PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
V U

V
—M~AR 2 9 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 cfiW.Mp.1s'

THE EFFECTS OF AN ETHNIC-BASED MENTORING MODEL ON COLLEGE
ADJUSTMENT, GRADE POINT AVERAGE, AND RETENTION AMONG FIRST
YEAR AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS ATTENDING A
PREDOMINATELY WHITE INSTITUTION

By

Emanuel Nathan Thomas, III

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

2005

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTS OF AN ETHNIC-BASED MENTORING MODEL ON COLLEGE
ADJUSTMENT, GRADE POINT AVERAGE, AND RETENTION AMONG FIRST
YEAR AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS ATTENDING A
PREDOMINATELY WHITE INSTITUTION
By

Emanuel Nathan Thomas, Ill

Since the late 19803 Predominately White Institutions have witnessed an
increase in African American enrollment to address the education gap between
African Americans and Whites in higher education. While African American
enrollment has increased at Predominately White Institutions, they have
struggled with graduating African American college students at 50% or higher in
a six year period. African American students specifically at Predominately White
Institutions have continued to struggle academically and socially. Many African
American students attending Predominately White Institutions may feel isolated
because they are the only African American in their classes or organizations. In
order to be successful, it is often the responsibility of the African American
student to navigate relationships with administrators, faculty, staff, and their
peers. Therefore if the racial climate is not perceived as positive at the
Predominately White Institution, African American students may feel alienated.
This has been associated with low academic and social adjustment and
retention. To help first year African American students adjust academically and

socially at Predominately White Institutions, an ethnic-based mentoring model

was implemented in an African American Student Mentoring Program at a large
Predominately White land grant institution in the Midwest. The goal of this study
was to train African American junior and senior college students on an ethnic-
based mentoring model. The ethnic-based mentoring model included six
proximal outcomes (Racial Identity, Social Support, Psychological Support,
Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, and Leadership Development) and three
distal outcomes (College Adjustment, Grade Point Average, and Retention).
Mentors were trained on these variables biweekly to support their mentee's
College Adjustment, GPA, and Retention. The objective of this study was to
empirically evaluate the effectiveness of an ethnic-based mentoring model that
used a randomized pre-post test design. Statistical analyses included
multivariate analysis of covariance to examine mean differences between the
experimental and the control group, and an exploratory mediation analyses to
determine if the proximal outcomes mediated the relationship between Racial
Identity and College Adjustment. The results from this study were promising and
demonstrated that mentoring significantly promoted mentees Racial Identity and
Academic Support. Further analyses also found that Sense of Belonging and
Leadership Development significantly mediated the relationship between Racial

Identity and College Adjustment.

Dedicated to Barbara and Emanuel Thomas, my biological parents,
who passed eaIIy in my life;
Phyliss UndenIvood and Catherine Thomas, my aunts,
who passed while I was writing this manuscript;
and Amy Bradley-Thomas, my mother, and Tamara Baker Thomas, my wife,
who provided me inspiration, guidance, and strength to complete this JOURNEY.
GOD BLESS YOU ALL

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel blessed to make it to this point of my life and I appreciate all the
people who have supported my desire to complete this journey. First I would like
to thank GOD. He made this journey possible for me.

Next I would like to thank my committee for supporting my ideas and
helping them become a reality. A special thanks to Dr. Bill Davidson, who has
been an outstanding chair and has supported me through all my academic and
personal highs and lows. When I didn’t know how or whether I was going to
make it at times, he supported me like a long distant runner who becomes
dehydrated and numb to pain, he kept supplying me with water so I could finish
the race. Special thanks to my other committee members: Dr. Cris Sullivan,
whose grant writing class provided the avenue for my research to be accepted by
human subjects, Dr. Lee June, who found the funding to support my research,
and Dr. Deborah Johnson, who has provided guidance and support throughout
this journey. I am grateful to all of you for your support.

I’m indebted to Jeff Brentley, Clarence Carson, and Rob Biddle for their
patience and commitment to working together so we could develop, implement,
and evaluate an African American Student Mentoring Program using my Ethnic-
based Mentoring Model. Without their support this research may have never
happened. I also want to thank all the students (Kierra, Kelly, Lauren, Dia, Chris,
Mark, Danielle, Tahira, Jared, Rob, and Brandon) who collected and entered

data “YOU ARE THE BOMB”!

I would also like to thank James Madison College (specifically Deanna,
Grant, and Dean Gamett) and the staff in the Office of Racial Ethnic Student
Affairs. It was an honor and a privilege to work with you. Also the funding and
resources you provided greatly assisted the implementation and research on the
African American Student Mentoring Program.

I would like to thank Dean Lowe at Norfolk State University (My MOM
away from home who helped me start this journey as a Freshmen at NSU), Dr
Susan Kennedy at Penn State University (who trusted my professional judgment
to implement this model at Penn State University), my cohort (Aisha, Adreinne,
Brandy, and Marisa) friends, frat Brothers “06”(specifically Jerrell, John, Tyrone,
and Leander) and family for their support, encouragement, laughs, good times,
and most important friendship.

A special thank you to my mother, cousin (Rodney Anderson), aunt (Ruby
D. Anderson) and Grandmothers (Ernestine Topp and Georgia Suttles), I could
have not done this without you.

Lastly, I want to especially thank Tamara, my wife, she has been my
anchor when life has been a critical sea of turmoil. Thank you for your love,
willingness to tolerate my stubborn ways, and replenishing my confidence to be
the best. After seven years of marriage you are my heart, and I know, and have
always known, that GOD has blessed me with my soul mate and angel to look
over me.

Love NATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .
LIST OF TABLES. .

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .
Statement of the Problem .
Context of Problem.
Adjustment of African American College Students at
Predominately White Institutions.
Racism in Higher Education.
Mentoring
Defining an Ethnic-Based Mentoring Model for African American
College Students

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .
Rational for Choice of Key Factors
Key Factors Examined in the Review
Literature Search Procedures
Criteria for Including Studies .
Studies with Ethnic-Based Mentoring Programs.
Coding Studies .
Summary of Studies
Study 1 (Good, Haplin, & Haplin, 2000).
Study 2 (Harris, 1999) .
Study 3 (Laden, 1999) .
Study 4 (LaVant, Anderson, Tiggs, 8. Joseph, 1997).
Study 5 (Marable, 1999) .
Study 6 (Newman 8. Newman, 1999) .
Study 7 (Shultz, Colton, & Colton, 2001 ).
Study 8 (Talbert, Larke, & Jones, 1999) .
Study 9 (T homas, 1999) . .
Study 10 (T hile & Matt, 1995). .
Analysis of Ethnic-Based Mentoring Studies .
The Need to Empirically Examine Mentoring Programs
Purpose of Current Study .

CHAPTER 3
ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

vii

oo (3)0100 (JON-t

10
11
13
14
15
15
16
16
19
22
25
28
31
35
39
42
45
48
50
57

59

Research Questions

CHAPTER 4
METHODS
Process of Implementation
Organization Structure
AASMP Board
Participants . .
Recruitment of Mentor and Mentee PartiCipants.
Mentors
Mentees
Demographics
Random Assignment
Measures .
National Study on Black College Students
Proximal Outcomes .
Racial Identity Attitude Scale.
College Social Support Scale.
General Well-Being Schedule
Academic Support . .
Sense of Belonging Inventory .
The Leadership Development, Activity, and
Planning Measure . .
Distal Outcomes
Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire
Grade Point Average . .
Retention
Procedures
Survey Management
Pre-test Administration
Post-test Administration
Training Mentors
Fall Semester
Spring Semester

CHAPTER 5
RESULTS . .
Statistical Analysis”
Preliminary Analysis.
Multivariate Analysis of Covariance
Mediation Analysis .
Exploratory Analysis.
Summary

CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION.

viii

62

65
65
69
69
71
71
72
73
74
75
75
75
76
76
77
77
78
78

79
80
80
80
80
81
81
82
86
88
89
96

102
102
103
104
108
112
118

119

Major Findings . .
Methodological ConCems .
Implementation Concerns . .
Theoretical Concerns on Ethnic-based mentoring
Mediation Model Analysis . .
Exploratory Analysis on Mediation Models
Limitations . . . . .
Strengths
Conclusion
Future Directions

APPENDIX A - Consent Form
APPENDIX B - Release of lnforrnation
APPENDIX C - Survey

APPENDIX D - MANOVA results & Graphs on Proximal and
Distal Outcomes by Group Over Time .

APPENDIX E - MANCOVA on Distal Outcomes
APPENDIX F - Time One and Two Correlations
BIBLIOGRAPHY

ix

120
122
125
129
121
132
134
135
137
138

142
144
146

167
175
176
178

Figure 3.1
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.3

Figure 5.4

Figure 6.1

LIST OF FIGURES

Ethnic-based Mentoring Mediation Model. . . 61
Unmediated Model (Correlation). . . . . 111
Simple Mediation Model. . . . . . 111

Sense of Belonging Mediation Model of Racial Identity and
College Adjustment. . . . . . 113

Leadership Development Mediation Model of Racial Identity and
College Adjustment. . . . . . 1 15

Ethnic-based Mentoring Model Significant Mean
Differences and Correlations . . . . 131

Table 2.1
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 5.1
Table 5.2

Table 5.3
Table 5.4

Table 5.5

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of Ethnic-based Mentoring Studies . . 52
Mentor and Mentee Participants . . . . 71
Fall Semester Training Outline . . . . 89
Spring Semester Training Outline . . . 96

Test of Multivariate MANCOVA on Dependent Variables 106

Test of Between-Subjects Univariate ANCOVA on Dependent
Variables by Group. . . . . . 106

Means for Significant MANCOVA Variables . . 108

Model 1: Racial Identity, Sense of Belonging, and
College Adjustment Mediation Model . . . 115

Model 2: Racial Identity, Leadership Development, and
College Adjustment Mediation Model . . 117

xi

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction and Background

Since the early 1980s much attention has focused on mentoring programs
to support African American students attending Predominately White Institutions
(PWI) (Allen, 1992; Haris, 1999). The goals of these programs are often aimed
at helping African American students thrive academically, socially, mentally, and
to graduate. Among the success of some programs, there continues to be the
challenge with promoting successful college adjustment, Grade Point Average
(GPA), and retention of African American students in higher education (Sellers,
Chavous, 8 Cooke, 1998).

The US. Department of Education (2004) reported that approximately
16.5 million undergraduate students attended all (Predominately Black, White,
Latino, Mexican) four-year degree granting institutions in 2000. Twelve percent
of this population was Black. Out of the 12%, 2% of all Black college students
attended Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUS) (US. Department
of Education, 2004). Unfortunately, no information was found on the approximate
percentage of Blacks attending PW Is.

In a six-year period (1994 to 2000), the national graduation average for
Black students was 40% compared to 57% for White students (Wilds, 2000). Out
of the 40%, one-fifth of the degrees were awarded to Black students attending
HBCUs (US Department of Education, 2004). The natiOnaI graduation rate for

Black males was 31% and 42% for Black females (Cross & Slater, 2001).

In 2001, Blacks attending HBCUs earned the highest proportion of
associate’s, bachelor's (87%), master’s, and doctor’s degrees compared to other
racial and ethnic groups (US. Department of Education, 2004). The inability for
some PWls to graduate Black students at 50% or higher in a six year period is of
great concern. PWIs with high Black graduation rates (e.g., 60% to 70%)
continue to graduate Blacks 10% to 35% lower than their White counterparts
(Cross & Slater, 2001). This is of some concern considering that Black students
at many PWIs represent less than 10% of the total student population (Wilds,
2000). One prominent explanation for the low graduation rate of Black college
students attending PWIs is the lack of effective ethnic-based mentoring to help

retain and persist Black students to graduation (Lee, 1999).

Statement Of the'Problem

To address the lack of scientific rigor in college based African American
mentoring programs, this study will experimentally evaluate an ethnic-based
mentoring model in an African American student mentoring program at Michigan
State University. The model on which the program was based includes six factors
(Racial Identity, Social Support, Psychological Support, Academic Support,
Sense of Belonging, and Leadership Development).

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to summarize
research focusing on ethnic-based mentoring programs for African American
college students. The goals of this review were to: 1) examine the important

theoretical and empirical factors related to African American undergraduate

graduation rates and ethnic-based mentoring programs that focus on increasing
graduation rates, 2) identify the factors within ethnic-based mentoring programs
that are utilized to help retain and graduate African American college students at
PWls, and 3) assess the extent to which these programs have been empirically
validated. To report the influence of the six factors on student adjustment, GPA,
and retention, six areas were identified as benchmarks to determine if mentoring
programs were evaluated effectively: 1) sample size, 2) pre-post test design, 3) a
control group, 4) measures identifying factors that influence student adjustment,
retention, and graduation, 5) GPA as an outcome, and 6) retention after two

semesters as an outcome.

Context of Problem

Adjustment of African American College Students at Predominantly White
Institutions

Several explanations have been proposed concerning the inability of PWls
to retain and graduate African American students. One explanation is that some
African American students attending PWls are unable to effectively adjust to the
academic and social climate of the university (Armstrong-West & de la Tega,
1988). Additionally, while attending PWIs, some African American students will
confront racism for the first time. Many of these students will also face academic
and social isolation, which can lead to identity issues (e.g., internalized

oppression), academic problems, financial difficulties, and poor mental health

(Cokley, 2000; Moritsugu 8 Sue, 1983; Terenzini, Patricia, Bohr, Pascarella,
Amaury, 1997). '

Research shows that prolonged (3 to 6 months or longer) stress caused
by poor adjustment for students of color (Moritsugu & Sue, 1983), can lead to
depressed mood (e.g., tearfulness, feelings of hopelessness), anxiety (e.g.,
nervousness, worry, jitteriness), maladaptive reactions (e.g., physical complaints,
social withdrawal, work, or academic inhibition), and psychosocial stressors (e.g.,
being the only African American in a class) (American Psychiatric Association,
1994). To cope with these Challenges, many African AmeriCan students
assimilate to the Values of the majority (i.e., White Americans) to protect
themselves from potentially troublesome circumstances (Erikson, 1968;
Moritsugu & Sue, 1983).

Tinto (1975) argued that all college students, regardless of ethnicity or
race, experience the challenges of academic and social adjustment. Yet, African
American students attending PWls may experience more difficulty academically
and socially compared to their White counterparts (Fleming, 1984). These
difficulties are often complicated by African American students being submersed
in an Eurocentric culture (e.g., values and behaviors practiced by people from
European decent who consider themselves White or Caucasian), where they
have limited access to resources (e.g., role models, access to individuals who
experienced similar adjustment issues) to help them cope with the stressors of
their new academic environment (Harvey, 1984; Roach, 1999; Schwitzer, Oris,

Ancis, & Thomas, 1999). This is perceived as a racist and/or racially divided and

hostile environment among many African American students attending PWls
(Gregory, 2000).
Racism in Higher Education

Racism has been and continues to be a serious issue for African
American students attending PWls (LeSure, 1994). Those who experience racial
discrimination are more likely to drop out of school due to social isolation
(LeSure, 1994; Roach, 1999). These discriminating practices can also have a
negative impact on the student’s academic performance and emotional well-
being (Gregory, 2000). It has been shown that negative and discriminatory
behaviors and reactions from faculty members result in African American
students demonstrating poor learning practices, decreased self-esteem, and poor
academic and social adjustment (Lesure, 1994; Roach, 1999).

In the 1990 Boyer report, two-thirds of the presidents at research
institutions cited racism as problems at their university (Gregory, 2000). In a
study of eight ivy- league institutions, 73% of the total number of respondents
and 81% of the African American respondents perceived racism as a problem on 1
their campus. Similarly, at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 20% of
all students of color reported racial and verbal abuse on campus. One-third
reported that their interpersonal relations had been “seriously affected,” and the
majority perceived themselves to be potential targets of discrimination (Gregory,
2000)

PWI environments, where the Climate and social contexts are unfriendly,

contribute to poor adjustment and a higher dropout rate among African American

students. To address this issue many universities have created various initiatives
(e.g., development of campus culture centers and mentoring programs) to help
retain African American students at PWIs (Gregory, 2000).

TO improve the climate for minority students attending PWIS, higher
education consulting firms have recognized universities that promote successful
retention and graduation rates among minority students. In 2003, nine colleges
were recognized for the Noel Levitz (Higher Education Consulting Firm) retention
excellence award. The college of New Jersey Ewing was one college that
received this award for their “Minority Mentoring Program”. From their first to
second year, the program increased mentee retention from 40% to 91%. As a
result, 77% of the mentees in the program graduated in 4.4 years (Hanover,

2003)

Mentoring

Derived from Greek mythology (taken from The Odyssey), the term
“Mentor” and the concept of “mentoring” became significant when Mentor, a
friend and companion of King Odysseus, was entrusted the task Of raising the
King's son, Telemachus (Laden, 1999). Mentor served as Telemachus' father
figure, teacher, role model, counselor, adviser, challenger, and encourager.
Telemachus was labeled as Mentor’s mentee, novice, and protégée, (Laden,
1999). Since that time, the term mentor has evolved, and now is typically defined
as ‘the development of a leader through an individual, deliberate, and intentional

process that is supportive, nurturing, insightful, and protective” (Hannon, 1999).

Mentoring (Boyd, 1988; Otto, 1994; Laden, 1999) allows the mentor to
guide a mentee through obstacles or barriers and to provide ongoing support
based on their knowledge and experience. Allen and colleagues (1997) found
that mentoring could provide benefits to the mentees. They found that mentored
first year business graduate students who received psychosocial support,
reported a higher sense of self-esteem than students who were not mentored.

Mentoring has typically been associated with the apprentice model (i.e.,
an individual who is Ieaming a skill) Of graduate education, management,
teachers, plumbers, and doctors (Jacobi, 1991 ). Over the last 20 years however,
mentoring has been utilized as a retention and enrichment strategy for
undergraduate institutions (Jacobi, 1991). There is a consensus from higher
education, the business sector, and students that mentoring is a critical
component of effective undergraduate education (Jacobi, 1991).

Emerging studies Show the association between academic success (i.e.,
GPA and retention), graduation, mentoring, and devising a more operationalized
definition of mentoring (Terrell, Hassell, 8 Duggar, 1995). The importance of
operationalizing mentoring is clearly a concern of Terrell and colleagues (1995),
who felt there is a lack of information that discusses the characteristics, goals,
and organizational structures of a successful mentoring program in general, and
ethnic-based mentoring models in particular.

Implementing an ethnic-based mentoring model can help college
academic departments and Student Affairs programs teach mentors techniques

their mentees can use to be, or remain, academically and socially successful

while in school. Some of these techniques would include mentors teaching
mentees effective coping strategies (e.g., communication and self-advocacy
skills) to help them deal with racism, academic challenges (e.g., completing
writing and math assignments), stress (e.g., relationship with roommate),
finances (e.g., paying for tuition and school supplies), and alienation (e.g., being
away from home and feelings of not fitting in).

This positive support (from a mentor) may serve as an intervention for
many first year student mentees of color in general and African American
mentees in particular, who may not have otherwise received support if they had

not been involved in a mentoring program.

Defining an Ethnic-Based Mentoring Model
for African American College Students

Over the past 100 years, African American students have challenged
universities to create programs and centers that promote cultural awareness,
sensitivity, and competence among university administrators to help retain
African American college students at PWls (Stennis-Williams, Terrell, 8 Haynes,
1988). Therefore, African American fraternities and sororities were created (early
19003) and functioned as an ethnic-based mentoring mechanism, in which older
students supported younger students by promoting brotherhood/sisterhood,
academic achievement, and retention (Wesley, 1961 ).

Despite these efforts, there remains no clear definition of ethnic-based

mentoring, and the effectiveness of mentoring provided by and for African

American students, staff, and faculty. Lester and Johnson (1981) defined
mentoring in higher education “as one to one Ieaming relationship between an
older person and a younger person, which is based on modeling behavior and
extended dialogue between individuals” (p.119). Phelps, Tranakos-Howe,
Dagley, 8 Lyn (2001) defined ethnicity as a shared culture, language, religion, or
geography, which creates a sense of kinship, loyalty, beliefs, values, and
attitudes among the members of the ethnic group. An ethnic-based mentoring
model would encompass similar characteristics from Lester and Johnson’s
(1981) and Phelps and colleagues definitions, but would be racially and ethnically

specific (Whitler, Calantone, 8 Young, 1988; Phiney, 1990).

CHAPTER TWO

Review of the Literature

Defining ethnic-based mentoring and examining the efficacy of programs
that focus on the principles of mentoring African American students at PWls is
the basis of this literature review. Chapter one provided important theoretical and
empirical background describing African American graduation rates and defining
an ethnic-based mentoring model. The following sections will focus more
specifically on the factors and literature that discusses ethnic-based mentoring

programs with regards to retaining African American college students at PWls.

Rationale for Choice of Program Factors

Racial Identity, Social Support, Psychological Support, Academic Support,
Sense of Belonging, and Leadership Development have been cited as effective
mechanisms to assist African American students in PWls. For example, Parham
and Helms (1985) suggested that increased racial identity leads to positive
academic and social development. D'Augelli and Hershberger (1993) noted that
social support helped African American students address feelings of isolation,
depression, and loneliness. Similariy, Pyant and Yanico (1991) indicated that
providing African American students with psychological support helps students
develop effective coping skills and the ability to control their stress. Thile and

Matt (1995) felt that providing African American students with academic support

10

helps the student develop the skills to establish and obtain short and long term
educational goals that lead to academic success. Postmes 8 Branscombe (2002)
noted that Sense of belonging was important because it benefited African
American students by allowing them to interact with other African Americans in
an integrated environment. Lastly, Chavous (2000), Mitchell, and Dell (1992)
suggested that as African American students become involved in college
organizations and develop their leadership skills, it helps them become more

connected with the campus environment.

Key Factors Examined In the Review

Racial Identity

Racial Identity was defined as a person’s beliefs and attitudes about their
own race and that of others (Mitchell 8 Dell, 1992). Parahm and Helms (1981)
defined Racial Identity as a way for African Americans to explore and embrace
group differences and eliminate barriers while maintaining their own individuality.
Social Support

Social Support was defined as a supportive relationship where an
individual or network of individuals provides resources or services to another
individual by giving them direction or reducing stressful situations (Jacobi, 1991;
MCGrath, Gutierrez, 8 Valadez 2000; Caplan, 1974).
Psychological Support

Psychological Support is a person helping another develop the attitude,

coping skills, and resources necessary to develop a positive sense of self, control

11

over stress, and the ability to maintain hope in order to be psychologically healthy
(Pyant 8 Yanico, 1991; Franklin, 1996).
Academic Support

Academic Support are the efforts of an individual to help a student achieve
short and long term educational goals (e.g., test, homework, internships) in an
academic environment (Jacobi, 1991). Academic Support for students is
enhanced through skill development, goal setting, understanding how to access
resources (e.g., tutors), and networking with others to find effective ways to
overcome Challenging academic tasks (T hile 8 Matt, 1995).
Sense of Belonging

Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer, Patusky, Bouswsema, and Collier (1992) defined
Sense of Belonging as “the experience of personal involvement in a system or
environment where an individual feels an integral part of that system or
environment” (p. 173).
Leadership Development

Leadership Development is the process where a college student learns to
care for their organization, integrates their ambitions with the needs of the
organization, develops interpersonal relationship skills to handle conflicts,
empowers others, and learns skills for task completion, planning, financial
management, and evaluation (Battin, 1997; Striffolino 8 Saunders, 1996).
College Adjustment

Dahmus, Bemardin, and Bemadin’s (1992) research showed College

Adjustment being comprised of four components: Academic Adjustment, Social

12

Adjustment, Psychological and Physical Adjustment (Personal-Emotional
Adjustment), and institutional attachment. Academic Adjustment is a student’s
ability to meet the educational requirements of the college. Social Adjustment is
a student’s ability to negotiate the social demands of the college. Psychological
and Physical Adjustment are related to a student’s ability to manage the positive
and negative stressors (i.e., roommates, tests) while attending the college.
Institutional attachment is the degree of positive feelings a student has about the
college they are attending.
GPA

Grade Point Average (GPA) is the culmination of class grades in an
educational setting. Undergraduate students in higher education obtain a GPA
beginning their freshmen (first year Of college) year until they graduate.
Retention

Retention (or persistence) in higher education is a student’s ability to take
and complete classes from one semester to the next. Retention of

undergraduate students begins freshmen year and ends at graduation.

Literature Search Procedures
The literature review on ethnic-based mentoring programs included
manuscripts from 1959 to 2003. The search process was conducted using the
Educational Resource lnfonnation Center (ERIC) and Psych Info databases. The
earlier part of this timeframe (1959 to 1983) was identified because of the

historical context and events (e.g., Jim Crow laws) of the education system in the

13

 

United States. The later part of the timeframe (1984 to 2003) focused on the
years when ethnic-based mentoring programs were being designed and
implemented to help students of color (e.g., African American students, Latino
students) adjust to the academic and social environments of a PWI (Terrell,
Hassell, 8 Dugar, 1992).

Specific terms 'such as “mentoring” and “African Americans” were entered
in the databases as subject and text words (DuBOis, Holloway, Valentine, 8
Cooper, 2002). Combined searches (e.g., African American and mentoring,
African American and ethnic-based mentoring, etc.) were also conducted in both
databases to maximize the number of references found focusing on ethnic-based
mentoring.

The search on the term “mentoring” produced 1217 references in Psych
info and 3348 in ERIC. The combined search of “mentoring”, “African
Americans”, and “Blacks” produced 19 references from Psych Info and 78 from
ERIC. Another combined search was conducted on “mentoring”, “retention", and
“African American college students". This resulted in 2 references from Psych
Info and 19 from ERIC. The last combined search included “mentoring”, “ethnic”,
and “African American college students”, which produced 5 references from
Psych info and 2 from ERIC. Other studies (three) focusing on mentoring
programs and African American college students were found in the reference
section of manuscripts identified by Psych Info and ERIC.

Criteria for Including Studies

14

To be included in this literature review, studies had to meet several
criteria. First, the studies had to include African Americans or students of color
(African American, Asian, Latino, and Mexican American). Second, participants
in the study had to be college students. Third, the studies had to involve some
form of mentoring that supports the adjustment of students Of color at PW l’s. .
Fourth, the studies had to include at least three factors (Racial Identity, Social
Support, Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense Of Belonging, and
Leadership Development) of an ethnic-based mentoring (Dollarhide,

1997;Gregory, 2000; Harris, 1999; Jacobi, 1991).

Studies of Ethnic—based Mentoring Programs

The search outcome identified 28 studies that were relevant to mentoring
African American college students and students of color. Eighteen studies
however, did not meet the inclusion criteria (i.e., did not include at least three of
the six factors). Therefore, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Out of the ten studies,
four studies only targeted African American students, one targeted Latino
students, and five were mixed ethnic groups (most groups included African
American, Asian American, Latino, or Mexican American students) that
addressed the utility of ethnic-based mentoring programs among students of
color attending PWls.
Coding Studies

Studies focusing on ethnic-based mentoring programs were coded across

five areas to assess their scientific credibility: 1) program goals, 2) factors (e.g.,

15

Academic Support, Social Support) identified in each program, 3) methodology
(e.g., sample size, pre-post test, control group, measure(s) assessing program
effectiveness), 4) outcomes (i.e., GPA and retention), and 5) strengths and
limitations of the mentoring programs. Table 2.1 provides a summary of program

factors, methodologies, and outcomes of each study.

Summary of Studies
Study 1: Promising Prospect For Minority Retention: Students Becoming Peer
Mentors (Good, Haplin, 8 Haplin, 2000)

Program: Minority Engineering Program

The goal of the Minority Engineering Program was to improve retention
rates among African American engineering students at a large predominately
White land grant university in the southeast (Good et. al., 2000). The objective of
the program was to use peer mentors to provide one to one mentoring to support
first year mentees in engineering. The results showed that first year mentees felt
that upper-Class students provided networking and helped ease their transition
into the university (Good et.al., 2000). The sample included 19 (4 female and 15
male) mentors.

The mentors (upper-class African American engineering undergraduates)
were selected into the program based on interest and interviews with the
coordinator. Mentors attended a 2-hour training, which addressed

responsibilities as a mentor and procedures of the mentoring program. The

16

program director also met with mentors weekly to discuss their mentee’s
progress, development, and their roles as mentors.

Racial identity, social support, psychological support, academic support,
and leadership development were mentioned as factors supporting the mentees
adjustment at the university. To establish social support between mentees and
mentors, mentors were matched with African American freshmen who were pre-
engineering majors. Mentors met with their mentees weekly to provide ongoing
social support. During their meetings mentors discussed the importance of their
racial identity. Mentors felt that their mentees would have an easier transition to
the engineering program if they shared their past experiences as an African
American engineering student. Through social activities (e.g., meals, movies)
mentors developed close relationships with their mentees by discussing issues
related to racial identity, being an African American engineering student, and the
mentee’s first year experience. The social activities allowed mentees to Share
their feelings about stereotypes, ethnic isolation, and perceptions of racism.
Through these interactions, mentors provided psychological support by
discussing coping strategies to help their mentees deal with stress. Similariy, to
help reduce the mentees academic stress, the mentors provided academic
support by meeting with their mentees weekly for problem solving workshops
related to their engineering courses. When needed, the mentors tutored their
mentees in math and science.

To measure academic success, grade point averages (GPA) were

collected from mentors and mentees prior and during their program involvement.

17

The program director evaluated the effectiveness of the mentoring program
based on feedback provided by the mentors in theirjoumals. Journals were
content analyzed and coded into two areas: academic growth (e.g., study skills,
improved understanding of engineering concepts), and interpersonal
development (e.g., development of responsibilities and leadership skills, ease of
social interaction and communication, and personal self-satisfaction).

From the fall to spring semesters, the mentors demonstrated a 70%
increase in GPA. Mentors showed a 27% increase in their ability to solve and
understand engineering concepts. Eighty-nine percent of the mentors enhanced
their social skills, identity, and decreased feelings of isolation. From the
beginning to the end of the school year, the program was able to retain 80% of its
mentors. Information was not, however, provided on the mentors and mentees
who dropped out of the program nor the significance of the reported outcomes.

A major strength of the study was the program’s ability to collect pre-post-
test data using GPA. Another strength was the use Of mentor journals. The
journal entries provided insight on how mentor’s provided social, psychological,
and academic support to their mentees. In many of the journals mentors
expressed that the mentor mentee relationship provided an environment to
understand each others experiences, which helped them adjust to a PWI.

The limitations of this study were the lack of information reported from
mentees, small sample size, lack of control group, and no lnfonnation reported
on the amount of time it took to graduate. The small sample size (N = 19) limited

the program’s ability to report significant conclusions and make generalizations to

18

the larger population. By not having a control group, it could not be determined if
retention and improved grades of the students were a direct result of the
mentoring or a result of other confounding variables (e.g., mentees receiving
tutoring or support from their dorm resident assistant). The lack of information on
mentee enrollment does not provide tangible evidence on how long the students
were retained or if the students in the program graduated. Without feedback from

the mentee, several questions remain regarding the effectiveness of the mentor.

Study 2: Centricity and the Mentoring Experience in Academia:

An Africentric Mentoring Paradigm (Harris, 1999)

Program: The Ham's Mentor Model

The goal of Harris’ model was to infuse Karenga’s seven principles of
Nguzo Saba (Umoja - unity, Kujichaguila - self-determination, Ujima — collective
work and responsibility, Ujamma - cooperative economics, Nia - purpose,
Kuumba — creativity, and lmani - faith) into Black Greek organizations. Harris felt
Karenga’s principles encouraged and empowered African American participants
through self-knowledge (Harris, 1999). In this model, mentors and mentees were
trained in building self-confidence and independence, ways to strengthen the
mentor mentee relationship, unity/collective work and responsibility, and skill
development. This model was created because of a lack of mentoring programs
that provided African American students with positive self-ethnic images (i.e.

African American role models) and empowerment.

19

The Harris model was administered to 108 African American
undergraduate students at five higher education institutions in the southeast (no
additional information was provided about the sample). Her model was based on
the mentoring experiences of African American college students. These
experiences created a revolving relationship between mentors and mentees
(mentee could also serve as the mentor). Unfortunately, Harris did not outline
how mentors were recruited, trained, or performed their responsibilities.

Harris’ (1999) model coincided with the six factors of an ethnic-based
mentor model. Based on her model and Karenga’s seven principals (denoted in
parentheses), racial identity (Nia - purpose) corresponded with self-confidence
and independence, where a mentor/mentee experiences a healthy concept of
themselves and a connection to others; social support, psychological support,
and academic support (lmani - faith) corresponded with the mentor mentee
relationship, where the mentor/mentee assists and works with others; sense of
belonging (Umoja/Ujima) corresponded with unity/collective work and
responsibility, where the mentor/mentee realizes their connectedness to others in
the African American community; and leadership development (Kuumba —
creativity) corresponded with skill development, where the mentor/mentee
becomes an agent for change and participates in activities that transform
themselves and the environment.

Harris used qualitative methodology (i.e., interviews and focus groups) to
assess the effectiveness of the model. Results from the interviews and focus

groups suggested that her model helped African American mentors and mentees

20

enhance their ability to work with other African American students and become
more involved with campus organizations. Harris also felt that the program was
able to empower both the student mentors and mentees, which in turn improved
their social adjustment and academic success.

The strength of the study was Harris’ theoretical development of an
Africentric mentoring model. Harris suggested that an Africentric mentoring
model could support the college student developmental process by allowing
students to be both the mentor and mentee. She also suggested that the model
had the ability to promote student success and empower African American
mentors and mentees. This is based on her analysis about the model’s ability to
have African American mentors and mentees work together and become
comfortable with the academic environment.

There were several limitations with this study. First, there was the lack of
lnfonnation about the responsibilities and interactions of mentors and mentees.
This left us uniformed on how mentors and mentees were recruited, trained,
interacted, and the type of activities they attended. Second, there was no
empirical evaluation conducted. Therefore, it is unclear if the Harris model
increased GPA or any other variables she identified in her study. Third and most
important, without a randomly assigned control group, it cannot be determined
whether the model empowered student’s self-knowledge. For example, many of
the students might have been the easiest to select, most promising students, or
had the highest sense of self-knowledge prior to entering the program.

Ultimately, without random assignment, you cannot attribute causation to any

21

effects due to selection, maturation, and historical confounds. Lastly, Harris failed
to report how long her program retained mentors or mentees and if they

graduated.

Study 3: Socializing and Mentoring College Students of Color: The Puente
Project as an Exemplarily

Celebratory Socialization Model (Laden, 1999)

Program: Puente Project

The Puente Project was a nationally award winning program for retaining
Latino students at two year colleges and helping them persist to four colleges.
The program emphasized the cultural attributes of Latino students and their
social adjustment at a Predominately White Community College through a
multidimensional and integrative approach that combined curriculum
development, counseling, and mentoring. The goals of this one-year program
were to retain Latino students in college, help them succeed academically, and
support their transfer to a four-year institution to earn their bachelor and
advanced degrees (Laden, 1999).

The Puente Project recruited professionals from the community to serve
as mentors. Mentors were trained on exercises administered during the mentee’s
English class. During class, mentors supported students with English and
discussed stressful situations Latino students may encounter in predominately
White classes. This was considered the initial stages of mentoring in the Puente

Project.

22

In the Puente Project, racial identity, social support, psychological support,
academic success, and sense of belonging were variables studied. The
program’s counselors coordinated the social support activities between the
mentors and mentees. Mentor and mentee meetings took place in and outside
the English classroom setting (e.g., restaurants, campus buffet). At these
meetings, the mentors and mentees discussed their feelings about entering the
mentoring relationship. Mentors discussed topics that taught mentees about the
educational system, their strengths and weaknesses, and never giving up on
obtaining their goals (Laden, 1999).

During class meetings, racial identity was discussed with mentees through
their reading and writing exercises. Mentees wrote about their experiences at a
PWI and how those experiences influenced their identity as Latino students.
Psychological support was provided through English teachers who served as
counselors and mentors who worked in the academic and counseling
professions. Counselors in the English class provided mentees with coping skills
to help the students deal with stress and health issues concerning the cultural
and social development of the Latino students. Counselors felt that not
addressing cultural and social issues (i.e., Latino’s successfully obtaining career
goals in America without loosing their cultural identity) could compromise the
college adjustment of Latino students.

Academic support was provided through the English Class, where
mentees'worked on their reading and writing skills. Assignments included

narratives written in English that focused on the mentee’s Latino identity and their

23

ability to navigate through the academic system. Some of the topics discussed in
Class were: neighborhoods they grew up in, important knowledge learned from
relatives, their racial identity, and understanding their Latino history (Laden,
1999). Mentees had to participate in the English class for one year.

As of 1998, Laden (1999) estimated that 9,000 students benefited from
the Puente Project in 38 colleges and 21 high schools in California. Qualitative
methods were used to collect and analyze the outcomes of the Puente Project.
Interviews, observations, and archival data (i.e., institutional reports, newsletters,
brochure, and news paper articles) were gathered to create themes about the
Puente Project. During a two-year period the program had a 97% retention rate,
and 48% of the students transferred to foUr-year institutions.

The strength of the Puente Project was its curriculum. The culturally
appropriate curriculum focused on racial identity, academic counseling, and on
culturally sensitive mentoring techniques through individuals on campus and in
the community. The monitoring of mentee enrollment was another strength of the
program. This lnfonnation showed that less than 3% of the mentees in the
program dropped out or did not graduate after two years.

There were several limitations with this program. First, the sample size of
the Puente Project program year was not reported. Therefore, it is unclear how
mentees in the program were tracked or accounted for as program participants.
Second, empirical data was not provided on the student’s GPAs (i.e., academic
support) or any other factors (e.g., racial identity). Third, without a control group

it was unclear how and if the 97% retention among the mentees was a direct

24

result Of their participation in the program. Fourth, of the 48% of Puente Project
mentees who attended four-year colleges, their graduation rate was never
reported. Lastly, limited information was provided regarding the qualitative

analysis used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.

Study 4: Retaining African American Men Through Mentoring Initiatives

(Lavant, Anderson, Tiggs, 8 Joseph, 1997).

Program: The Faculty Mentor Program

The goal of the Faculty Mentor Program was to increase the retention and
graduation rate of African American students. The program was designed to
support first generation African American college students born and raised in
predominately urban African American communities attending the University of
Louisville. This population of African American students was targeted because of
their large dropout rate from the university.

University faculty were assigned as mentors to all incoming African
American freshmen (N =129) admitted to degree granting units (e.g.,
Engineering, Psychology). Even though the program was not based on gender
specifically, a primary focus of the program was to mentor the small number of
African American men (n = 29). All participants (African American males)
participated in the mentoring program for at least one year.

The Faculty Mentoring Program emphasized similar variables as the
Puente Project, which were racial identity, social support, psychological support,

academic support, sense of belonging, and leadership development. To support

25

mentees socially, mentors were assigned to the mentees based on the student’s
major (e.g., math majors were assigned to a math professor). First contact with
mentees was during freshmen registration. Mentors were instructed to have bi-
monthly or monthly contact with their assigned mentees by phone, letter,
electronic mail, or face-to-face.

Mentors shared coping strategies (coping strategies were not identified or
explained ) with their mentees. They believed these strategies would support
their racial identity and transition from inner-city communities tO the new
academic and social environment of a PWI. Mentors informed mentees that they
would have to learn how to coexist as minorities in predominately White
classrooms. Psychological support was provided to help the mentees adjust and
cope with the stressor of being the only or one in few minority students in class.
Psychological support was also provided through face-tO-face interactions
between the mentor and the mentee, where the mentors would help their
assigned mentee navigate the social and academic stressors of being an African
American male at a PWI. Mentors also supported their mentees by helping them -
develop a sense of belonging and by creating a welcoming environment through
planned social activities (e.g., ice cream socials, pizza fest, Halloween parties, a
barbeque, and free tickets to jazz week). These activities provided a structured.
yet relaxed foam for mentors and mentees to interact and deveIOp their
relationships.

Mentors provided academic support to mentees by serving as their

academic advisors. Mentors encouraged mentees to attend academic activities

26

(e.g., attending a program to hear the State Senator from Kentucky speak, who
was an African American male) that supported their educational growth and
character building.

To measure the program’s outcomes (measured 1992 to 1997), mentors
documented their experiences with their mentee and tracked their mentees’
academic (monitoring GPA) and social progression (mentor journals) through
college. Results of the program showed that 66% of mentees were retained (14
of the 29 were still in school, 5 graduated in 4.5 years, with 3 attending graduate
school). The overall GPA of the mentees was 2.5 (range = 1.6 to 3.4). Two
students left the program because of financial complications, one withdrew while
on academic probation, three were dismissed (reasons not disclosed), and four
students left the university and enrolled at other universities. The retention of
Black men (66%) who participated in the program was higher than the national
average of Black men (31%) attending college (Wilds, 2000).

A strength of the program was its ability to support African American men.
This was demonstrated through the programs focus on racial identity, social
support, psychological support, and sense of belonging. These factors were
instituted as a preventive measure to support African American male student
adjustment. Wilds (2000) believed these factors were critical, particularly for
African American men attending PWls who came from predominately African
American communities. Another strength of the program was the experimental

design. This included the collection of pre-post test data, reporting of two-year

27

retention rates, and reporting graduation rates. This was documented through
mentor journals, mentee GPA, and mentee enrollment.

The limitations of the experimental design were small sample size and the
lack of a control group. The authors felt that the program did not receive the
needed financial and human support and commitment from school
administrators, which limited the amount of students who could be served in the
program. With the small sample size, the program lacked a strong longitudinal
evaluation that evaluated students’ progression over time. The lack of a
structured longitudinal evaluation, which includes detailed measures (i.e., racial
identity scale) and control group, made it difficult to determine the influence
mentors had on their mentees’ racial identity, sense of belonging, academic
success, and college adjustment. Without a control group or measures to
demonstrate change over time, it was unknown how much these factors
contributed to the mentees’ retention and graduation compared to individual

perseverance or other university programs.

Study 5: The Role of Student Mentors in a Pre-college Engineering
Program (Marable, 1999)
Program: Precollege Initiative for Minorities in Engineering (PRIME)
The goal of PRIME was to attract more African American college-bound
high school graduates to pursue engineering degrees at Tennessee
Technological University. Prior to implementation of the mentoring program,

Tennessee Technological University had a student population of 8,200, where

28

3% Of the student body were African American. The university was located in
Cookville, Tennessee, which had an African American population of 2%
(Marable, 1999).

The program was developed to help mentees reduce the stress of
transitioning from high school to college, build confidence and self-esteem, and
support their academic development. The program consisted Of seven African
American mentees. Some of the mentees came from single parent homes and
were first generation college students. The program lasted six weeks during the
summer and mentees received a $1,200 scholarship.

With the PRIME program social support, psychological support, academic
support, and sense of belonging were variables discussed in the study.
Undergraduate engineering students provided social support by serving as
mentors for the incoming African American mentees. The mentor-mentee
relationship was established using a peer counseling approach, which allowed
mentors to engage in social, ethnic, and cultural activities as they related to and
supported the mentees. Through weekly contact and exposure to other student
groups, the mentor-mentee relationships were aimed at creating a sense of
belonging for mentees at the university. For example, Marable (1999) reported
that one mentee felt a strong sense of belonging because his mentor called him
weekly, invited him to social activities on and off campus, cooked for him, and
helped him with his classes.

The use of a peer counselor model provided mentees with psychological

and academic support from a trained mentor. One way mentors psychologically

29

supported their mentees was by disclosing personal stressful lnfonnation that
African American students experience (e.g., personal relationships) at a PWI.
Mentors provided academic support to the mentees by helping them with their
basic engineering courses, developing effective study skills, and problem solving
techniques for difficult Classes (Marable, 1999).

The effectiveness of the program was measured through mentee
interviews (conversations with evaluators), however Marable did not explain the
methodology (i.e., where, when, and how information was collected) for gathering
qualitative information through these personal conversations. Some questions
asked of mentees were: 1) What has your experience been like with individual
faculty members?, 2) What type of social support has your mentor provided to
you?, and 3) How much time does your mentor spend with you? (Marable, 1999).

Results of the conversations showed that mentees felt they increased their
academic and social adjustment throughout the school year. Mentees also
shared that student mentors provided excellent guidance by sharing their
personal experiences as first year African American engineering students. Lastly,
mentees expressed that mentors spent a lot of time with them, which helped
them feel connected to a group at the university and reduced their feelings of
being alienated at a PWI.

The strength of the program derived from the peer counseling approach,
which emphasized the development of close relationships among upper class
students (mentors) in order to ease the stress of first year student’s (mentees)

transitioning into the university. The infusion of this approach provided a

30

framework for mentors to socially, psychologically, and academically support
their mentees. Marable (1999) felt that the mentors’ ability to provide ongoing
support possibly helped the mentee sense of belonging and transition into
college.

A limitation of this evaluation design was its lack of attention to studying
which components of the peer counseling approach had a Significant influence
on the mentees’ social adjustment, academic success, sense Of belonging, and
college adjustment. These limitations were due to a small sample size, lack of a
pre-post test design, no control group, not monitoring GPA, and not tracking
mentee enrollment for two-year retention and the time it took for mentees to
graduate. Not addressing these important methodological factors, made it
difficult to assess if the effectiveness of the peer counseling approach influenced
mentee transitioning, if mentees received support from another mentoring model,

or if mentees reached successful transitioning by themselves.

Study 6: What Does It Take To Have A Positive Impact On Minority
Students” College Retention (Newman 8 Newman 1999)
Program: Young Scholars Program (YSP)

The Young Scholars Program (YSP) is a long-term (6th grade to college)
ethnic-based program that includes mentoring. The goal of the YSP was to
increase the number of African American and other underrepresented groups
(Asian American, Latino, Native American) attending college and graduate

school. Implemented in different urban city public schools in Ohio (i.e., Akron,

31

Cleveland, Cincinnati), YSP nominated high achieving 6th grade students who
were low income and where neither parent had a college degree. While in the
program students must maintain a 3.0 or better GPA. During the 1994 autumn
school year, 87 YSP students enrolled at The Ohio State University.

The summer after high school graduation, YSP students attended The
Ohio State University for a three-week summer transition program. The program
consisted of students attending Classes that focused on academic course work,
college preparatory courses (e.g., mathematics), career exploration, and cultural
and social activities. Throughout the program and prior to attending college, YSP
students received mentoring from community members (the authors did not
explain the mentoring process in the study). In addition, YSP had a full time
program coordinator, who worked closely with the public schools and monitored
the student’s progress. The use of a full time program coordinator helped pair
mentees up with mentors to support the mentees educational needs.

Upon entering college, each student was assigned a mentor (i.e., YSP
staff - number of staff not reported) for continued social and academic support.
The mentor monitored their mentee’s progress, provided guidance (e.g.,
academic and social resources) and familiarized students with campus resources
(e.g., cultural organizations). Throughout the school year, mentors contacted
their mentees to support and monitor their academic progress. Similar to the
Harris model, the authors in this study failed to report the methods used to

evaluate how mentors supported YSP mentees.

32

 

The mentees” GPA (average 3.00) was monitored to measure their
academic success. Through journal entries, students reported their college
experiences from their freshmen to junior years. Mentees mostly wrote about
their academic experiences in the classroom and their ability to achieve
satisfactory grades (i.e., one student was averaging a C in all his classes and
was frustrated). Journal entries also documented the mentees’ experience of
frustration, isolation, confusion, and their resilience to overcome stressful
situations (i.e., one student discussed how they did horribly on a midterm exam
and used their Tae Kwon Do class to reduce their stress, focus, and relax).

After two years (Autumn 1994 to Spring 1996), Newman and Newman
(1999) reported that 72% of the students in the program were retained. They
found that these results were higher than the comparison group (retention 62%),
who had similar demographic backgrounds (students who did not want to be in
the program), and the entire freshmen class (N = 5,968; retention rate of 70%).
Unfortunately, there was no mention of any statistical method used to empirically
test if these outcomes were scientifically valid. A

The program demonstrated several strengths. When students first entered
the YSP program, mentors worked with mentees to improve their racial identity.
This was a strong factor in the program because many of the students came from
economically disadvantage (i.e., poor) backgrounds. Mentors supported their
mentees by exposing them to educational opportunities (i.e., field trips to

businesses) and encouraging them to attend The Ohio State University (OSU).

33

 

The ability for YSP to identify and fund underrepresented mentees through
college appears to be another strong factor. Through YSP funding, mentees
received college tuition and YSP staff who served as mentors to monitor and
support the mentees’ academic and social progress. By mentees serving in the
program from middle school to college, a social support system was created
among the mentees attending the OSU. The authors noted that these early
relationships appeared to help YSP mentees support each other to overcome
frustrating moments (e.g., performing poorly in Class) while attending the OSU.
To promote the mentees’ academic success and retention, the program
monitored the mentees GPA and enrollment.

Despite these strengths, there were several limitations to this study. First,
the program did not include an evaluation component to determine how the
program influenced student retention from middle school to college graduation. It
was also unclear if the sample (N = 87) that attended the OSU were the same
students from middle school or if some of the students started the program while
in high school. Second, without a methodology that explains the type and
frequency of mentoring YSP staff provided mentees in college, the only
conclusion that can be drawn about the program was that it paid for the mentees
tuition. Third, it was not assessed if the YSP mentees who attended The Ohio
State University were in other support (i.e., Tae Kwon Do Class) or mentoring
programs, which could have influenced the mentees college adjustment. Fourth,
the comparison group was comprised of students who did not want to be in the

program. Therefore it cannot be determined whether YSP influenced mentee

34

 

retention. Lastly, the authors did not share the amount of time it took for
mentees in the program to graduate. This would appear to be an important factor ,

that would influence program funding and mentees graduating in four years.

Study 7: The Adventor Program: advisement and mentoring for students

of color in higher education (Shultz, Colton, 8 Colton, 2001)

Program: The Adventor Program

Similar to the Minority Engineering Program, the Adventor (“Adv’ + “entor”; .
taken from Advisor and mentor = Adventor) was created to retain incoming
students of color who attended Kutztown University’s College of Education. The
primary objective of this one-year program was to advise (e.g., support students
academically) and mentor (e.g., support students socially) students of color.

The program had a sample of 19 mentees. Over half of the mentees were
African American (60% African Americans, 40% Mexican Americans). Although
the study had 19 mentees, 6 were omitted from the study because they
participated in other mentoring programs prior to the Adventor program. Shultz
and colleagues (2001) also reported that 67 first year students were chosen to
participate in a control group.

Program training included mentors (faculty/staff) receiving an orientation
on personal biases, attitudes, and cultural sensitivity. This training was critical,
because the mentor-mentee pairings were not based on race. For example, if an
African American mentee had a White mentor, the White mentor had to

understand the issues African American students encounter at a PWI.

35

 

Providing social support, psychological support, academic support, and
sense of belonging were mentioned as key factors of the Adventor program to
maximize college adjustment, GPA, and retention. Similar to the Faculty Mentor
Program, mentees were contacted prior to attending classes by their mentors.
Mentors welcomed the incoming students to help them feel connected to the
university and college of education. At the start of the program, mentors were
matched with mentees based on their majors and availability. Mentors
maintained relationships with their mentees weekly through phone calls, e-mails,
letters, and social outings (e.g., lunch). Mentors also contacted their mentees
weekly to provide social support and help their mentees adjust to their new
environment.

As a way to help mentees feel a sense of belonging, mentors met with
mentees on and off campus. Through these social events (e.g., soda meetings),
the mentors were able to interact and build relationships with their mentees of
color. To help maintain the mentor-mentee relationship, mentors attended
programs and activities (eg. basketball games) with their mentees. Since the
mentors were also advisors. they supported the mentees’ academic development
and success, and addressed their social and emotional issues in order to ensure
the mentee’s psychological well-being. The mentors also monitored the mentees”
grades and served as a one-on-one tutor for academic support.

To measure program outcomes, mentors met for mid semester meetings
to evaluate the mentoring experience and address any difficulties. Through

mentor and faculty communication, academic reports were kept to report

36

 

mentees’ academic progress. lntemal program evaluations were conducted,
which involved an end of the year survey for mentors and mentees. The contents
of the survey were not explained in the study. To measure retention, an
evaluation of the students’ academic achievement (i.e., GPA) and matriculation
were collected from the registrar’s office.

After one school year, Shultz and colleagues (2001) reported that more
than half (77%) Of the mentees who participated in the program were retained
compared to 67% of students in the control group. The surveys also reported
that 88% of the mentees and 91% of the mentors enjoyed the mentoring
expenence.

There were several strengths of the program. First, the design of the
program included a mixed method of advising and mentoring. The authors
suggest that this combination appeared to effectively support the mentor-mentee
relationship in class, meeting outside class, and during'social events. It also
provided mentors with a means to monitor mentee GPA at the beginning and end
Of the school year. Second, was the training for mentors. This training allowed
mentors to develop new skills and understand the family, financial, academic,
and social issues students of color encountered while at the university. These
skills also helped mentors understand how to offer mentees support socially,
psychologically, academically, and create a sense of belonging for mentees.
Lastly, mentors felt highly encouraged from the programs success to retain

students over a one-year period. This was important because faculty and staff

37

 

felt more willing to be mentors and provide financial support for a successful
program (Shultz et. al., 2001).

Limitations of the evaluation design included the small sample size, a
nonequivalent control group, and tracking of two-year retention and years to
graduate. The authors noted that the program struggled with finding faculty to
serve as mentors, and as a result only a small number of students could be
mentored. With the small sample size (results in low power), it becomes difficult
to report statistically significant results, and to generalize such findings to the
target population.

Further, the researchers incorrectly reported the use of a control group
(consisted Of 67 students). The 67 first year student’s who were admitted to the
university, were not randomly selected to participate in the Adventor program.
By not creating a control group that is randomly selected from the target
population of first year students to be mentored, invalidates the study’s scientific
credibility. Therefore if the control group came from the same target population,
the retention of 67% might have been the same or greater for the control group.

Similar to the other evaluations in this review, another limitation was the
lack of reporting two-year retention and the number of years it took for mentees
to graduate. Based on the program's structure (advising and mentoring), it is not
clear why retention and graduation were not included in the study. With an
advising model, one would believe that retention and graduation would be

primary factors associated with student academic and social progressing.

38

 

Study 8: Using a Student Organization to Increase Participation and Success
of Minorities in Agricultural Disciplines (Talbert, Larke, 8 Jones, 1999)
Program: Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Sciences
(MANRRS)

The goal of MANRRS was to foster partnerships between minority (African
American, Latino, Asian) agriculture and natural resource college students and
professionals from the academic, government, and business arenas (Talbert et. .
al., 1999). Established in 1986, MANRRS Chapters are in several land-grant
colleges and universities across the United States.

The program combined the grooming and networking mentoring models to
support the advancement of minority students. The grooming mentoring model
had three components: 1) one-on-one relationships, 2) hierarchical structure,
where the mentor is over the mentee, and 3) benefits that only transfer from the
mentor to the mentee (i.e., mentors knowledge and expertise can help mentees
be successful) (Talbert, Larke, 8 Jones, 1999). The network mentoring model
also had three components: 1) collaboration among several individuals to
exchange psychosocial and vocational benefits, 2) assistance by a skilled
facilitator, and 3) exchange of responsibilities between the mentors and mentees
(i.e., mentees are placed in situations in which student guidance about current
trends educate the mentor) (Talbert et. al., 1999).

To help support mentees several variables were mentioned within the
mentoring program. Mentors provided social support to mentees by establishing

friendships. These friendships provided mentees the opportunity to discuss their

39

 

personal and professional goals. Mentors also provided academic support
through academic counseling (i.e., helping students talk to professors when they
need help) and tutoring.

Mentors implemented the grooming and networking mentoring models to
create a sense of belonging within the MANRRS program. By inviting mentees to
- MANRRS activities mentors tried to help mentees feel part of a group. Through
the networking mentoring model, leadership development was addressed
through mentor mentee role reversal. This allowed the mentees to assume the
leadership role by providing lnfonnation (e.g., how to best work with first year
African American students) and guidance to their mentors.

To measure the impact MANRRS had on mentees, information was
Obtained through a qualitative approach. Documents (i.e., brochures, mission
statements, and MANARRS publications, meeting minutes) were gathered and
analyzed for statements, experiences, and activities related to mentoring
(T albert, Larke, 8 Jones, 1999).

Evaluation of the program showed that 70% of the mentees graduated in 6
years. Mentees also reported that the program provided career, networking, and
leadership development opportunities (Talbert, Larke, 8 Jones, 1999).

The strengths of the MANRRS program were the application of the
theoretical concepts from the grooming and networking mentor models. Both
models provided the opportunity for mentees to receive individual support while
also benefiting from networking with individuals who worked at private industries,

government agencies, and other universities. Another strength was the

40

evaluations ability to track mentee enrollment and to report the length of time
mentees took to graduate. With 70% of mentees graduating in six years, the
authors used program meeting notes to suggest the program’s effectiveness.
They felt that social support and networking opportunities were possible factors
that helped mentees feel confident about their majors, academic success, and
future employment opportunities.

One limitation of the MANRRS study was the failure to mention the
number of students who participated in the program. Other limitations included
no report on the methods to conduct pre-post test assessments, the lack of a
control group, and no reports on two-year retention. Without knowing the number
of mentees in the program it is difficult to determine the effectiveness of the
program. Likewise, since the study reported two-year retention, the number of
mentees retained and matriculated to graduate should have been reported.
Based on the current information in the study, we can only conclude that less
than 30% of mentees were retained or graduated in a four or five year period.

Another limitation of this study was the lack of a pre-post test design. This
design needed to examine the grooming and networking mentoring models
influence on mentee adjustment and GPA. Moreover, without a control group we
cannot be certain that the grooming and networking mentoring models influenced
mentee adjustment, retention, and graduation, compared to them being on their
own. Lastly, the methodologies of the grooming and networking models were not
operationalized in order to measure the influence of the mentors mentoring.

Therefore, we don’t know how the grooming and networking models helped

41

mentors influence the mentees’ ability to network, develop leadership skills, and

adjust academically and socially.

Study 9: S-Plan: Support Survival and Success for African American and Latino
Students

New to Penn State (Thomas, 1999)

Program: S-Plan

The goal of S-Plan was to retain African American and Latino Student new
to Penn State University. In 1999, 60 mentors (upper class undergraduates)
participated in the program. During this year, upper class students mentored over
300 African American and Latino students (Thomas, 1999).

Student mentors were recruited during the spring and trained (training
included mentor responsibilities, ethics, peer counseling techniques, and
paperwork) a week prior to the start of fall semester. Mentors were assigned 4 to
6 freshmen mentees. Mentors were registered for a weekly class, where they
received ongoing training to support themselves and their mentees. Mentors
attended a weekend training retreat, which addressed problem solving, identity
development, conflict resolution, stereotypes, trust building, relationships,
teamwork, and mentoring.

First year students were randomly selected from the registrar list to
participate in the program. Once students agreed to receive mentoring, the
student mentor contacted their mentee and invited them to the program’s student

welcome. At the student welcome mentees met their mentor and were introduced

42

 

to other African American and Latino student mentors, mentees, faculty, and
staff.

In S-Plan racial identity, social support, academic support, psychological
support, academic support, sense of belonging, and leadership development
were variables discussed to support mentees. During weekly meetings mentors
were taught and discussed cultural issues that addressed their racial identity so
they could appropriately support their African American and Latino mentees.
From their weekly meetings mentors provided social support, psychological
support, and sense of belonging by meeting their mentees weekly for programs,
dinners, or social outings (i.e., bowling). Through monthly programs, mentors
addressed issues that were specific to the African American and Latino mentees’
sense of belonging and college adjustment at a PWI. For example, an
educational program called the “Mis Education of Generation X” helped mentees
develop skills to deal with stereotypes and racism, and the impact campus
stereotypes had on students’ mental health and psychological well-being.
Mentors’ leadership skills were taught through the organizational design of the
program. Within the program, student mentors had different positions (i.e.,
Coordinator, Facilitator, and Mentor). Although an advisor supervised the
positions, the hierarchy allowed mentors to Ieam how to supervise other mentors
and manage various aspects of a large mentoring program.

To measure the mentor and mentee outcomes, Student Affair program

evaluations were administered. The evaluations assessed program goals,

preparedness, and whether program objectives were met. In addition to Student

43

Affair program evaluations, student logs were collected to assess and account for
the mentors’ progress with their mentees. To monitor academic success,
mentors and mentees self-reported their GPA’s.

The results Of the program demonstrated that 80% of the mentors
graduated between 1997 and 2001. The author did not report mentee retention
or graduation in this program. With the implementation of an ethnic-based
student leadership mentor model, student mentors in the program increased from
7 to 60 in two years. The program collaborated with over 25 campus
organizations and increased program participation by 400% (Thomas, 1999).

The strength of the program was its ethnic-based student leadership
mentor model. The goal of this model was to help mentors develop personally
(e.g., embracing their cultural values and adjusting to the norms of a PWI); while
also Ieaming effective practices to support their mentees. Teaching leadership
skills to mentors helped them collaborate with other mentors in class, which
helped provide an Opportunity for African American and Latino mentors and
mentees to have a sense of belonging at a PWI.

Unfortunately, this program was not empirically evaluated. Without a
randomized experimental and control group, which includes a pre-post test
design, it was difficult to determine the influence of S-Plan on mentor and mentee

adjustment, retention, and graduation.

Study 10: The Ethnic Mentor Undergraduate Program: A Brief Description of
Preliminary Findings (Thile 8 Matt, 1995)
Program: Ethnic Mentor Undergraduate (EMU)

The goal of this program was to serve freshmen and transfer students new
to San Diego University by promoting ethnic pride, student support, and
academic success. Thirty-two students participated in the program (10 — African
American, 19- Latino, and 3 - Filipino students). Seventeen were freshmen and
15 were community college transfer students. The sample included 27 women
and 5 men. The mean age of the mentees was 22 (range = 19 to 30 years).
Mean high school GPA was 2.95, which was comparable to the university’s
freshmen class average of 3.00. Other demographic measures were Student
Assessment Test (SAT) scores, parent’s education, family income, and whether
students were employed and the amount of time they worked (Thile 8 Matt,
1995).

Letters of interest were sent to new students inviting them to participate in
the EMU program. The program was designed to accommodate 40 students.
Upper Class and graduate students were recruited to be mentors. Mentors were
responsible for mentoring 3 to 6 mentees. Once students were selected to
participate in the one-year program, they were assigned a student mentor.
Freshmen mentees were matched with senior level students and transfer
students were matched with graduate students. An effort was made to match

students based on ethnicity and major.

45

In this program racial identity, social support, psychological support,
academic support, and sense of belonging were important factors. Mentors, who
exposed mentees to ethnic and cultural workshops, provided mentees an
opportunity to explore their racial identity. In the EMU program, racial identity
was a key element mentors employed to support their mentees’ social
adjustment. This was especially true for mentors who provided ongoing social
support to their mentees. Mentors contacted (e.g., by phone or in person) their
mentees 1 to 4 times a week. Through the mentor’s social support, mentees
were exposed to other students from similar ethnic backgrounds. These
interactions provided a forum for mentees to develop relationships and to help
them feel a sense of belonging at the university.

By having mentees attend potlucks and one-on-one meetings with their
mentors, a sense of trust was built. This trust provided mentors the opportunity to
support mentees who were experiencing stressful adjustment issues and to
develop effective coping skills (to adapt personally and academically), which
could possibly help the mentees’ psychological well-being. Similarly, mentors
also served as coaches to help mentees access resources (e.g., tutors) and talk
to faculty to increase their academic performance. The mentees’ academic
support included classes and workshops that focused on classroom skills, study
skills, library use, computer application, report writing, academic advisement, and
career counseling (T hile 8 Matt, 1995).

Five different measures were utilized in this study. First, the biographical

inventory was used to collect demographic data (i.e., family income). The other

46

A

 

four measures were: Generalized Content Scale (GCS), Index of Self-Esteem
(ISE), Self Efficacy Scale for Academic Mile Stones (AMS), and Self-Efficacy
Scale for Educational Requirements for university majors (ERS). Unfortunately,
the authors did not provide the purpose for using the particular measures or the
reliability Of the measures (Thile 8 Matt, 1995).

Significant results showed that participants in the program had an 82 %
retention rate after 1 year. This was 57% higher than African Americans who
were not in the program (retention 25%). Students in the program had a fall
semester GPA of 2.56 compared to the university’s freshmen population (GPA
=2.20). The spring semester GPA was similar for both groups (EMU = 2.30, other
freshmen = 2.21). Students in the program also reported a higher level of self-
esteem. Students did not report a higher level of academic self-efficacy (Thile 8
Matt, 1995).

The strengths of the EMU study design were the mentoring methodology
and the pre-post test measures to collect GPA, academic self-efficacy, and self-
esteem. The sample size (N = 32) for assessing the programs effectiveness was
large enough to report significant t-test and z-scores on academic performance
and persistence, generalized contentment and self-esteem, academic self-
efficacy, and change between fall and spring semester. This allowed the authors
to suggest that students who participated in the program were more likely to
return to the university for a second year and achieve better grades (T hile 8 Matt,

1 995).

47

The limitations of the study were the lack of a control group, small sample
size, reporting two-year retention, and the length it took students to graduate in
the program. Not having a control group did not allow the program to make
causal inferences about the effects of the program. Therefore, we cannot be
certain if other factors contributed to the mentees academic success and
retention. Likewise, without having a research design that includes a randomized
experimental and control group, we are uncertain if those in the program truly
differ from those who could not participate in the program. Thile and Matt (1995)
felt that “ small sample sizes limit the ability to detect program effects that may be
practically significant but small in magnitude and the statistical power of the
current study was insufficient to detect all but the largest program effects”(pg.
124). By not tracking student retention from first year to graduation it is unclear if

the efficacy scale truly predicts a mentees ability to matriculate and graduate.

Analysis of Ethnic-based Mentoring Studies

Table 2.1 shows that all the studies focused on three or more of the
factors (i.e., racial identity, psychological support, social support, academic
support, and sense of belonging) related to retaining students of color. Two
studies (Harris, 1999; Thomas, 1999) discussed all six factors, with the remaining
eight studies (Good at. al., 2000; Laden, 1999; Lavant et. al., 1997; Marble,
1999; Newman 8 Newman, 1999; Shultz et. al., 2001; Talbert et. al., 1999; Thile
8 Matt, 1995) including at least four factors. Social support and academic

support were the only two characteristics discussed in all ten studies. Eight of

48

the studies included psychological support and sense of belonging. Racial
identity (e.g., ethnic or cultural identity development) was identified in six studies,
and leadership development was identified in four programs.

Eight studies reported sample size (range = 7 to 108). All ten studies
reported the duration of the mentoring programs (range = 6 weeks - 1 year). Five
studies included a pre-post test design. Of these five studies, only Shultz et.al.,
(2001) reported having a control group.

All the studies included some type of a methodology used to explain the
program’s outcomes. Five studies used GPA to measure academic growth, with
GPA collected at the beginning and end of the programs’ duration. All the studies
collected qualitative data through either mentor or mentee journal writings,
mentor reports, mentee interviews, or program documentation (e.g., program
brochures). Five of the mentoring programs collected enrollment data from the
registrar’s office, which provided more detailed lnfonnation on retention and
graduation (two reported graduation and retention, two programs reported
graduation rates, and one program reported retention). Thomas’ (1999) program
collected data through Student Affair evaluations. These were evaluations
Student Affair Units (e.g., Resident life, Office of Health Education, Greek Life)
used to monitor the effectiveness of student affair related programs. Thile and
Matt (1995) had the only study that administered four different measures (GCS
scale, ISE scale, AMS scale, ERS scale) that examined the effectiveness of the

EMU mentoring program.

49

The lowest retention rate reported among the ten programs was 66% and
the highest was 97% (rates based on 2, 4 or 6 year follow-up period). The lowest
reported retention rate (66%) was 26% higher than the national average (40%)
for African American college students. Five mentoring programs reported an
increase in student academic success (via GPA, and mentor and mentee
reports). The reports provided by the mentors and mentees also suggested that
program participants had an increase in social development, support, and
adjustment. Lastly, Thile and Matts (1995) study reported an increase in mentors’

self-esteem using the Index of Self-Esteem scale.

The Need to Empirically Examine Mentoring Programs

As noted earlier, none of these ten studies utilized a rigorous evaluation
design. Less than half of the studies reported on the sample size or either did
not have or report on the pre-post test design of the program. Studies that did not
collect baseline data (e.g., GPA, racial identity) failed to accurately determine
factors that influenced retention and graduation rates.

While all the studies reported goals to retain students, none used a control
group to compare group differences or to assess if increased retention rates
occurred as a result of involvement in the program or from some other social,
environmental, or psychological factors. The majority of these studies also did
not mention how they measured the effectiveness of the mentors’ mentoring
abilities (i.e., Good et. al., 2000; Thile 8 Matt, 1995). For example, the EMU

program mentioned the inclusion of a racial identity component, however, there

50

was no mention of a measure assessing the racial identity of its mentees.
Similarly, Harris (1999) did not report on the methodology used to measure how
effective the mentors mentored their mentees.

Thile and Matt (1995) were the only investigators who administered
measures that empirically examined how effectively the mentors mentored their
mentees. One limitation however, was that the reliability of these measures was
not reported. The other studies (Shultz et. al., 2001; Thomas, 1999) measured
program effectiveness through qualitative data or by means of non-statistically
tested lntemal evaluations developed by the program administrators or the
university. Lastly, the goal of all the mentoring programs was to retain and
graduate students of color. However, only two studies (Laden, 1999; Lavant et.
al., 1997) reported mentee two-year retention rates and the time it took for them
to graduate.

In order for mentoring programs to be determined to be effective, rigorous
evaluations are needed and programmers must develop empirically grounded

programs that can be tested over time.

51

 

 

3%

Ba .3883»;
2.88
CBSEESESS
8 828:. Ba
mfiSERS£§S
.88. :2 .82 a
2§§§<
.fiéfiifisfi
29: 3885.8
9833 .3282
:85 go. 85.2 c

.8»

8.. SS 8592
5:8. .0 $8 a
3.2m 38.285
as .88

as .858
ass... 3 Ga» 9...
8252 is
8&8 2 £8
a... 888...
382 .0 E a
9282 a. $2
8885 <8 :

oz

02

oz

02

3%:
”Eu:

828.. 23.0.

88¢
saw:

a
.58:
.88

o.
as: . 35

«$35 8> oz 8> 9 00> 02 8> 00> 8> 02

 

880230

8.88:. 8.3.8:.

296%
s 28>

5:22
5% N

SSE See us .5588 Enema :83 :83 885
8.38.2 (no .380 .835 2 35383 a 8:8 25¢ 383.28 .88 £82 .83. 863»
88..
228“. . £22 £28“. 5.2ng .353

 

Evacuees: 83823 a $226

Pd £28.

52

 

 

522.2... .88
S... 9.88....

a o... $.58

E. BEE. 28.
8.88 888:.
E 228.... a
28.. .8. $5.;
388.. s:

new 28» 9... Ben
8552 as. 8.8.
o... a $8 8.8....»
22.25 a

3 <8 392.. 2

283B...

.8. 4 2 2288
$83.» a $3
3.82 .25.. a
33.8

€2.58 808%
”53$ 28» oz
8cm 2w. c8885
a 8.52m. $3
“.889 552 2

So.

mm; 8> .85: 00> oz «9 mm

Emu
.352
a

8> mo> 93238:. 02 02 oz oz

02

oz

mo>

00>

:8:
a as...

5.3
4 55

8> mo> 8> 8>

as:
$3..

8> 8.. 8> 8> n :55

 

8:850

3.38.... 8.385
8835 Base
2 an; .8» w

3...... Sea .8.
8.38... so .880 38?. z

223“. _mo_ 3522

53928
3538..

9.9.0.8 :83
38.8 9.582

825 Seam
5.3055 .88 as... .88

algae... Eamimmm.

@063»
comma
.oEfim

 

86:6 95:22 Bannéfism .6 $555

.528. E 338

53

 

 

8... <8 .5. c

:89.» 28888
B... .3392...
.88 9.2588
Base... 225:.
.8. 828: a
.8588 .8. 8...
$29.. 288...
.8... :82... .88
.3. 828.2 a
885.28..
0.888

.85 8829..
a... go. 898.... =

as:

32.8. a 85.52
oz 8.. .828 8.. oz 8» 3 oz oz 8.. oz 8.. a» o a...»

as:
$222... 29...:
oz 02 8.5.... oz 2 oz . oz 8» a» 8., 8.. oz .68

 

888.5

3.38... 3.38...
288... 8.8... 3...... .8... as E93928 9.898 8&5 88...... :89»
228» .8... £88.... <8 .58 .82... 2 95.88.. 38.8 3:88.. .8392». .88 5.8.33. 8.8...
88..
ia.o.oI:. .8. 58.2 gamed .258

 

8.2... 9.3.5.... 883.8 .0 .5225

3.80. 3 25

54

 

28%.... .2 as
$2... 68.3.3
36088 .0. 5.32
21.2.58...
.28 S 388:.
5 .5. 80.8... a
888... o... c. .9.
524‘ c895.
5. $3 .. s...

u biog... .8.

_. .2.» 80.8...

.0. mm. 8...»...
8% .a 83...
23.2.... .N

8a 9.8 .8. a.
.8.“ E0 2... ..

.89 E .8»

So 5 5.8.8.3
888... .83...

.u 8.5... 8889..
E85... .m...
8.2. .052 a
8.9.8...

295... .0 $8
.58 o. 52 £9.
8...... .052 ..

oz 02

mm; oz

wmw
ms?
mm.

flailing

Emu
589m“.

30.
8.8.2

8.83.6
semen.

mm> oz mo> mm 02

oz 02 02 on 3>

00>

06>

8>

mo>

.3...
3.. q 2....
o. .35

8.. 8> 8>

.3...
33m

03 8> 8>

 

$88.30

8.38:. 8.389..
288... 8.8.2
0. 28> .8» N

35...:
85%:

n8... .8.
E0 .380 .892... 2

$50.98
95.2.8.

20.8“. $2868.32

8.96.8 5&5
33.8 0.588..

.5392»... .89.» 33¢

€83.83 Es...

8......»
.32

j... as n. 2......

 

$.85 9.8.5.2 Emanéesm .o .5555

........8. .N was.

55

 

 

888:.

.2 9832

new $8.323
95.88. .628
8363 888a
as E eo§< a
98» m 553
8.88m 89:9:
.0 $2 $5

32¢ 353 :

8:883
9:986

usm a 8..

.85 as 85%
58... as a
$3 25 8282
as 6 $8 a

.8» imam 8558
22s 2:8 as .o
$3 Ba 8985
as 8 ii 83%
.8255 a

2 22m

6ch a; 5.0
a: 5:92 :

02

oz

 

$5850

8580:. 8589:
£898 :83

8582‘ (am .350 $8.05 835w 02832 3392mm

€52
38m

3%

 

£25 9:252 85-025 3 $225

.5209 E 23

56

Purpose of the Current Study

The low five year retention rate (40%) of African American college
students attending PWls is and continues to be of great concern. To address this
issue, a review of the literature was conducted to 1) examine the important
theoretical and empirical factors related to African American retention and ethnic-
based mentoring programs, 2) identify the factors within ethnic-based mentoring
programs that help retain African American college students at PWls, and 3)
assess the scientific credibility of the claims that the programs were effective.

Ten studies were identified describing mentoring programs that focused
specifically on students of color attending PWls. Social support and academic
support were factors discussed in each mentoring program and racial identity,
psychological support, and sense of belonging were factors identified in at least
half of the programs.

Even though the ethnic-based mentoring programs provided in this review
contained similar factors, the question remains, do they effectively influence
African American college adjustment, retention, and graduation? Without a
scientifically credible way of evaluating the outcomes of these mentoring
programs, it is difficult to assess the influence ethnic-based mentoring programs
have on college adjustment, GPA, retention, and graduation rates among African
American students attending PWls. The lack of rigorous empirical investigation
may be due to the lack of staff, financial resources, absence of a defined
mentoring model (e.g., grooming and networking mentoring models) in college

mentoring programs, small numbers of African American college students, and

57

 

the inability to control for confounding factors and to evaluate program
effectiveness over time (Jacobi, 1991).

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of an ethnic-based
mentoring model and the factors (i.e., Racial Identity, Social Support,
Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, Leadership
Development) that influenced African American student college adjustment,
GPA, and retention in an African American based student mentoring program at
a PWI. From September 1, 2003 to May 1, 2004 (first and second. semester of
the 2003-04 academic school year) the mentor program evaluation involved the
recruitment and training of 30 African American student mentors. Eighty African
American freshmen students participated in the study. Fifty received mentoring
(experimental group) and thirty did not (control group). Participants answered a
253 item survey that was administered fall (pre-test) and spring (post-test)
semesters. The primary goal of the study was: 1) to train African American
junior and senior mentors how to mentor African American mentees using an
ethnic-based mentoring model, 2) for mentors to provide mentoring to African
American mentees (African American Freshman) once a week for an hour, 3) to
determine if participating in an ethnic-based mentoring program significantly
affected the Experimental Group compared to the Control Group on proximal and
distal outcomes, and 4) to determine if Racial Identity, Social Support,
Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, and Leadership
Development mediated the relationship between mentoring (Experimental Group)

and College Adjustment, GPA, and Retention.

58

CHAPTER THREE

Analysis and Research Questions

This study is an empirical evaluation of an ethnic-based mentoring model
for African American students at a PWI. “The African American Student
Mentoring Program”, a yearlong mentoring program, used African American
student mentors to support African American college freshmen new to Michigan
State University. African American freshmen who participated in the study were
randomly selected into an experimental or control group. The goal of this study
was to evaluate the effectiveness of an ethnic-based mentoring model and the
factors that influence mentee College Adjustment, GPA, and Retention in an
African American student mentoring program at a PWI.

The premise of an ethnic-based mentoring model was designed from a
racial identity theory for African American college students. Chavous (2000)
research on racial identity suggested that students who increase their racial
identity (i.e., beliefs about race and self) have. a greater connectedness to African
American culture and report better academic and social adjustment outcomes at
PWls.

Figure 3.1 shows Group (Experimental and Control) as the primary
independent variable that could influence the relationship proximal (Racial
Identity, Social Support, Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of
Belonging, and Leadership Development) and distal outcomes (College

Adjustment, GPA, and Retention). Further observation of the model shows the

59

proximal outcomes possibly mediating the relationship between the distal

outcomes.

60

4 .y.
._.._.:c...._....u.._w....s. ,.

C .

 

 

moEooSO EEO

L .J. , ..
.w £1.34 .3.u.. Yr.

:3 m...» : g. ... é .. .

 

 

mmEooSO .mE_x9d

77:3: ,.

 

.322 8298.2 9:935. “388-023 3 2:9“.

61

Research Questions
Based on review of the literature focusing on ethnic-based mentoring
programs, the following research questions were asked:

1. Does the Experimental Group report significant higher scores at time two on
proximal outcomes (Racial Identity, Social Support, Psychological Support,
Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, Leadership Development) and distal
outcomes (College Adjustment, GPA, and Retention) compared to the Control
Group?

2. Six research questions were tested to determine if Racial Identity, Social
Support, Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, and
Leadership Development mediated the relationship between the Experimental
Group and College Adjustment.

A. Does Racial Identity mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and College Adjustment?

B. Does Social Support mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and College Adjustment?

C. Does Psychological Support mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and College Adjustment?

D. Does Academic Support mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and College Adjustment?

E. Does Sense of Belonging mediate the relationship between the

Experimental Group and College Adjustment?

62

F. Does Leadership Development mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and College Adjustment?

3. Six research questions were tested to determine if Racial Identity, Social
Support, Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, and
Leadership Development mediated the relationship between the Experimental
Group and GPA.

A. Does Racial Identity mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and GPA?

B. Does Social Support mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and GPA?

C. Does Psychological Support mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and GPA?

D. Does Academic Support mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and GPA?

E. Does Sense of Belonging mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and GPA?

F. Does Leadership Development mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and GPA?

4. Six research questions were tested to determine if Racial Identity, Social
Support, Psychological Support, Social Support, Sense of Belonging,
Academic Support, Leadership Development mediated the relationship

between the Experimental Group and Retention.

63

. Does Racial Identity mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and Retention?

. Does Social Support mediate the relationship between Experimental
Group and Retention?

. Does Psychological Support mediate the relationship between
Experimental Group and Retention?

. Does Academic Support mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and Retention?

. Does Sense of Belonging mediate the relationship between the
Experimental Group and Retention?

. Does Leadership Development mediate the relationship between the

Experimental Group and Retention?

64

CHAPTER FOUR

Methods

The current study is part of a larger longitudinal evaluation that examined
the effects of an African American student mentoring program on student
adjustment, retention, and graduation among first year African American college

students.

Process of Implementation

In October of 2001, a strategic plan was designed to research possible
mentoring program(s) for African American students at Michigan State University
(MSU). First, a meeting took place with the Vice President of Student Affairs.
Second, research was collected on the Office of Support Services (088). Third,
meetings took place with the Coordinator of Diversity in James Madison College
(JMC) within MSU. Fourth, meetings were held with the founders of the Peer
Advising Mentoring Model. Fifth, collaboration with the Student Coordinator in the
Office of Racial Ethnic Student Affairs (ORESA) took place to implement a
campus wide mentoring program for African American students.

In the fall semester of 2001, a meeting took place with the Vice President
of Student Affairs to discuss mentoring programs at Norfolk State University and
Penn State University. The meeting was used to identify mentoring programs at
MSU that used an ethnic-based mentoring model for African American students.

The Vice President of Student Affairs was not aware of any similar mentoring

65

programs on MSU’s campus. However, to get an idea of different programs he
suggested a meeting with the Director of 088.

Meeting with the Office of Support Services. The purpose of 088 was to
retain, graduate, and address the academic needs of students through the
College Achievement Admission Program (CAAP), which provides academic
support to first generation, low income, and students who may need academic
support. 088 provides an array of services to support students, including
mentoring, however, 088 nor any other campus program, utilizes an ethnic-
based mentoring model. This information led to meetings with other campus staff
and students.

Meeting with the James Madison Diversity Coordinator. The Diversity
Coordinator was the Advisor for the WEB. DuBois Society, an organization to
support African American student retention and graduation in MSU’s James
Madison College. MSU’s retention data showed that African American students
in James Madison College were retained and graduated at a higher rate than
other MSU students. The Diversity Coordinator knew about these retention and
graduation rates in James Madison, however, many African American students
self-reported a low sense of belonging to the college. The Diversity Coordinator
was presented information on an ethnic-based mentoring model and its success
at Norfolk State University and Penn State University for increasing African
American sense of belonging. After the meeting, the Diversity Coordinator
agreed to find funding to implement the program for interested African American

students in James Madison College.

66

Meeting with Peer Advising Mentoring Model Founders. In October of
2002, a meeting was held with a senior and graduate MSU student who were
trying to implement 3 Peer Advising Mentoring Model they co-developed to
support African American Students at MSU. Sharing the success of mentoring
programs at Norfolk State and Penn State a collaboration was formed with the
two students. The collaboration would incorporate the components of an ethnic-
based mentoring model as a curriculum of the Peer Advising Mentoring Model
organizational structure. However, prior to an agreed plan for collaboration, the
James Madison Diversity Coordinator had to be consulted about working with a
larger mentoring initiative.

Collaboration for Implementation. in February of 2003, a meeting was held
with the Student Coordinator in the Office of Racial Ethnic Student Affairs
(ORESA), and the Peer Advising Mentoring Model founders. The group was
informed that the James Madison Diversity Coordinator agreed that James
Madison would support a larger mentoring initiative. By collaborating with James
Madison, interested DuBois students would be‘ mentors and mentees in the
program, and a focus would include creating a stronger sense of belonging
among African American students in James Madison College. At the conclusion
of the meeting the group agreed to work together and consolidate their
resources.

Funding Proposal. The initial funding proposal was based on an annual
budget of $25,000 for a five-year pilot program. From March to April 2003, the

team (this researcher, the Student Coordinator in ORESA, and Peer Advising

67

Mentoring Model founders) developed a power point presentation, which was the
basis for funding. The Student Coordinator in ORESA arranged a meeting with
the Vice President of Student Affairs, student affairs directors, and faculty who
could assist in funding the program.

On April 18‘“, 2003, the funding proposal was presented to the Vice
President for Student Affairs, Director of 038, Director of the Center for School
Reform, and a student from the Black Student Alliance (BSA). The key areas
discussed in the presentation were: 1) identifying the problem (retention of
African American students in higher education and specifically Michigan State
University), 2) student mentoring as a solution, 3) factors associated with
successful mentoring programs, 4) benefits of a racial and ethnic identity focus,
5) results of similar mentoring programs, 6) Peer Advising Mentoring Program
structure, 7) collaboration, and 8) challenges and benefits to implementing an
African American student mentoring program at MSU. The potential funders felt
the presentation was outstanding and agreed to review their budgets to provide
financial support.

In June 2003, the MSU Provost agreed to contribute an annual budget of
$12,000 for the next five years. The Dean of James Madison College agreed to
contribute $3,000 for one year. Once the mentoring program received funding,
the program was officially named the African American Student Mentoring

Program (AASMP).

68

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRlHS)
Application. The UCRlHS approval form and consent were accepted October 6,

2003.

Organization Structure

AASMP Board

The primary goal of the Board was to insure the program was directed by
students and supported by faculty and staff. The founders recommended
students to the Board based on several factors. These factors included the
student’s campus experiences, ability to supervise other students, knowledge to
collaborate with students, faculty, staff, and their availability to attend meetings
and trainings. When a student met the recommended criteria they were invited
to participate on the Board. Three students were recommended to the board and
all were accepted. A total of five individuals served on the Board.

Responsibilities. The Board was responsible for planning, overseeing
finances, recruitment, supervision of mentors, service delivery, evaluation,
training, programming, and collaborating with various university departments and
student organizations. Since the program was new, the Board assumed other
reSponsibilities as needed (e.g., developing brochures to market the program).

From September 8 to December 5, 2003, and January 12 to April 30,
2004, the AASMP Board conducted several initiatives to develop student
mentors and mentees. First, student mentors received training every other week
in the Eppley building (Business building on campus with classrooms). Second,

student mentors and mentees were administered time one surveys, which

69

incorporated a Mix and Mingle. Third, mentors participated in a weekend retreat.
Fourth, student mentors provided weekly mentoring. Fifth, in December mentors
and mentees participated in an end of the semester celebration. Lastly, in March
time two surveys were administered. The semester concluded with the end of the
year celebration.

Board member(s) facilitated mentor training (45 to 75 minutes) and
supervision (45 to 75 minutes) meetings for approximately two hours. Each
meeting began with the training topic (e.g., racial identity), the goals, and
objectives to be discussed during that class time. The objective of the training
was to educate mentors about ethnic-based mentoring and help them apply their
knowledge to each other and their mentees.

For supervision the Board met in mentor groups (6 to 8 mentors). With five
Board members (when directing mentor groups called Board facilitators), the
mentors were divided into four groups with one Board member assigned as a
“floater” (worked with different groups to provide support and facilitate
supervisions in the absence of another Board member).

Supervision allowed mentors to discuss their mentoring experiences. For
example, Board facilitators used mentors experiences to guide them through
successful and troubling (e.g., resistant mentees or mentees with roommate
issues) mentor mentee relationships. These types of supervisions helped Board
facilitators reemphasize training topics mentors found difficult to implement (e.g.,

mentee involvement) with their mentees.

7O

Participants

The participants in the study were from Michigan State University (MSU).
Founded in 1855, MSU is a large (44,542 students, 2003 enrollment) public land
grant institution (colleges or universities throughout the United States that were
given land by the federal government for the purpose of educating citizens in the
state) in the Midwest. Approximately 8% (3,604) of MSU’s undergraduate
population is African American, 5% (2,283) Asian, 2% (852) Latino, .06% (287)
American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 75% (33,406) Caucasian (Michigan State
University Registrar’s Office, 2003). The remanding 9% consist of international
and graduate students.

The sample consisted of 80 African American freshmen students. Of the
80 students, 50 were randomly selected into the experimental group and 30 into
the control group. The experimental group consisted of 30 women and 20 men

and the control group included 16 women and 14 men (Table 4.1).

Recruitment of Mentors and Mentee Participants
Table 4.1

Mentor and Mentee Participants

 

 

Desired Desired Desired Applied Agreed to
Participants Participants Men Women or Accepted Participate
Interested
Mentors 26 13 13 105 30 30
Mentees 52 26 26 102 102 80

 

71

Table 4.1 (cont’d).

 

 

 

Experiment__al Grou_p_ Control Group
Participants Participants
Participants Men Women Men Women Men Women
Mentors 13 1 7 13 1 7 None None
Mentees 34 46 20 30 14 16

 

Recruitment of Mentors

Mentors were African American juniors and seniors who were interested in
mentoring African American freshmen students. Four approaches were used to
recruit the African American student mentors: 1) Brochures, 2) Flyers, 3) Board
outreach, and 4) student referrals. In the second week of July 2003, brochures
and flyers were sent to campus faculty and staff to recruit students as mentors.

During the first two weeks of classes (August 24th -September 8‘", 2003),
students were recruited through the student welcome resource fair. At the
welcome, AASMP had an information table, which students completed
applications to be mentors. Students who applied to be mentors also referred
other students who were interested in being mentors.

The goal was to have 26 mentors, 13 men and 13 women. A total of 105
sophomores, juniors, and seniors applied to be mentors; 30 were accepted (13
men and 17 women) (Table 4.1). Out of the 30, 5 were students from James
Madison College. The inclusion criteria to become a student mentor was to have
at least a 2.5 grade point average (GPA), commitment for at least one year,

some mentoring experience, willing to attend bi-weekly training meetings, willing

72

to attend a mandatory retreat, and willing to mentor (four hours in a two week
period) two freshmen students.
Recruitment of Mentees

According to the registrar’s 2003 freshmen enrollment data, MSU admitted
approximately 7,012 freshmen students. Approximately 568 (8.1%) were Black
and 351 were not admitted to the College Achievement Admission Program
(CAAP). CAAP freshmen were selected out of the sample because they
received weekly to monthly academic and social support from OSS counselors.

During the second week of July 2003, all freshmen not already assigned
to CAAP were sent a recruitment letter and brochure explaining the mentoring
program. During the first week of August the DuBois Society sent additional
brochures to all James Madison freshmen students (n = 9). Flyers were also
posted in campus dorms, the student union, and academic departments to solicit
freshmen student interest.

On August 24'“, 26‘", and September 7, 2003 (student welcome dates) the
same information table at the student welcome resource faire to recmit mentors
was used to recruit mentees. Board members helped freshmen complete interest
forms and answered questions about the AASMP. Between the August and
September student welcomes, all 351 freshmen were contacted via email,
phone, or face to face to solicit their participation in the program.

Interested students who returned phone calls and interest forms were
contacted and screened by the Board. This eliminated freshman already

assigned to CAAP. Once students were screened, they were informed about the

73

study and selection procedures (whether they would be in the experimental or
control group). The goal was to have at least a sample of 100 interested African
American freshmen students by September 8, 2003. After all recruitment efforts,
249 students did not participate (students were unreachable, in CAAP, or
declined to participate) in the study. This resulted in 102 freshmen (women = 56
and men = 46) interested in receiving mentoring. Of the 102 students, 22
declined (women = 10 and men = 12) to participate and 80 completed time one

surveys.

Demographics

The total sample of student mentees (N = 80) included 34 men (43%) and
46 women (57%) participants. Forty percent of the experimental group included
men (n=20) and 60% were women (n=30). Forty-seven percent of the control
group included men (n=14) and 53% were women (n=16). Eighty-five percent
(n=68) of the total sample were born in 1985. Sixty-five students (81%) were
from the state of Michigan (MI), with 36% (n = 29) from Detroit, MI. More than
half (n = 51) of the students came from high schools where at least one-fourth of
the student population were Black. Twenty-three percent (n=18) of the total
sample came from households with a total annual income of $80,000 or more,
with 21 % (n=17) from households with an annual income of $45,000 - $79,999.

The predicted GPA (a calculated average set by MSU for entering
freshmen students) of the participants was 2.42(SD = .43). The predicted GPA
for the control group was 2.42(SD = .39) and the experimental group was

2.43(SD = .46).

74

Random Assignment

This study used a randomized pre and post-test design. Pre and post-test
data was collected during the first and second semesters of the 2003-04
academic school year, and participants were compared on racial identity, social
support, psychological support, sense of belonging, academic success,
leadership development, college adjustment, GPA, and retention.

Participants involved in the intervention were surveyed during the second
week of October (fall semester) and the third week of March (spring semester).
The experimental group received mentoring based on the proposed ethnic-based
.mentoring model and the control group received monthly contact by email or
phone, but no mentoring. Contact with the control group included asking how
participants were doing in general (i.e., “Hi I was just calling to see how things

were going for you at MSU?”).

Measures

The National Study on Black College Students was used to gather
demographic data, and six measures [Racial Identity Attitude Scale (RIAS),
General Well-Being (GWB), Senses of Belonging Inventory (SOBI), Leadership
Development, Activity, and Planning Measure (LDAPM), College Student Social
Support Scale (CSSSS), Student Adaptation to College Scale (SACS), Grade
Point Average, student enrollment, and Mentor Satisfaction Scale] were used to
assess participant behaviors. The key variables measured were Racial Identity,

Social support, Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging,

75

and Leadership Development, College Adjustment, GPA, and Retention. Once
data were collected from the 80 participants at time one and two, each measure
was reexamined for scale reliability using the Statistical Program for Social
Sciences (SPSS), Version 11.0 for Windows.

When items were removed to increase the coefficient alpha for each
scale, items for time one and time two were compared by examining each inter-
item correlation. lf inter-item correlations were below .22 (standard error of r
when N=80) for both time one and two, the item was removed.

Demographics

The National Study on Black College Students (NSBCS) (Appendix C,
Demographics) inventory was used to gather information on African American
college student's experiences (Allen and Strong, 1994). Fifty questions from this
54 item questionnaire were used during pre-test to capture demographic data
(e.g., family income, where they are from). The questionnaire was developed to
provide a dataset specifically about Black college students. The measure was
designed as longitudinal study to examine the patterns of Black student
adjustment, achievement, and aspirations in the context of eight PWls and
HBCUs
Proximal Outcomes

Racial Identity was measured using Helms and Parham’s (1996) Racial
Identity Attitude Scale (RIAS) (Appendix C, Section 1). The Racial Identity
internalization scale (the internalization of being Black and the accepting of White

for African Americans in the United States) was only used for this study. A five

76

point likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree" to 5 = “Strongly Agree”) to measure
participant beliefs. The scale has been primarily used with African American
college students. The lntemalization (items = 12) subscale used for this study
had coefficient reliabilities of q = .51, a = .69, and o = .80, respectively. The
coefficient alpha for the Racial Identity scale at time one was a = .70 (items = 12)
and a = .74 at time two (items = 12).

Social Support was measured using the College Social Support Scale
(0888) (Appendix C, Section 6) (McGrath, Gtierrez, and Valadez, 2000). The
availability of support subscale was 26-item scale used for this study. A five point
likert scale (1 = “Never" to 5 = “Almost Always”) measured the different types of
social supportavailable to participants. This measure has a coefficient alpha of
.92. The coefficient alpha for time one was a = .92 and a = .90 for time two.

Psychological Support was measured using the General Well-Being
(GWB) (Appendix C, Section 2) schedule (Dupuy,1977). The measure is an
assessment of subjective feelings of psychological well-being and distress for
use in community surveys. Even though this scale was created in the late 1970’s,
Mcdowell and Newell’s book “Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and
Questionnaires” (1996), recommended this measure because of its outstanding
reliability (r =.85 for college students). The measure is an 18-item scale that has
six subscales (i.e. Anxiety, Depression, Positive well-being, Self-control, Vitality,
and General health). High scores on this scale represent high psychological well-

being and low scores represent low psychological well-being. The entire General

77

Well-Being scale was administered to the participants. The coefficient alpha at
time one was a = .82 and a = .83 at time two.

Academic Support was measured using six items. Five questions came
from McGrath et. al. (2000) original social support scale (44 items). These
questions were chosen because they reflected the academic support participants
would receive in a college environment. The five items were: 1) Q9: My advisor
helps me to plan my course schedule, 2) Q15: My professors meet with me
outside of class when l have questions, 3) Q21: My roommate encourages me to
go to classes (my friend encourages me to do well in classes), 4) Q24: My
friends proofread my writing assignments, and 5) Q39: My friends lend me
materials in class. The additional question, Q48: l have a mentor who challenges
me to do the best academically", was added to help assess Academic Support
from a mentor. A five point likert scale (1 = “Never" to 5 = “Almost Always”)
measured how different types of academic support were available to participants.
The coefficient alpha for Academic Support at time one was a = .46 and a = .63
at time two.

Sense of Belonging was measured using the Sense Of Belonging
Inventory (SOBI) (Appendix C, Section 3) (Hagerty and Patusky, 1995), which is
defined as “the experience of personal involvement in a system or environment
so that persons feel themselves to be an integral part of that system or
environment”. The measure contains 27-items that examines a participants
experiences of feeling valued, needed, accepted, and their perception of fitting in

a particular system or environment (Hagerty and Patusky, 1995). The 27 item

78

measure was used because it had been tested on a large sample of
college students (coefficient alpha was not reported for the 27 item scale). A four
point Likert scale (1 = “Not relevant” to 4 = “Very relevant”) measured participants
sense of belonging. The coefficient alpha for this instrument was a = .87 at time
one and a = .87 at time two.

Leadership Development was measured by The Leadership Development,
Activity, and Planning Measure (LDAPM) (Appendix C, Section 4) (Erwin &
Marcus-Mendoza, 1988). The measure is a 3-item subscale of the Student
Descriptive Questionnaire. The measure examines leadership potential,
extracurricular activities, and educational plans. The coefficient alpha was not
reported for this measure.

Twelve additional items were developed form the Communities That
Cares (CTC) key leader survey to determine organization participation and
leadership ability to promote community change (Greenberg 8. Osgood, 2000).
The first question asked if the student considered him/herself as a leader (Yes or
No). The next eleven items used a six point Likert scale (0 = “Not at all to 6 =
Excellent”) to rate each student’s leadership ability. The eleven items were: 1)
getting students to work on Campus issues or projects, 2) recruiting students to
participate in campus activities, 3) recruiting students to join a campus group, 4)
project planning, 5) running effective meetings, 6) developing new student
leaders, 7) organizing a committee, 8) getting campus leaders to listen to you, 9)
getting other groups or organizations to partner with your group in campus

initiatives or improvement efforts, 10) knowing other leaders outside of your own

79

group, and 11) knowing strategies that would improve your campus. The 3
LDAPM items and 12 leadership items resulted in a coefficient alpha of a = .94 at
time one and a = .91 at time two.

Distal Outcomes

College Adjustment was measured using the Student Adaptation to
College Questionnaire (SACQ) (Dahmus, Bemardin and Bemardin, 1992)
(Appendix C, Section 5). The Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire is a
67- item questionnaire that measures a student’s ability to adjust to the campus
environment academically and socially. The SACQ is divided into four
subscales: Academic Adjustment, (items = 24), Social Adjustment (items = 20),
Personal-Emotional Adjustment (items = 15), and Attachment (items = 15). The
coefficient alpha for the entire scale was a = .95. The coefficient alpha at time
one was a = .91 and q = .94 at time two.

Four items were removed from the analyses due to low inter-item
correlations: Q18: l have several close social ties at Michigan State University
(MSU), Q27: I enjoy writing papers for courses, Q33: I am getting along very well
with my roommate(s) at MSU, Q35: l have put on (or lost) to much weight
recently. After removing these items, the scale had a coefficient alpha of a = .92
for time one and a = .94 for time two (items = 63).

Grade PointAverage (GPA) was based on a five point grading scale (0 =
F, 1 = D, 2 = C, 3 = B, 4 = A). This grading scale is used by higher education
institutions and reported the universities registrar’s office.

Retention was a based on student enrollment (N0 = 0, Yes = 1).

80

Procedures
Survey Management

The AASMP survey filing system was managed in ORESA (Room 338
Student Service Building). Two file cabinets were provided that contained
mentee and mentor confidential information and data. One file cabinet contained
mentor applications, freshmen interest forms, participant releases to contact
relatives, backup disk with participant database, and a list of participant names
with student IDs. The second file cabinet contained the surveys for time 1, time 2,
and backup disks that contained the survey data. Both file cabinet were locked
when not in use and could only be accessed by the Board.

The participant database (Microsoft Excel Program) included each
participant’s last and first names, gender, address, major, whether they were
contacted to take the survey, took the survey (time 1 and 2), and whether they
were randomly selected into the experimental or control group. All the
participants received a participant identification (ID). There were a total of 102
participants who initially agreed to be mentored.

Survey identifications (lD) were twelve-digit numbers (00-0000-00-0000)
created for each mentee and mentor. The first digit identified the student as a
mentee (1) or mentor (2). The second set of four digits represented the month
and year (1003) the participant started the evaluation. The third set of two digits
identified the student as female (01) or male (02). The last set of four digits

represented the participant’s subject number (i.e. 0001, 0002, 0102).

81

The surveys were colored coded and marked as time 1 (T 1) and time 2
(T2). Time 1 surveys were coded yellow and time 2 surveys coded brown. For
clarity and future understanding the time periods preceded the variables (i.e.

t1a1, t1 a2, t2a1, t2a2) in the SPSS database.

Pre-test Administration

The Board was trained as proctors on October 8‘". They were taught how
to administer surveys, insure students were completing survey items, collect
surveys, and assign IDs to survey participants at the Mix and Mingle. The Board
also received training for contacting students who did not attend the Mix and
Mingle.

On October 9‘", 2003 the AASMP Board conducted a Mix and Mingle for
the 102 students interested in having a mentor. Ten days before the Mix and
Mingle invitations were sent to each student’s room. Invitations were followed
with an email to each student. The day before the event every student was
called and reminded about the Mix and Mingle. The program took place at a
Lecture Hall, which was a room that accommodated 150 students.

At 3&9 two greeters (Board members) were at the door with participant
attendance sheets. Each greeter had two sheets, one for men and another for
women. As students entered the room they were instructed to complete a name
tag, meet people with a similar dot on their name tag, and ask the meet and greet
questions (e.g., “What is your name and where are you from?”) on the black

board.

82

At 4_:29_ students were seated and at 4_:2_5 the Board introduced
themselves, provided their contact information, discussed the agenda for the
evening, and explained the process for administering the surveys. It was
explained that there were three proctors (Board members). Each proctor had a
list of student names. Students were handed a red pen and survey by the
proctors. The proctor checked off the student’s name once they received a
survey. Once the students received their survey they were instructed not to start
before they received instructions.

At 4:_30_ the board discussed the purpose of the African American
Mentoring Program. Then they informed students that they would be contacted
between one and three days after being randomly selected to have a mentor or
put on the mentor wait list. Students were informed that their names would be
sorted by gender then put in envelopes and randomly placed into the mentor
group or the mentor wait list group. For every two students chosen to have a
mentor one was placed on the wait list (68 possible mentees and 34 possible
wait list). Next, the evaluation and consent form was explained and student
questions were addressed. Then the process for completing the survey, turning
in the survey, and eating were explained. More specifically, students were asked
to sign and provide their MSU personal identification (PlD) on the consent form
(Appendix A), complete the contact and release of information form (Appendix
B), answer the survey (Appendix C), and ask questions if they were unclear

about any survey items.

83

At $519 students started the survey. Proctors walked around the room to
answer questions and to ensure mentees were completing their surveys
accurately. A section of seats were reserved for students who arrived late. Late
students were instructed by the greeters how to complete and return the survey
to the proctor when they finished.

Around {LIE the majority of students completed the survey. When they
finished, students returned the survey to their assigned proctor (proctor who gave
them the survey). The proctor reviewed the survey for completeness and clarity.
After the survey packet was reviewed, the proctor checked off the student’s
name on their sheet. The proctors wrote the student’s identification number (ID)
on page three (first page of survey) and page 14 (last page of the survey). Next,
the proctor double-checked the students name to make sure the name on the
consent and contact release forms matched the ID. The consent and contact
release forms were separated after the survey was double-checked. All surveys
were filed by IDs in a portable file container. For confidentiality purposes the
container could only be accessed by the Board. Consents and releases were
placed in a separate file folder. Once the majority of students completed their
surveys they were allowed to eat.

The rest of the Mix and Mingle included the mentors arriving at 5&0 to
meet the students, the sitcom “A Different Wortd” (show of student life at a
HBCU) was shown (episode on taking mid terms), and music was played so
students could interact with each other. The mentors were instructed to find

students who were in their majors, discuss how their classes were progressing,

84

and to see how students were adjusting socially. Twenty students and 30
mentors attended the Mix and Mingle. A total of 20 surveys were collected from
freshmen and 30 from mentors.
Outreach to Students who did not Complete Pre-test Surveys

Administering surveys to students who did not attend the Mix and Mingle
involved several steps. First, a list of students who did not attend the Mix and
Mingle was created and sorted by address. Second, the Board members and
mentors received a list of students to contact via phone, email, or home visits.
Third, the Board members and mentors served as proctors who were instructed
to inform the students about the mentoring program, evaluation, and to schedule
a time to meet (place convenient for student) with students for 30 to 40 minutes.
Fourth, the proctors followed the same procedures for students completing
surveys at the Mix and Mingle. This included students using a red pen,
completing consent form, contact lnfonnation and release, and receiving a
participant ID on their survey. Once students finished their survey it was checked
for completeness, accuracy, placed in a brown envelope, and delivered to the
ORESA office where it was filed in a locked cabinet. Students were informed that
they would be contacted in one to three days on whether they had a mentor or
would be on the mentor wait list after random assignment.

After two weeks approximately 46 students had completed surveys.
However several students still had not been contacted. This was due to students
not returning emails, keeping scheduled appointments, proctors not being able to

leave voice messages because students had not activated their voice mail, or

85

students not interested in participating in the program. To address this issue, we
made home visits to several campus dormitories to schedule appointments with
students or have them complete the survey while in their rooms. The home visits
resulted in another 14 completed surveys by the last week of October. This
resulted in a total of 80 pre-test surveys.

Fifty students were randomly selected to the experimental group and 30 to
the control. For the students selected into the mentor group, mentors called them
within three days to introduce themselves and start mentoring. Students selected
to the wait list, were contacted within three days, and were informed that they
would receive ongoing contact (email student every three weeks to see how
classes were progressing) throughout the school year and a mentor during the

last month of the spring 2004 semester.

Post-test Administration

On March 1, 2004 the Board trained eight mentors who served as proctors
for administering time 2 surveys (Appendix C). Survey scheduling started the
week of March 1, survey administration started March 15, and the last survey
was collected on May 21, 2004. All participants were emailed and called to take
the AASMP survey after spring break. To help facilitate this process mentors also
informed their mentees about the survey.

To reduce program survey bias, none of the proctors administered
surveys to their mentees or a mentee they knew. This also included

“participants” in the control group.

86

To increase the success of collecting surveys from all 80 participants,
participants were sorted by dorm and divided into 8 groups of 10. One proctor
was assigned to each group of 10 participants (total of 8 proctors for 80
participants). Once proctors were assigned to their groups, they had several
responsibilities for administering the surveys: 1) scheduling a time to meet with
the ten participants to administer the survey in a group, 2) if the participants were
unable to attend the group the proctor administered the survey to the participant
personally (i.e., location convenient for participant), 3) proctors reported to the
Board every Monday, Wednesday, and Sunday about their progress with
individual and group scheduling (if proctors had difficulty scheduling a meeting
they would contact the participants mentor or resident assistant in the dorm), 4)
completed surveys were returned to ORESA within three days and filed, 5) each
participant received five dollars, 6) students who participated in a group also
qualified to be in a raffle (1 gift certificate for every three participants, therefore 3
gift certificates for a group of 10), and 7) participants signed individual and group
money/gift certificate accountability sheets. The deadline to return surveys was
March 28,2004.

Proctors received a pay incentive. If a proctor collected all 10 surveys by
the deadline (March 28), they were paid $60. If a proctor collected less than ten
surveys before the deadline, they only received $5 per survey.

During the week of March 15, 2004 proctors scheduled at least 6 of their
10 participants to take the survey individually or in a group. On March 22,

proctors returned 45 surveys. By March 28, five proctors collected all ten surveys

87

from their groups, one proctor collected nine of the ten surveys from their group,
and two proctors collected six of the ten surveys from their groups. This totaled
71 completed surveys. Two participants did not return to complete their spring
semester and their interviews were completed over the phone. Eight of the last
surveys were collected April 28, the week before finals. The last survey was
completed May 21, through a phone interview.

Mentees who completed their surveys continued to receive mentoring
from their mentors. When participants in the control group completed their
survey, they were offered a mentor. The new mentor mentee pairings were
based on the student’s major or residential proximity of the mentor and new
mentee. This allowed the mentor to have easy access to their new mentee.
Training of Mentors

Mentor Responsibilities. Student mentors were responsible for attending
bi-weekly meetings and contacting mentees on a weekly basis to enhance their
mental, social, and educational adjustment to MSU. Student mentors volunteered
six hours of their time in a two-week period (2 hours for training, 4 hours for
mentoring). Trainings (Table 4.2 and Table 4.3) included lectures and
supervision, and mentoring included weekly outreach to mentees. A log was kept
of all the mentors’ activities with each assigned student mentor. The logs tracked
their efforts in 15 minute increments, which reported the mentors’ goals,
activities, communication, and outcomes with their mentees. Board members

contacted mentees once a month to confirm the mentors mentoring.

88

Fall Semester Training

Table 4.2

Fall Semester Training Outline

 

 

Dates TrainingUnits Mentorian Supervision
September 8, 2003 Unit 1 No No
September 15, 2003 Unit 2 8: 3 No No
September 22, 2003 No training No No
September 29, 2003 Unit 4 8. 5 No No
October 6, 2003 Surveys No No
Administered

October 17-19, 2003 Mentor Retreat No No
October 20, 2003 No Training No No
October 27, 2003 Unit 6 Yes Yes
November 3, 2003 No Training Yes No
November 10, 2003 Unit 7 Yes Yes
November 17, 2003 No Training Yes No
November, 24, 2003 Unit 8 Yes Yes
December 1, 2003 Fall celebration Yes No
December 8, 2003 Finals Yes No

 

Mentors began their trainings and development in Week 4 of the

semester. The first mentor training involved reviewing program expectations,

ethics, the use of an ethnic-based mentoring model, training curriculum,

completing informed consent forms, and conducting icebreakers to familiarize

mentors and Board members with each other. All the mentors received a training

89

manual that included the program mission and goals, expectations, and the
curriculum.

At the second training mentors received an introduction to racial identity
(Unit 2) and sense of belonging (Unit 3) for African American Students. Mentors
received more training in these areas at the retreat. Their training included
education on African American student retention in higher education and the
causes for African American dropout. This was followed by a more in-depth
training that addressed the adjustment issues for African American students at
PWls and the basic theories behind mentoring in general and ethnic-based
mentoring more specifically.

On the third date of training the mentors received detailed training about
the basic theories behind psychological support (strong focus on mental
health)(Unit 4), and social support (Unit 5) for college students and specifically
African American college students. Using this knowledge mentors performed
role plays for making first contact with students, dealing with resistance and
reluctance, implementing skills for conflict resolution (rules for fighting fair) and
the art of listening.

Mentors also learned about peer education and counseling approaches by
utilizing the Rogerian theory (Unit 4). Mentors learned to apply the Rogerian
theory to mentoring. This taught mentors how and when to support (socially,
psychologically, and academically) and refer mentees. More important, it

provided mentors with the skills to recognize student depression and dropout.

9O

The AASMP then conducted a Mix and Mingle for the freshmen
participants. The program was developed to welcome freshmen students to the
mentoring program and to conduct the time 1 surveys to collect pre-test data.

The next week, the mentors attended their mandatory mentor
development retreat. The mentors met for an hour to take the AASMP survey
and to discuss when, where, and what they could and could not take on the
retreat. The mentor surveys will be used for future data analysis.

Student Mentor Retreat. A three-day (Friday evening to Sunday morning)
mentor retreat took place on October 17-19, 2003 at the Hampton Inn, in
Southfield, Michigan (Suburb of Detroit). The mentors attended the retreat to
develop team cohesiveness, racial identity, sense of belonging, psychological
well-being, social support, leadership skills, and to increase their desire for
academic success. At the conclusion of the retreat, student mentors wrote a one
to two page evaluation to: 1) explain the adjustment risk for African American
students entering a (PWI), (HBCU) and MSU, 2) articulate the importance of an
ethnic-based mentor model and the issue behind internalized oppression, 3)
explore intra/interpersonal development (i.e., how to manage your life during a
crisis and how to support others by Ieaming from your struggles), and 4) how to
establish team bonding and a sense of family. Mentors also provided the
strengths, weakness, and changes needed to improve the retreat in the
evaluations.

To hold students accountable for implementing their skills with mentees,

mentors also Ieamed how to complete mentor logs at the retreat. As mentioned

91

earlier, logs were used to supervise how the mentors were applying their training
to mentees. The mentoring logs were reviewed during the second half of training
meetings.

The criteria for completing logs included the mentors’ goals for the week,
communication with their mentees, activities with their mentees, and the outcome
of their experience with their mentees. The mentor's goal (what they want to
accomplish with mentee) reflected the training characteristic(s) discussed (e.g.,
racial identity, sense of belonging) during the previous training(s). Mentors
communication was considered, phone calls, e-mails, or seeing mentees face-to-
face. The mentor’s activities included seminars, programs, and meetings based
on the training topics. At least once a month mentors were responsible for taking
mentees to an academic or social program on or off campus (programs must fall
under the training topics).

To examine mentoring dosage, mentors documented the amount of time
spent implementing different ethnic-based mentoring factors. For example, for
racial identity, a mentor would document 120 minutes after attending a two-hour
cultural event with a mentee. In the outcome section student mentors reported
their experience with their mentee: 1) how they felt the mentees week had been
(wrote positive and negative situations), 2) their impressions of how their mentee
did for the week, and 3) their mentoring goal for the following week.

The next training date involved training mentors how to provide academic
support (Unit 6) to their mentees. The topics covered were Ieaming styles, time

management, note taking, reading skills, self-advocacy for students, study skills,

92

and test preparation. For many mentors the skills were a review. To make the
teaching of academic support more interesting, different topics were presented in
a game format. The game format was designed like the game Taboo. During the
game individuals received a card and on the card was a word (notebook)
teammates must guess. However, under the word was a list of four words (e.g.,
paper, spiral ring) the individual couldn’t say. Each team had 30 seconds to
guess as many cards as possible. The mentors were divided by gender and
played up to twenty points.

After mentors finished the game, the Student Coordinator in ORESA
shared that AASMP purchased Russell Simons (Pioneer of Hip Hop/ Rap music)
Def Jam Poetry tickets. This allowed mentors and mentees to attend the event at
a discounted price. Russell Simmons Def Jam Poetry is a cultural education
event that emphasizes spoken word (style of poetry) with a Hip Hop (type of
music) urban flavor. The event took place November 14, 2003.

Next, students were divided into groups to discuss their logs. All of the
mentors had contacted their students by phone or email. At least half of the
mentors had met their mentees face to face and planned future meetings. For the
mentors who had not seen their mentees face to face they expressed that the
distance between dorms was creating a conflict. Some mentors mentees lived
across campus, which made it difficult for mentors and mentees to meet. Lastly,
some mentees worked and scheduling a time to meet was difficult.

To help mentors schedule meetings with their mentees, the Student

Coordinator in ORESA offered meal cards to mentors who stayed off campus.

93

This helped mentors who lived off campus eat with their mentees without having
to spend their own money. For mentors who stayed across campus from their
mentees, they utilized their fellow mentors who stayed close or in their mentees
dorms. With the help of another mentor many mentees contacted their mentors
more frequently. By mentors working together, they were able to overcome
communication obstacles and meet their mentees face to face.

The following training mentors reviewed the social support survey (Unit 7)
in the AASMP survey packet. The topics discussed were social support from
immediate and extended family, friends at home and school, professors,
counselors, and roommates.

Mentors shared that some professors were unapproachable and when
they did approach them it appeared they were uncomfortable talking to African
American students. Mentors shared that they could help mentees talk to
professors and to stay positive with their interactions even if the professors do
not appear supportive.

To help mentors provide more support to their mentees they wrote letters
to their mentees. These letters included an invitation to the end of the semester
celebration and pictures or special sayings to let mentees know somebody on
campus recognizes their hard work at MSU. Some mentors also put together
care packages for their mentees.

Also during this week, the Board contacted the mentor’s mentees to see
how their relationships were developing using a mentee progress form. Board

members asked mentees how often their mentor contacted them, how they liked

94

their mentor mentee relationship, and if the mentee had any concerns. Board
members shared that some mentors were doing an excellent job and others
needed improvement. For example, one mentee was having financial problems
and her mentor took her to a meeting about scholarships. Another mentor had
met her mentee once but had to cancel following meetings. Even though the
mentee felt the person was a good mentor, the mentee felt the mentor was too
busy to spend time with her. When mentors were performing ineffectively the
Board met with the mentor.

The next training date involved inviting a panel of past Michigan State
student leaders to discuss leadership development (Unit 8) among African
American students. The panelists were given the leadership survey in the
AASMP survey packet. The primary discussion focused on how mentors could
get freshmen involved in campus activities and organizations. The panelist
discussed their experiences at MSU and successful tactics that promoted African
American student involvement on campus. Some of the tactics were
collaborating with other student groups, finding issues freshmen felt were
important, listening to their concerns and ideas, and always encouraging them to
get involved in activities. They also felt that once freshmen were involved,
leaders had to be motivating and demonstrate effective and responsible
leadership skills.

The end of the fall semester celebration took place in the activity room of
Akers hall. The end of the year format was similar to the Mix and Mingle format.

Both the mentors and the students in the experimental and control group

95

attended the program. The day before the event the mentors reminded their
mentees about the celebration and the Board contacted students in the control
group.

During finals week the Board contacted all the participants in the AASMP.
All the participants in the program were contacted to wish them luck on their
finals and to see if they were returning to Michigan State the following semester.
The Board did not report any freshmen participants who were thinking about
dropping out of MSU.

At the start of second semester, mentors were emailed by the Board to
welcome mentors back to school, remind them about second semester training
meetings, and to contact their mentees. The Board met to review the curriculum
for spring semester. They agreed the focus for the semester was making sure
mentors were mentoring their mentees, to analyze time 1 data to improve
mentee outcomes, and to help mentors get their mentees more involved with
campus activities.

Spring Semester Training
Table 4.3

Spring Semester Training Outline

 

 

TrainiAQL Training Units Mentoring Supervision
January 12, 2004 No training Yes No

January 19, 2004 Unit 1 Yes Yes
January 26, 2004 No training Yes No
February 2, 2004 Unit 2 - 8 review Yes Yes

 

96

Table 4.3 (Cont’d).

 

February 9, 2004 No training Yes No
February16, 2004 Unit 9 Yes Yes
February 23, 2004 No training Yes No
March 1, 2004 Unit 10 Yes Yes
March 8, 2004 Spring Break No No
March 15, 2004 Unit 11 8. Survey Yes Yes
Administered
March 22, 2004 No training Yes Yes - for surveys
March 29, 2004 Interview training Yes Yes
April 5, 2004 No training Yes No
April 12, 2004 Interviews Yes Yes
April 19, 2004 No training Yes No
April 26, 2004 End of year Yes No
celebration
May 3, 2004 Finals Yes No

 

During their first meeting mentors reviewed program goals, expectations,
and established their own goals for the semester (unit 1). This allowed mentors
to share their positive and negative experiences from last semester. Based on
the mentor's feedback, the Board made adjustments to AASMP programming
and supervision.

Mentors with the Boards support conducted home (mentee dorm room)
visits to see each mentee. They divided into groups based on where their
mentees lived. When they visited the mentee’s, they welcomed the mentees

back to school, provided information about a bowling party, and established

97

available times that mentees could meet during the week. If mentees were not in
their room, the mentors would leave a note stating they stopped by and would be
contacting them.

At the second training mentors were presented the aggregated data from
time one. They reviewed the topics on racial identity, social support,
psychological support, academic support, sense of belonging, and leadership
development (units 2-8). The presentation of data and review of topics were used
to guide the improvement of the mentor’s skills in the areas mentees scored low.
By improving the mentor’s skills the goal was to improve the mentee’s outcomes.

The Board met with the mentors to review their logs. Board facilitators
focused on the type of contact mentors were making with their mentees.

. Through logs, mentors provided documentation of their goals to involve students
in campus activities. All of the mentors based their goals on activities during
Black History month. Mentors felt getting mentees involved in Black History
month activities would help increase mentees’ racial identity, sense of belonging,
and adjustment.

At the third training mentors Ieamed about peer education (Unit 9). The
goal of teaching mentors about peer education was to help them Ieam alternative
techniques to support their mentees. Peer education was then applied to
reinforce the mentees social, psychological, and academic adjustment. Mentors
also Ieamed about social marketing and how to recruit new Board members and

mentors for the 2004-05 academic school year.

98

When mentors met with their board facilitators to review logs, they focused
on the methods mentors were using to support their mentees socially,
psychologically, and academically. This was important because mentees were
encountering the stressors of completing class assignments. In addition, some
professors were preparing for mid terms and mentees should be in a position to
do well. When Board facilitators reviewed the mentors logs groups shared
positive and negative situations for providing social, psychological, and academic
support to their mentees. From these discussion mentors supported mentees by
helping them set goals, manage their time, form study groups, and encourage
them to talk to their professors.

The following training mentors developed skills in organizational
development (Unit 10). This was taught to mentors for the purpose of helping
students establish goals to create program sustainability and actively recruiting
mentors for next year. The way the senior and graduate MSU students
developed the program structure was based on the current mentors mentoring
their mentees as sophomores and new mentors being admitted to the program to
mentor the freshmen. Therefore the mentors were educated about this process
and taught the influence it will have on the program and their mentoring.

For supervision the Board facilitators discussed how mentors were
supporting their mentees. This meeting was also used to discuss proctors
arranging times with mentees to administer surveys when they returned from

spring break.

99

The next training date, mentors Ieamed about community development
(unit 1 1) for African American students at PWl’s. Mentors attended a lecture by
Rod Watts PhD and reviewed literature about various community-based
initiatives African American students have made on other college campuses.
Students split into groups and discussed the community issues for African
American students at MSU. Then they discussed the approaches African
Americans used at other schools, and how those approaches could be
implemented at MSU.

After the discussion mentors took the AASMP survey. Once mentors
completed their surveys they were informed a proctor would be contacting their
mentee to administer the post-test survey. The mentors provided advice for
contacting mentees that were difficult to reach (i.e. personal cell phone
numbers).

The following training the board held discussion groups with the mentors.
The mentors were asked to provide feedback on the positive and negative
aspects of the program. Mentors also provided suggestions for future planning,
activities, and initiatives that would improve the program. After the meeting the
group ate dinner together in the cafeteria. This provided an excellent opportunity
for more group bonding.

For the last training of the program the Board held a social activity for
mentors and mentees at FunTyme amusement park. This activity included

mentors and mentees playing put-put golf, riding go-karts and playing video

100

games. This activity gave mentors and mentees a chance to relax, socialize, and
discuss scheduling fall 2004 classes two weeks prior to their finals.

The End of Year Celebration was held the last week of classes with MSU
administrators, faculty, staff, mentors, and program participants. The celebration
included an award ceremony with presentation of several plaques to mentors,
graduating mentors and faculty and administrators who supported the program.
All participants in the program were sent letters to wish them luck on their finals,
reminded about registering for the correct classes, and contacted to see if they
were returning to Michigan State the following semester. None of the students

reported they would not be returning to MSU.

101

CHAPTER FIVE

Results

The purpose of this study was to experimentally evaluate the effectiveness
of an ethnic-based mentoring model and the factors that influence mentee
college adjustment and GPA in an African American student mentoring program.
From September 2003 to May 2004 (first and second semester of the 2003-04
academic school year) the mentor program evaluation involved the recruitment
and training of 30 African American student mentors, and recruitment of 80
African American freshmen students. Participants answered a 253 item survey
that assessed Racial Identity, Social Support, Psychological Support, Academic
Support, Sense of Belonging, and Leadership Development.

This chapter presents the findings of the current study. First retention is
reported, followed by the statistical analyses that address each. research
question for the study.

After one semester two students in the experimental group did not return
for the spring semester 2004. Both students were from out of state and one had
a GPA below 1.0. For the entire school year 97% (N = 78) of the participants

were retained (Control Group = 100%, and Experimental Group = 96%).

Statistical Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 11.0 for
Windows, was used for all statistical analyses. First, preliminary analyses were

conducted to clean the data, examine time one differences, and to determine the

102

amount of time mentees received mentoring. The next analysis included
MANCOVAs. To conclude, an exploratory analysis was conducted that included
mediation models.

Preliminary Analysis

After all the surveys were entered for time one and two, frequencies were
conducted for missing data and data entered incorrectly. If data were missing for
any of the measures, participants were contacted. Less than 1% of the items
were missing in all the surveys combined.

Time one data was examined for between group mean differences and no
significant differences were found. Analyses are in Appendix D.

Using data from the mentor logs, frequencies were conducted on the
amount of time mentees received mentoring. For fall semester the amount of
mentoring mentees received was M = 68 minutes (SD = 60.40, median = 49,
minimum time = 15 minutes and maximum time = 229 minutes) and for spring
semester the amount of mentoring was
M = 58 minutes, (SD = 47.63, median = 46, minimum time = 16 minutes and
maximum time = 141 minutes). Mentoring time was categorized into 3 groups:
Low (5 to 29 minutes), Moderate (30 to 60 minutes), and high (61 minutes and
above). Approximately 15% of mentors provided mentoring that was high.

Mentors conducted various activities with their mentees. The most
frequent activities were attending Black Caucus and Black Student Alliance

meetings and events, having dinner, going bowling and to the movies, discussing

103

stress over classes and feeling alone at the university, and tutoring mentees in
math and writing.

Research Question 1: Does the Experimental group report significantly
higher scores at time two on proximal outcomes (Racial Identity, Social Support,
Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging and Leadership
Development) and distal outcomes (College Adjustment, GPA, and Retention)
compared to the Control group?

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance

The Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) “examines whether
there are significant differences among the dependent variables simultaneously”
(pg 280) (George & Mallery, 2001). Within-Subjects multivariate analysis
examined the mean differences of the Experimental Group by College
Adjustment, and GPA at time two factoring out the effect of time one College
Adjustment and GPA variables. The Between-Subjects Univariate analysis
examined the grand mean differences of the Experimental Group by College
Adjustment and GPA variables at time two factoring out the effect of time one
College Adjustment and GPA variables.

For this study time two College Adjustment and GPA were entered into the
SPSS General Linear Model procedure as dependent variables. Group was
entered as a fixed factor with time one College Adjustment and GPA entered as
covariates. The Within-Subjects Multivariate test for Experimental Group by

dependent variables (Time two College Adjustment and GPA) covaried by time

104

one College Adjustment and GPA was not significant F(1,78) = .133, p = .876
(Appendix E).

To determine the effects of the proximal outcomes on the Experimental
Group a second MANCOVA was performed. Time two Racial Identity, Social
Support, Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, and
Leadership Development were entered into the SPSS General Linear Model
procedure as dependent variables (Table 5.1). Group was entered as a fixed
factor with time one Racial Identity, Social Support, Psychological Support,
Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, and Leadership Development entered
as covariates.

The MANCOVA (Table 5.1) demonstrated that the Within-Subjects
Multivariate test for Experimental Group by dependent variables (Racial Identity,
Social Support, Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging,
and Leadership Development) covaried by time one Racial Identity, Social
Support, Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, and
Leadership Development was significant F(1, 78) = .269, p < .05. The Between-
Subjects ANCOVA (Table 5.2) by group demonstrated significant results on time
two Racial Identity F(1, 78) = 5.388, p < .05 and Academic Support F(1, 78) =

5.879, p < .05, when covaried by time one Racial Identity and Academic Support.

105

Table 5.1

Tests of Multivariate MANCOVA on Dependent Variables

 

 

 

Partial Eta

Effect Multivariate F P Squared
Covariates

T1 Racial Identity 5.522 .000 .331

T1 Social Support 7.526 .000 .403

T1 Psych Support 7.387 .000 .398

T1 Academic Support 1.711 .132 .133

T1 Sense of Belonging 4.506 .001 .288

T1 Leadership Dvlpmnt 17.208 .000 .606
Experimental Group 2.609 .025 .189
df = 1, 78
Table 5.2

Tests of Between-Subjects Univariate ANCOVAs on Dependent Variables by
Group

 

 

Partial Eta

Measures N M(SD) F P Squared
Racial Identity 5.388 .023 .070

T2 Control 30 49.40(5.66)

T2 Experimental 50 50.70(5.54)
Social Support .415 .522 .006

T2 Control 30 103.26(18.76)

T2 Experimental 50 99.90(16.51)
Psychological Support .196 .659 .003

T2 Control 30 83.76(12.12)

T2 Experimental 50 84.98(14.80)

106

Table 5.2 (Cont’d).

 

Academic Support 5.879 .018 .075
T2 Control 30 20.13(5.02)
T2 Experimental 50 21 .66(4.98)

Sense of Belonging 1.364 .247 .019
T2 Control 30 78.30(7.93)
T2 Experimental 50 80.58(7.77)

Leadership Development .390 .535 .005
T2 Control 30 49.93(12.39)
T2 Experimental 50 46.16(1 1.72)

df = 1, 78

The mean analysis in the MANCOVA test for covariance demonstrated

that the means for Racial Identity and Academic Support significantly covaried for

the Experimental Group. Table 5.3 shows that the Experimental Group had an

increase on Racial Identity at time two (M=50.70, SD=5.54) and an increase on

Academic Support at time two (M=21.66=SD=4.98). In comparison, Table 5.3

shows that the Control Group had a decrease on Racial Identity at time two

(M=49.40, SD=5.66) and a small increase on Academic Support at time two

(M=20.13, so=5.o2).

107

Table 5.3

Means for significant MANCOVA Variables

 

 

 

Time One Time Two

Measure N M(SD) M(SD)
Racial Identity

Control 30 50.90(4.84) 49.40(5.66)

Experimental 50 49.94(5.41 ) 50.70(5.54)

Academic Support

Control 30 20.05(4.57) 20.13(5.02)

Experimental 50 19.76(4.57) 21 .66(4.98)
Mediation Analysis

This section outlines the process for testing mediation, which addresses
research questions two through four.

A primary focus of the ethnic-based mentoring model was training African
American student mentors based on Mitchell’s and Dell’s (1992) and Parham’s
and Helms’ (1981) theory on Racial Identity. Mitchell and colleagues (1992)
suggested that Racial Identity was a way for African Americans to explore and
embrace group differences, eliminate barriers while maintaining their own
individuality, and was a major factor in their social and academic outcomes at
PWls. The ethnic-based mentor training focused to help African American
mentors become closely connected and support their mentees Racial Identity

(beliefs and attitudes about their own race and that of others).

108

Mediation “implies a causal hypothesis whereby an independent variable
causes a mediator which influences a change in the dependent variable” (
Research In Prevention Laboratory, 2001).

A variable is considered a mediator under the following conditions: (a)
“variations in levels of the independent variable significantly account for
variations in the mediator” (path between the independent variable and the
mediating variable), (b) “variations in the mediator significantly account for
variations in the dependent variable” (path between the mediating variable and
the dependent variable), and (c) when the paths between the independent
variable and the mediating variable and the path between the mediator and
dependent variable are “controlled, a previously significant relationship between
the independent variable and the dependent variable is no longer significant, with
the strongest demonstration of mediation occurring when the path between the
initial independent and dependent variables is zero” (Baron 8. Kenny, 1986).
When this path is “reduced to zero”, it is suggested that there is a single
“dominant” mediator. When this path however, is not zero, then there may be
multiple mediating variables influencing the relationship between the initial
independent variable and dependent variable. If however, there is a significant
decrease in the path between the independent and dependent variables, there is
an implication that the given mediator does indeed have an effective, but not
necessary, “condition for an effect to occur” (Baron & Kenny, 1986). This

significant reduction defines a “partial” mediation.

109

Another possible outcome from a mediation model is “complete”
mediation. To establish complete mediation the following conditions must be met:
(a) the independent variable must affect the mediator when the mediator is
regressed on the independent variable, (b) the independent variable must affect
the dependent variable when the dependent variable is regressed on the
independent variable, and (c) the mediator must affect the dependent variable
when the dependent variable is regressed on the mediating and independent
variables. If these models hold true, then “full” or complete mediation is
established, which implies that the independent variable has no effect on the
dependent variable when the mediator is controlled (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

The premise of the mediation model is that mediation depends on the
degree to which the “independent variable affects the mediator (path a) and the
degree to which the mediator affects the dependent variable (path b)”
(MacKinnon & Dwyer, 1993). The independent variable causes the dependent
variable and is called the unmediated model (Figure 5.1). When the effect of the
independent variable on the dependent variable is influenced by the mediating
variable and the independent variable may still affect the dependent variable this
is called the mediated model (Figure 5.2) (Kenny, 2001).

As observed in figure 5.2, path “a” is the 6coefficient relating the
independent variable to the mediating variable. Path “b” is the p-coefficient
relating the mediating variable to the dependent variable while adjusting for path
“a”. The product of these parameters are defined as the indirect or mediated

effect (calculation: a * b). To determine the percentage of the total effect that was

110

mediated when the direct effect is nonzero, the following equation is employed:
(a*bl[a*b + c']).

Figure 5.1 Unmediated Model (Correlation)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.2 Simple Mediation Model
Source: MacKinnon and Dwyer, 1993; Kenny, 2001

 

Mediating
Variable b

 

 

 

IV DV

 

 

 

 

The test for mediation included a series of regressions: (1) regress the
dependent variable on the independent variable, (2) regress? the mediator on the
independent variable, and (3) regress the dependent variable on both the
independent and the mediating variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Judd & Kenny,
1981). It is not correct to “correlate the mediator with the dependent variable; the
mediator and the dependent variable may be correlated because they are both
caused by the initial independent variable. Therefore, the initial independent
variable must be controlled in establishing the effect of the mediator on the

dependent variable” (Kenny, 2001).

111

Since the MANCOVA test was not significant for Experimental Group by

College Adjustment and GPA, research questions 2, 3, and 4 coglg not be tested

with the independent variable mediating the relationship between the

 

Experimental Group and College AdiustmenLGPA, and Retention. In other
words, since there was no mean difference between the Experimental Group and
the two distal outcomes (College Adjustment and GPA) mediation could not be
tested.

The MANCOVA test was significant on the Experimental Group by
proximal outcomes. The ANCOVA test on Experimental Group was significant
on Racial Identity and Academic support. Based on Mitchell and Dells Racial
Identity theory we examined the relationship between Racial Identity and College
Adjustment, GPA, and Retention. As a result, an exploratory analysis was
conducted to test whether Social Support, Psychological Support, Academic
Support, Sense of Belonging, and Leadership Development mediate the
relationship between Racial Identity and College Adjustment, GPA, and
Retention.

Exploratory Analysis of Mediation Models

The correlation (Appendix F) between Psychological Support and College
Adjustment produced a high correlation at time one (r = .76, p < .01) and time
two (r = .69, p < .01 ). Psychological Support was omitted from this analysis
because College Adjustment was accounting for participants’ psychological well-
being. The relationship between Social Support and Academic Support also

produced a high correlation at time one (r = .65, p < .01) and time two (r = .66, p

112

< .01). Both scales were originally combined as a new variable (Extended
Support), however when retested in the MANCOVA analysis it produced a non
significant result on group. Therefore Social Support and Academic Support
were tested as separate variables in the mediation models.

The correlation between Racial Identity and College Adjustment proved to
be significant (r = .38, p< .01). The correlation between Academic Support and
College Adjustment was not significant (r =.17, p = .11). The mediation test
demonstrated that Sense of Belonging (Figure 5.3, Table 5.4), and Leadership
Development (Figure 5.4, Table 5.5) significantly mediated the relationship

between Racial Identity and College Adjustment.

Figure 5.3 Mediation Model of Racial Identity and College Adjustment

 

 

 

 

 

Sense of
a Belonging b
Racial Identity College Adjustment

 

 

 

 

 

 

To establish statistical mediation the three primary steps, as discussed by
Baron and Kenny (1986) and Judd and Kenny (1981), were performed: Criterion
l: regress College Adjustment on Racial Identity, Criterion ll: regress Sense of
Belonging on Racial Identity, and Criterion Ill: regress College Adjustment on

Racial Identity and Sense of Belonging.

113

Criterion I: Show that the independent variable was correlated with
the dependent variable. Results from the regression analysis in model 1
demonstrated Racial Identity was a significant predictor of College Adjustment
(8: .38, p < .01) and a test for mediation should be conducted.

Criterion ll: Regress the mediator variable on the independent
variable. Sense of belonging was regressed on Racial Identity. Results from the
regression model reached statistical significance (p: .36, p < .01), indicating that
the criterion was fulfilled, suggesting that the initial independent variable was
related to the mediating variable.

Criterion Ill: Regress the dependent variable on both the independent
and mediating variables, and establish that the intervening variable completely
mediates the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
The College Adjustment variable was regressed on a linear combination of
Racial Identity and Sense of Belonging. It was established that College
Adjustment was partially mediated by Sense of Belonging when Racial Identity
(8: .20, p < .05) and Sense of Belonging (p: .48, p < .01) were entered into the
regression equation as the independent variables (see Table 5.4).

Mediated Effect and Percentage Mediated. Further inspection of Table 5.4
shows that the indirect/mediated effect for Model 1 was .17, with 44% of Racial

Identity being mediated by Sense of Belonging.

114

Table 5.4

Model 1: Racial Identity, Sense of Belonging, and College Adjustment Mediation
Model

 

Model B p R2 Comment

 

Criterion I: Racial Identity—College Adjustment
Total Sample .384 .000 .147 Criterion fulfilled

 

Criterion ll: Racial Identity—Sense of Belonging

Total Sample .368 .001 .136 Criterion fulfilled

 

Criterion Ill: Racial ldentity<—Sense of Belonging—College Adjustment

Total Sample .346 Evidence for partial

mediation
Racial Identity .207 .040

Sense of Belonging .480 .000

(mediated effect = .17) (% mediation = 44.7%)

 

Figure 5.4 Mediation Model of Racial Identity and College Adjustment

 

Leadership
a Development b

/.

Racial Identity College Adjustment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

115

For the second mediation model the steps included Criterion I: regress
College Adjustment on Racial Identity, Criterion ll: regress Leadership
Development on Racial Identity, and Criterion Ill: regress College Adjustment on
Racial Identity and Leadership Development.

Criterion I: Show that the independent variable was correlated with
the dependent variable. Results from the regression analysis in model 2
demonstrated Racial Identity was a significant predictor of College Adjustment
(8: .38, p < .01) and a test for mediation should be conducted.

Criterion ll: Regress the mediator variable on the independent
variable. Leadership Development was regressed on Racial Identity. Results
from the regression model reached statistical significance (fi= .28, p < .01),
indicating that the criterion was fulfilled, suggesting that the initial independent
variable was related to the mediating variable.

Criterion Ill: Regress the dependent variable on both the
independent and mediating variables, and establish that the intervening
variable completely mediates the relationship between the independent and
dependent variables. The College Adjustment variable was regressed on a
linear combination of Racial Identity and Leadership Development. It was
established that College Adjustment was partially mediated by Leadership
Development when Racial Identity (p= .28, p < .01) and Leadership Development
(8: .35, p < .01) were entered into the regression equation as the independent

variables (see Table 5.5).

116

Mediated Effect and Percentage Mediated. Further inspection of Table 5.5
shows that the indirect/mediated effect for Model 2 was .09, with 24% of Racial

Identity being mediated by Leadership Development.

Table 5.5

Model 2: Racial Identity, Leadership Development, and College Adjustment
Mediation Model

 

Model B p R2 Comment

 

Criterion l: Racial Identity—College Adjustment
Total Sample .384 .000 .147 Criterion fulfilled

 

Criterion II: Racial Identitye—Leadership Development

Total Sample .288 .010 .083 Criterion fulfilled

 

Criterion Ill: Racial Identity4—Leadershlp DevelopmenteCollege Adjustment

Total Sample .261 Evidence for partial
‘ mediation
Racial Identity .283 .007
Leadership .352 .001
Development

(mediated effect = .098) (% mediation = 24.3%)

 

As a result of the mediation models Racial Identity was significantly
correlated with College Adjustment for the total group. The criterion for
mediation was met for Sense of Belonging (Model 1), and Leadership
Development (Model 2). When Sense of Belonging mediated the relationship

between Racial Identity and College Adjustment, the total group had an indirect

117

effect of .17, with 44% of Racial Identity being mediated by Sense of Belonging.
When Leadership Development mediated the relationship between Racial
Identity and College Adjustment, the total group had an indirect effect of .09, with

24% of Racial Identity being mediated by Leadership Development.

Summary

The MANCOVA demonstrated that there were not significant mean
differences between the Experimental Group and the distal outcomes (College
Adjustment and GPA) at time two. However the MANCOVA did result in
significant mean difference for the Experimental Group by proximal outcomes.
The ANCOVA proved to be significant on Racial Identity and Academic Support
by Experimental Group. The results of the MANCOVA mean scores for Racial
Identity and Academic Support demonstrated that the experimental group scores
were significantly moving in a positive direction compared to the control group.
To determine if other variables mediated the relationship between Racial Identity
and College Adjustment several mediation models were tested. We found that
Sense of Belonging and Leadership Development mediate the relationship

between Racial Identity and College Adjustment.

118

CHAPTER SIX

Discussion

Over the last two decades much attention has focused on mentoring
programs to support African American students attending Predominately White
Institutions (PWI) (Allen, 1992; Harris, 1999). The goals of these programs are
often aimed at helping African American students thrive academically, socially,
mentally, and to graduate. Despite the success of some programs, there
continues to be a problem regarding the academic performance and social
adjustment of African Americans students in higher education (Sellers, Chavous,
& Cooke, 1998).

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of an ethnic-based
mentoring model and the factors (i.e., Racial Identity, Social Support,
Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, Leadership
Development) that influence African American student College Adjustment, GPA,
and Retention in an African American based student mentoring program at a
PWI. The primary goal of the study was: 1) to train African American junior and
senior mentors how to mentor African American mentees using an ethnic-based
mentoring model, 2) for mentors to provide mentoring to African American
mentees (African American Freshman) once a week for an hour, 3) to determine
if participating in an ethnic-based mentoring program significantly affected the
Experimental Group compared to the Control Group on proximal and distal

outcomes, and 4) to determine if Racial Identity, Social Support, Psychological

119

Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, and Leadership Development
mediated the relationship between mentoring (Experimental Group) and College
Adjustment, GPA, and Retention. The findings from this study are discussed in

the following sections.

Major Findings

This section is organized around answering each of the research
questions and relating these findings to the primary goals of the current
investigation.

Research Question 1. Does the Experimental Group report significantly
higher scores at time two on proximal outcomes (i.e., Racial Identity, Social
Support, Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging,
Leadership Development) and distal outcomes (i.e., College Adjustment, GPA,
and Retention) compared to the Control Group?

At time two the Experimental Group did not report significantly higher
mean scores on the distal outcomes compared to the Control Group. In other
words, there were no differences between the mentored group on College
Adjustment, GPA, or Retention.

The Experimental Group did report significantly higher mean scores on
two proximal outcomes (Racial Identity and Academic Support) compared to the
Control Group at time two. Compared to the other proximal outcomes (Social
Support, Psychological Support, Sense of Belonging, and Leadership

Development), Racial Identity and Academic Support were the only variables to

120

demonstrate an interaction over time. Likewise, the significant results on Racial
Identity and Academic Support were consistent with Friereson (1996) findings,
which suggested that mentoring plays a critical role in the racial and academic
development of African American students.

The significant finding on Racial Identity and Academic Support were the
most important in this study because the Control Group had higher scores at time
one on Racial Identity and Academic Support than the Experimental Group. At
time two this pattern reversed, with the Experimental Group scoring significantly
higher than the Control Group. Based on the theory presented about ethnic-
based mentoring, one would hope Racial Identity would be significant. Research
has shown that a Black experience, like those found at an HBCUs, for African
American college students promotes greater ethnic identity, ethnically-based
social encounters (e.g., support and nurturing from African American faculty,
staff, and students), and academic growth (Whitler, Calantone, & Young, 1988;
Terenzini et.al., 1997; Phelps et.al., 2001). This was important because the
foundation of the program was based on an ethnic-based curriculum. The
curriculum was implemented because it had been used at other universities
(including an HBCU), was theory driven, and had the potential to produce
positive African American student College Adjustment, GPA, and Retention
(Thomas, 1999; Harris, 1999).

Academic excellence is the foundation of education. Therefore, it was
important that Academic Support was significantly related to the mentoring.

Research has demonstrated that academic support from other students and

121

faculty can possibly lead to increased retention and grades (Monk, 1998).
Although not significant, the trend for GPA demonstrated that while the mentored
group grades decreased second semester, the students who did not receive
mentoring did even worse. In essence, the mentored students earned higher
grades than those not mentored. For many institutions of higher education,
academic achievement is the “bottom line”. Thus, why have a mentoring program
that supports African American freshmen if it does not have the potential to
reduce the risk of academic failure and dropout? Despite these results, several
methodological, implementation, and theoretical concerns must be addressed.
Methodological Concerns

The methodological issues for this study included the need for a longer
follow-up, effect size, and the possible need for a more representative sample.
The Board hopes that time will tell the short and long term benefits of this
program. The advantage of conducting a longitudinal study may yield significant
results to better understand the differences between the Experimental and
Control Groups. For example, by examining the long term effects of continued
mentoring, it may be possible to observe greater and more significant differences
on participant College Adjustment, GPA, and Retention.

A failure to report significant results on distal and proximal mean
differences may be based on small effect size. DuBois, Halloway, Vallentine,
Cooper's (2002) research on mentoring programs for youth suggested the non
significant results can be attributed to small effect size. Compared to educational

and mental health prevention programs for youth with large mean effect sizes,

122

the average estimated effect sizes for mentoring programs was .14 and .18
(DuBois et.al., 2002).

Based on the effect sizes observed in this study and the size of the
sample, power was calculated to be .05 for College Adjustment and .06 for GPA.
For this study, 5,542 participants would be needed to detect significance at 80%
power on GPA. Therefore, to detect significant results between the Experimental
and Control Group, the mean difference must be large when the sample size is
less than 80 participants. For example, the Experimental Group averaged a 2.50
GPA and the Control Group a 2.41 GPA. The GPA scores demonstrated a .09
difference between the Experimental Group and the Control Group at time two.
Based on these results the Experimental Group’s GPA scores would need to
demonstrate a much greater difference from the Control Group to report
significant results. Despite these results, Dubois and colleagues (2002) shared
that their findings were inconsistent with the widespread success and support
mentoring programs have enjoyed over last few years.

Another methodological challenge would be the recruitment of mentees
who were interested and qualified (were not in required first year university
support programs) to be mentored for a year. It was not difficult to create a
group that received mentoring (Experimental Group) but the challenge is finding
interested students who are willing to be randomly assigned to a group that does
not receive mentoring (Control Group). This process was necessary in order to

report any short and long term effects on College Adjustment, GPA, Retention,

123

and graduation that can be attributed causation and rule out the effects due to
selection, maturation, and historical confounds.

For the Fall 2003 school year, Michigan State University retained 87%
(MSU Registrar’s office, 2004) of its freshmen class (Caucasian = 87%, Black =
81%). The current study retained 97% of its Black students (Control Group =
100%, Experimental Group = 96%). An issue for this study was the 100%
retention among the Control Group. It is apparent that the Control and
Experimental Groups may have had participants with special characteristics or
received additional Academic Support. The Board did their best to control for
confounding factors prior to randomly assigning students to the Experimental and
Control groups. For instance, we were successful in screening out students in
CAAP, however, program leaders Ieamed second semester from the mentors
that several mentees were in academic, athletic, and other support programs. It
was possible that several of these students were randomly assigned to the
Control Group while few were assigned to Experimental Group. Even though the
Control Group achieved 100% retention its first year, it will be interesting to see
how many students are retained second year and persist to graduation compared
to the Experimental Group.

Despite the high retention among the sample, one must caution the idea
that this sample is not at risk for academic failure (Freeman, 1999). For example,
at the end of spring semester (time 2) the participants in this study had a GPA
(2.46) that was approximately (.46) lower than the freshmen class GPA (2.92).

Moreover, based the on participants aggregated time one and two GPA scores,

124

23% of the participants in the Control Group and 14% of the participants in the
Experimental Group were below a 2.0 GPA and on or at risk for academic
probation.

Implementation Concerns

There are a number of concerns regarding the implementation of this
study. As stated in the purpose of this study, two primary goals of the
intervention were: 1) to train African American junior and senior mentors how to
mentor African American mentees using an ethnic-based mentoring model, and
2) for mentors to provide mentoring to African American mentees (African
American Freshman) once a week for an hour. Even though the two primary
goals of the study were accomplished, some of the concerns regarding
implementation included how mentors applied the factors to their mentees over
time, how mentors translated theory into tangible mentoring tasks, the mentor
mentee relationships, mentor accountability, and mentee satisfaction.

As a first year program the evaluation drove the programming at the
beginning of the year. This created a problem, because mentors and mentees
were ready to be paired by mid September. However, without human subjects
approval surveys could not be administered. Therefore survey administration
had to wait until October 6 (date of human subjects approval).

The literature suggested that the first six to eight weeks is the most
important for a first year college student’s successful transition into the university.
By pairing mentees and mentors mid to late semester, mentors felt that some

mentees did not need a mentor to support their adjustment at Michigan State

125

University. Mentors were trained to address mentees who appeared uninterested
in receiving mentoring. For some mentors this challenge existed for the entire
school year.

By implementing the factors of an ethnic-based mentoring model into the
African American Student Mentoring Program over time, it was thought that
African American mentees would significantly improve their College Adjustment,
GPA, and Retention compared to the Control Group at time two. However, it
appears that the lack of time (from mid semester to the end of spring semester)
may have limited the ability to demonstrate significant differences between the
Control and Experimental Groups. It was anticipated that the Experimental Group
would receive at least 25 weeks of mentoring from fall to spring semester. In
actuality, they received approximately 16 weeks of mentoring. This is equal to
one full semester. The lack of time mentors had to mentor mentees could have
negatively influenced the increase of mentee scores.

Another issue with implementing the factors of an ethnic-based mentoring
model may have been the amount of one to one mentoring that took place
between mentors and mentees. For example, may be mentors should have spent
three hours a week with mentees instead of one. If mentors were able to spend
more time with their mentees it might have positively increased mentee
outcomes. Nevertheless, increasing mentor mentee time together could be
difficult to coordinate and manage because of the mentor mentee schedules.
Many mentors work, are student leaders, or involved in other programs.

Likewise, mentees are busy navigating their academic classes, work, going

126

home, and socially adjusting to campus life. Research demonstrated that mentor
mentee contact alone was not related to outcome measures and other factors
than mentor mentee contact mediated the effect of successful mentoring
programs (Thile and Matt, 1995). However, more recent findings from the
intervention literature (e.g., Lipsey, 2001) indicated that more than 16 hours of
mentoring is necessary to produce desired change.

Based on the review of literature there were limitations on understanding
how the theory of the six factors were translated into tangible tasks (limited
mentoring methodology) in order to create behavior change. For example, it was
a challenge helping mentors change theory into tangible task that could sUpport
their mentees. During-supervision meetings mentors discussed their logs and
their lack of understanding how to report the different factors (i.e., Sense of
Belonging) they applied to support their mentees. As a result, some mentors
struggled with applying the appropriate tasks to possibly help mentees report an
increase on proximal outcomes. To help mentors apply the appropriate task for
mentoring mentees, mentors reviewed the questions in the Sense of Belonging
measure (i.e. mentee not sure if they fit with friends). Mentors reported that this
process helped them better understand how to apply mentoring theory into
tangible task that might enhance their mentees Sense of Belonging at a PWI.

Some mentor mentee relationships struggled because of personality
differences, campus proximity, and mentors not fulfilling their responsibilities.
The issue of mentor mentee personality differences is consistent with Haring’s

(1999) manuscript, where she suggested that most mentoring relationship are

127

built on good chemistry, and more often than not, forced matching (gender, race
or ethnicity, majors, career interest, or hobbies) is ineffective when creating
successful relationships. Likewise, Michigan State has the largest on campus
housing (23 undergraduate residence halls, one graduate hall, and four
apartment villages) in the United States. Mentors and mentees being separated
by residence halls across campus proved to be challenging for developing
relationships, especially in the winter.

While the program had many outstanding student mentors, several did not
fulfill their mentoring responsibilities. To increase mentor accountability the
Board tried to secure class credits for student mentors prior to training and
mentoring. However, the Board was unsuccessful due to time constraint that
would have allowed a college department to accept the mentoring curriculum.
After first semester (semester with retreat), approximately 95% of the mentors
attended all the trainings (some mentors had time conflicts), events sponsored by
the program, and 95% had weekly contact with their mentees. Second semester,
approximately 70% of the mentors attended all the trainings (25% of mentors had
time conflicts), events sponsored by the program, and 70% had weekly contact
with their students. When the Board contacted (contact made after first four
weeks of second semester) mentees to discuss their relationship with their
mentor, some mentee reported they had not been contacted by their mentor the
first few weeks of the semester. The Board felt the lack of mentor accountability
to attend training and provide weekly mentoring created negative effects on

some mentees.

128

At the end of the school year (time 2) mentees reported on their mentoring
relationships and satisfaction. Fifty-eight percent of the mentees were satisfied or
strongly satisfied with their mentoring experience compared to 42% of the
mentees who were not satisfied. In planning for the second school year (2004 -
2005), the Board resthctured its matching process, (took into consideration
proximity and mentor mentee chemistry) and secured class credits through
African and African American Studies.

Theoretical Concerns on Ethnic-based Mentoring

As a first year study, the proposed theoretical model proved to show some
promising results. Without a significant difference between the Control and
Experimental Groups on distal outcomes, it was impossible to examine if the
proximal outcomes mediated the relationship between the mentored group and
the distal outcomes.

A major concern that exists in the literature is the absence of an
empirically tested theory that relates to mentoring in general and to an ethnic-
based mentoring in particular (Jacobi, 1991; Allen et.al., 1997). Without scientific
information that examined the theoretical factors that influence African American
College Adjustment, GPA, and Retention, this appears to be the only study that
attempts to understand the theory of ethnic-based mentoring scientifically.

More important, with the lack of empirical examination of the six factors, it
was a challenge to understand if these factors accurately represent an ethnic-
based mentoring model. Theoretically, many manuscripts discuss at length the

factors that promote successful College Adjustment, GPA, and Retention, but it

129

cannot be determined how these factors are related to the distal outcomes
without an experimental evaluation (Jacobi, 1991; Allen et.al., 1997). Thus, the
success of the Harris and Thomas’ ethnic-based mentoring models (relationship
between proximal and distal outcomes) may be related to other factors than what
they reported as positive outcomes in their studies (i.e., Racial Identity).

Based on the theoretical concerns surrounding ethnic-based mentoring,
one should not be surprised that significant relationships were not found between
Group and the distal outcomes. The empirical design for this study was tested

on a theory that has been marginally examined in the literature from an

 

experimental perspective. Therefore, the implications of experimentally
evaluating the theory surrounding an ethnic-based mentoring model could
possibly prove to be highly beneficial for future researchers.

Despite these theoretical concerns, this study produced significant positive
correlations between College Adjustment and five proximal outcomes (Racial
Identity, Social Support, Psychological Support, Sense of Belonging, and
Leadership Development) (Figure 6.1). It was also found that College
Adjustment was significantly related to GPA and GPA to Retention. This
provided support empirically that five of the ethnic-based factors were
significantly related to African American student College Adjustment and GPA

was related to College Adjustment and Retention (Appendix F).

130

 

Figure 6.1 Ethnic-based Mentoring Model Significant Mean Differences and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correlations
"41mm Ml!
Significant Significant
Mean Correlations
Differences Racial Identity
Social Support
College Adjustment
Psych Support
Group GPA
—> Academic Support
Retention
Sense of Belonging
Leadership Develp.

 

 

 

These correlations in figure 6.1 were consistent with several findings
showing the theoretical positions on the relationship between mentoring, college
adjustment, and GPA (Good et. al., 2000; Lavant et. al., 1997; Newman &
Newman, 1999; Shultz et. al., 2001; and Thile & Matt’s, 1995). More important,
this theoretical position is consistent with the limited empirical mentoring
research, which suggested GPA was significantly related to mentoring (T hile &
Matt’s, 1995).

The significant correlations in this study appear to fill a gap in the literature
because no studies have been found that report these results using a
randomized pre-post test design with African American college students.
Therefore, it is suggested that in order to address some of the theoretical
concerns in the literature, researchers should continue to examine the
significantly related factors of an ethnic-based mentoring model. Further

examination of these results can assist researchers in understanding the

131

significant factors that influence College Adjustment, GPA, and Retention within
an ethnic-based mentoring model.
Mediation Model Analysis

Research Questions on Mediation Models. Several research questions
were asked to determine if Racial Identity, Social Support, Psychological
Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, and Leadership Development
mediated the relationship between the Experimental Group, and College
Adjustment, GPA, and Retention (i.e., Does Racial Identity mediate the
relationship between the Experimental Group and College Adjustment?, Does
Social Support mediate the relationship between the Experimental Group and
College Adjustment?)

These research questions could not be tested because there was no
relationship between mentoring and College Adjustment, GPA, or Retention. In
other words, a significant difference did not exist between the mentored group
and the distal variables. Nevertheless, the results of this study demonstrated that
mentoring positively effected mentee Racial Identity and Racial Identity was
significantly related to mentee College Adjustment (Figure 6.1). Based on these
results, an exploratory analysis was conducted to determine if the proximal
variables mediated the relationship between Racial Identity and College
Adjustment.

Exploratory Analyses of Mediation Models
Significant indirect relationships were found on Sense of Belonging and

Leadership Development mediating the relationship between Racial Identity and

132

College Adjustment. For Sense of Belonging a significant partial mediation was
found for the total sample. The significant partial mediation for the total sample
suggested that while Sense of Belonging partially explains the relationship
between Racial Identity and College Adjustment, there may be other variables
that contribute to the relationship between Racial Identity and College
Adjustment. Terenzini’s (1997) research on student development in
Predominately White Institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs) suggested that a student’s Racial Identity and College Adjustment are
influenced by their Sense of Belonging to their environment.

Significant partial mediation was found for Leadership Development
mediated the relationship between Racial Identity and College Adjustment in the
total sample. The significant partial mediation for the total sample suggested that
there may be other variables that contribute to the relationship between Racial
Identity and College Adjustment. Striffolino and Saunders (1989) showed that
Leadership Development enhances a student’s identity and develops a student
who is an active and not passive participant involved with their education.

The results from these mediation models demonstrated that Sense of
Belonging and Leadership Development proved to be two significant variables
that contribute to the influence on ethnic-based mentoring model. These two
variables along with Racial Identity and Academic Support have proven to be
important theoretically and now empirically. Still, only by testing this model over
time and on different samples can credible inferences be made about the

effectiveness of an ethnic-based mentoring model, its’ proximal outcomes, and

133

whether it significantly influences African American student College Adjustment,
GPA, and Retention. Further, while implementation and methodological issues
(addressed in following sections) are solved, confirmation of the theoretical

adequacy of these observations should be studied.

Limitations
Power (small sample) was a limitation of the study. However, for program

continuity, having to many mentees and mentors (more than 60) in a mentoring

 

program can hinder mentor relationships, mentor mentee relationships, and the

 

cost of the program and evaluation (Thomas, 1999). When a maximum of two
mentees were assigned to one mentor the program was limited to the number of
mentees that could participate in the study. Even though a large group of African
American students were interested in being mentored, by omitting students who
were in CAAP limited the control group to 30 students. Having a larger sample
might have addressed some of the sampling issues, but would have also
increased our evaluation cost significantly. Therefore, more funding is needed to
possibly have a larger sample.

The inability to secure class credits was another limitation. Without mentor
accountability the Board could not hold students responsible for their mentoring.
The majority of students became mentors because they wanted to support the
success of other African American students. However, when other obligations

(work, class, relationships, other activities) developed for mentors the program

134

was no longer a priority. By having class credits, mentoring becomes a priority
because students do not want to receive a poor or failing grade.

Lastly, it was Ieamed while conducting the study that some of the
measures could be improved, collapsed, or omitted. The measure for
Psychological Support was not measuring the support mentors provide to their
mentees, but was measuring mentee well being. Psychological Well-being was
captured in the College Adjustment scale as a subscale and questions for
Psychological Support should be developed based off McGraths Social Support

Scale. Researchers found out later that an updated Scale for Sense of Belonging r

 

was developed. This measure had questions that provided greater detail L
compared to the first measure. Also the questions were measured on their
degree of relevance compared to the degree of agreement.
Moreover, the measure for Racial Identity was the only scale used on
large populations of African American college students. The measures used to
examine the proximal and distal outcomes must continue to be tested for
reliability to determine their effectiveness with an African American sample.
Therefore some of the results in this study might be based on measures that do

not work well with a sample of African American College students.

Strengths
A major strength of the study was the overall methodology. A strong
framework was developed to implement and evaluate an ethnic-based mentoring

program over time. The framework included a Board comprised of students and

135

university staff. The Board provided leadership to monitor the program
implementation and evaluation. The framework also included a year long
curriculum that encompassed a student mentor retreat, bi-weekly training
meetings, and weekly mentoring. Lastly, theframework included a strong
evaluation design that employed a randomized pre-post test design to help the
Board understand how and whether ethnic-based mentoring influenced African
American freshmen Racial Identity, Social Support, Psychological Support,
Academic Support, Sense of Belonging, Leadership Development, College
Adjustment, GPA, and Retention at a PWI.

Another strength of the study proved to be the recruitment of student
mentors. Junior and senior African American students were excited about a new
program to support African American freshmen students at Michigan State
University. As a result over 100 students applied to be mentors. The recruitment
of African American freshmen students was successful because there was a
large pool of students to choose from. This allowed us to self select from
students who were not chosen to participate in CAAP.

With one-fourth of participants attending the Mix and Mingle to complete
surveys, our community based outreach plan helped us collect surveys to have a
successful random assignment. By having a participant outreach plan, the Board
was prepared to conduct door to door dorm visits and randomly assign students
to groups. As a result, the Board was two students short of having 100% of their
participants in the Experimental Group. The door to door outreach plan also

allowed the Board to collect 100% (N = 80) of the data at post-test.

136

Conclusion

Overall thepurpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of an
ethnic-based mentoring model and the factors (i.e., Racial Identity, Social
Support, Psychological Support, Academic Support, Sense of Belonging,
Leadership Development) that influence African American student College
Adjustment, GPA, and Retention in an African American based student
mentoring program at a PWI. As a first year mentoring program in higher
education, we were able to conduct a large randomized pre-post test empirical
study to address the critical evaluation concerns on mentoring programs i

mentioned or missing in the literature. By teaching mentors the factors of an

 

ethnic-based mentoring model, we found that mentees benefited the most form
mentoring and demonstrated significantly higher scores on Racial Identity and
Academic Support. The results also showed that the mentored students achieved
a higher GPA (2.50) than those not mentored (GPA = 2.41). The mentees
grades also proved to be better than the total samples predicted GPA (2.42). It
was also discovered that Sense of Belonging and Leadership Development
indirectly influenced the correlations between Racial Identity and College
Adjustment. We also felt the significant relationships (College Adjustment on
Racial Identity, Social Support, Psychological Support, Sense of Belonging,
Leadership Development, and GPA) within an ethnic-based mentoring model
demonstrated positive scientific findings that can possibly benefit the College
Adjustment and GPA of African American college students at PWls. Although

two mentees were not retained (both from out of state) from the Experimental

137

Group, we can be satisfied with retaining 96% of our first year African American

mentees in the study.

Future Directions
There are several areas that can be explored to better understand the
factors associated with an ethnic-based mentoring model for African American
college students. Some key areas would include the theoretical and
methodological issues surrounding the field of higher education and mentoring.

While the last 20 years has produced literature on ethnic-based mentoring

 

programs for African American college students, the majority of these programs I
lack empirically sound evaluations. Therefore it is important to examine if ethnic-
based mentoring programs for African American high school or middle school
students have been rigorously examined empirically. If so, these programs might
provide strong methodological designs that could be used to better structure and
test an ethnic-based mentoring model on African American college students.
Likewise, by examining ethnic-based mentoring models at different educational
levels (middle school, high school, college, graduate school), a grounded theory
can be universally applied and tested on the factors that significantly contribute to
student adjustment, GPA, retention, and graduation.

A basis for having a strong grounded theory for ethnic-based mentoring
research includes an implementation process that effectively leads to desired
outcomes. This means there needs to be a clear articulation of theory (eg. the

relationship between Racial Identity and College Adjustment) into tangible task

138

that can be applied to various contexts and are consistent with the goals of the
study. It is important to have empirically tested studies in the literature that
reports the strengths and weakness of implementation within an ethnic-based
mentoring study. Without this information a gap exists in the literature that would
help researchers create strong methodologically experimental designs that can
be rigorously examined.

In order to address some of these methodological issues, researchers
examining ethnic-based mentoring models must be mindful of sampling issues,
identifying people who really need and want mentoring, and the amount of time
spent mentoring. As discussed in this study, power was an issue to report
significant results. Therefore when developing a randomized pre-post test
design, more than 80 participants are suggested. However, if a sample is smaller
than 80 participants, the difference between mean scores among two groups
must be large enough to possibly report significant results. Likewise, it is
important to understand the risk (e.g., academic failure or dropout) associated
with the target population and that the sample chosen is representative of
needing support. For example, it is questionable how much high achieving
African American students benefited from an ethnic-based mentoring program.
More important, mentors must be held accountable for meeting with their
mentees and vice versa. This is critical because the mentoring, or lack there of,
can positively or negatively influence the primary goals and outcomes of the
research. Lastly, researchers should be aware of the amount of time mentees

need to be mentored to demonstrate significant results. Issues with using too

139

 

much of the mentors and mentees time may exist. However, mentees might
have demonstrated significantly better results than the Control Group if more
than 16 hours were dedicated to mentoring during the school year.

To achieve an effective and significant ethnic-based mentoring model,
several areas would have to be improved in order to produce positive results on
both proximal and distal outcomes. First, each mentee would need to receive at
least 3 to 4 hours of mentoring a week. As a result, mentors would be enrolled in
a 2 credit class (6 hours a week and 12 hours every 2 weeks) and continue to

mentor 2 mentees. To improve accountability and the transfer of theory into

 

practice mentors would receive 2 hours of class training and 1 hour of
supervision every other week. The remaining hours will be allotted to the retreat
and developing mentor mentee relationships. To hold mentees accountable they
would enroll in a 1 credit class (3 hours).

To optimize the mentoring programs effectiveness, it would collaborate
with the university’s academic departments. This would allow the program to help
academic departments share resources and reduce duplication (e.g., cultural
programming). To ensure students from departments participate in the program,
mentors and mentees would be interviewed and randomly selected into the
program. For example, if there are 10 students form natural science 5 would be
randomly selected to participate in the program.

Lastly, program management is the most important. Two people should

manage the program and evaluation aspects of the mentoring organization. Both

140

positions would work hand and hand to achieve the desired results of an ethnic-
based mentoring model.

The present findings convey an important message for continued research
on ethnic-based mentoring for African American college students attending
PWls. Understanding these issues may provide an avenue for researchers,
faculty, staff, and students to fully appreciate the potential of an ethnic-based
mentoring model on African American student College Adjustment, GPA, and

Retention.

141

APPENDIX A

CONSENT FORM

Consent Form to Participate In a study of an African American Student Mentoring Program
October 6, 2003
Dear Michigan State Student,

As you may have heard, The Office of Racial Ethnic Student Affairs and the James Madison
College are supporting an African American mentoring program to strengthen the adjustment and
sense of belong of first year African American college students. Part of this initiative involves a
study to Ieam from student mentors and their mentees about the effects of the program on their
racial identity, social support, psychological well-being, academic success, sense of belonging,
leadership development, and college adjustment over time. The program is a five-year pilot study.
The study is being conducted under the supervision of Lee N. June, Ph.D. and E. Nathan
Thomas III, MA. A part of this study is being used for Mr. Thomas’ dissertation.

Because of your interest in the program, it is important for us to understand the challenges
African American students must address in order to help them successfully navigate the campus
environment. If you agree to participate in this study, your involvement will include the following:

1. Completing a pre and post-test survey to Ieam about your perceptions and attitudes
during fall and spring semester. The pre-test will be administered during the first eight
weeks of the semester (October for fall and February for spring) and the post-test a week
before finals (December for fall and April for spring).

2. Your participation in this study will take approximately 30 to 40 minutes.

3. Providing your personal identification (PID) number, which allows us to access your
grade point average (GPA) and enrollment status (i.e., are you registered for classes). If
you refuse to provide your PID it does not affect your rights to participate in the Mentoring
Program.

This study involves minimal risk; that is, no risks to your physical or mental health beyond those
encountered in the normal course of everyday life. The information you provide will be important
in helping to inform and improve the African American Student Mentoring Program. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your name will never be
associated with the information you provide in this study, unless subpoenaed by a court order or
a request from UCRlHS.

As a way of thanking you for your participation, when you turn in the completed survey and
consent form you will be entered In a drawing for a monetary gift at the end of the
semester: There Is one $100 gift, two $50 gifts, and five $20 gifts. The drawing will take
place at the end of the semester celebration during fall and spring semester.

If you have any guestions regarding this survey or would like assistance completing this survpy,
please contact Nate Thomas at (517) 353-7745 or the evaluation project director, Dr. Lee June,

(517) 355-2264 at Michigan State University.

If you have any guestions rpgarding your rights as a survey participant, or are dissatisfied at any
time with any aspect of this survey, you may contact - anonymously if you wish - Peter

Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRlHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, email: ucrih§_@msu.efl_, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall,
East Lansing, MI 48824.

142

Appendix A (Cont’d).

Provide your PID # on the line below if you agree to allow us to access your academic
Information for purposes of this study (If you refuse to provide your PID it does not affect your

rights to participate in the Mentoring Program):

PID #

, voluntarily agree participate in this study.
(print your name here)

 

 

(please sign here) (Date)

143

O i I' 1'3 1" L'L'I'I'

 

q———.
7 .

APPENDIX B
RELEASE OF INFORMATION

African American Student Mentoring Program Contact & Release of Information
Form
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY & COMPLETE FRONT and BACK)
Current Permpnent Address (i.e. parents or gpardian)

Name
(First) (Last)

 

 

Address City State Zip

 

 

 

Phone

 

Contact Person
If you were to move or otherwise be difficult to reach, who would be most likely to know
how we could contact you?

 

 

 

 

Name

(First) (Last)

(Relationship) Phone

Address City State Zip

 

 

 

Release of Information Form
In order for the above person to provide your contact information we need your consent
to release information.
RELEASE OF INFORMATION FORM
October 9, 2003

Dear (Put contact persons name from
above):

 

I’m helping the African American Student Mentoring Program at Michigan State
University with a project on student adjustment, retention, and graduation. If in the next 8
years they should be having a hard time reaching me, I’ve given them permission to
contact you to find out where I am. Please feel free to give them any information you

144

Appendix B (Cont’d).

might have regarding where I might be. The names of the persons in charge of the project
are Nathan Thomas and Robert Biddle. The contact number for Mr. Thomas is 734-730-
8490 and Mr. Biddle 517-353-7745.

Sincerely,

 

(PRINT name here)

*1

 

(SIGN name here)

Date:

 

 

Contact Person

If you were to move or otherwise be difficult to reach, who would be most likely to know
how we could contact you?

 

 

 

 

 

Name

(First) (Last)

(Relationship) Phone

Address City State Zip

 

 

 

145

APPENDIX C
SURVEY

DEMOGRAPHICS: To help us understand who has responded to our survey, we would
like to know some Information about you. Please answer the following questions by
circling the answer that applies to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. What is yourracial/ethnic identification? 10. Size of your high school (size range)?
a. Afncan American a. 0 to 500 students
b. African tspecrfy b. 501 to 1,000 students
nationality) c. 1.001 to 2,000 students
. . d. 2,001 to 3,500 students
0. West Indian (SPBC'fY 9 Over 3,501 students
nationality)
._ _ . . 11. Racial percentage of African American]
d. Latino "PD-White (specify Blacks in your high school?
nationality) a. 0 to 5%
b. 6 to 10%
e. Other c. 11 to 20%
(specify) d. 21 to 40%
2. What is your current citizenship status? 1?. ' 3: :33:
a. US citizen 9, 81 to 100%
b. Permanent resident but not a
citizen
c. Temporary resident
d. Other
(Specify)
3. Gender
a. Male
b. Female

4. What YEAR were you born?

5. Classification
a. Freshman
b Sophomore
c. Junior
d. Senior
e Other (Please Specify)
f.
6. Marital Status?
a. Single
b. Married
c. Separated/Divorced
d. Widowed

7. Do you have Children? 1. Yes 2. No
8. If yes how many?

9. High School cumulative GPA when you
graduated?

146

Appendix C (Cont’d).

12. After all your years of education (starting at age 5) through high school graduation (grade 12),
how many have you spent attending integrated schools (Provide number of years)?
13.

Priortograduaflonwhoencouraged youto

attendances? . Notet A 8m 0011“
> all Little what an

5i)

a. Parents/Guardian 1
b. High school counselorsfl'eachers 1
c. Friends 1

NNNN
00:00)
.533 3'
(actual

r...

14.
:‘ryri‘i I; O“
:8 i ,l-‘t ..

Whydidyoudecidetoattend this ‘ ‘*
.- Mott A .. Some- Qutwa
university? , j "i U151? , W18" . ;!:‘

 

aAmdemicreputation A I 1

bFamllyenoouraaed , .. 1 .
c.Location 1
oPrograms oraag 1-
e. Financialconslderations 1

,f HighScliooI’teaicllersICounselors 1 . . -. . , . ' T .

g. Fnendsencouraged 1
'h. Schoolpopulaiilyi’e socialiife‘and -« 1 ' 52 ' .
i. Itwasthe only school that accepted 1 2
you

'L'outer‘ “if _ f’t"~‘.>:? 1 ‘ ‘ 1 ‘2 "3 -4 115.57

“M to re re re re
' co so its» u "to a
“7'3 3 for A 4- 3

N
3

«a
of

”I
as
(It

147

Appendix C (Con’d).

15. Where are you from?

a.
b.
c.

City/town
State
Country

16. Have you spent most of your life in a
rural area, small town or city?

a.
b.
c.
d.

Rural area (Fewer than 1,000

people)

Small Town (1,001 to 50,000
ple)

Small city (50,001 to 100,000

people)

Medium size city (100,001 to

500,000 people)

Large size city (Over 500,001

people)

17. What was the primary racial makeup of
your city (circle all that apply)?

a.
b.
c.
d.

African American
Asian American
Latino

White

18. With whom did you live with most of the
time while you were growing up (until

age 18)?

.320 ”PP-PP!”

Both Natural parents
Mother and stepfather
Father and stepmother
Mother only

Father only
Grandparents

Foster parents

Other

19. What was your parent’s combined
income from the last yeafl

Paefipeppp

Less than 10,000
10,000 to 15.000
15.000 to 20,000
20,000 to 25.000
25,000 to 35,000
35,000 to 45.000
45.000 to 60,000
60,000 to 80.000
80,000 and above

20. Where are you living during this
academic year?

a.
b.

c.
d.

University residence hall
Rented apartment or
condominium

Rented house

Rented room or apartment in a
private home

My own house or condominium

148

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

f. Home of my parents or other
relative
9. Other

Your cumulative GPA as of last
semester (First year students put the
average grade of all your classes
combined, i.e., 2.0 +3.0 = 2.5)

How important is it to get a college
degree?

a. Extremely important

b. Very important

c. Somewhat important

d. Not at all important

How important is it that you graduate
from this university?

a. Extremely important

b. Very important

0. Somewhat important

(1. Not at all important

How important is it that you make all
A's?

a. Extremely important

b. Very important

c. Somewhat important

d. Not at all important

So far has your desire to make all A's

reflect your cumulative GPA?
a. Yes b. No
Why?

 

 

How sure are you that you made the
right choice to attend this university?
Definitely right choice
Probably right choice

Not sure

Probably wrong choice
Definitely wrong choice

9.9-9.3!”

Will you return to this university next
semester?

a. Definitely will return

b. Probably will return

c. Not sure

d. Probably will not return

e. Definitely will not return
If no, why?

 

Appendix C (Cont’d).
30. Have you ever seriously considered
leaving the university?
a. Yes
b. No
31. If yes,
why?

 

 

SECTION III STUDENT
EXPERIENCES

32. As a Black student how much do you
feel part of campus life with other black

students
a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. Often
d. Very often

33. In general, as a Black student how
much do you feel part of the overall

campus life?
a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. Often
d. Very often

34. To what extent do campus
extracurricular activities reflect your

interest?
a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. Often
d. Very often

35. To what extent do off campus
extracurricular activities reflect your

interest?
a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. Often
d. Very often

STUDENT INTERACTIONS AT THE
UNIVERSITY

36. Have you encountered racial
discrimination in any form (i.e., symbols,
gestures, words or behaviors) on or
around campus (i.e. in class, where you
live, at restaurants, while shopping,
etc)?

a. Yes b. No

149

37. If yes, how frequently have you
experienced discrimination on around

this campus?

a. Never

b. Once or twice during a
semester

c. Three to five times during a
semester

d. More than five times during a
semester

38. How satisfied or dissatisfied have you
been with your with your social

life/dating at the university?
a. Very satisfied
b. Satisfied
c. Unsatisfied

d. Very unsatisfied

39. Was (is) your first college roommate
from the same racial ethnic background
as you?

a. Yes b. No

40. How long did it take for you to develop a
relationship?

a. About One day

b. About One week
c. About One monfll
d. About Two months
e. Never

41. How often do you do things together?
Everyday

At least once a week

At least every other week

At least once a month
Never

9999'!”

42. Do you or have you received any
financial aid?
a. Yes b. No

43. What type have you received?

Loan

Academic scholarships
Research assistantship
Teaching assistantship
Fellowship

Outside, non-university funding
Work study

Other

FTP-‘99???

 

 

Appendix C (Cont’d).

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

Approximately what percent of your
tuition does your financial aide cover?
a. 25%

b. 50%
c. 75%
d. 100%

To what degree has your financial aid
reduce your stress about paying for

college?
a. Not at all
b. Some
c. A little
(I. A lot

00 you work on or off campus to support
your college education?
a. Yes b. No

How many hours a week do you work?
a. 0-10

b. 10-20
c. 20-30
(I. 30-40

Do you have health insurance?
a. Yes b. No

If you were physically sick (symptoms of
the flu) at what point would you go get
professional help?

8. Immediately

b. After one to three days
c. After one week

d. After two three weeks
6. Never

. lf you were mentally sick (i.e.

depressed) at what point would you go
get professional help?

a. Immediately

b. After one to three days
c. After one week

d. After two to three weeks
e. Never

150

 

often do 2. Once or twice a week

1. None 1. None

you 3. Every other week
receive 4. Once a month
support?

(Circle

one)

I believe that being Black is 'a
positive experience.

“ 'l knowtth’rOUQh experi'énce'Wha't"

being Black in America means. .
I feel unable to involve myself in
White experiences and am
increasing my involvement in
Black experiences.

'I believe that large numbered '
. Blacks are un-j trustworthy. . , , .

I feel an ovenivhelming
attachment to Black people.

I ianlve myself in causes that

, will help oppressed people.

I feel comfortable wherever I
am.

I believe that white pebple‘ look
and express themselves better
than Blacks. ..

I feel very uncomfortable
around Black people.

Strongly
_ Disagree

1

151

2. Once or twice a week
3. Every other week
4. Once a month

Disagree Uncertain Agree

2

1. None

2. Once or twice a week
3. Every other week

4. Once a month

3

4

 

SECTION 1 - The following statements have to do with your feelings. Beside each statement.
circle the number that best describes how you feel using the scale below.

' Strongly
Agree

5

Appendix C (Cont’d).

’ 1‘0

lfeel gbed about being Black,
but do not limit myself to Black

- actIvItIes

I 11.

'12.

13.

' ~ 14.”

I often find myself referring to
White people as honkies,
devils, pigs, etc.

I3 believe that to be Black is not

- necessarily good.

I believe that certain aspects of
the Black experience apply to
me, and others do not.

I frequently confrOnt the System _

~. arid the man

15.

16I involve myself In seeial action “ ’

I constantly involve myself in
Black Political and social
activities (art shows, political
meetings, Black theatre, etc)

, and political groups even if

there are no other Blacks

~ Involved

'17.

"18‘.

I believe that Black people
should Ieam to think and
experience life in ways similar
to white people.

lbéIieve that the 'beid jsIIbIIId‘ " '

. , be interpreted from a’Black ~
., .. perspective

I9.

’ 2d.

* 22:
"'23.

24;

I have changed my style of life V

to fit my beliefs about Black
people.

j'I feel exottement and joy in
. Black surroundings

H 21.

I believe that Black people I
came from a strange, dark, and
uncivilized continent.

'péapie 'regardléssidf‘t'fiéi’r’raée
havestrengths and limitations. .

I find myself reading a lot of
Black literature and thinking
about being Black.

'l'feel guIIty and/6r aniiau’s‘ ‘ " -

about some of the things I

i. believe about Blackpeople. 7

25.

I believe that a Black person's
most effective weapon for
solving problems is to become
a part of the White person’s
world.

152

Appendix C (Cont'd).

26:

I speak my mind regardless of
the consequences (6.9,; being

» kicked out of, School, being ~

-- imprisoned..being_.expo.se.d)... .

27.
2‘8.
29.
so:
A 31.

I believe that everything Black
is good, and consequently, l
limit myself to Black activities.
I am ”determined toifind my
Black identity...

I believe that white people are
intellectually superior to Blacks.

[believe becauSe I am Black, I I

............

lfeel that BlaCk people doinbt I. .. I

have as much to be proud of as
White people

Most BIaCR people I know are '

,.failures

33.

I believe that White people
should feel guilty about the way
they have treated Blacks in the
past

L 'Wth people cannot be trusted 1
35.

In today’s society if BlaCk
people don’t achieve, they have
only themselves to blame.

(The mest important thing abbot” '

,. _ me is that I am BIBCK.

' 37.

Being Black just feels natural to A

me.

"other BI'aiék' peopie‘ have .
trouble accepting me because >
my life experiences haVe been .

so different from their .

._.eXpenences.

’39.
‘40.
'41.
‘42.

_ . , {important to me.
43.

Black people who have any
White people’s blood should
feel ashamed of it.

Sometimes I WIsh l beIOnged to V
, the White race _

The people I respect most are 4

White people.
A person ’s raCe usually Is not

I feel anxious when White
people compare me to other
members of my race.

153

Appendix C (Cont’d).

' 44 I can't feel comfortable WIth' . ,
either Black people or White 1 2 3 4 5
,_ ,people. ‘ _ _ ._ _ , .
45. A person ’5 race has little to do
with whether or not he she Is a I 2 3 4' 5
good person.
46. Whenil' am'WitI'I Black people, I
f pretend to enjoy things they 1 2 3 4 5
enjoy.

47. When a stranger who is Black
does something embarrassing 1 2 3 4 5
in public, I get embarrassed.

" 4'8. I‘b‘e‘IT‘ev'e' thata’BlaCk perSOh ” i

. » can be close friends with a ' 1 I 2 ' 3 4 - 5
49. I am satIsfied With myself I 2 3 4 5
' '.50."I'haveaPOSItive attitiide about i ’ 1 ' ' '2 ‘ f I, s ' ii 4 ‘ i 5 ‘ ‘4

, ...£IIY§elf.bec..aU§elam Blask...._ ..

SECTION 2 — This section contains questions about how you feel and how
things have been going with you. For each question, circle the answer
which best applies to you.

154

Appendix C (Cont’d).

5. Have you been under or felt you

1. HOW have YOU been feeling III were under any strain, stress, or
general? (DUIIIIQ The Past Month) pressure? (During The Past Month)

a In excellent SPIIIIS a. Yes - almost more than I

b- III very 900d SPIIIIS could bear or stand

c. In good spirits mostly

d. I have been up and down In b. Yes _ quite a bit of pressure
SPIIIIS . . c. Yes - some, more than

e. In low spIrIts mostly usual

I In very IOW SPIIIIS (I. Yes - some, but about

2. Have you been bothered by e. $3928: a little
nervousness or your “nerve”? f Not at all
(During The Past Month)

a. Extremely 5° - to the 90"“ 6. How happy, satisfied, or pleased
where I COUId I_I°I work 0' have you been With your personal
take care 0f IIIIIIQS life? (During The Past Month)

b. Vefy IIIUCII $0 a. Extremely happy— could

c. the a bit not have been more

d. Some - enough to bother satisfied or pleased
me b. Very happy

6. A IIttle c. Fairly happy

1‘. Not at all d. Satisfied — pleased

_ 6. Somewhat dissatisfied
3. Have you been In firm control of f_ Very dissatisfied

your behavior, thoughts, emotions,
or feelings? (During The Past
Month)

Yes, definitely so

Yes, for the most part
Generally so

Not to well

No, and I am somewhat
disturbed

No, and I am very disturbed

99.057!”

.‘h

4. Have you felt so sad, discouraged,
hopeless or had so many problems
that you wondered if anything was
worthwhile? (During The Past
Month)

a. Extremely so - to the point
that l have just about given

"P

b. Very much so

c. Quite a bit

d. Some - enough to bother
me

e. A little

f. Not at all

155

7. Have you had any reason to wonder
if you were loosing your mind, or
loosing control over the way you act,
talk, think, feel, or of your memory?

(During The Past Month)
a. Not at all
b. Only a little
c. Some - but not enough to

be concerned or worried
about

Some and I have been a
little concerned

Some and I am quite
concerned

Yes, very much so and I am
very concerned

8. Have you been anxious worried or
upset? (During The Past Month)

a.

9.0.0

7*@

Extremely so - to the point
of being sick or almost sick
Very much so

Quite a bit

Some — enough to bother
me

A little

Not at all

 

Appendix C (Cont’d).

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Have you been waking up fresh and
rested? (During The Past Month)
Every day

Most every day

Fairly often

Less than half of the time
Rarely

None of the time

”999??

Have you been bothered by any
illness, bodily disorder, pains or
fears about your health? (During
The Past Month)

All the time

Most of the time

A good bit of the time
Some of the time

A little of the time

None of the time

fieepem

Has your daily life been full of things
that were interesting to you? (During
The Past Month)

All the time

Most of the time

A good bit of the time

Some of the time

A little of the time

None of the time

”eepem

Have you felt down-hearted and
blue? (During The Past Month)

All the time

Most of the time

A good bit of the time
Some of the time

A little of the time

None of the time

Have you been feeling emotionally
stable and sure of yourself? (During
The Past Month)

All the time

Most of the time

A good bit of the time
Some of the time

A little of the time

None of the time

”peeve

”peeve

156

14. Have you felt worn out used-up or
exhausted? (During The Past
Month)

All the time

Most of the time

A good bit of the time

Some of the time

A little of the time

None of the time

699999

Appendix C (Cont'd).

 

15. How concerned or worried about
your Health have you been?

16. How Relaxed or Tense have you
been?

17. How much energy, pep, and vitality
have you
felt?

18. How Depressed or Cheerful have
you been

For each of the four scales below, note that the words at each

I. . end of the 0 to 10 scale describe opposite feelings, Circle any

number along the scale which seems closet to how you have

generally felt.

During the last month

0 1 2 3

Not
Concerned
At all

0 1 2 3’

Very

Relaxed

0 1 2 3
No energy
Atali

listless

0 1 2 3
Very
Depressed

4

9 10

Very
Concerned

Very
Energetic
dynamic
9 1 0
Very
Cheerful

SECTION 2A — This section contains 2 questions about your feelings on
religion and spirituality. For each questions, circle the answer which best

applies to you.

157

Appendix C (Cont’d).

1. How important is religion and
spirituality in your life?
a. Very Important
b. Some What important
0. Somewhat not important
d. Not important at all

2. I attend religious services
?

Not at all

Weekly

Monthly

A few times a year

epgp

158

Appendix C (Cont’d).

SECTION 3 - To what degree is each sense of belonging statement relevant to you as an MSU
student? Circle the answer which best applies to you.

Seme- .
Not 1 Very
, relevant 2‘ tartant Relevant relevant
1. Wonder Ifl really fit 1 2 3 4
2. Important to be valued by others .1 1 2 3 4
3. Not sure Iflfit WIth friends 1 2 3 4
4 HaVe felt valued In the past I 7 I1 ’I 2 ' ‘ 3 ' 4’
5. Describe myself as a misfit 1 2 > 3 4
6 lmportantthatlfit V ' 1' ' ’ .2 ’ 3 ‘ '4 , -
7. Peeple accept me I 1 I 2 . 3 I I4
8 Piece ofajIgsaw puZzIe I I' 1 2 ‘ 3 ' 4’ I
9 lhave qualities I 1 V 2 ’ 3 4“
.710. WhatiofferIs Va'IIIed I 1 ' ' I 2 3’ ' ,1” ’ I
11. Feel like an outsider II 1 I 2 3 V 4
"I12. WOrking on fitting In ‘ ' ‘ 1 2 3 '4
13. Have no place In this world 1 2 3 4
' 14. Want to be part ofthings ‘ 1 2 3 4
15. Icould disappear for days 1 2 3 4
.416. Mainstream of society ' ‘ 1 . 2 ‘ 3 4
17. Important that my opinions are 1 2 3 4
valued. ,. V .
13 Observe lire-rather‘man" A ' 1 - ' 2 3 - 4
; partICIpate . . _ . 1 1 . .
19. Few people would come to my 1 2 3 4
funeral
‘20 Feel IIkeasquare peg - 1 ‘ 2 3 4
21. Others recognize strengths 1 b 2 3 4
I222. Idon’t really fit ’ f, I I 2 3 4
23. BaCkground and experience are 1 2 3 b 4
different
24. Not see or Call friends 1 2 A 3 4
25. Feel left 1 2 3 4
26. Make myself fit I I ' ' 2 " 3 4
27. Not valued or important
1 2 3 4

159

Appendix C (Cont’d).

SECTION 4 - Circle the answer that best applies to you.

1.

How would you rate your leadership skills? Among the...
a. Highest 1% of your age group
b. Highest 10% of your age group
c. Average
d. Below average for your age group

To what degree do you participate or are a leader in MSU student groups?
a. No participation
b. Be long to one or two groups but not active
0. Active in one or two groups but hold no office
d. Participate actively and hold an office in at least one group

What is the highest degree you feel you will complete?

a. Bachelor’s degree
b. Master’s degree
c. Doctoral degree
d. Undecided

e. Other

 

Do you consider yourself a leader? 1. Yes 2. No

What campus organizations are you a member?
a.
b.
c.
d.

 

 

 

 

The African American Mentoring Program is also interested in building student leaders.
Here is a list of abilities that student often need to be effective at promoting change on
their campus. We would like to know how you rate your OWN ability in each of these
areas. Circle the answer that applies to you.

1 Not; I

HOW goOd are you at... A Quite Very .
1 . ,7 . . 1 . , aaltl Little Some-what aBlt good Fxcellent
a. Getting students to work on campus 1 2 3 4 5 6
issues or projects.
b.” ’Recr'umng students to participateiin ' ' 1 2 I 3 , 4 I 1 5 ' 5
campus actIVItIes . . , , . , . . , .. .
0. Recruiting students to join a campus 1 2 3 .1 5 6
group.
‘de“IPr01ecthannIng *I II I I I 1   I2 I 3 I 4II I 5' I6
e. Running effective meetings. 1 2 3 4 5 6
' f. IDeveplopIng new'student leaders. I I1 2 I V ' 3 I I I4 'I 5 I I6

160

 

Appendix C (Cont’d).

g. Organizing a committee. 1 2 3 4

h. Getting campus leaders to listen to
you.

i. Getting other groups or organizations
to partner with your group in campus ‘ 2 3 4
initiatives or improvement efforts.

j. Knowing Other leaders outside of yOur 1 2 3 4
own group. .

k. Knowing strategies that would improve
your campus.

SECTION 5

Below are several statements. some of which apply to you in greater or less degree. In the space
next to the statement, please enter a number from “1" (Doesn’t apply to me at all) to “9"
(Applies very closely to me), which best represents your judgment concerning how closely the

statement relates to you at the present time.

Please remember that you can use any number at any point in each statement, but no more

than one number in each statement.

Please be sure to complete the entire questionnaire. Be lust as honest as msgible.

 

Does not apply Can’t decide

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

 

Applies very
to me at all closely to me

 

 

I feel that I fit in well as part of the MSU environment.
I have been feeling tense or nervous lately.
I have been keeping up to date on my academic work.

MSU.

I know why I am in college and want out of It.

I am finding academic work at MSU difficult.

Lately I have been feeling blue and moody a lot.

I am very involved with social activities in college.

I am adjusting well to college.

I have not been functioning well during examinations.
I have felt tired much of the time lately.

99$?!" P9P?

fi-I
Ac
0 I

I am meeting as many people, and making as many friends, as I would like at

12. Being on my own, taking responsibility for myself, has not been easy.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

I have had informal, personal contacts with MSU professors.

I am pleased now about my decision to go to college.

I am not pleased about my decision to attend MSU in particular.
’m not working as hard as I should at my coursework.

161

I am satisfied with the level at which I am performing academically.

Appendix C (Cont’d).

1 8.
1 9.
20.
21 .

22.
23.

24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

31.

32.

33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

41.

43.
44.
45.
46.

47.
48.
49.

51 .
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.

 

 

I have several close ties at MSU.

My academic goals and purposes are well-defined.
I haven’t been able to control my emotions very well lately.
I’m not really smart enough for the academic work I expected to be doing

HOW.

Lonesomeness for home is a source of difficulty for me now.

Getting a college degree Is very important to me.
My appetite has been good lately.
I haven’t been very efficient in study time lately.

I enjoy living in a college dormitory (skip if you live off campus).
I enjoy writing papers for courses.
I have been having a lot of headaches lately.

i really haven’t had much motivation for studying lately.

I am satisfied with the extracurricular activities available at MSU.

l have given a lot of thought lately to whether I should ask for help from a
counseling center

on campus, or from a psychotherapist outside of MSU.

Lately I have been having doubts regarding the value of a college education.
lam getting along very well with my roommate(s) at MSU. (Skip If you live
alone).

I wish I was at another college or university rather than MSU.

I have put on (or lost) to much weight recently.

I am satisfied with the variety of courses available at MSU.

I feel I have enough social skill to get along well in the college setting.

I have been getting angry to easily lately.

Recently I have had trouble concentrating when I try to study.

I have not been sleeping very well.

 

 

 

Does not apply Can’t decide Applies very
To me at all closely to me
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

 

 

 

I am not doing well academically for the amount of work I put in.

I am having difficulty feeling at ease with other people at MSU.

I am satisfied with the quality or the caliber of courses available at MSU.

I am attending classes regularly.

Sometimes my thinking gets muddled up to easily.

I am satisfied with the extent to which I’m participating In social activities at

3
(D
C

I expect to stay at MSU for a Bachelors degree.

I have not been mixing to well with the opposite sex.

I worry a lot about my college expenses.

I am enjoying my academic work at college.

I have been feeling lonely a lot at MSU lately.

lam having a lot of trouble getting started on homework assignments.

I feel have good control over my life situation at MSU.

I am satisfied with my program of courses for their semester.

I have been feeling in good health lately.

I feel I am very different from other students at MSU, In ways that I don’t like.

162

Appendix C (Cont'd).

 

 

57. On balance, I would rather be home than here at MSU.

58. Most of the things I am interested in are not related to any of my course work
at MSU.

59. Lately I have been giving a lot of thought to transferring to another college.

60. Lately I have been giving a lot of thought to dropping out of college
altogether and for good.

61. I find myself giving considerable thought to taking time off from college and
finishing later.

62. I am very satisfied with the professors I have now In my classes.

63. l have some good friends or acquaintances at MSU with whom I can talk
about any problems may have.

64. I am experiencing a lot of difficulty coping with the stresses imposed upon
me In college.

65. I am quite satisfied with my social life at MSU.

66. I am quite satisfied with my academic situation at MSU.

67. I feel confident that I will be able to deal In a satisfactory manner with future

challenges here at MSU.

SECTION 6 — In thinking about your relationships on and off campus, we want to know how
friends, family, faculty/staff have supported you at college, how helpful was the support,
and how often you received the support? (Circle one answer under each category "Availability,
Helpfulness, and Frequency")

    

My friends listen to me
talkaboutissues 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
related to school.

My parents help me

managemy 123451234512345

money/finances.

My family helps me

move to and from

school (Prior to and
after the semester).

My friends can be

trustedwithsecretsof 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

personal matters.

6) My friends offer
wnstructive criticism
oonceming areas of

personal difficulty.

2

v

3

V

4

v

5

v

163

Appendix C (Cont’d).

"'71 ‘My‘frieri‘ds‘hélp’m'e - ‘

- with'various task.

8) My family a... mere
see how I’m doing.

9) My'a'dvisor'helps me to
plan my course
schedule. , ,_

10) My friends help me
assemble or put things
together (furniture, loft,
stereo).

-11'1"'Wra‘eaaeiieeatame * ‘

. . talk about issues

. . , , related to my family. .

12) My grandparents give
me advice about life.

' 13) My‘r‘aeneeieke‘eare er

my things when I am
gone. , , .H

14) My friends hug me
when I need it.

15) My professors meet
. with me Outside of
class when l have
. ,_ questions

16) My friends let me copy

class notes ifl miss
lectures.

1n'Myrr1e‘nasbaex-ho1ne '-

write letters or call me.

' 18) my family helps 'me‘

see both sides of a
situation.

‘ ‘19) My friends let me stay
over at their place if
necessary ‘

'26) My friends are there ' I

when I need to talk.

21) immerses? "h ”" '"

encourages me to go
to classes (my friend
encourages me to do
well in classes). .

22) My family gives me
money for things I
need (food, clothes.
fun activities).

.3 5

12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

512

164

 

Appendix C (Cont’d).

23) ‘Miri'fii‘éfi’djs‘efieehiage‘ifiejie " ,
. participate in athletic, school. I
‘ w...schoolorsociala_ctivities. . '

‘24) My friends proofread my
writing assignments

’25) My parents buy'me’supplie‘s "‘

for school (books, computer
book bag. etc)

26) My friends listen when I need I

to talk about issues related
to relationships.

M 27) My friends hélp me Study for N

’ _ my classes.

28) My peren1s heip pay my bills

(credit card. phone. etc).

.- 29‘)“3A“*esuaeeiemeaia*11eee 1e
me orhelp me if I needed it.

30) A counselor would listen to

me or help mesee both side
of a situation.

731) My fn‘e11ds ieea mé things ifl” " '

want to borrOw them (cd’s,
clothes. money, etc.

32) some one in my family listen
to me when I need to talk.

I ' 33) M'iifriéhds’take career me "' '

_ whenlam sick.

1 34) My family sends me care 1
packages or letters.

' 3'5) '*My‘ri1efias‘“efiepa’regemete
live a healthy lifestyle.

36) My friends give me rides
when needed ((to school,
store. work).

371‘- My family‘helps me grieve in
' situations related to loss or
death._ ,
38) My friends help me manage
my time.

165

 

Appendix C (Cont’d).

39) My friends lend me materials '
in class (paper, pen pencils).

40) My friends support me when A) 1

I am going through a difficult
time.

41) -Myrem11y remmds' me‘abo'ut' '

important events

. (anniversaries, .
appointments, birthdays,
etc).

42) My friends lend me their car

when I need one.

43) My parents help me think
about the direction I want to
take my life.

44) My friends give me
relationship advice.

“45) I’have a‘mehtOr'l can’talk’ to‘
about Class. relationships,
family, roommate close.

. friend. etc- ,, . ~

46) l have a mentor who
supports me during stressful
times.

47) ifievemen‘“ To? thétWil’l'Ii’sYeh “

' to me when I can’t talk to my
. family andfriends... . .

48) l have a mentor who
challenges me to do the best
academically.

49) l have afm‘e'nt'or Who " ‘
encourages me to get
involved with campus life,

and organizations. .. .

50) I have a mentor that is
knowledgeable about
campus resources to help
support my goals.

d

166

APPENDIX D

MANOVA Results & Graphs on Proximal and
Distal Outcomes by Group Over Time

Table 1

Tests of Within-Subjects Multivariate MANOVA on Distal Outcome

 

 

 

Effect Multivariate F P Partial Eta Observed
Squared Power
Within-Subjects
Time 1 .553 .218 .039 .320
Time by Group .116 .891 .003 .067
Table 2

Tests of Within-Subjects Univariate ANOVA on Distal Outcomes by Group

 

 

Measures N M(SD) F P Partial Eta Power
Squared
College Adjustment .000 .990 .000 .050
T1 Control 30 396.36(51.11)
T1 Experimental 50 395.92(59.77)
T2 Control 30 401 .40(60.95)
T2 Experimental 50 401.12(66.96)
Change of T1 to T2
Control 5.00(43.45)
Experimental 5.20(64.67)
Grade Point Average .221 .63 .003 .075
T1 Control 30 2.58(.75)
T1 Experimental 50 2.58(.68)
T2 Control 30 2.41 (.85)
T2 Experimental 50 2.50(.84)
Change of T1 to T2
Control -.17(.82)
Experimental -.O8(.81 )

 

167

 

Appendix D (Cont’d).
Table 3

Tests of Within-Subjects Multivariate MANOVA on Proximal Outcomes

 

 

 

Effect Multivariate F P Partial Eta Observed
Squared Power
Within-Subjects
Time 1 .369 .225 .134 .580
Time by Group .921 .505 .094 .395 5'
1
Table 4 '

Tests of Within-Subjects Univariate ANOVA on Proximal Outcomes by Group

 

 

11‘,"‘

 

Measures N M(SD) F P Partial Eta
Squared
Racial Identity 3.543 .064 .043
T1 Control 30 50.90(4.84)
T1 Experimental 50 49.94(5.41)
T2 Control 30 49.40(5.66)
T2 Experimental 50 50.70(5.54)
Change of T1 to T2
Control -1 .50(5.92)
Experimental .76(4.71 )
Social Support 1.431 .235 .018
T1 Control 30 104.06(19.14)
T1 Experimental 50 97.14(18.73)
T2 Control 30 103.26(18.76)
T2 Experimental 50 99.90(16.51)
Change of T1 to T2
Control -.80(13.25)
Experimental 2.76(12.65)
Psychological Support .095 .759 .001
T1 Control 30 83.60(14.01)
T1 Experimental 50 85.60(12.56)
T2 Control 30 83.76(12.12)
T2 Experimental 50 84.98(14.80)
Change of T1 to T2
Control .16(1 1 .57)
Experimental -.62(10.73)

 

168

Appendix D (Cont’d).

Table 4 (Continued)

Tests of Within-Subjects Univariate ANOVA on Proximal Outcomes by Group

 

 

Measure N M(SD) F P Partial Eta
Squared
Academic Support 3.021 .086 .037
T1 Control 30 20.05(4.57)
T1 Experimental 50 19.76(4.57)
T2 Control 30 20.13(5.02)
T2 Experimental 50 21.66(4.98)
Change T1 to T2
Control .08(4.41 )
Experimental 1 .90(4.59)
Sense of Belonging .364 .548 .005
T1 Control 30 79.28(7.55)
T1 Experimental 50 80.50(7.25)
T2 Control 30 78.30(7.93)
T2 Experimental 50 80.58(7.77)
Change T1 to T2
Control -.98(7.74)
Experimental .08(7.73)
Leadership Development .093 . .762 .001
T1 Control 30 50.00(14.18)
T1 Experimental 50 45.60(14.56)
T2 Control 30 49.93(12.39)
T2 Experimental 50 46.16(1 1.72)
Change T1 to T2
Control -.06(7.60)
Experimental .56(9.61 )

 

169

Appendix D (Cont’d).
Graphs on Proximal and Distal Outcomes by Group Over Time

Figure 1 Racial Identity by Group Over Time

Racial Identity by Group Over Time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51.5
51 -
50.5 -
g 50 _ i—A— CntrIJ
E +EXP
49.5 .
49 -
48.5 .
Time 1 Time 2
Figure 2. Social Support by Group Over Time
Social Support by Group Over Time
106
104 ‘ *- '— ~ —
_ ~ _‘
102 e
g 10° ‘ —A- Cntrl
5 98 4 +Exp
96 -
94 .
92 .

 

 

Tlrm 1 Tlrm 2

170

Appendix D (Cont’d).

Figure 3. Psychological Support by Group Over Time

Psychological Support by Group Over Time

86

85.5 ‘ -\
85 ‘

 

 

84.5 - —A— Cntrl

83.5 ~ " —————
83 -

 

 

82.5 .
Time 1 Time 2

 

171

 

Figure 4. Academic Support by Group Over Time

Academic Support by Group Over Time

22

 

21.5 -

 

 

—A— Cntrl
+ Exp ,

 

 

19.5 -

191

 

 

 

18.5 .
Time 1 Time 2

Figure 5. Sense of Belonging by Group Over Time

Sense of Belonging by Group Over Time

81
80.5 ~ I— 4
80 -

79.5 -
h \ —‘- 60th

79- ~‘
\\ +Exp
78.5“ \\

78 ~
77.5 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time 1 Time 2

172

Appendix D (Cont’d).

Figure 6. Leadership Development by Group Over Time

Leadership Development by Group Over Time

 

 

 

—t— Cntrl
—l— Exp

 

 

 

 

 

Tlrne 1

Tlrne 2

Figure 7. College Adjustment by Group Over Time

402

College Adjustment by Group Over Time

 

401 d
400 1
399 -
398 -
397 -
396 -
395 -
394 -

 

393

 

 

 

-A— Cntrl
+ Exp

 

 

 

 

Time 1

173

Time 2

Figure 8 GPA by Group Over Time

GPA by Group Over Time

2.6

 

2.55 ~

2.5 -

 

-A- Cntrl
+ EXP

2.45 -

 

 

 

2.4 ~

2.35 -

 

 

2.3 r
Time 1 Tlme 2

 

174

Table 1

APPENDIX E

MANCOVA on Distal Outcomes

Tests of Multivariate MANCOVA on Dependent Variables

 

 

 

Effect Multivariate F P Partial Eta
Squared

T1 College Adjustment 17.107 .000 .313

T1 GPA 10.396 .000 .217

Group (Experimental) .133 .876 .004

df = 1, 78

Table 2

Tests of Between-Subjects Univariate ANCOVAs on Dependent Van'ables on

 

 

 

Group
Measures N M(SD) F P Partial Eta
Squared
College Adjustment .001 .000 1.000
T2 Control 30 401.40(60.95)
T2 Experimental 50 401.12(66.96)
Grade Point Average .252 .617 .003
T2 Control 30 2.41(.85)
T2 Experimental 50 2.50(.84)
df = 1, 78

175

APPENDIX F

Time One and Two Correlations
Table 1

Correlations for Independent and Dependent Variables at 77me One

 

 

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Racial Identity 1.00

Social Support .30** 1.00

Psych Support .32** .35“ 1.00

Academic Support .**29 ."65' .32** 1.00
SenseotBelonging .25* .15 .*38 .19 1.00

Leadership .26' .28* 22* 27* .18 1.00
Development

College Adjustment .33* .45** .76“ .27** .26“ .28* 1.00

GPA -.05 .01 .11 .24* -.05 -.04 27* 1.00

Group .09 .17 -.07 .03 -.08 .14 .00 .00 1.00

 

'p<.05, ** p<.01

176

Table 2

Con'elations for Independent and Dependent Variables at Time Two

 

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
8 9 10

Racial Identity 1.00

Social Support .21 1.00

Psych Support .17 .26* 1.00

Academic support .06 .66“ .14 1.00

Sense or Belonging .36“ .09 .37“ .12 1.00

Leadership .28“ .28‘ .22' .23' .13 1.00
Development
College Adjustment .38" .28‘ .69“ .17 .55' .43" 1.00

 

177

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, T. D., Russell, J. E. A., 81 Maetzke, S. B. (1997). Formal Peer Mentoring:
Factors Related to Protégées Satisfaction and Willingness to Mentor
Others. Group & Organizational Management, 22(4), 488 - 507.

Allen, W. (1992). The Color of Success: African American Student Outcomes at
Predominantly White and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Harvard Educational Review, 67, 26 - 44.

Allen, W. R. 8 Strong, B. M. (1994). National Study on Black College Students. In
R. L. Jones (Ed.), Handbook of Test and Measurements for Black
Populations (Vol. 1 , pp. 327 - 350). Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic Criteria From DSM-IV (4
ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Armstrong-West, 8., & de la Teja, M. (1988). Social and Psychological Factors
Affecting the Retention of Minority Students. NASPA Monograph, 9, 25 -
53.

Baron, R.M. & Kenny, DA. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction
in Social Psychology Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical
Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51(6),

1 173-1 182.

Baldwin, J. A., Brown, R., & Rackley, R. (1990). Some Socio-Behavioral
Correlates of African Self-Consciousness in African-American College
Students. The Joumal of Black Psychology, 17(1), 1 - 17.

Baldwin, J. A., Duncan J. A., & Bell, Y. R. (1987). Assessment of African
American Self-Consciousness Among Black Students from Two College
Environments. The Journal of Black Psychology. 13(2), 27 - 41.

Battin, P. (1997). Diversity and Leadership: Mentoring Builds Leaders of the
Future. Cause/Effect, 20(1), 15 - 17.

Bollen, K. A., 8 Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived Cohesion: A Conceptual and
Empirical Examination. Social Forces, 69, 479 - 504.

Boyd, D. (1988). Introduction: Lawrence Kohlberg as Mentor. Joumal of Moral
Education, 17, 167 - 171.

Boyd, V. S., Shueman, S., McMullan, Y. O., Fretz, B. R., (1979). Transitioning

Groups for Black Freshmen: Integrated Services and Training.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 10(1), 42 - 48.

178

Burt, J., & Haplin, G. (1998). African American Identity Development: A Review
of the Literature. , 1 - 25.

Caplan, G. (1974). Support Systems and Community Mental Health: Lectures on
Concept development. New York: Behavioral.

Chavous T. M. (2000). The Relationship Among Racial Identity, Perceived Ethnic
Fit, and Organizational Involvement of African American Students at a
Predominantly White University. Journal of Black Psychology. 26(1), 79 -

1 00.

Cokley, K. (2000). An Investigation of Academic Self-Concept and Its
Relationship to Academic Achievement in African American College
Students. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(2), 148 - 164.

Cross, T., 81 Slater, R. (2001). The Troublesome Decline in African American
College Student Graduation Rates. The Journal of Blacks in Higher
Education(33), 102.

D'Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L. (1993). African American Undergraduates on
a Predominately White Campus: Academic Factors, Social Networks, and
Campus Climate. Journal of Negro Education, 62(1), 67 - 81.

Dahmus, S., Bemardin, H. J., & Bemardin, K., (1992). Student Adaptation to
College Questionnaire. In Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development (Vol. 25, pp 139-142). American Counseling Association.

Dollamide, C. (1997). Mentoring Using Identity Development Theory: Retaining
Students of Diversity. Paper presented at the Michael Ford Conference on
Diversity and Multiculturalism, Wichita Kansas.

DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., 81 Cooper, H. (2002).
Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs for Youth: A Meta-Analytic Review.
American Journal of Community Psychology. 30(2), 157 - 197.

Dupuy, H. J., (1977). The General Well-Being Schedule. In McDowell & Newell
(2 Ed.) Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires
(pp. 206 - 213). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Erickson, E. (1968). Identity Youth and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.

Erwin, T. D., 8 Marcus-Mendoza, S. T., (1988). Motivation and Students'

Participation in Leadership and Group Activities. Joumal of College
Student Development, 29, 357 - 361.

179

Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks In College: A Comparative Study of Students' Success
in Black and White Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Franklin, A. J. (1996). An Index of Psychological Support Among African
Americans. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Handbook of Test and Measurements for
Black Populations (Vol. 2, pp. 587 - 595). Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.

Freeman, K. (1999). No Services Needed?: The Case for High-Achieving African
American Students. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 15 - 26.

Friereson, H. (1996). Comparing Science and Non-Science Minority Students'
Perceptions and Satisfaction with a Short-Tenn Research and Mentoring
Program. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, OCLC First Search No. ED 395816.

Good, J., Haplin, G., and Haplin, G. (2000). A Promising Prospect for Minority
Retention: Students Becoming Peer Mentors. Journal of Negro Education,
69(4). 375 - 383.

Gould, S. J. (1990). Health Consciousness and Health Behavior: The application
of a new Health Consciousness Scale. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 6(4), 228 - 237.

Greenberg, M. & Osgood, W. (2000). Technical Report on the Community
Evaluation Scales (CES). Community That Cares Evaluation Project
Prevention Research Center The Pennsylvania State University.

Gregory, S. (2000). Selected Innovations in Higher Education Designed To
Enhance the Racial Climate for Students of Color in Predominately White
Colleges and Universities. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED442441 ).

George, D. & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS For Windows Step By Step A Simple
Guide and Reference 10.0 Update. Needham Heights, MA: A Pearson
Education Company.

Griffin, 0. (1991). Minority Student Education: Concepts and Policies. Westem
Journal of Black Studies, 15(4), 235 - 240.

Hagerty, B. M., 8. Patusky, K., (1995). Developing a Measure Of Sense of
Belonging. Nursing Research, 44(1), 9 - 13.

Hagerty, B. M. K., Lynch-Sauer, J., Patusky, K., Bouswsema, M., & Collier, P.

(1992). Sense of Belonging: A Vital Mental Health Concept. Archives of
Psychiatric Nursing, 6, 172 - 177.

180

 

Hanover, B. (2003). Award-Winning Approaches to Retention. Black Issues In
Higher Education. (October), 28 -31.

Hannon, M. D. (1999, ). A Call for Mentoring Programs. Association of college
unions intemationaI-The Bulletin, 10 - 12.

Haring, M. J. (1999). The Case for a Conceptual Base for Minority Mentoring
Programs. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 5 - 14.

Harris, F. (1999). Centricity and the Mentoring Experience in Academia: An
Africentric Mentoring Program. Westem Journal of Black Studies, 23(4),
229-235.

Harvey, W. (1984). The Educational System and Black Mental Health. Journal of
Negro Education, 53(4), 444 - 454.

Helms J. E., 81 Paraham T. A., (1996). The Racial Identity Attitude Scale. In R. L.
Jones (Ed.), Handbook of Test and Measurements for Black Populations
(Vol. 2, pp. 167 - 174). Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.

Hurtado S., & Carter D. F. (1997). Effects of College Transition and Perceptions
of Campus Racial Climate on Latino College Students' Sense of
Belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324 - 345.

Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and Undergraduate Academic Success: A
Literature Review. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 505-532.

Judd, CM. 8 Kenny, DA. (1981). Process Analysis: Estimating Mediation in
Treatment Evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5(5), 602-619.

Kambon, K. K. K. (a. k. a. Baldwin, A). (1996). An Introduction to the African Self-
Consciousness Scale. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Handbook of Test and
Measurements for Black Populations (Vol. 2, pp. 207 - 215). Hampton,
VA: Cobb & Henry.

Kenny, D.A. Mediation. Retrieved June 9, 2001, from
http://nw3.nai.net/~dakenny/mediate. html.

Kenny, M., & Stryker, S. (1994). Social Network Characteristics of White, African
American, Asian and Latino/a College Students and College Adjustment:
A longitudinal Study., 1-17.

Kimbrough, R. M., MoIlock, S. D., & Walton, K. E. (1996). Perception of Social
Support, Acculturation, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation Among African
American College Students at Predominately Black and Predominantly
White Universities. Journal of Negro Education, 65(3), 295 - 307.

181

Laden, B. V. (1999). Socializing and Mentoring College Students of Color: The
Puente Project as an Examplary Celebratory Socialization Model.
Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 55 - 74.

LaVant, B. D., Anderson, J. L., & Tiggs, J. W. (1997). Retaining African American
Men Through Mentoring Initiatives. Available: OCLC FirstSearch No.
BEDI97032449.

Lee, W. (1999). Striving Toward Effective Retention: The Effect of Race on
Mentoring African American Students. Peabody Journal of Education,
74(2), 27 - 43.

Lester, V., & Johnson, C. (1981 ). The Learning Dialogue: Mentoring, Education
for Student Development (pp. 49 - 56). San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

LeSu re, G. E. (1994). Ethnic Differences and the Effects of Racism on College
Adjustment. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association,
Toronto Canada.

Levinson, D., Carrow, C., Klein, E., Levinson, M., 8. McKee, B. (1978). The
Season of a Mans Life. New York: Ballentine.

Littleton, R., Jr. (1998). An Overview of Black Adult Development Theories, 2 -
38.

MacKinnon, D.P., & Dwyer, J.H. (1993). Estimating Mediated Effects in
Prevention Studies. Evaluation Review, 17(2), 144-158.

Marable, T. D. (1999). The role of Student Mentors in a Precollege Engineering
Program. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 44-54.

McDowell, l. & Newell, C. (1996). Measuring Health: A Guide to' Rating Scales
and Questionnaires (2 Ed. ). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

McGrath, P. B., Gutierrez, P. M., Valadez, l. M. (2000). Introduction of the
College Student Social Support Scale: Factor Structure and Reliability
Assessment. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 415-426.

Michigan State Registrar Office, Enrollment Statistics, Retrieved September 30,
2004, from http://http:I/www.reg.msu.edu/StulnfoGen/DataRequest
Messageasp

Mitchell, 8. L., & Dell, D. M. (1992). The Relationship Between Black Students'

Racial Identity Attitude and Participation in Campus Organizations.
Journal of College Student Development, 33(1), 39 - 43.

182

 

Monk, T. (1998). Variables Associated with the Academic Achievement of African
American Males in Four Year Undergraduate Educational Institutions: A
Synthesis of Studies. Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.

Moritsugu, J., & Sue, S... (1983). Minority Status as a Stressor. In Felner, R.,
Jason, L., Moritsugu, J., Farber, 8., (Ed.), Preventive Psychology: Theory,
Research, and Practice (pp. 162-174). New York: Pregamon Press.

Newman, R. P., & Newman, B. M. (1999). What Does it Take to Have a Positive
Impact on Minority Student College Retention. Adolescence, 34(135), 483
- 492.

Otto, M. (1994). Mentoring: An Adult Developmental Perspective. In Wunsch
(Ed.), Mentoring Revisited: Making an Impact on Individuals and
Institutions (pp. 15 - 24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1981). The Influence of Black Students' Racial
Identity Attitudes on Preferences for Counselor's Race. JoumaI of
Counseling Psychology, 28(3), 250 - 257.

Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1985). Attitudes of Racial Identity and Self-esteem
of Black Students: An Exploratory Investigation. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 26, 143 - 147.

Phelps, R.E., Tranakos-Howe, S, Dagley J, Lynn M. K. (2001). Encouragement
and Ethnicity in African American College Students. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 79 (1 ), 90-97.

Phiney, J. (1990). Ethnic Identity in Adolescents and Adults: Review of Research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499 - 514.

Postmes, T., & Branscombe, N. (2002). Influence of Long-Term Racial
Environmental Composition on Subjective Well-Being in African
Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 735 -
751.

Pyant, C.T., & Yanico, B.J. (1991). Relationship of Racial Identity and Gender-
Role Attitudes to Black Women's Psychological Well-Being. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 38(3), 315 - 322.

Research Prevention Laboratory, Statistical Mediation. Retrieved June 9, 2001,
from http://www.public.asu.edu/~davidpm/ripI/mediate.html.

183

 

Roach, R. (1999a). The State of Retention. Black Issues in Higher Education
(October), 28 - 29.

Roach, R. (1999b). Succeeding on White Campuses. Black Issues in Higher
Education(February), 42 - 43.

Schwitzer, A. M., OriS, T., Ancis, J. R., Thomas, C., R. (1999). Social Adjustment
Experiences of African American College Students. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 77(2), 189 - 197.

Sellers, R., Chavous, T., & Cooke, D. (1998a). Racial Ideology and Racial
Centrality as Predictors of African American College Students Academic
Performance. Journal of Black Psychology, 24(1), 8 - 27.

Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A., & Chavous, T. M.
(1998b). Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity: A Reconceptualization
of African American Racial Identity. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 2(1), 18 - 39.

Shandley, T. C. (1989). The Use of Mentors for Leadership Development.
NASPA Journal, 27(1), 59 - 66.

Shultz, E. I., Colton, G. M., & Colton, C. (2001). The Adventor Program:
Advisement and Mentoring for Students of Color in Higher Education.
OCLC F irstSearch. Available: OCLCFirst Search BED101027029.

Stennis-Williams, S., Terrell, M. C., & Haynes, A. W. (1988). The Emergent Role
of Multicultural Education Centers on Predominately White Campuses.
NASPA Monograph, 9, 73 - 98.

Striffolino, P., 81 Sanders, S. A. (1989). Emerging Leaders: Students in Need of
Development. NASP Journal, 27(1), 57 - 58.

Talbert, B. A., Jr., Larke, A. L., & Jones, W. S. (1999). Using a Student
Organization to Increase Participation and Success of Minorities in
Agricultural Disciplines. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 90 - 104.

Terenzini, P. T., Patricia, M., Bohr, L., Pascarella, T., Amaury, N. (1997). African
American College Students' Experiences in HBCUs and PWIs and

Learning Outcomes. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional
Research, Available: OCLC First Search No. ED 417666.

Terrell, M., Hassel, K., & Duggar, M. (1992). Mentoring Programs: A Blueprint for

Personal Growth and Academic Development. NASPA Joumal, 29(3), 199
- 206.

184

Thile, E. L., & Matt, G. E. (1995). The Ethnic Mentor Undergraduate Program: A
Brief Description and Preliminary Findings. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 23, 116 - 126.

Thomas, E. N. (1999). S-Plan: Support, Survival, and Success - for African
American and Latino Students new to the Pennsylvania State University.
Paper presented at the Minority Student Today - Retention Conference,
San Antonio, Texas.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout From Higher Education: A theoretical Synthesis of
Recent Research. Review of Education Research (45), 89 - 125.

US. Department Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved
September 30, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004062.pdf.

Wesley, C. (1961). The History of Alpha Phi Alpha A Development in College
Life. Chicago: The Foundation of Publishers.

Whitler, T. E., Calantone, R. J., Young, M. R. (1988). Strength of Ethnic
Affiliation: Examining Black Identification With Black Culture. The Journal
of Social Psychology. 131(4), 461 - 467.

Wilds, D. (2000). Minorities in Higher Education, 1999 -2000. Seventeenth

Annual Status Report. Washing 0.0.: American Council on Education ,
Office of Minorities in Higher Education.

185