Peer Mentoring in Relation to University Connection and Retention of Latino/a Students: Mixed Methods Quasi Experimental Design Adriana Garcia Program Coordinator Rafi Efrat Project Director Dani Yomtov & Scott Plunkett Program Evaluator

Value of Higher Education  College graduates compared to high school graduates  Earn 61% more across their careers (Baum & Ma, 2007)  Significantly lower unemployment rates (United States Department of Labor, 2011)  More knowledge of world affairs and decreased prejudice (Rowley & Hurtado, 2002)  Pay more in taxes, more likely to vote, and less likely to be incarcerated (Baum & Ma, 2007)  Less likely to rely on government assistance (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1998)

California State University Northridge  Urban, comprehensive university in Los Angeles.  1 of 23 campuses in CSU system  Hispanic Serving Institution  32.7% Latinos (2008)  In 2008, 6-year graduation rate of CSUN students was 41%; 34% for Latino/a students  CSU average = 49% all students; 41% Latino/a students.  CSUN’s graduation rate is 19 th in CSU system; graduation rate of Latino/a students is 20 th.  1-year retention rate of CSUN freshmen is 71%; the CSU average = 79%.

Building Connections for Success  5-year grant  Increase Latino/a freshmen retention and graduation rates by 10-11% over 5 years.  Institutionalize the components of the program.

Building Connections for Success

Peer Mentoring?  An intervention strategy that pairs one or more students (i.e., mentees) with a more experienced student (i.e., peer mentor) (Terrion & Leonard, 2007)  Peer mentoring has been associated with:  Better social integration and ability to cope with stress (Allen, McManus, & Russell, 1999)  Higher academic achievement (Ahmed, 2011; Leidenfrost, Strassnig, Schabmann, Spiel, & Carbon, 2011; Salinitri, 2005)  Better student retention (Ward, Thomas, & Disch, 2010)  Increased knowledge of campus resources (Alonso, Castano, Calles, & Sanchez- Herrero, 2010)

CSUN’s Peer Mentoring

Unique Aspects of CSUN’s Peer Mentoring Summer training for Mentors Faculty training on how to interact and utilize the Mentor effectively University 100 classes Discipline based cohorts Mentors Welcome strategies Model appropriate student behavior Mentoring interactions

Evaluation Fall 2012 IRB approved Quasi Experimental Design PretestPeer MentoringPosttest PretestNo Peer MentoringPosttest link to online survey Raffle incentive (fifteen $15 gift cards) 1071 students 460 pretests (42%), 364 posttests (33%) 304 matched sets (28%) Posttest to the peer mentees asked additional open- ended questions

Sample Characteristics  162 with a peer mentor; 142 without a peer mentor  69.1% female students  Mean age = 18.1  69.4% first generation college students  63.8% Latino, 11.5% Asian, 9.5% Caucasian, 7.2% Armenian/Middle Eastern, 6.6% African American, 1.4% mixed/other

ANCOVAs Comparing Mentored Students vs. Non-Mentored Students

Qualitative Responses: Percent of Participants Who Mentioned Each Perceived Benefit

Qualitative Responses: Percent of Participants Who Mentioned Each Suggested Improvement

Ratings of Peer Mentors

Conclusions  Qualitative and quantitative data suggest the peer mentors are viewed positively by the students in the University 100 class.  The students with peer mentors (compared to those without) feel significantly more connected and integrated to the university, and feel they have someone to turn to for academic and emotional support.  Suggested improvements include more involvement outside of class, more mentors in general, and more informed mentors (e.g., academics, careers).