their self-worth. They also often experience disrespect, lower expectations, and pressure from peers not to perform well academically. Because of these experiences, African-American students often have difficulty communicating with the majority students, faculty, and staff at predominately White institutions and experience the negative effects of racism and other forms of discrimination (Belluck, 1999; Morgan, 2000, 2003; Phillip, 2000; Sedlacek, 2002; Walters, 2003). They become separated from the mainstream social and academic cultures on White campuses and become isolated and alienated from the institution (Phillip, 2000; Suen, 2000). Without what has been described as a "critical mass" (a large number of African-American students to create supportive minority subcultures on campus) or a strong support network to help integrate African-American students into the academic and social culture of the campus, these students will withdraw (Biggs, Torres, & Washington, 2004; Boulard, 2003; Norman & Norman, 2001; Tinto, 2000; Walters 2003). The traditional academic advisement process often requires that students meet with their advisers once, perhaps twice, a semester to select courses--a potentially sterile and often forgettable experience. The Operation Hope, however, demands mandatory weekly meetings using frequent interactions, such as personal contacts, telephone calls, e-mail, and letters, throughout the academic year to maintain college student mentor-student relationships. college student mentor go the extra mile to assure student compliance with program requirements. college student mentor have been known to show up at the freshmen in college's residence hall room or to find the student on campus if meetings are not kept. Academic Advising/Mentoring Relationship Key to the success of the Operation Hope is the relationship that develops between student and faculty member through the advising/mentoring relationship. The benefits derived from student-faculty interactions in and outside of the classroom have been well documented (Astin, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2001, 2002; Tinto, 2000). The positive benefits derived from these relationships are especially true for African-American students (Levin & Levin, 2000; Mayo et al., 2001; Sedlacek, 2002; Tinto, 2000). "Quality interaction with faculty seems to be more important than any other single college factor in determining minority student persistence" (Levin & Levin, 2000, p. 324). Monitoring And Early Intervention The value of closely monitoring students and having an early warning system that alerts faculty and staff to potential academic difficulties cannot be overstated (Seidman, 2003; Tinto, 2000). Academic and social interventions work best when problems are intercepted early and there is enough time for interventions to make a difference (Levin & Levin, 2000). Therefore, college student mentor continuously monitor student academic and social progress. Monitoring occurs through college student mentor-student interactions and through routine academic reports from freshmen in college classes. At the first sign of academic or social difficulty, college student mentor intervene. Interventions include one-to-one tutoring or counseling, or both, as well as referral to the appropriate academic support services, student affairs offices, or the University Counseling Center. college student mentor also monitor whether freshmen in colleges continue to appropriately use the resources to which they were referred. Mentor College Student-Student Interactions--The Personal Touch College student mentor members first contact their freshmen in colleges prior to the student's arrival on campus. Ongoing responsibilities of faculty participants include providing sound academic advisement, assisting students with goal setting, creating familiarity with institutional policy and protocol, intervening academically as needed, and lending a friendly ear. These services help students to feel comfortable in their institutional home and to identify with and feel connected to the College of Education. These services also form the basis of a caring relationship between a bewildered new student and a person who can truly advise, as well as lead and befriend. College student mentors engage in informal counseling and advisement with students (i.e., meet with students where and when students are the most comfortable, e.g., in residence halls, diners, student cafeteria, before or after classes), as well as formal counseling and advisement with students. College student mentor work to engage students in the mentoring process in the student's comfort zone--wherever that may be. College student mentor make they available to freshmen in colleges, and they provide students with their home telephone numbers. As the college student mentor volunteer and student establish trust, this combination of advising and mentoring takes many directions. Each relationship is a blending of the characteristics of the college student mentor member and the freshmen in college, resulting in a unique team. Personal contact often occurs outside of the office for meals or soda meetings in the Student Union building. This personal touch means that the Operation Hope is extra work. However, some Operation Hope faculty participants discovered that freshmen in colleges expressed appreciation in interesting ways. For example, one freshman in college, a varsity basketball player, received permission to have his college student mentor volunteer sit on the bench with the players during a home game. Then he introduced his college student mentor member to his family, so they could get to know this new significant person in his life. A trained, caring faculty member, providing sound advisement and role modeling, facilitates the transition of African-American students into the institutional family. Seventy-seven percent of the pilot freshmen in colleges returned for a second year of study. By comparison, only 67% of the control group returned for a second year. The grade point averages (GPAs) of these two groups were similar. The control group's GPA was .13 higher (2.13) than the pilot freshmen in colleges' GPA (2.0). The similarity of the GPAs between these two groups raises a rather interesting question. Why were pilot freshmen in colleges retained at a higher rate than the control group Findings indicated a similar level of academic achievement between the two groups, suggesting that withdrawals from The University due to academic reasons should be virtually the same for both groups. Students in this particular control group might have been withdrawing for other reasons. We believe that freshmen in colleges might have had a higher second-year return rate because of the proactive, student-faculty advising/ mentoring interactions that occurred in the Operation Hope. Summary The College of Education at the University, incorporating several proven components of effective programs for African-American students, designed and implemented the Operation Hope. Although hampered by a small sample size, outcomes from the Mentoring pilot year were encouraging. Programs found to be effective in helping African-American students become successful need to be further researched. The outcomes observed in the Mentoring pilot need to be replicated in longitudinal designs with larger sample sizes. Such a design would help determine the full effect of the Operation Hope. For the future, the existing Operation Hope requires improvements to accommodate increased need. A dedicated faculty leader needs to assume program leadership. The College of Education must implement an ongoing system for the tracking and evaluating of student progress. The Operation Hope needs to develop a parental component. Mentor college student have found that freshmen in colleges' family responsibilities and family expectations often affect student motivation to remain in college. Also, the College of Education needs to institute a reward system for faculty that will motivate greater faculty involvement. The Operation Hope would show strong promise in retaining African-American students. By combining advising with mentoring in a proactive model, College of Education administration and faculty believe they have successfully made an impact on the higher attrition rates of African-American students in the College of Education. The Operation Hope represents one possible intervention that universities can make to reverse the attrition rate for African-American students. References Astin, A. W. (2000). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Belluck, P. (1999, July 4). Reason is sought for lag by Blacks in school effort. The New York Times, pp. A1, A15. Biggs, S. A., Torres, S., & Washington, N. D. (2004). Minority student retention: A framework for discussion and decision making. The Negro Education Review, 49(1-2), 71-81. Boulard, G. (2003). Retention: Rates and practices vary from campus to campus. Black Issues in Higher Education, 10(24), 32-35. Chavez, M., & Maestas-Flores, M. (2000). Minority student retention: ENLACE. New Directions for Community Colleges, 74(2), 63-67. Clewell, B. C., & Ficklen, M. S. (2002). Effective institutional practices for improving minority retention in higher education. Journal of College Admissions, Summer(116), 7-13. Colton, G. M., Connor, U. J., Shultz, E. L., & Easter, L. M. (1999). Fighting attrition: One freshmen year program that targets academic progress and retention for at-risk students. Journal of College Student Retention, 1(2), 147-162. Dervarics, D. (1989). NRC report finds women, Hispanics earn more PhDs, Black rate drops. Black Issues in Higher Education, 6(5), 3. Grayson, J. P. (2004). Racial origin and student retention in a Canadian university. Higher Education, 36(3), 323-352. James, D. P. (2000). Minority student retention: The Prince George's Community College program. New Directions for Community Colleges, 74(2), 57-62. Jones, C. (1992). Minority retention: A model that works. ASSE PRISM, 2(2), 30-32. Kelly, K. (1992). Alternative Access Program provides opportunities for success: Mount Saint Mary's College. Liberal Education, 78(4), 39-40. Levin, M. E., & Levin, J. R. (2000). A critical examination of academic retention programs for at-risk minority college students. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 323-334. Mayo, J. R., Murguia, E., & Padilla, R. V. (2001). Social integration and academic performance among minority university students. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 542-552. Morgan, J. (2000). Shabazz works math wonders at Clark Atlanta University. Black Issues in Education 9(24), 15, 17. Morgan, J. (2003). Moving beyond retention to academic excellence: Honors programs can assist in retention effort. Black Issues in Higher Education, 10(24), 52, 54, 56. Norman, K. E, & Norman, J. E. (2001). The synergy of minority student persistence and faculty renewal. Innovative Higher Education, 20(2), 129-140. Outtz, J. H. (2001). Higher education and the new demographic reality. Educational Record, 76, 65-69. Pascarella, T. E., & Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Patterns of student-faculty informal interaction beyond the classroom and voluntary freshmen attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 48, 540-552. Pascarella, T. E., & Terenzini, P. T. (2002). Predicting freshmen persistence and voluntary decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51, 60-75. Pew Higher Education Roundtable (2003). Policy perspectives: To dance with change. Philadelphia: The Pew Charitable Trusts. Phillip, M. (2000). Too many institutions still taking Band-Aid approach to minority student retention, experts say. Black Issues in Higher Education, 9(24), 24-28. Phillips, R. G. (2000). Model programs in minority access. New Directions for Community Colleges, 74(2), 23-30. Robert, E. R., & Thomson, G. (2003). Learning assistance and the success of underrepresented students at Berkeley. Journal of Developmental Education, 17(3), 4-14. Rudenstine, N. L. (2003, April 19). Why a diverse student body is so important. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B1-B2. Sedlacek, W. E. (2002). Black students on White campuses: 20 years of research. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 484-495. Seidman, A. (2003). Retention revisited: R=E, Id+E&In, Lv. College and University, 71(4). 18-20. Suen, H. K. (2000). Alienation and attrition of Black college students on a predominantly White campus. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 117-121. Tinto, V. (2000). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student retention (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Walters, E. (2003). Embracing the spirit of multiculturalism in higher education as a means of Black and Hispanic student retention. Equity and Excellence in Education, 29(3), 43-47. Read More