Abstract
One of the key challenges many peer-to-peer mentoring programs face is the lack of high-quality mentor training. In order to address this issue, the BUILDing SCHOLARS (BUILD) program at The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) implements a structured peer mentor training and provides the training to BUILD fellows at UTEP for four academic years. This paper focuses on introducing the BUILD Peer Mentor Training (BPMT) model and investigates its impacts on students using program evaluation data. Our results reveal that BUILD peer mentors were satisfied with the BPMT and their relationships with the mentees. They also reported that the training greatly improved their problem solving and action planning skills, and slightly improved their communication skills and ability to assess a mentee’s understanding. Finally, four practical recommendations are provided for institutions and programs that might be interested in implementing a similar peer mentor training.
Introduction
Peer-to-peer mentoring in higher education, where experienced students provide guidance and support to new students to enable them to navigate through their college education, is regarded as an effective intervention to ensure the success and retention of students (Johnson 2002; McLean 2004; Pagan & Edwards-Wilson 2002). Therefore, many institutions have implemented peer mentoring programs (Johnson 2002). A growing number of interventions supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have also provided peer-to-peer mentoring to trainees. In fact, effective mentoring relationships between students and mentors are the central elements of undergraduate research programs and important drivers of student success (Falconer & Holcomb 2008; Schwartz 2012). Numerous studies have examined the conditions under which mentoring is most effective and identified factors influencing mentor-mentee relationships (e.g., Aikens et al. 2016; Byars-Winston et al. 2015; Daniels et al. 2016; Morales et al. 2018; 2019). For example, training of mentors has been found to be critical to the success of students and mentoring programs (Anucha et al. 2001; Ehrich et al. 2004; Garvey & Alred 2000; Mee et al. 2003). A recent report on the science of effective mentoring in STEM provided by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (2019) also indicates that successful relationships between mentors and mentees can be nurtured.
However, a key challenge many peer mentoring programs face is the lack of high-quality mentor training (Ehrich et al. 2004). Previous studies on peer mentoring have mainly focused on how students benefit from the program in general, but overlooked the mentor training component (e.g., Beltman & Schaeben 2012; Colvin & Ashman 2010; Phinney et al. 2011). In this paper, we argue that the skills and knowledge required of a peer mentor should be not assumed, and the organization instituting a peer-to-peer mentoring program must commit resources to training.
In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Building Undergraduate Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) program funded different educational interventions at ten institutions across the US to educate the next generation of biomedical researchers. As one of the institutions, the BUILDing SCHOLARS (BUILD) program at The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) is addressing the needs of students in the US Southwest through a multi-institution consortium that includes Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, states which are home to dense concentrations of Hispanic and Native American students. The BUILDing SCHOLARS program implements a peer-to-peer mentoring component, which serves as an integral part of the program to promote a peer mentoring community. A structured peer mentor training was developed by the UTEP BUILD team and has been provided to BUILD fellows at UTEP for four academic years. This paper introduces this peer mentor training model, and investigates its impacts on students, using program evaluation data. We address three specific questions: 1) What is the BUILD Peer Mentor Training (BPMT) model? 2) Are BPMT trainees satisfied with the BPMT model? 3) Does the BPMT model improve trainees’ mentoring competencies and essential skills for college students? Finally, recommendations are made for institutions and programs interested in implementing a similar training model.
Institutional Context
El Paso, Texas, is a bicultural, bilingual, binational community with a demographic that is 83% Hispanic. This region is one of the largest metropolitan areas when considering El Paso alongside its sister city Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. In this combined region, nearly three-quarter of households are Spanish and English bilingual, and the region is affected by low socioeconomic and educational factors. In particular, 23% of local families live below the poverty level, compared to 13% nationally; and only 22% hold a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 30% nationally (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018a, 2018b). At $41,637, the median household income in El Paso County is one of the lowest in the state, as compared to the statewide average of $53,207 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017).
UTEP is located centrally in this bi-national community and is unique among research institutions with its majority Hispanic student population. UTEP’s population is around 82% Hispanic, mirroring the El Paso population. UTEP enrolls more than 25,000 students, of which approximately 55% are the first in their families to attend college, and UTEP’s core mission is to ensure access and excellence in educational programs. UTEP currently offers 72 bachelors, 73 masters, and 22 doctoral degrees. With over $94 million in annual research spending, UTEP is the first national research university serving a 21st-century demographic (Texas Monthly, 2019). UTEP’s institutional setting is an important contextual factor for a peer mentoring program since a majority of the UTEP student body (and BUILD Fellows) are underrepresented students and often first generation college attendees. Interventions that work well in such a setting, transfer well to any research setting, include those that do not have a majority student population that mirrors UTEP (Kuh et al., 2008).
BUILD Peer Mentor Training Model
To answer research question 1, we introduce the BUILD Peer Mentor Training (BPMT) model. The BPMT follows a successful model from the University of New Mexico Mentoring Institute. The training was designed with the expert guidance of Dr. Nora Dominguez, Director of the Mentoring Institute. The BPMT runs for one academic year and has an integrated two-level structure (see Figure 1). The first level of the training focuses on providing trainees a theoretical foundation of peer mentoring. Specifically, all second-year BUILD fellows (peer mentors) are required to take a zero-credit peer mentoring course, which was designed by the BUILD Research Enrichment Core and facilitated by the training coordinator (a BUILD postdoctoral fellow) in the fall semester. In total, the peer mentoring course includes 22 two-hour training sessions. During those sessions, the training coordinator discusses theories and best practices related to peer mentoring, leadership, and emotional intelligence skills.
Figure 1.
BUILD Peer Mentor Training Model
The learning objectives of the course are to help peer mentors develop and enhance their: 1) strategic planning, 2) emotional intelligence, and 3) mentoring skills. Specifically, three learning outcomes are associated with strategic planning skills, including goal-setting, time-management, and study habits. In terms of goal setting, after taking the course, peer mentors will be able to create SMART Goals (specific/significant, measurable/meaningful, attainable/action-oriented, relevant/rewarding, and time bound/trackable) in their personal learning plan and facilitate this process to enhance their own and their mentees’ academic, research, and personal performance. For time-management, the course helps peer mentors learn to prioritize competing objectives, interests, and activities to facilitate the achievement of their own and their mentees' academic, research, and personal goals. Peer mentors also learn to identify, develop, and use effective study habits and techniques to enhance their own and their mentees’ academic performance.
Outcomes associated with emotional intelligence are self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. From the course, peer mentors learn to develop a deep understanding of their emotions, strengths, weaknesses, needs, and drives, and those of their mentees. They also learn to control and channel their emotions in productive ways, while modeling these behaviors on their mentees. The course helps peer mentors identify their own and their mentees' sources of self-motivation and drivers to achieve beyond their own and others’ expectations, but at the same time thoughtfully consider other people’s feelings in the process of making reflective decisions. Finally, in terms of social skills, peer mentors learn to actively communicate and interact with other people to create a developmental network to support their own and their mentees’ career aspirations.
For mentoring skills, the course focuses on active listening, engaging conversations, and constructive feedback. Specifically, peer mentors learn how to use active listening skills (focus, hold judgment, reflect, clarify, summarize, and share); how to partake in engaging conversations with their mentees, by asking powerful questions that are personal, resonant, acute/incisive, reverberating, and explicit; and how to offer and accept constructive feedback to and from their mentees. Table 1 is the class schedule from a sample syllabus of the course.
Table 1.
Class Schedule from a Sample Syllabus
| Date | Time | Location | What happens? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26 | 1:30pm – 2:30pm | CCSB 1.0202 |
Session 1: Why Peer Mentoring
|
| Sep 16 | 3:00pm – 4:30pm | SCALE-UP (CCSB G.0706A) |
Session 2: Mentoring Skills
|
| Sep 23 | 12:30pm – 2:30pm | SCALE-UP (CCSB G.0706A) |
Session 3: The College Success Formula
|
| Oct 7 | 12:30pm – 2:30pm | SCALE-UP (CCSB G.0706A) |
Session 4: Principle-Centered living
|
| Oct 14 | 12:30pm – 2:30pm | SCALE-UP (CCSB G.0706A) |
Session 5: How to Study in College
|
| Oct 28 | 12:30pm – 2:30pm | SCALE-UP (CCSB G.0706A) |
Session 6: Be Proactive
|
| Nov 4 | 4:15pm – 5:00pm | SCALE-UP (CCSB G.0706A) |
Session 7: Think Win-Win
|
| Nov 11 | 3:15pm – 5:00pm | SCALE-UP (CCSB G.0706A) |
Session 8: What Makes a Leader?
|
| Nov 18 | 12:30pm – 2:30pm | SCALE-UP (CCSB G.0706A) |
Session 9: Celebration
|
The second level of the BPMT focuses on providing trainees opportunities to actively engage in peer mentoring so that what they learn can be readily applied. At the beginning of the fall semester, peer mentors are matched with mentees (first-year BUILD fellows). The matching process is managed by the training coordinator. In fact, a matching algorithm is designed specifically for the program and operated through an online platform, Chronus. Generally speaking, peer mentors and mentees are matched based on their professional and personal similarities. Once matched, mentors and mentees interact in various ways. For example, every month, peer mentors are required to schedule at least two face-to-face meetings with mentees. During those meetings, peer mentors provide mentees with psychosocial support, academic advice, or they study or prepare for exams together. Besides the meetings, peer mentors also organized an on-campus activity once a month focused on supporting the mentee’s social and navigational skills. For example, at the beginning of the semester, peer mentors usually take mentees for a campus tour; during the semester, they participate in various activities organized by UTEP student organizations together; and working with the BUILD outreach coordinator, peer mentors and mentees go to local high schools to promote the BUILDing SCHOLARS program and recruit students for the next year. By the end of the semester, the training coordinator and all peer mentors work together to organize a get-together event for the peer mentoring program (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Peer Mentoring Social Event, Fall 2015
There are two main advantages of the BPMT model. First, the two levels of training are very well connected. In each training section, peer mentors have opportunities to discuss their mentoring practices. The training coordinator facilitates the group discussion and explains how to connect peer mentoring theories to practices. Peer mentors report progress, ask questions, and provide feedback to each other. Every month, peer mentors are also required to submit a report on their own and their mentees’ progress in achieving the goals established in their mentoring plan. The training coordinator reviews those reports and provides timely written feedback. In addition, the training coordinator randomly attends mentor-mentee meetings to observe their interactions and provide the peer mentors constructive feedback.
Second, the BPMT model is based on strong interpersonal bonds and frequent interactions between peer mentors and mentees. Both peer mentors and mentees are BUILD fellows, and most of them are from El Paso. In other words, they all share similar socio-demographic backgrounds and interests in pursuing biomedical research careers. More importantly, during the first year in the program, all BUILD fellows had peer mentors. This ensures that prior to becoming peer mentors, BUILD fellows already experienced being a mentee. Taken together, similar personal or professional backgrounds and previous mentoring experiences mean that BUILD peer mentors tend to have a good understanding of the program and their mentees. Additionally, mentors and mentees have many opportunities outside the peer mentoring program to interact with each other. For example, they attend professional development workshops together, which are offered by the BUILD Student Training Core, and they might also conduct summer research at the same university. Previous research suggests that similar backgrounds, previous mentoring experiences as a mentee, and frequent mentor-mentee interactions all contribute to positive mentoring outcomes (Allen 2003; Lattuca et al. 2006; Morales et al. 2019).
To facilitate mentor-mentee interactions, time and other resources are required from those championing the peer-mentoring program and the institution (Garvey & Alred, 2000). Frequently, there are a few research faculty on campus who have interest or are charged with the overseeing a peer-mentoring program. The institution should respect the time invested in these activities as a legitimate and important use of research faculty time. Perhaps providing credit for teaching or research mentoring would help alleviate time commitments for research faculty administering a peer-mentoring program. Moreover, the institution should also contribute resources, such as facilities and funds, when available, to support these mentoring activities. The type of resources can be as simple as providing a space on campus for informal peer-mentoring interactions or providing funds to students to plan activities on or off-campus. In addition to faculty time and resources, any peer-mentoring program will require a time commitment by the peer mentors and any staff assisting in the program. The institution and the students’ research mentors should also recognize this time commitment and understand the importance of peer mentoring training in the students’ professional development.
To summarize, the BPMT model provides peer-to-peer support to undergraduate biomedical researchers participating in the BUILDing SCHOLARS program. It cultivates an inclusive scientific community, which reduces power differentials, social distance, and fosters more active engagement among BUILD fellows. In particular, power differentials convey the apparent difference between mentor and mentee in terms of status and authority, while social distance has been shown to be a detriment to underrepresented minorities’ college life (Parrillo & Donoghue, 2005). That is why it was essential to create a model that fosters a safe environment for mentors and mentees. After taking the BPMT, BUILD fellows become more academically and socially prepared for challenges they may face along the biomedical research career path.
Program Evaluation Methods and Results
Methods.
Data and Data Collection.
Using program evaluation data, we conducted statistical analyses to address research questions 2 and 3. This analysis focuses on the 2016-2017 cohort. Pre- and post- surveys were administered to peer mentors by the UTEP BUILD evaluation team to assess the role that the BPMT had on their development as mentors. The pre-survey was administered in early fall 2016, and the post-survey was administered at the end of spring 2017. The surveys included questions measuring the peer mentors’ perceptions of skills and behaviors needed to excel both academically and professionally. A total of 35 peer mentors participated in the program in the academic year 2017-2018. Out of the 35 peer mentors, 23 completed both the pre- survey and post-survey.
Variables.
Trainees’ satisfaction:
In the survey, peer mentors were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following items: (a) The relationship with your peer mentee and (b) the overall Peer Mentoring Program. Peer mentors provided their answers using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “extremely dissatisfied” to “extremely satisfied.”
Essential skills for college students:
Peer mentors were first asked to provide their level of agreement or disagreement using a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”) regarding their communication skills. Students were also asked to provide their level of agreement with statements regarding being skilled at searching for opportunities/services provided by the university. Students indicated their level of agreement using a five-point Likert scale ranging (from 1 = strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”). Further, peer mentors were asked to indicate how much they agreed with statements related to being skilled at problem solving and action planning using a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.”
Mentoring Competency Assessment:
Peer mentors were asked to complete the Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA), which is a validated skills inventory that can be used to evaluate different competencies of a mentor (i.e., maintaining effective communication, aligning expectations, assessing understanding, addressing diversity, promoting professional development, and fostering independence) (Fleming et al. 2013; Pfund et al. 2014). The MCA consists of 26 items. Peer mentors were asked to rate themselves using a 7-point Likert-type scale in which 1 = “not at all skilled,” 4 = “moderately skilled,” and 7 = “extremely skilled” for each of the items. (Although the MCA was originally designed for faculty, post-doctoral, or graduate student mentors, the six competencies it assessed also apply to peer mentors in this study. However, future research should seek to develop a specific mentoring competency scale for peer mentoring programs.)
Emotional Intelligence:
Peer mentors were asked to complete the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire—Short Form (TEIQue-SF). This is a 30-item questionnaire aimed at assessing global trait emotional intelligence. The peer mentors were asked to provide their level of agreement with various statements related to emotional intelligence using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree.”
Statistical Analyses.
Using the survey data, a mean score for each skill (i.e., communication, searching for opportunities/services, problem solving) and scale (mentor competency skills and emotional intelligence) was computed for each peer mentor. Higher mean scores represent probable success in that area, whereas lower scores may be indicative of an area that potentially needs improvement. To assess differences related to those skills and scales reported in the pre and post-surveys, a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (V and p) and resampling-based paired t-test (presamp) were conducted. The rank test, a nonparametric alternative to a paired t-test, examines the similarity between the distributions while the paired t-test compares the means of both populations. Resampling was used for the paired t-tests due to a lack of evidence of normality. We note that, in most cases, the two test results show reasonable consistency. In all reported results, a p-value associated with the V test statistic of the Wilcoxon test is reported alongside a corresponding p-value resulting from a resampling based test.
Results.
Results from the peer mentor satisfaction portion of the survey indicate that two-thirds (66%) of the peer mentors reported being extremely satisfied with the relationship formed with their peer mentee. Similarly, about 48 percent of the students indicated being extremely satisfied with the Peer Mentoring Program overall. Interestingly, based on the results, satisfaction with the mentoring relationship was positively correlated with satisfaction with the overall Peer Mentoring Program (r = .479, p = .009).
In terms of communication skills, results demonstrate that there was a possible increase in peer mentors’ self-reported communication skills between the pre-survey (M= 4.22, SD= 0.59) and post-survey (M= 4.43, SD= .44), but fails to show evidence of statistical or practical significance using either the rank test or t-test ;V=129.2, p = 0.168, presamp = 0.082 (see Table 2). In the section of the survey related to peer mentor’s perceived ability to search for opportunities/services, results indicate that there was a self-reported increase in peer mentors’ skills related to searching for opportunities/services. Further, a paired samples t-test showed that the difference between the pre-scores (M= 4.60, SD=0.58) and post-scores (M= 4.71, SD= 0.54) was not statistically significant; V = 143.0, p = 0.172, presamp = 0.172 (see Table 2). As suggested in Table 2, our results suggest that there was an increase in student mentors’ skills related to problem solving and action planning. Moreover, the difference between the pre-survey scores (M= 4.77, SD= 0.50) and postscores (M= 4.92, SD= 0.56) was statistically significant using either the rank or t-test results; V= 106.5, p = 0.009, presamp = 0.005.
Table 2.
Communication Skills, Searching for Opportunities, and Problem Solving and Action planning (N=22)
| Pre | Post | Mean Diff | V | p | presamp | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | |||||
| Communication Skills | 4.22 | 0.59 | 4.43 | 0.44 | 0.22 | 129.2 | 0.168 | 0.082 |
| Searching for Opportunities | 4.60 | 0.58 | 4.71 | 0.54 | 0.17 | 142.0 | 0.172 | 0.172 |
| Problem Solving & Action Planning | 4.77 | 0.50 | 4.92 | 0.56 | 0.28 | 106.5 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
Results in Table 3 indicate evidence of an increase in self-reported competencies in assessing a mentee’s understanding with pre-scores (M=4.69, SD=1.27) and post-scores (M=5.21, SD=1.17), showing practical as well as statistical significance; V=172.5, p=0.047, presamp=0.147. However, the difference between the pre and post-scores is only indicated by the rank test, implying that the score distribution across the rating levels differs for the two groups. The t-test does not provide evidence about a difference between the reported means, so there is no evidence that these central values differ. See Table 3 for details on the other subscales of the MCA.
Table 3.
Mentor Competency Assessment Skills (N=22)
| Pre | Post | MeanDiff | V | p | presamp | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | |||||
| Maintaining Effective Communication with Mentee | 5.39 | 0.81 | 5.52 | 0.85 | 0.18 | 150.5 | 0.230 | 0.343 |
| Aligning Expectations with Mentee | 5.13 | 1.09 | 5.33 | 1.19 | 0.15 | 127.5 | 0.409 | 0.616 |
| Assessing Mentee’s Understanding | 4.69 | 1.27 | 5.21 | 1.17 | 0.50 | 172.5 | 0.047 | 0.147 |
| Fostering Mentee’s Independence | 5.59 | 1.07 | 5.76 | 1.14 | 0.14 | 132.0 | 0.577 | 0.707 |
| Promoting Mentee’s Professional Development | 5.43 | 0.93 | 5.57 | 0.92 | 0.15 | 129.0 | 0.378 | 0.333 |
Finally, means scores showed that, on average, student mentors’ emotional intelligence scores did not increase between the pre and post survey. A paired samples t-test revealed that the differences between the pre-scores (M=5.35, SD= 0.67) and post-scores (M= 5.12, SD=0.76) was not statistically significant; V = 144.5, p = 0.570, presamp = 0.914 (see Table 4).
Table 4.
Emotional Intelligence (N=22)
| Pre | Post | Mean Diff | V | p | Presamp | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | |||||
| Emotional Intelligence | 5.35 | 0.67 | 5.12 | 0.76 | 0.01 | 144.5 | 0.570 | 0.914 |
Discussion, Conclusion, and Implications for Practice
To summarize, the evaluation results suggest that peer mentors were satisfied with the BPMT and their relationships with the mentees. After taking the BPMT, peer mentors reported improved problem solving and action planning skills and slightly improved communication skills and skills in assessing a mentee’s understanding. These initial results should be regarded with some caution since the peer mentors reported initial high scores for those skills prior to the training. In view of these initial high scores, we have transitioned to a retrospective pre-post assessment of these scales for all future data collection efforts and recommend this approach for other programs. These possibly inflated pre-survey scores could affect accurate measurement of growth in reported results. Though the remaining items are not statistically significant, most indicate increases that could indicate potential growth. This supports the belief that the peer mentors are experiencing positive changes in their skills as they continue to develop as peer mentors and, with more data, these increases can be confirmed. In addition, the implementation of other measures focused on different aspects of peer mentoring and or the use of qualitative questions may be a fruitful consideration for the future studies.
We provide four practical recommendations for institutions and programs that might be interested in implementing a similar peer mentor training: 1) implementing programs that emphasize different skills; 2) matching students with peers with similar goals; 3) implementing a two-level model; and 4) having a training coordinator. While this study was conducted at a large university with a majority Hispanic population, we believe that the following recommendations are well suited for other universities (Kuh et al., 2008) if they are implemented in their entirety.
First, preliminary evidence presented here suggests that BUILD peer mentors benefitted from the BPMT by improving their self-reported problem solving skills. Though our findings provide the strongest evidence about this outcome, we note that communication skills and understanding the peer mentee’s understanding also show some gains. Based on this evidence, we suggest implementing programs that emphasize all skills assessed in the self-reported surveys, but focus on those outcomes that may provide greatest payoff. Second, for institutions or programs that are interested in increasing the recruitment and retention of students with underrepresented backgrounds, we suggest they consider matching students with peer mentors that have similar professional and personal characteristics. In addition, we also found that a model following a two-level structure has the potential for peer mentors to build strong relationships with their mentees and gain leadership skills in the process. Finally, having a training coordinator is crucial for the BPMT model, as the coordinator provides peer mentors with the tools necessary to improve their problem solving and communication skills. Future research with more extensive data can investigate in greater detail the features of the model that are more beneficial for the peer mentors.
Acknowledgments
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under linked Award Numbers RL5GM118969, TL4GM118971, and UL1GM118970. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
References
- Aikens ML, Sadselia S, Watkins K, Evans M, Eby LT, & Dolan EL (2016). A social capital perspective on the mentoring of undergraduate life science researchers: an empirical study of undergraduate–postgraduate–faculty triads. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(2), ar16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Allen TD (2003). Mentoring others: A dispositional and motivational approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(1), 134–154. [Google Scholar]
- Anucha U, Regehr C and Daciuk J (2001) Evaluation of the Volunteer Connections Programme, Toronto: Centre for Applied Social Research, University of Toronto. [Google Scholar]
- Beltman S, & Schaeben M (2012). Institution-wide peer mentoring: Benefits for mentors. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(2), 33–44. [Google Scholar]
- Brown A (2010). Quantitative study of leadership self-efficacy and peer mentorship at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse (Doctoral dissertation).
- Byars-Winston AM, Branchaw J, Pfund C, Leverett P, & Newton J (2015). Culturally diverse undergraduate researchers’ academic outcomes and perceptions of their research mentoring relationships. International journal of science education, 37(15), 2533–2554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Colvin JW, & Ashman M (2010). Roles, risks, and benefits of peer mentoring relationships in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(2), 121–134. [Google Scholar]
- Daniels H, Grineski SE, Collins TW, Morales DX, Morera O, & Echegoyen L (2016). Factors influencing student gains from undergraduate research experiences at a Hispanic-serving institution. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ehrich LS, Hansford B & Tennent L (2004) ‘Formal mentoring programmes in education and other professions: A review of the literature’, Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 518–540. [Google Scholar]
- Fleming M, House MS, Shewakramani MV, Yu L, Garbutt J, McGee R, … & Rubio DM (2013). The mentoring competency assessment: validation of a new instrument to evaluate skills of research mentors. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 88(7), 1002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Garvey B & Alred G (2000) ‘Educating mentors’, Mentoring & Tutoring, 8, 113–126. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson WB (2002) ‘The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 88–96. [Google Scholar]
- Kuh GD, Cruce TM, Shoup R, Kinzie J, and Gonyea RM (2008). “Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence.” The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563. [Google Scholar]
- Lattuca LR, Terenzini PT, Volkwein JF, and Peterson GD 2006. “The changing face of engineering education.” Bridge Washington National Academy of Engineering 36(2), 5. [Google Scholar]
- McLean M (2004) ‘Does the curriculum matter in peer mentoring? From mentee to mentor in problem-based learning: A unique case study’, Mentoring and Tutoring, 12, 173–186. [Google Scholar]
- Mee Lee L & Bush T (2003) ‘Student mentoring in higher education: Hong Kong Baptist University’, Mentoring & Tutoring, 11,263–271. [Google Scholar]
- Million SK (1988) ‘Training mentors and protégés: The key to successful mentoring programmes’, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Council of States on Inservice Education, New Orleans, LA. [Google Scholar]
- Morales DX, Grineski SE, & Collins TW (2017). “Increasing Research Productivity in Undergraduate Research Experiences: Exploring Predictors of Collaborative Faculty–Student Publications.” CBE-Life Sciences Education 16(3), ar42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morales DX, Grineski SE, & Collins TW (2018). Effects of gender concordance in mentoring relationships on summer research experience outcomes for undergraduate students. Science Education, 102(5), 1029–1050. [Google Scholar]
- Morales DX, Grineski SE, & Collins TW (2019). Effects of Mentoring Relationship Heterogeneity on Student Outcomes in Summer Undergraduate Research. Studies in Higher Education. Published Online. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1639041. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). The Science of Effective Mentoring in Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine, and Mathematics (STEMM). http://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/bhew/mentoring/index.htm.
- Pagan R & Edwards-Wilson R (2002) ‘A mentoring programme for remedial students’, Journal of College Student Retention, 4, 207–226. [Google Scholar]
- Parrillo VN, & Donoghue C (2005). Updating the Bogardus social distance studies: A new national survey. The Social Science Journal, 42(2), 257–271. 10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Pfund C, House SC, Asquith P, Fleming MF, Buhr KA, Burnham EL, … & Shapiro ED (2014). Training mentors of clinical and translational research scholars: a randomized controlled trial. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(5), 774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Phinney JS, Torres Campos CM, Padilla Kallemeyn DM, & Kim C (2011). Processes and outcomes of a mentoring program for Latino college freshmen. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 599–621. [Google Scholar]
- Power RK, Miles BB, Peruzzi A, & Voerman A (2011). Building bridges: A practical guide to developing and implementing a subject-specific peer-to-peer academic mentoring program for first-year higher education students. Asian Social Science, 7(11), 75–80. [Google Scholar]
- Schulze S (2010). A structured programme to develop novice researchers at the University of South Africa. Acta Academica, 42(3), 169–193. [Google Scholar]
- Texas Monthly. (2019) “2019 Texas College Guide”, http://collegeguide.texasmonthly.com/university-of-texas-at-el-paso, accessed 8/6/2019.
- Tierney JP & Branch AY (1992) College Students as Mentors for At-risk Youth: A Study of Six Campus Partners in Learning Programmes, Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. [Google Scholar]
- Tindall JA (1995) Peer Programmes: An In-Depth Look at Peer Helping – Planning, Implementation, and Administration, Bristol, PA: Accelerated Development. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Census Bureau (2017). State & county quick facts: El Paso, Texas: Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/4824000. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Census Bureau. (2018a) Quick facts: El Paso County, Texas: Accessed August 3, 2018 from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/elpasocountytexas,elcajoncitycalifornia,tx/ PST045 217 [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Census Bureau. (2018b). Quick facts: United States: Accessed August 3, 2018 from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/EDU685216#viewtop [Google Scholar]