University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring

(USC Thesis Other)

Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 1
NURSING STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF FORMAL FACULTY MENTORING

by

Lise Marie Choucair

________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR of EDUCATION

May 2014

Copyright 2014 Lise Marie Choucair
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 2

Acknowledgements
Foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation committee: Dr. Cole, as chairman, Dr.
Sundt and Dr. Rueda, as my committee members and for their mentoring throughout my doctoral
studies. A heartfelt thank you, to the faculty and staff at USC Rossier School of Education, who
inspired me to persevere during my Ed.D journey. “Kop kun krab” to my fellow classmates and
Thailand companions, whose support and laughter lifted my spirits throughout the challenging
times in the program. Special thanks, to my writing partner Lauren Kaupp, who has become a
friend and confidant. Thank you to the student mentees and the empathetic faculty mentors who
participated in this study. Merci beaucoup Sarah, ton existence dans ma vie m’est très
précieuse. Du ciel, mon cher papa, ton intransigence quant aux études, m’a permit d’être la
premiere femme docteur de la famille. Tu me manques. Enfin, mon amour Bruno, ton support
sera toujours apprécié et je t’adore mon cœur.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 3

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 6
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Background of the Problem 9
A Shift in Nursing History 11
Increase in Diversity 13
Faculty are Central to Student Engagement 14
Transfer Students 15
First-Generation College Students 16
Non-Traditional Student Profile 17
Student Involvement, Time and Effort Studying 17
Stress and Anxiety 18
Statement of the Problem 19
Purpose of the Study 21
Theoretical Framework 22
Importance of the Study 24
Definition of Terms 24
Organization of the Study 26
Chapter Two: Literature Review 27
Student Involvement Theory (SIT) and I-E-O Model 28
Student Involvement Theory (SIT) 28
I-E-O Research Model 30
Findings from Research 32
The Peer Group Effect 32
The Faculty 33
Institutional Type 34
Student Involvement 35
Diversity 36
Resource Allocation 37
Summary 38
Critique of the Theoretical Framework 40
Strengths and Weaknesses of Theoretical Framework 40
Weaknesses of the Theory of Involvement 41
Strengths and Weaknesses of I-E-O Research Model 43
Implications for College Administrators, Faculty and Students 43
Literature Review 45
Student Mentoring-Informal or Formal 45
Ethnic Homogeneity and Mentoring 47
Formal Mentoring Program among Underserved Nursing Students 49
Psychology of Mentoring: The Case of Talented College Students 51
Summary 53

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 4

Chapter Three: Methodology 57
Research Design 58
The Site, Sample and Population 59
The Site 59
The Sample and Population 60
Mentor and Mentee Workshops 61
Instrumentation 62
Phase One: The Surveys 62
The Surveys and the Variables Measures 63
Phase Two: The Focus Group Interviews 66
Data Collection 68
Meet and Greet 68
Pre- and Post-Surveys 68
Focus Groups 69
Data Analysis 69
Quantitative Data Analysis 70
Qualitative Data Analysis 71
Limitations and Delimitations 72
Ethical Considerations 74
Summary 74
Chapter Four: Results 75
Description of Data 75
Pre-Survey Sample 76
Post-Survey Sample 83
Cross Tabulation and Chi-Square Test for the Sample 84
Demographic Data for Focus Groups 86
Quantitative Results for Research Question One 87
Independent Sample T-Test Results for Attribute Self-Ratings 89
Discussion for Quantitative Analysis for Research Question One 94
Qualitative Results for Research Question One 95
Conclusion for Research Question One 100
Quantitative Results for Research Question Two 101
Figure 1. Histogram Other Encounters with Faculty Mentor 103
Qualitative Results for Research Question Two 105
Conclusion for Research Question Two 107
Quantitative Results for Research Question Three 107
Qualitative Results for Research Question Three 110
Conclusion for Research Question Three 111
Quantitative Results for Research Question Four 112
Qualitative Results for Research Question Four 114
Conclusion Research Question Four 116

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 5

Chapter Five: Discussion 118
Findings of this Study 119
Implications for Practice 126
Future Research 127
Conclusions 127
References 129
Appendix A 139
Appendix B 142
Appendix C 143
Appendix D 146
Appendix E 148
Appendix F 160
Appendix G 161
Appendix H 162
Appendix I 163
Appendix J 167
Appendix K 172
Appendix L 175
Appendix M 178

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 6

List of Tables
Table 1: Facilitators and Detractors of Mentoring Relationships 54
Table 2: Variables Measured by Survey Questions, with the Application of Astin’s I-E-O
Research Model 65

Table 3: Relationship between Survey Items and Interview Items 67
Table 4: Research Question and Statistical Tests 71
Table 5: Pre-Survey Demographic (n = 108) 76
Table 6: Pre-Survey Marital Status and Race (n=108) 77
Table 7: Combined Income All Household Members (n = 108) 78
Table 8: Type of Housing (n = 108) 79
Table 9: Total Number of People Living Together in Household (n = 108) 80
Table 10: Hours per Week Preparing for Class (n = 108) 80
Table 11: Employment Status (n = 108) 81
Table 12: Highest Level of Education (n = 108) 82
Table 13: Mother’s Highest Level of Education (n = 108) 82
Table 14: Post-Survey Demographic (n = 67) 84
Table 15: Cross Tabulation Gender and Time (n=175) 85
Table 16: Chi-Square Test-Gender and Time (n=175) 86
Table 17: Focus Group Demographic (n = 11) 87
Table 18: T-Test for Self-Attribute Ratings (n = 175) 92
Table 19: Test of Homogeneity of Variances Self Attribute Ratings (n = 175) 93
Table 20: One-way ANOVA Test for Self-Attribute Ratings (n = 175) 94
Table 21: Facilitators and Detractors for Research Question One (n =11) 95
Table 22: T-Test for Connection with Mentor and Others (n = 175) 102
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 7

Table 23: Other Encounter with Faculty Mentor-Post Survey Only (n=67) 103
Table 24: ANOVA Test-First Encounter with Mentor and Seeking Help from
Others (n=175) 104

Table 25: Facilitators and Detractors for Research Question Two (n =11) 105
Table 26: T-Test for Quality Interactions with Mentor and Others (n = 175) 109
Table 27: ANOVA-Quality Interaction with Mentor and Others (n=175) 109
Table 28: Facilitators and Detractors for Research Question Three (n =11 110
Table 29: T-Test for Perceptions of Mentor (n = 175) 113
Table 30: ANOVA for Perceptions of Mentor (n=175) 113
Table 31: Facilitators and Detractors for Research Question Four (n =11) 114

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 8

Abstract
The purpose of this dissertation was to explore nursing students’ perceptions of a formal
faculty-mentoring program in effort to retain diverse incoming nursing students. Astin’s Student
Involvement Theory (1984) and the I-E-O research model (1991) were the framework for this
study exploring the nursing students’ inputs (student characteristics), environment
(implementation of mentoring pilot program), and outputs (student perceptions).
The faculty-mentoring program was implemented during the 2012-2013 academic year in
Hawai‘i. A convenience sample of 108 participants completed the pre-surveys and 67 of the
participants completed the post-surveys. A comparison between pre- and post-surveys
measuring perceptions of the mentoring program was further triangulated through focus groups
by using a sequential explanatory design.
Findings from this study indicate a decrease in mentoring connection and quality
interactions over time. The facilitators of mentoring were identified as discussions on time
management, study strategies, reducing test-taking anxiety and the mentor as a resource with a
wealth of knowledge. Cultural sensitivity was not of concern, since the mentees felt supported
regardless of culture and gender differences with their mentors. Some mentoring detractors
were not having a connection with the mentor, negative first impressions and the mentee’s
experiencing high levels of stress with inadequate time to follow up with their mentors. All
mentees discontinued their connection after their first semester in the nursing program. Cultural
or gender differences were not identified as detractors. Other nursing programs or colleges
interested in implementing a formal faculty-mentoring program in order to retain diverse
students may find the result of this study beneficial by reviewing the facilitators and detractors of
mentoring.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 9

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
As is the case throughout the United States, Hawai ʻi’s Registered Nurse (RN) workforce
continues to be underrepresented in that only10% of registered nurses are males (Lederman,
2012; Matthews, LeVasseur & Mark, 2008; Wilson, Sanner & McAllister, 2010). The retention
of students from diverse groups continues to be a challenge for many nursing programs, and
mentoring by seasoned and empathetic faculty can be a solution to promote student success
(Baker, 2010; Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Igbo, Straker, Landson, Symes, Bernard, Hughes &
Carroll, 2011; Lunsford, 2011; Santos & Reigadas, 2002, 2005; Wilson et al., 2010) by fostering
a positive learning environment (Astin, 1980, Bandura, 1997; Kuh, 2001;Vygotsky, 1978). In an
effort to retain diversity among incoming nursing students, a faculty-mentoring program was
implemented during the 2012-2013 academic year at a university in Hawai ʻi. The nursing
students’ perceptions were assessed upon entering into the nursing program and post
implementation of a formal mentoring program, and these were analyzed through an explanatory
sequential mixed method design. This research utilized Astin’s Student Involvement Theory
(1984) and the I-E-O research model (1991), to explore the nursing student’s inputs (student
characteristics), environment (implementation of mentoring pilot program), and outputs (student
perceptions).
Background of the Problem
As of this study, there are 13, 970 active Registered Nurses (RN) practicing in Hawai ‘i
(Geographical Report, 2013). Experts in Hawai ʻi predict that between 50% and 65% of active
RNs have the intention of retiring and leaving the profession within the next 10 to 15 years
(Mathews et al., 2008). In 2006, Hawai ʻi endured a nursing deficit of 960 skilled RNs that is
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 10

predicted to increase to a shortage of 2,220 by 2016, as the RNs from the “baby boomer”
population retire from the nursing workforce (Matthews et al., 2008).
The present nursing shortage, and future predictions for nursing shortages, have increased
the interest in the nursing profession and boosted enrollment in nursing programs, leading to
greater diversity within the student body (March & Ambrose, 2010). There is an influx of
second-career students, more men, and overall diverse group of individuals (March & Ambrose,
2010), including first generation students (Padgett, Johnson & Pascarella, 2012). The changes in
student demographics as previously identified have resulted in a number of challenges with
retention among underrepresented nursing students, contributing to the deficit among the diverse
nursing workforce (Baker, 2010; Degazon & Mancha, 2012). The data from nursing students’
exit interviews revealed faculty members as key participants to their persistence in nursing
programs (Shelton, 2003). Pre-test and post-test survey questionnaires identified students’
perceptions of faculty advisement as very influential in nursing students’ success (Jeffreys,
2002).
Students’ perceptions are important to retention in nursing programs (Baker, 2010), and these
are influenced by positive interactions with the nursing faculty. In addition, these had an impact
on student degree completion in nursing programs (Higgins, 2004; Jeffreys, 2002; Lockie &
Burke, 1999; Nugent, Childs, Jones & Cook, 2004; Poorman & Shelton, 2003; Webb &
Mastorovich, 2002). Quality faculty mentoring relationships have an increased likelihood of
fostering positive self-perceptions (feelings of self-efficacy, personal control, respecting oneself,
sense of being valued, and respected by others) among students who are at risk (Degazon &
Mancha, 2012; Santos & Reigadas, 2002, 2005).
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 11

Faculty practices that promote the development of relationships between the student and
the institution yielded improved student persistence through graduation (Astin, 1975, 1984,
1993; Cole & Griffin, 2013; Kuh, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Santos & Reigadas, 2002,
2005; Tierney, 2004; Tinto, 1993). Particularly, mentoring opportunities involving interactions
between faculty and students produce increased levels of student involvement (Astin, 1984;
Santos & Reigadas, 2002, 2005), student engagement (Kuh, 2001; Pace, 1980) and integration
(Tinto, 1993). Formal mentoring programs that pair students with more experienced individuals,
either with senior nursing students, professional nurses in a clinical setting, or nursing faculty,
are beginning to be implemented to improve student engagement and retention (Baker, 2010;
Degazon & Mancha, 2012). In light of the aforementioned, nursing faculty relationships
contribute to the retention of nursing students. Since student retention is key, it is necessary to
engage diverse students, including males, first generation students and those from a variety of
socio-cultural backgrounds. The focal point of this research was to explore students’ perceptions
of the formal faculty-mentoring program and whether it benefits the nursing students in order to
improve the diversity of the nursing workforce to better serve increasing patient needs.
Therefore, the aim of the study was to explore the nursing students’ perceptions (outputs) of the
formal faculty mentoring program (environment), while considering student characteristics
(input), by using Astin’s I-E-O (1991) research model as the framework for this research.
A Shift in Nursing History
A European American, unmarried female from a lower to middle class background was the
typical portrayal of a nurse in the 20
th
century (Walden, 2013). The early 1900s saw a shift in
the nursing profession occurred as society viewed nursing as an acceptable vocation and
encouraged others to pursue this line of work. Regardless of the changes in the nursing
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 12

profession over time, females continue to monopolize the profession. As of today, there is only
one male nurse for every ten female nurses.
There has been an increase in demographic diversity in the American patient population
(Degazon & Mancha; Groves, 2010; Walden, 2013), and, by 2020, underrepresented ethnicities
and races will make up half of the patient population (Wilson et al., 2010). Currently, the nursing
workforce is primarily Caucasian and female, and this situation contributes to inequality within
diversity in the present patient population. Only 12% of the nursing workforce represents the
racial and ethnic diversity required to care for the increased demand (Lederman, 2012; Wilson et
al., 2010). Nurses from minority backgrounds are more likely to work in underserved areas
where there are high health disparities, in comparison to those from majority backgrounds
(Degazon & Mancha, 2012). Therefore, retaining and graduating nurses from minority
backgrounds is important to reducing health disparities as seen in underserved areas (Degazon &
Mancha, 2012).
The shift in bedside nursing continues while the patient population grows in diversity;
just as important, patients are getting older and requiring more complex medical services in the
hospital setting and at home (Matthews et al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2010). The Hawai ʻi State
Center for Nursing’s (HSCN) report, The Strategic Plan for the Nursing Workforce in Hawai ʻi
(2009-2014), predicts that, within the next 15 years, Hawai ʻi’s rate of aging population will
occur twice as fast in comparison to the rest of the nation (Matthews et al., 2008). The Center
predicts an increase of 75% in persons aged 60 or more living in Hawai ʻi, between the timeframe
of 2000 and 2020, and an increase of 121% for those who are 85 and older. As mentioned
earlier, the predicted deficit of RNs practicing in Hawai ʻi will increase to 2,220 by 2016.
Furthermore, the skilled RN shortage will also be affected by retirement; it is projected that more
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 13

than 60% of active RNs are nearing the ages of 50 and 60 and plan on retirement within the next
15 years. In addition, the nursing workforce deficit is predicted to have a greater impact on the
neighbor islands (Hawai ʻi, Maui, & Kauai). If the predictions are correct, the demand for RNs in
Hawai ʻi will grow by 28% in 2020, while the supply of RNs is expected to be 8.9% and
insufficient to match the nursing demand. To illustrate, the nursing workforce deficit of
approximately 2,670 registered nurses is equivalent to the number of RNs presently employed at
two major health centers on Oahu, Hawai ʻi (Matthews, LeVasseur & Mark, 2008). The present
nursing shortage and the future predictions of nursing shortages have increased the interest in the
nursing profession and boosted enrollment in nursing programs, leading to greater diversity
within the student body (March & Ambrose, 2010).
Increase in Diversity
Due to the influx in second-career students, men, and diverse individuals (March &
Ambrose, 2010), including first generation students (Padgett, Johnson & Pascarella, 2012)
change resulted in a number of challenges. Some of the challenges are maintaining student
retention and decreasing student attrition, particularly among under-represented nursing students
(Baker, 2010; Degazon & Mancha, 2012). An increase in student attrition reduces the
graduation rates and creates a deficit within the nursing workforce (Baker, 2010; Degazon &
Mancha, 2012). Regardless of the endeavors by the colleges of nursing to increase the ethnic
minority nursing workforce, often, there are still high attrition rates (Degazon & Mancha, 2010;
Igbo et al., 2011). Tierney (2004) believes that institutions attempting to prevent attrition among
under-represented populations are not proactive in providing measures for student success. A
thorough investigation in student attrition by examining the campus culture is required, since
“powerful definitions that enable some and can disable others, there might be hidden curricular
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 14

issues, the social organization of classrooms, and inherent pedagogical practices that occur every
day (p. 217).” In other words, an inclusive campus culture will foster a positive learning
environment for the under-represented student populations.
The obstacles inhibiting success among under-represented students include less academic
preparation, lower socio-economics, ineffective study habits and time-management and
decreased proficiency in the English language (Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Santos & Reigadas,
2002, 2005), which may contribute lack of progress in the nursing program. In addition, nursing
students are often overwhelmed and stressed by the quantity of information they are required to
learn and the perseverance that is required to be successful (Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Igbo et
al., 2011). Tierney (2004) affirms that low ability groups are subjected to more dynamics in
power by the teacher and are taught less often. The students with low-ability reading spend more
time trying to understand in comparison to high-ability students who spend more time analyzing
the content (Tierney, 2004).
Faculty are Central to Student Engagement
Contributors to student learning include the environment of the educational institution
and its role in influencing student satisfaction, student learning and development, and student
persistence and involvement (Astin, 1984, 1993; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt & Associates 2005;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Positive institutional culture and faculty practices promote
the development of relationships between students and the institution with student persistence
through graduation (Astin, 1975, 1984, 1993; Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Kuh, 2001; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 2005; Santos & Reigadas, 2002, 2005; Tinto, 1993). When faculty encourage
autonomous student learning with others, and develop their sense of competence, students are
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 15

more likely to be motivated, to engage, and to be successful (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges &
Hayek, 2006).
Furthermore, Kuh et al. (2006) position educators at the center of student engagement.
Students will work harder on assignments and will be willing to verbalize their opinions when
the teacher is perceived to be approachable, well prepared, and sensitive to student needs
(Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Mearns, Meyer & Bharadwaj, 2007; Santos & Reigadas, 2002,
2005). Research supports the probability of student engagement as likely to occur when
educators create pleasing learning environments, are exigent, have high standards, and are
available for students to discuss progression (Bryson & Hand, 2007). The environmental culture
and faculty of the institution are key to student engagement (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005,
2006). Faculty and staff who provide resources that promote intellectual stimulation in a
multicultural environment will retain students through graduation (Degazon & Mancha, 2012;
Santos & Reigadas, 2002, 2005). To reach equitable practices and outcomes among racial-ethnic
groups, Tierney (1992, 2004) calls on colleges to thoroughly examine their own institutional
cultures, including dynamics of power, dominance and authority and to create a campus culture
that is inclusive for all diverse cultures.
Transfer Students
Unlike students in other majors, a high percentage of the nursing students at the study
institution are transfer students from other colleges (University’s Self-Study Report, 2011).
Transfer students are at risk of decreased engagement, partly due to colleges’ giving far less
attention to transfer students in comparison to freshmen (Kuh et al., 2005; Roberts & McNeese,
2010). The transfer students are left to self-acclimate to their new environment, with little
assistance from the institution. There is a sense of unfamiliarity with their instructors, staff,
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 16

classmates, resources available to them, and the culture of the campus environment. As a result
of feeling disconnected, transfer students are left feeling challenged in becoming involved and
engaged academically and socially (Kuh et al., 2005). Kuh et al. (2005) contend that universities
need to develop and implement programs for transfer students in order to promote engagement
and integration and increase the probability of persistence and graduation (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005).
First-Generation College Students
A strong percentage of nursing students at the study institution identified as first-
generation college students (University’s Self-Study Report, 2011). One stressor seen among
this population is the lack of family’s understanding the commitment that is required to study
outside of school (Community College Survey of Student Engagement, 2005; Degazon &
Mancha, 2012; Santos & Reigadas, 2002, 2005). First-generation students achieve greater
psychosocial and cognitive gain from peer academic interactions than do second-generation
students (Padgett, Johnson & Pascarella, 2012). The first-generation student will need further
support to feel immediately engaged and integrated during the college experience to have
successful outcomes (Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Padgett et al., 2012; Santos & Reigadas, 2002,
2005).
Upon college entrance, first-generation students do not have the same social networks as
their second-generation peers in developing the benefits that come from interacting with faculty
(Padgett et al., 2012). In contrast, interactions with faculty appear to negatively affect certain
areas of development among first-generation students by creating feelings of discomfort through
a position of power (Tierney, 2004). In contrast, their counterparts (second-generation students)
feel more at ease in interacting with faculty (Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Padgett et al., 2012). It
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 17

is predicted that there will be a continued rise in first-generation student enrollment (Strayhorn,
2006), alerting student retention directors and administrators to improve practices in order to
better acclimate them into the college environment and to improve the academic and social
support that is available on campus.
Non-Traditional Student Profile
There is a change in student profile, and institutions see more of a non-traditional student
profile. The change in profile affects the amount of time and effort a student puts forth in higher
education. A non-traditional student is above the age of 25 and may work while attending college
either part-time or full-time. Working more than 30 hours per week outside of school, and not
dedicating enough time to study, decreases student learning (Santos & Reigadas, 2002, 2005). In
addition, students require a sense of acceptance and belonging, especially among those labeled as
“non-traditional” (Johnson, Soldner, Leonard & Alvarez, 2007). Institutions with high
graduation rates have adapted to the socio-cultural changes that exist among students and
developed a welcoming environment for all to feel welcomed and accepted (Degazon & Mancha,
2012). Tierney (2004) believes it is the responsibility of the institution to research and
understand students’ perceptions of their educational environments and experiences and to
include such perspectives in modifying curricula and environments (Degazon & Mancha, 2012;
Johnson et al., 2007; Santos & Reigadas, 2002, 2005). Toward this end, empathetic mentoring
may facilitate a nursing student transition to promoting persistence and involvement in the
nursing program.
Student Involvement, Time and Effort Studying
There are certain variables that affect student involvement and the amount of available
time spent studying (Astin, 1984; Kuh et al., 2005). The amount of time and effort a student
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 18

contributes to educational activities serves as a predictor for his/her cognitive development and
learning (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Cognitive growth
is commonly dependent on student academic engagement during the college experience, and,
therefore, less academic engagement results in less cognitive growth and lower student outcomes
(Arum, Roksa & Cho, 2011; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1999; 2005; Pascarella, Blaich, Martin &
Hanson, 2011).
Stress and Anxiety
Students who experience extra stress and responsibilities, such as being a single parent,
reliance on a single income, or lacking financial the support necessary to sustain tuition may
drop out due to financial strain. Other students caring for children or aging parents as
dependents may experience an increase in stress while attending college (Community College
Survey of Student Engagement, 2005; Degazon & Mancha, 2012). It has been recognized that
minority students are more likely to have the added responsibility of financially contributing to
the family income and of being expected to work while pursuing their nursing degree, potentially
increasing their stress and anxiety (Degazon & Mancha, 2012)
Approximately 25% of this institution’s nursing students live with someone serving in the
military (University’s Self-Study Report, 2011), and there have been reports of stress and anxiety
among nursing students who are military spouses. Spousal deployment may increase stress and
anxiety among students who pursue a nursing degree. Military spouses in charge of raising
children as single parents while their spouses are deployed have higher levels stress and anxiety
(McNulty, 2003). Overseas deployments add several stressors in comparison to domestic
relocations. Some of the concerns include additional financial constraints, decrease in spousal
employment opportunities, and ineffective communication between both parties, all of which
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 19

may contribute to increasing stress (McNulty, 2003). During this time of duress, the amount of
support from families and faculty could have an impact on student outcomes. There is a need for
further research to improve awareness and offer social support to military spouses and to identify
potential areas of anxiety (Blakely, Hennessy, Chung, & Skirton, 2012). Social support for the
military spouse in nursing programs is essential to his/her feeling supported and being successful
in the nursing program.
Statement of the Problem
Regardless of the actions taken at the local, state and the national level in order to
improve diversity in the skilled nursing workforce, there has been slight improvement (Degazon
& Mancha, 2012; Wilson et al., 2010), and retention of students from diverse groups continues to
be a challenge for nursing faculty and programs (Baker, 2010; Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Igbo
et al., 2011; Lunsford, 2011; Wilson et al., 2010). There are certain student input characteristics
that may threaten student involvement and success in the nursing program (Astin, 1984, Degazon
& Mancha, 2012; Kuh et al., 2005; March & Ambrose; Igbo et al., 2011). Some of the input
variables measured in this study include first generation status, part-time status, working outside
of school, being a single parent, caring for young children or aging parents as dependents, being
a transfer student (Community College Survey of Student Engagement, 2005; Degazon &
Mancha, 2012), student involvement and time spent studying (Astin, 1984, 1991; Degazon &
Mancha, 2012; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1999), being a military spouse dealing
with spousal deployment while in the nursing program (Blakely, Hennessy, Chung & Skirton,
2012), being a second-career student, and gender and ethnic diversity (Degazon & Mancha,
2012; March & Ambrose, 2010; Igbo et al., 2011). All may bring certain challenges or may
promote student success in the nursing program. Student retention directors and administrators
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 20

are required to improve practices in order to better acclimate nursing students into the college
environment and to improve the academic and social support that is available on campus
(Tierney, 2004).
The environment of the educational institution may affect student learning, influencing
student satisfaction, student learning and development, and student persistence and involvement
(Astin, 1984, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Positive institutional
culture and faculty practices promote the development of relationships between students and the
institution, resulting in student persistence through graduation (Astin, 1975, 1984, 1993;
Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Kuh, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993). Specifically,
mentoring occurrences involving interactions between faculty and students produce increased
levels of student involvement (Astin, 1984, 1991). Further discussion on mentoring is explained
in chapter two.
Astin’s (1984) Student Involvement Theory (SIT) postulates that the amount of time and
effort a student dedicates to his/her studies will affect the outcomes. The SIT (1984) and I-E-O
research models (1991) support mentoring programs as the environmental influence promoting
student involvement by pairing nursing students with more experienced individuals, whether
senior nursing students, professional nurses, or nursing faculty, in order to promote student
success. Several nursing programs have implemented the mentoring concept to improve student
retention by offering psychosocial support and academic success through role modeling
professional behaviors (Baker, 2010; Dorsey & Baker, 2004; Degazon & Mancha, 2012). The
analysis of exit interviews from nursing students determined that students considered faculty
support to be very important to their persistence in the nursing program in promoting self-worth,
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 21

offering functional support in reaching goals of academic success and in psychological support
(Shelton, 2003).
Competent mentors in nursing practice affect clinical reasoning and clinical judgment
among mentees (Botma, Hurter & Kotze, 2012). A recommendation by Botma, Hurter and
Kotze (2012) is to implement mentoring into the nursing curriculum, to increase student-nursing
skills in accepting other role models and to improve their self-efficacy to better cope as future
nurses. Mentors who demonstrate empathy and enthusiasm create a safe learning environment
for mentees and will generate positive learning experiences. Positive mentoring relationships
will improve patient care and retain professionals from all cultures in the profession of nursing
(Botma, Hurter & Kotze, 2012; Degazon & Mantha, 2012). Mentoring in nursing demonstrates
positive outcomes for the mentee by promoting positive learning experiences, developing role-
modeling and retaining future professionals from all cultures, and, thereby, increases diversity
among nurses who work and fulfill the need to serve a diverse patient population.
Purpose of the Study
There is a higher attrition rate among minority nurses two years after entering into the
workforce in comparison to non-minority nurses. Research suggests that creating an
environment of respect and inclusion as a possible solution to retaining a diverse nursing
workforce (Degazon & Mantha, 2012; Wilson et al., 2010; Walden, 2013). In order to address
the diversity gap in the nursing workforce, the literature suggests increasing retention by creating
an accepting working environment inclusive of student diversity (Degazon & Mantha, 2012;
Wilson et al., 2010; Tierney, 2004; Walden, 2013). Equally important to the effort to retain
students from diverse backgrounds is the strategy of offering a mentor who is seasoned and
empathetic (Baker, 2010; Degazon & Mantha, 2012; Igbo et al., 2011; Lunsford, 2011; Wilson et
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 22

al., 2010). The purpose of this study was to explore the mentees’ background characteristics
(input) and student perceptions (output) of the formal faculty-to-student mentoring program pilot
(environment) by using a sequential explanatory mixed method design. Astin’s Student
Involvement Theory (1984) and the I-E-O (1991) research model is the framework for this
research. Four research questions guided this study:
RQ1: What are the participants’ self-reported attribute ratings while participating in a formal
mentoring program?
RQ2: How do the mentees’ perceive their connection with their faculty mentors as facilitated
through a formal mentoring program?
RQ3: How do the mentees’ perceive the quality of their interactions with their faculty
mentors as facilitated through a formal mentoring program?
RQ4: What are the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor as a role model, caring for
their well-being, and having a positive influence on their academic success?
Theoretical Framework
The culture of the institution is key to student engagement (Astin, 1993; Bandura, 1985;
Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005, Tierney, 2004). Students need a sense of
belonging and affirmation to feel accepted (Zepke & Leach, 2010), and the non-traditional
student often feels disengaged or alienated (Zepke & Leach, 2010). Therefore, it is
recommended that institutions of higher education diversify and create an environmental culture
that is accepting of student diversity (Johnson et al., 2007). Successful institutions use a
proactive approach to diversifying the student and teaching bodies, exposing them to different
ways of thinking. Furthermore, student learning and problem solving occur through meaningful
interactions between student and faculty, inside and outside the classroom (Kuh et al., 2005).
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 23

Astin (1993), Kuh et al. (2005), Bandura (1985), and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005)
identified the importance of creating a culture of inclusion for a student to feel engaged and
promote learning. The meaningful interactions between nursing faculty and students outside and
inside the classroom reaffirm the rationale for the implementation a faculty to student mentoring
program in order to gain positive student outcomes.
Kuh et al. (2005) found that meaningful student-faculty connections occurred through
formal and informal mentoring programs, by faculty who provide timely feedback on student
assignments, and through the use of electronic technology to enrich interconnections between
students, faculty and staff. Therefore, interpersonal liaisons, occurring on and off campus
between faculty and students, are positively related to student success in college. Astin’s
explanation of student involvement theory is similar to the definition of student engagement, as
Kuh et al. (2005) describe “the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other
activities that lead to the experiences and outcomes that constitute student success” (p.9). Pike
and Kuh (2005) assert that student-engagement theory originated from Astin’s involvement
theory (1984). The Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) conceptual model (1991) inspired Astin’s
Student Involvement Theory (1984). The model was developed in the 1960’s and has since been
modified (Astin, 1993). The I-E-O model (1991) has three elements: input refers to the student’s
characteristics upon entering into the institution; environment refers to various programs,
policies, faculty, peers, and the student’s educational experiences; and outcomes refers to the
student’s characteristics after being exposed to the environment often measured by student
achievement or growth (Astin, 1993). Student engagement and student involvement theories
focus on the institutional environment, policies and practices in terms of how resources are
utilized to enhance student success (Astin, 1984; Kuh et al, 2005; Pike & Kuh, 2005). Astin’s I-
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 24

E-O (1991) research model serves as the framework for this study exploring the formal faculty
mentoring program (environment) as an intervention to retain diverse nursing students through
an examination of their backgrounds (input) and their perceptions of mentoring program over
time (outcomes),by analyzing pre- and post-surveys and by conducting focus group interviews.
Importance of the Study
Student development research connected to involvement, engagement, and integration
has not emphasized the importance of the relationship between the educator and the student
(Bensimon, 2007). Past research focuses on student involvement/engagement in activities, and
student attributes or deficits without focusing on the educators’ practices that encourage the
student’s progression and learning (Bensimon, 2007). This study explores the importance of the
relationship between the mentor and the mentee and explored the significance of developing
mentoring relationships between nursing faculty and students, post implementation of a
mentoring program, and further explored student perceptions, specifically self-reported changes
in attributes. Ultimately, the long-term goal of the mentoring program is to increase student
graduation rates and contribute to increasing the diversity in the nursing workforce toward better
serving a diverse aging population in need of health care services. Therefore, reducing the
predicted gap in servicing the diverse community, as the “baby boomer” nursing workforce faces
retirement, is on the forefront of today’s nursing issues. In addition, mentoring practices and
policy changes may be implemented in other nursing programs or other majors in order to do
promote the same results in retaining diverse students.
Definition of Terms
Culture—Includes a group of people of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual
orientation (Engebreston, 2010)
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 25

Cultural awareness in nursing—is the nurse’s sensitivity to culture, race, ethnicity, religion,
gender, and sexual orientation (Engebreston, 2010).
Culturally competent nurse— Is a nurse who has the knowledge, skills, and resources to
effectively care for patients of diverse cultures (Groves, 2010).
Mentee—The student nurse receiving mentoring in a mentor relationship.
Mentor —The nursing faculty member providing mentoring in a mentor relationship. A mentor
is a role model who provides insights, guidance, and emotional support to the mentee
(Lunsford, 2011).
Non-traditional student—A student who enters college as an adult, usually 25 years or older,
atypical from the student who enters college directly out of high school.
Protégé—The student nurse receiving mentoring in a mentor relationship, a term used
interchangeably with the term mentee.
Student Perceptions of Self-Attributes Include:
Definition of goals—The definition of the mentee’s academic and professional goals.
Eager to learn—A person who is motivated and ready to learn.
Having a positive attitude—A person who has a positive outlook on learning and in life.
Level of anxiety—The amount of stress and/or fear a mentee self-reports towards their projected
performance in the nursing program and in meeting academic obligations.
Level of satisfaction—The amount of satisfaction or happiness the mentee self-reports in relation
to their university experience.
Predicting level of success— The mentee self-predicts how successful they will be in the nursing
program, academically and socially.
Mentoring relationship—A reciprocal relationship between the mentee and mentor.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 26

Organization of the Study
This study includes five chapters, with Chapter One introducing the background and the
data that is necessary to understand the problem in retaining diverse nursing students, the
purpose of the study, the research questions, and the overall importance of the study specific to
reducing the gap in diversity in the nursing workforce and introduction of Astin’s theoretical
framework for this study. Chapter Two is a review of literature and the theoretical foundation in
regarding the importance of implementing a formal faculty to student mentoring program and
assessing students’ perceptions. Chapter Three consists of the methodology of the study that
identifies the content and context of the surveys, site and sample selection, the processes used for
analysis, and a discussion of the study’s limitations. Chapter Four will describe the findings of
this study. Chapter Five will draw conclusions from the findings, and offer recommendations for
future studies and practice.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 27

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Mentoring nurses as they care for patients can alleviate the high stress levels commonly
found among nursing students and registered nurses (Botma, Hurter & Kotze, 2012; Degazon &
Mantha, 2012). Undergraduate student nurses experience similar stress levels due to the rigor of
the program. This stress is often magnified as students begin the nursing curriculum and start
their hospital experiences, realizing the challenges in the nursing profession. Mentoring has
been found to be useful in the workplace in assisting new nurses adjust to the profession, as well
with student nurses in improving grades and maintaining retention in the program (Botma,
Hurter & Kotze, 2012; Degazon & Mantha, 2012). The purpose of this study was to explore the
nursing mentees’ background characteristics (input) and their perceptions (outcomes) of a formal
faculty-mentoring program (environment) by using a sequential explanatory mixed method
design (Creswell, 2009). The utilization of Astin’s Student Involvement Theory (1984) and I-E-
O (1991) research model serve as the framework for this research. Four research questions
guided this study:
RQ1: What are the participants’ self-reported attribute ratings while participating in a formal
mentoring program?
RQ2: How do the mentees’ perceive their connection with their faculty mentors as facilitated
through a formal mentoring program?
RQ3: How do the mentees’ perceive the quality of their interactions with their faculty
mentors as facilitated through a formal mentoring program?
RQ4: What are the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor as a role model, caring for
their well-being, and having a positive influence on their academic success?
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 28

Astin’s theoretical framework (1984) and I-E-O research model (1991) guided this study and
is discussed in the following sections as they apply to mentoring between faculty and students to
explain how their interactions can affect student outcomes and success. Numerous studies on
college student development indicate the amount of time and effort a student contributes to
educational activities are predictors for their cognitive development and learning (Astin, 1993;
Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Other contributions to student learning,
the environment of the institution and its role in influencing student satisfaction, student learning
and development, and student persistence and involvement (Astin, 1984, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005) are also described.
Student Involvement Theory (SIT) and I-E-O Model
In support of the aforementioned, Astin theorizes similar concepts in the Student
Involvement Theory (SIT) (1984) and with the Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) (1991)
research model. The following section describes Astin’s SIT (1984) and I-E-O model (1991),
provides both a review of studies in support of Astin’s theory and a theory critique, and, finally,
presents recommendations to improve higher education applicable to this study.
Student Involvement Theory (SIT)
Astin’s SIT (1984) hypothesizes a relationship between a student’s academic and social
involvement, and that learning increases when the student becomes more involved during his/her
college experience. The theory originated from Astin’s (1975) early work while performing a
longitudinal study of college dropouts and identifying key variables in the college environment
that influence student persistence in college (Astin, 1984). In What Matters in College? Four
Critical Years Revisited, Astin (1993) identifies key components to student retention in higher
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 29

education as student involvement with faculty, peers, and with the institution by participating in
extracurricular and social activities.
The SIT (1984) contains a psychological and sociological explanation of a college’s
impact on student outcomes. Astin’s (1984) theory explains the observed environmental
influences on student development that researchers have acquired over the years. There are five
key components of the SIT (1984): (a) involvement, the student’s contribution of psychological
and physical energy in their educational experience; (b) the range of student involvement; (c)
involvement manifests quantitative and qualitative characteristics (physical and psychological
energy are measured in amount of time and quality of effort); (d) a student’s educational
outcomes are equivalent to his or her involvement; and (e) the value of higher education
practices and policies are related to their ability to improve student involvement (Astin,1984).
SIT (1984) consists of the contributions in educational activities, outside of classroom
activities, and inter-connections with faculty, staff, and peers (Astin, 1984, 1993). Educational
activities that promote student readiness for class discussion include participation in study groups
and/or membership in scholarly honor programs or societies, career-connected groups, and
performance in theater arts or in the arts (Astin, 1993). Outside-of-classroom involvement
incorporates co-curricular activities, such as campus based student organizations, college athletic
or intramural sports, employment on-campus, and volunteer service experiences. Other
involvement with peers and faculty/staff include those relationships where learning occurs
outside the classroom, when working as a teaching or research assistant, communicating with
faculty during office hours, assisting in a laboratory or a fine arts production (Astin, 1993).
Astin retested the SIT (1984) while conducting a large, non-experimental, longitudinal,
correlation design, utilizing a national survey. The national survey, the Cooperative Institutional
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 30

Research Program (CIRP), consisted of several stages in survey assessments, and had a final
sample of 24,847 freshmen (the majority were Caucasian students), from 309 four-year higher
education institutions. The conclusion from the study indicated that, the more a student is
involved with the college experience, the greater the student retention and student outcomes
(Astin, 1993).
I-E-O Research Model
Astin’s SIT (1984) was inspired by the I-E-O conceptual model (1991). The model was
developed in the 1960’s and has since been modified (Astin, 1993). The I-E-O model (1991) has
three elements: (a) input refers to the student’s characteristics upon entering into the institution;
(b) environment is the institution’s social programs, policies, faculty, peers, and the student’s
educational experiences; and (c) outcomes refers to the student’s characteristics after being
exposed to the environment by student achievement or growth (Astin, 1993). The I-E-O model
(1991) compares the student’s input and output characteristics in order to evaluate student
change. Assessing for changes in student outcomes can lead to conclusions on student
attainment (Astin, 1993). The conclusions derived from the I-E-O model (1991) can facilitate
changes within the organization, leading to improvements in student affairs and institutional
policies along with educators’ having better educational outcomes. The I-E-O model (1991)
encourages understanding regarding how certain initiatives (environment) such as academic
advising or residence hall communities, influence outcomes, such as grades, satisfaction, or
retention (Astin, 1993).
Astin (1993) disagrees with using the metaphor of a hospital environment in order to
comprehend higher education while applying the I-E-O model (1991). The hospital metaphor
compares the college students to patients (input) who are subjected to a medical treatment
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 31

(environment) in order to overcome illness (outcome). Astin (1993) argues that students
voluntarily enter college, participate in the educational environment offered by the institution,
and graduate four years later with better outcomes. Comparing students and patients as
customers seeking a service in order to improve their outcomes heavily weighs the importance of
medical facilities and higher education institutions as change agents (Astin, 1993).
Astin (1993) describes the importance of assessing the college’s impact on students in
order to effectively measure change in the student’s characteristics (outcomes) over time. In
order to measure academic and cognitive acquisition, several inputs are required, such as Grade
Point Average (GPA) and scores from college admissions tests. Once the data are collected, the
researcher can make a prediction about the student’s outcome by comparing and measuring
academic achievement outcomes (GPA and graduating with honors). Other outcomes that
measure intellectual development are retention rates, enrollment into graduate or professional
colleges, cognitive development from results on standardized tests, and self-reported increase in
knowledge and academic skills (Astin, 1993)
Similar to the patient and hospital metaphor, student inputs are vital when assessing
educational outcomes. Astin (1993) had a total of 146 input measures, including forty-four
pretest measures plus a list of twenty-six different self-predictions and sixty-one other input
characteristics measuring varied demographic information. The self-prediction questions were
beneficial in assessing a student’s self-concept, as in drive to achieve, in order to predict
retention. The survey contains 192 environmental measures: institutional characteristics,
student’s peer group characteristics, faculty characteristics, curriculum, financial aid, freshmen
major field choice, place of residence, and student involvement (Astin, 1993). The findings from
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 32

Astin’s studies are discussed next to better understand the environmental impact on student
outcomes as supported by the SIT (1984) and the I-E-O model (1991).
Findings from Research
In order to assess the impact of college experience on students, two basic ideas need to be
examined (Astin, 1993). The researcher must identify the outcome variables that are important
to measure, and second is the assumption that college programs can have dissimilar experiences
that can influence student outcomes (Astin, 1993). Not all campus environments are equal or
offer the same student support. The following describes the key findings from Astin’s studies.
The Peer Group Effect
The most important finding from Astin’s (1993) study was the effect of peer groups on
the growth and development of the undergraduate’s college experience. The peer group effect
has been instrumental in changing higher education policies. Astin (1993) makes a
generalization that student values, beliefs, and aspirations shift in the direction of the beliefs and
aspirations of the peer group. The peer group effect theory has two points of view: as the
individual (psychological) and as the group (sociological). The individual searches for
acceptance from his/her peers in order to fit into society (environment). For example, an
engineering student whose peers are from the liberal arts would be able to change majors with
the approval of his peers as compared to other engineering students whose peers are from the
same major (Astin, 1993).
In support of Astin’s findings, Kuh et al. (2005) identified key findings from conducting
the Documenting Effective Educational Practices (DEEP) study, which reviewed twenty strong-
performing institutions and how they implement policies and practices in order to encourage
student success and engagement. Emphasized in the review was the power in peer mentoring,
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 33

how students become more analytical by criticizing their own and their peer’s work, and that
peer tutoring is reciprocal learning (Kuh et al., 2005).
The Faculty
Faculty contributions can either hinder or help undergraduate student progression (Astin,
1993; Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Kuh et al, 2005; Cole, 2008). Two career tracks for faculty
include research and teaching in higher education. Astin (1993) stressed two contrasting
characteristics among the faculty. “Research Orientation” among faculty is negatively correlated
with amount of hours spent per week teaching and advising, promoting student development, the
use of active learning techniques in the classroom, and the percentage of resources invested in
student services. The opposite was found with the characteristic “Student Orientation” of the
faculty, with the hours per week spent teaching and advising students, the commitment to student
progression and social activism, and the percentage of resources invested in student services
(Astin, 1993).
The research supports the differences between the two tracks by examining the
percentage of time spent by the faculty on personal goals and values versus on student
accessibility. Astin (1993) found little correlation when reviewing a single institution in
comparison to several institutions together. A strong negative correlation occurred among major
public universities that are mostly research focused, and the opposite was found among small
private universities that have limited resources. Conditions at these latter institutions force the
faculty to become more involved with students, which personifies the undergraduate experience
(Astin, 1993).
Student learning and problem solving occurs through meaningful interactions between
student and faculty, inside and outside the classroom (Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Kuh et al.,
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 34

2005). Meaningful student-faculty connections occurred from both formal and informal
mentoring programs, from faculty providing timely feedback on student assignments, and from
the use of technology to enrich interconnections among students, faculty and staff (Degazon &
Mancha, 2012; Kuh et al., 2005).
Within the lens of diversity and constructive criticism on students’ GPA and educational
satisfaction, Cole’s (2008) longitudinal study examined the effects of faculty constructive
criticism (negative feedback to promote student learning) with 1,422 African American and
Hispanic students. The findings from this study indicated that faculty support and positive
encouragement, including constructive criticism, greatly influenced the students’ GPA and
educational satisfaction. The findings suggest that minority students will demonstrate academic
improvements when challenged in a positive environment that promotes a sense of belonging
and academic community (Cole, 2008). The findings from Astin (1993), Kuh et al. (2005), and
Cole (2008) assert that formal faculty mentoring positively affects outcomes of diverse students
in a supportive academic community, leading to increased students’ GPA and educational
satisfaction. The three research studies have their limitations in generalizability due to sample
selection, the fact that the results were founded on self-reported surveys, the possibility of bias
from non-respondents. There may have been different results had non-respondents responded to
the survey (Creswell, 2009).
Institutional Type
There is a relationship between the type of educational institution and structural
characteristics that create environmental circumstances (Astin, 1993). Astin (1993) describes the
environmental circumstances as research orientation, student orientation, and humanities
orientation and finds that student outcomes are affected by a percentage of peer group markers.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 35

Not all institutions carry the same mission or vision, and they vary in leadership styles. Some
institutional leaders may be concerned about the importance of the peer group effect in
undergraduate education and other leaders may focus on research (Astin, 1993). Kuh et al.
(2005) identified common traits among the provosts and the senior academic officers from the
high achieving institutions as having a clear mission and obligation towards a quality
undergraduate experience, regardless of whether or not the institution supported graduate
programs and research in its mission. Other institutional characteristics, such as size and living
on campus, have contributed to student faculty interactions (Cole & Jackson, 2005). Research
results have indicated that a diverse student campus can promote student learning outcomes
(Gurin, Dey, Hurtado & Gurin, 2002) and provide structural diversity, permitting interracial
interactions to occur between faculty and student and among student peers (Cole, 2007; Degazon
& Mancha, 2012) and increasing intellectual engagement among students (Cole, Bennett &
Thompson, 2003; Degazon & Mancha, 2012).
Student Involvement
In a review of general education and student involvement, Astin (1993) concludes that
the faculty delivery of the curriculum outweighs the formal curricular content and structure.
More importantly, the extent of student engagement or involvement ultimately influences the
undergraduate experience. Positive factors that influence student involvement consist of students
taking the time to study, of the use a personal computer, of socializing with diverse student
peers, of participating in current affairs, and of tutoring each other. Other indicators of a high
degree of student involvement consist of taking honors courses, interdisciplinary courses, study-
abroad programs, internship programs, racial or cultural awareness workshops, independent
research projects, class participation and taking essay examinations. Negative factors that hinder
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 36

educational improvement include a student’s living at home, commuting to campus, devoting too
much time watching television, frequent taking multiple-choice examinations (except for nursing
major) in the classroom, or being employed at an off-campus job (Astin, 1993).
In relation to student engagement, institutions need to pay extra attention to transfer
students; they can feel as disengaged as freshman students (Kuh et al., 2005). Transfer students
have a knowledge gap in recognizing the resources available to them on campus and may
struggle in creating peer connections. They often feel disconnected from the institution. Certain
institutions initiate welcoming events in order to introduce transfer students to their new
educational environment. Equally important are the integration of international students to new
campuses and the utilization of student associations as a vehicle to interconnect and support each
other (Kuh et al., 2005). In conclusion, when students feel a connection with their institution,
they will be more likely to persist and graduate (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Diversity
The CIRP survey examined institutional diversity by measuring students’ self-reported
campus activities and assessment of their abilities (Astin, 1993). The survey queries the
student’s individual experience with diversity activities by taking a “third world” course or a
course about women, studying ethnicities, attending cultural awareness workshops, socializing
with someone from another racial/ethnic background, or engaging in conversations on racial or
ethnic issues. The results report an increase in cognitive expansion in cultural awareness, in
student satisfaction in most college experiences, and commitment to encouraging racial
comprehension. The study suggests positive student advancement from institutions that
emphasize multiculturalism and diversity (Astin, 1993). Kuh et al. (2005) contend that several
of the colleges and universities have integrated international curriculum experiences through
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 37

foreign language studies or academic programs. One program, supported by a large grant, was
able to sponsor faculty and staff to travel for three weeks in Japan and China over several years
in order to integrate Asian culture into courses and expose students to the same (Kuh et al.,
2005).
Empirical research studying student diversity and interactions with faculty using Astin’s
SIT includes Gurin et al. (2002) and Cole (2007). Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) and Gurin et
al. (2002) posit that student involvement in diversity experiences increases student learning, and
the extent of student body diversity can determine the level of student involvement in diversity
occurrences. Some examples of diversity occurrences include participating in racial/ethnic
awareness workshops, racial group discussions, socializing with other racial/ethnic groups on
campus, and creating close friendships with students of a different race/ethnicity. Involvement
in the aforementioned diversity activities promotes student learning (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). The students from this study self-reported an increase in course knowledge and were
confident that they would persist to degree completion. Student diversity experiences are
important to student involvement and engagement on college campus (Gurin et al., 2002;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Resource Allocation
It is the general consensus among those who study resource allocation in higher
education that quality educational programs are related to the percentage of faculty with
doctorates, average faculty salaries, and the student-faculty ratio (Astin, 1993). In addition, a
negative correlation between research orientation of the faculty and educational effectiveness
was found. The findings support a low student-faculty ratio as a good index of educational
quality, although research institutions utilize teaching assistants in lower division courses and
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 38

that may account for the survey results. Once teaching assistants were removed from the
equation, the student-faculty ratio was higher when compared to small liberal arts colleges
(Astin, 1993).
The next section identifies the strengths in the SIT (1984) and I-E-O model (1991) in
relation other theorists influenced by Astin’s work or vice-versa, the weaknesses found for both,
and why the framework was selected for this research. To summarize, as stated by Kuh et al.,
(2005) “student success becomes and institutional priority when leaders make it so” (p. 270).
The students sense the energy of the institution from the top down, and this directly affects the
culture of the environment and student engagement.
Summary
Astin’s Student Involvement Theory (1984) identifies a relationship between a student’s
academic and social involvement and examines how learning increases when the student
becomes more involved during the college experience. One of the key components to student
retention in higher education is student involvement with faculty and peers, promoting the
student’s psychological and sociological development and having an impact on student outcomes
and success (Astin, 1984). Astin’s (1984) theory can explain the observed environmental
influences on student development that researchers acquired over the years. The student's
contributions in educational activities, outside classroom activities, and their inter-connections
with faculty have a positive relationship on student outcomes (Astin, 1993; Cole, 2007; Kuh et
al., 2005; Gurin et al, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The outside-of-classroom
involvement with faculty includes those relationships where learning occurs outside the
classroom, when working as a teaching or research assistant, communicating with faculty during
office hours, or assisting in a laboratory (Astin, 1993). The student orientation of the faculty,
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 39

with the hours per week spent teaching and advising students, the commitment to student
progression and social activism, and percentage of resources invested in student services have a
positive correlation with improved student outcomes (Astin, 1993).
Student learning and problem solving also occur through meaningful interactions
between student and faculty, inside and outside the classroom (Cole, 2003; Kuh et al., 2005;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Meaningful student-faculty connections occurred from formal
and informal mentoring programs, faculty providing timely feedback on student assignments and
from the use of electronic technology to enrich interconnections among students, faculty and
staff. Therefore, interpersonal liaisons, occurring on and off campus between faculty and
students, are positively related to student success in college. Relationships with staff, peers,
family, friends and mentors all play a role in student satisfaction, persistence and student
attainment from college (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 1991, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991,
2005; Tinto, 1993).
Studies from Astin (1993) suggest that positive student advancement occurs within
institutions that emphasize multiculturalism and diversity. Because the samples utilized for
Astin’s studies were primarily Caucasian, with a small representation of African Americans,
Asian Americans and Latino Americans, their research neglected to detail a full demographic
breakdown by race/ethnicity from each sample. The major limitation declared by Astin (1993) at
the time of his study was not running a separate analysis examining gender, race, and socio-
economic status due to space limitations. The study samples are deficient in generalizing to other
diverse student populations, since they do not represent the students from low-socioeconomic
status or cultural diversity. Future research with a diverse student population is needed in order
to better apply the findings to all institutions.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 40

Critique of the Theoretical Framework
Strengths and Weaknesses of Theoretical Framework
Astin’s explanation of involvement is similar to the definition of student engagement as
Kuh et al. (2005) describe “the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other
activities that lead to the experiences and outcomes that constitute student success,” (p.9). Pike
and Kuh (2005) assert the student-engagement theory originated from Astin’s involvement
theory (1984). Student engagement and student involvement theories both focus on the
institutional environment, policies, practices, and on how resources are utilized to enhance
student success (Kuh et al, 2005; Pike & Kuh, 2005). The words to describe both engagement
and involvement are quite similar; therefore, the terms are used interchangeably. Kuh et al.
(2005) do credit Chickering and Gamson (1987) for the Seven Principles for Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education as effective engagement indicators. The seven principles implicate the
connection between student and faculty, cooperation among students, active learning, expedient
student feedback, good timing on student task, high expectations, reverence for diverse talents,
and the varied ways that a student can learn (Kuh et. al, 2005). The principles have a positive
relationship with student satisfaction, learning and development, and persistence (Astin, 1984,
1993; Kuh et al, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
Astin (1993) identifies involvement variables at the time of student entry as place of
residency, choice of major, the use of financial aid, student engagement with faculty and peers,
work outside of school, and academic effort. Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986) explores
observational learning and has particular relevance to Astin’s involvement theory, as it provides
insights into learning through social role models and the nature of mentoring from either peer or
faculty members. Astin (1993) and Kuh et al. (2005) establish that freshman students had better
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 41

outcomes when mentored by faculty and discussed the importance of the peer effect and how
learning and change occurs through example. In support of Astin (1993), Kuh et al. (2005), and
Bandura’s (1986) framework, Vygotsky (1978) confirms that learning occurs through social
interaction with others within an environment of cultural and historical context.
Vygotsky’s (1978) other principle identifies learners as capable of advancing in cognitive
capacity by working within the higher end of their zone of proximal development. This can be
accomplished by working with others who are more knowledgeable, like faculty members or
peers, and who may ease the progression of learning and development. The process is only as
effective as the peer or faculty member’s expertise in the subject area. Similar to Vygotsky,
Astin and Kuh’s research findings demonstrate a positive correlation between the peer effect and
faculty student orientation on student involvement in academics (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005).
The environmental effects on student behavior and the learning process as described by the
aforementioned theorists, Astin, Kuh et al., Bandura and Vygotsky, are synthesized in a diagram
found in Appendix A.
Weaknesses of the Theory of Involvement
Astin (1984) identifies student involvement with behavioral aspects as more important
than measuring motivation. Motivation is an “important aspect of involvement, but…the
behavioral aspects, in my judgment, are critical. It is not so much what the student thinks or
feels, but what the individual does…that defines and identifies involvement” (p. 298). Astin
refers back to increasing student involvement as “highly contingent on the student’s perceived
locus of control and attributional inclinations” (p. 307). Astin neglects the importance of the
psychological variables, such as self-efficacy, self-determination and how motivated the student
is, in learning as a vital component to influencing the effects of involvement on academic
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 42

success. Bandura’s theory (1986) does focus on self-efficacy and how competent a student feels
in a certain environment without denying the causal effect on human motivation and cognition.
There is a reciprocal three-way interplay among learning, the person, and the environment
(Bandura, 1996). Astin (1993) operationalizes student behavior as in performance, self-concept,
and persistence, but Astin neglects to effectively measure psychological characteristics such as
motivation, self-efficacy and self-determination as the variables that influence student behavior.
The samples utilized in Astin’s studies were primarily Caucasian, so the sample is deficient in
generalizing to other diverse student populations.
Astin (1993) acknowledges that critics argue the credibility of making causal inferences
from correlational (non-experimental) data despite the efforts made by the researcher to control
the variables utilized in the study. Astin continues to assert that daily decisions are made on
college campuses based on inferences and challenges the “methodologists who continue to insist
that the only true science is experimental must necessarily abandon any attempt to study the
world as it is” (Astin, 1993, p. xvi). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005) utilized Astin’s
theory of involvement in their research, although questioning whether Astin’s concept actually
meets the definition of a theory. Whereas theories usually are systems of predicting a
phenomenon by indicating certain variables and how they relate to each other (Kerlinger in
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), Astin’s involvement concepts are a set of general suppositions.
In support of Pascarella and Terenzini’s critique, Astin’s theory of involvement was generated by
past correlational research and does not support testing a hypothesis through an experimental
design, though a cause and effect can be tested and proven.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 43

Strengths and Weaknesses of I-E-O Research Model
The I-E-O model has been recognized by Upcraft, Chrissman Ishler, and Swing (2005) as
a useful tool in order to assess the effects of college experiences on the student, which can lead
to policy concerns. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) note that the I-E-O model influenced Astin’s
Theory of Involvement (1984), Tinto’s Theory of Student Departure (1993), Pascarella’s General
Causal Model for Assessing the Effects of Differential College Environments on Student
Learning and Cognitive Development (1985), and Weidman’s Model of Undergraduate
Socialization (1989). Astin (1993) argues the critique between students and patients within the
hospital metaphor as illness. Astin neglects to identify patients as passive recipients of treatment
who do not always have better outcomes regardless of their persistence. Students, unlike
patients, have a choice over their experience and the extent of their engagement in the academic
and social environments. Most patients receive treatment by force of illness. College students
have self-authorship over their cognitive and social experiences by deciding when and how to
participate in their educational environment. Astin’s sample population was primarily Caucasian
and, therefore, lacked the ability to generalize to other student populations, and future research is
required utilizing a diverse student population.
Implications for College Administrators, Faculty and Students
In support of Astin’s theory (1984), faculty interaction, both inside and outside the
classroom, coincides with university programs and institutional policies supporting student
learning and promoting student growth. Therefore, faculty-to-student mentoring programs would
be beneficial in promoting student retention (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). The findings from the study support a low student-faculty ratio as a good
index of educational quality (Astin, 1993). The data are important when determining budget
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 44

costs for each college, allocating more funding for full-time faculty, and encouraging faculty to
invest time with their students in order to promote student involvement. Administrative
positions on retention and progression are the new trend in order to promote student progression,
student satisfaction and outcomes, graduation rates, and success on national examinations for
vocational programs. The study suggests positive student advancement from institutions that
emphasize multiculturalism and diversity (Astin, 1993; Cole, 2008; Kuh et al, 2005).
Administrative support is required to continue offering trans-cultural nursing courses to students
and offering cultural awareness workshops for faculty in order to increase cultural awareness on
campus and to promote student advancement. Only a small percent (3% to 8%) is allocated for
student services, and Astin (1993) encourages all institutions to invest more and increase their
budget margin for student services, since it renders better student outcomes in the long term.
Astin (1993) concludes by encouraging faculty to spend time with the students in residence halls
by teaching a class or holding office hours there. Kuh et al. (2005) agree that premium-learning
experience result from positive interactions between faculty and their students.
Astin’s theoretical framework, I-E-O research model greatly emphasizes the environment
as the change agent for student outcomes, putting little emphasis on self-authorship, motivation
or self-efficacy. Although there is no perfect tool for assessing all key variables, future research
with a more culturally and socioeconomic diverse student sample is required to effectively
evaluate a student’s self-determination, self-efficacy and motivation in order to promote student
success in higher education while assessing the environmental impact on educational outcomes
and college experience. The following section describes the empirical research findings on
mentoring as the environmental change agent for this research study.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 45

Literature Review
Astin’s (1993) and Kuh et al.’s (2005) aforementioned research on how the environment
affects student outcomes encouraged Cole and Espinoza (2009) to review a longitudinal sample
of 229 African American, American Indian, and Latino(a) students from science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM), from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program
(CIRP) study. Cole and Espinoza (2009) concluded that academic success and educational
satisfaction of racial ethnic minority women and men in STEM majors was related to faculty
support and encouragement. Faculty support had a positive influence on Academic performance
(GPA) for both men and women in STEM, with a greater influence on minority women. They
identified that faculty members need to be willing to work with ethnic minority students in order
to have a positive influence on a student’s academic achievements within their cultural
environment. Since the sample identified in this study is from STEM, the findings are limiting to
other majors and may not imply generalizability to other racial or ethnic minorities.
Furthermore, an implication from their study is the importance of creating faculty-student
mentoring programs, since such programs promote mentoring relationships between faculty and
the student and increase interactions between the two, especially for women from ethnic minority
backgrounds (Cole & Espinoza, 2009).
Student Mentoring-Informal or Formal
Mentoring programs have become customary as an intervention in supporting minority
students in the STEM fields (Cole & Espinoza, 2009; Lee, 1999; Tsui, 2007) and are becoming
important in the nursing profession (Baker, 2010; Degazon & Mencha, 2012; Igbo et al., 2011;
Lunsford, 2011; Wilson et al., 2010). There is a growing popularity in implementing mentoring
programs in higher education, and the most popular research methods utilized are mixed-method
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 46

studies (Baker, 2010; Igbo et al., 2011; Lunsford, 2011; Spencer, 2007; Wilson et al., 2010). The
amount of contact between the two parties is positively correlated with the mentee's college
integration and perceived mentor support and effectiveness (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005;
Santos & Reigadas, 2002). Minority students involved in mentoring programs have improved
outcomes such as higher grade point averages, better retention rates, improved self-efficacy, and
better-defined academic goals (Santos & Reigadas, 2002). The above interactions produce a
positive learning environment through faculty’s role modeling in support of Astin’s (1984) SIT
and Kuh et al. (2005) descriptions of how a student’s environment affects student’s outcomes,
specifically among ethnic minority students.
The research available on mentoring identifies an important distinction between formal or
planned mentoring and informal or natural mentoring. Formal mentoring is a type of mentoring
that may produce undesirable outcomes, such as reduced motivation and engagement (Scandura,
1997; Spencer 2007).
Spencer (2007) suggests that faculty mentors who are not adequately trained or supported
in order to promote positive mentoring relationships with students might derail students’ success
by creating negative pitfalls. Cultural incompetence and faculty attitudes, in relation to race and
feelings of racism or racial tension, between students and faculty can cause troublesome
psychological and behavioral obstacles affecting the frequency and quality of the interactions
between the two parties (Cole, 2007, 2011; Hurtado et al., 2011). Spencer (2007) identifies how
formal mentoring can negatively affect a student, and Cole (2007, 2011) and Hurtado (2011)
reinforce the notion that a student’s environment in view of racism can affect the quality and
quantity of student-faculty interactions and lead to a decrease student satisfaction and outcomes,
supporting Astin’s SIT (1984). If the student has a negative relationship with his/her faculty
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 47

mentor, he/she will not pursue the relationship and will not seek assistance required to be
successful in their academic career (Degazon & Mancha, 2012).
Some programs attempt to foster informal mentoring relationships through cohort or
community building among peers and program staff (Tsui, 2007), and others encourage formal
mentoring depending on graduate students, staff, and/or faculty members to participate (Lee,
1999). Mentoring seems to be relatively uncommon in higher education, specifically for
minority students (Tsui, 2007). These programs offer low incentives for mentors (including
faculty) to be significantly involved with mentees (Lee, 1999). There are few faculty members
who volunteer their time to become prized mentors and who are intrinsically motivated by values
other than tangible rewards (Lee, 1999).
Ethnic Homogeneity and Mentoring
Other research recommends that naturally forming relationships or mentoring between
matching ethnic backgrounds results in greater outcomes (Reigadas & Santos, 1996; Santos &
Reigadas, 2002, 2005). For example, for first generation students, having a mentor from the
same ethnic background may help reduce the gap between the institutional culture and their own
culture (Reigadas & Santos, 1996; Santos & Reigadas, 2002, 2005). Similar characteristics
between mentors and mentees, including race, were found to promote effective communication
and trust, supporting the relationship over time (Lee, 1999). However, same-race matches for
mentors and mentees can be problematic in predominantly White institutions where there is not
enough ethnic diversity to match same-race mentors with mentees (Lee, 1999). Ethnic
homogeneity and mentoring can be an issue for some mentoring relationships and should be
considered when developing a mentoring program.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 48

Santos and Reigadas (2005) found that ethnic homogeneity indirectly had an effect on the
perceived mentor support via the quantity and quality of the student-mentor encounters. The
purpose of their study was to investigate the student-faculty mentoring process and how
mentoring relationships smooth the progress of at-risk students’ adjustment to college. The
sample was composed of 65 college students who were involved in a Faculty Mentoring Program
(FMP) at a four-year institution. The researchers examined ethnic homogeneity between the
student-mentor and the amount of contact between the student-mentor and the perception in view
of mentor supportiveness, the students’ attitudinal adjustment to college, the students’ academic
outcomes, and the degree of satisfaction with the FMP. Results from this study indicated that
students with mentors of the same ethnicity had more encounters with their faculty mentors and,
therefore, viewed mentors as being more supportive in advancing their career and personal
development. These students voiced greater satisfaction with their participation in the FMP. In
view of Astin (1984) and Kuh et al. (2005), the environment plays an important role in
promoting student outcomes. Ethnic homogeneity fosters student perception and attitudinal
adjustment to college and degree of satisfaction with FMP, yielding better results.
Research questions whether minority faculty are the only suitable mentors for students of
color, and the findings from Santos and Reigadas’ (2005) study emphasize that quality of the
student-mentor relationship is the determining variable of student success. Certain limitations
from this study include using a cross-sectional design, with a sample (n = 65) comprised of 49%
Latino American, 30% African American, 12% European American, and 8% other. The sample
was 86% female and 14% male, with predominantly young students, between the ages of 17 and
21 (65%). Mentoring, on the other hand, would best be studied by using a longitudinal design in
order to evaluate the program’s effectiveness over time. Second, the sample was small (n=65),
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 49

known to be a shortcoming in statistical power and significance (Creswell, 2009), and was
predominantly young (65% between the ages of 17 and 21), female (86%), and majority Latino
American (30%) and African American (30%). Therefore, this study has limited generalizability
to other ethnic minorities, including Asian Americans and Hawaiian Pacific Islanders, to men
and to older non-traditional students. The last limitation identified in this study was the
retrospective self-reported data that was utilized describing the students’ perceptions of events
that may be biased or incorrect and different from those who chose not to participate in the study
(Santos & Reigadas, 2005).
Formal Mentoring Program among Underserved Nursing Students
Wilson et al. (2010) recognized a need to increase diversity among the nursing workforce
and report the effectiveness of a formal mentoring program. This qualitative study examined
focus groups comprised of 10 faculty mentors who received formal training in mentoring and 30
junior and senior nursing students recruited based on their underserved status, defined by the
federal government as being from an ethnic minority and classified as either financially or
educationally underserved as determined by a complete financial aid application (Wilson et al.,
2010).
The results from this study support formal faculty mentoring for underserved students as
a successful intervention in the nursing program (Wilson et al., 2010). Success was related to the
workshops that the faculty attended to increase their knowledge of the mentoring process and to
develop their cultural awareness. The classes fostered a positive environment between the
mentor and mentee, promoting successful outcomes for the student nurse, as hypothesized by
Astin’s SIT (1984). Although not all faculty members were willing to serve as mentors, they still
understood the significance of providing guidance to underserved students. As faculty gain
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 50

more understanding of their student population, the potential of their effectiveness increases.
Due to conflicts in scheduling between the mentors and mentees, they agreed to meet every other
week rather than weekly. The mentees were satisfied in being involved in a three-year
supportive mentoring relationship with the same faculty. Administrative support in the school of
nursing contributed to the success of the mentoring program by financially sponsoring
workshops to prepare faculty to become mentors. The significance of the administrative
approval to provide time and resources necessary to prepare faculty is that students had support
from all levels within the school of nursing (Wilson et al., 2010). Here again, administrative
support encourages a positive environment between the mentor and administration, promoting a
good mentor program, ultimately producing a good mentor who will foster positive student
involvement and outcomes, in support of Astin’s SIT (1984).
An important finding from this study was the mentee and mentor perception of a good
mentor and mentee. Both the mentees and mentors describe a good mentor as a coach and good
listener, cheerleader, encourager, facilitator and supporter (Wilson et al., 2010). In contrast, the
perceptions on being a good mentee differed. The mentors identified a good mentee as having
an eagerness to learn and a positive attitude, while mentees identified a good mentee as having
the ability to see improvements and doing assignments. Another difference was the mentors’
notion of a good mentee as being able to share his/her own ideas and the mentees’ perception of
being a good mentee as being a good listener (Wilson et al., 2010). Both perceptions rely on
building a trusting environment regardless of cultural differences between the mentor and the
mentee, as identified by Astin’s SIT (1984). The environment between the mentee and the
mentor needs to be reciprocal and positive, respectful, and without racist tones between the two
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 51

parties in order to promote the best student outcomes (Cole, 2007, 2011; Hurtado et al., 2011;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Santos & Reigadas, 2005; Wilson et al., 2010).
Each investigator in the Wilson et al. study (2010) read and developed patterns and
themes from the transcripts independently and then reviewed the data as a group to look for
common patterns and themes. This method of developing patterns and themes among
investigators is a form of inter-rater reliability that gives validity to the research findings
(Creswell, 2009). There was an increase in cultural awareness among faculty who participated
in the study by getting to know the students better. All students passed the National Certification
Licensing Examination for Registered Nurses (NCLEX-RN) on the first attempt except for one,
but the student was successful on the second attempt (Wilson et al., 2010). A study limitation
was the small volunteer sample, indicating a selection bias by the mentors and mentees. The
demographics were not clearly identified; therefore, it is difficult to apply this method to other
nursing programs and imply generalizability to other populations. The tendency to have a self-
reported focus group may hinder honest responses from the sample while answering in front of
other participants.
Psychology of Mentoring: The Case of Talented College Students
Lunsford (2011) examined the psychological needs that students bring into mentor
relationships that may influence the quality of those relationships. The sample consisted of 128
academically talented students who had participated in a faculty mentorship program for six
semesters. There were 70 women and 58 men evenly distributed among three cohorts, and 80%
of the archival interview records were of Caucasian students (n=105), the remaining were Asian
Americans (n=4), African Americans (n=16), Hispanic (n=2), or not reported (n=1). A variety of
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 52

majors included engineering (n=40), business management (n=12), agricultural, physical, or life
sciences (n=44), humanities, social science, and education (n=26) and design (n=6).
The findings had no statistically significant differences by cohort, college, gender or
ethnicity when regressed on the dependent variable (Mentoring Relationship Quality) (Lunsford,
2011). High-quality relationships were identified by frequent, meaningful interactions focusing
on common professional interests. In other words, there was a relationship between career
certainty and mentoring relationship quality. There were 25% of students who did not feel
mentored for one of three reasons: faculty outside the program mentored the students, they did
not recognize the need for a mentor (lack of connection with mentor), or they were either unable
or unwilling to identify another faculty mentor (change of majors). Did the lack of connection
between the faculty mentor and mentee exist because of the presence of a negative environment
hindering student involvement, as identified by Astin (1993)? Conversely, the study identified
that selecting a major or career certainty was related to the quality of the mentor relationship.
The great mentors provided career support to the students by involving them in research, taking
them to conferences, and connecting them to other faculty (Lunsford, 2011), thus promoting
student involvement and student outcomes (Astin, 1984).
Lunsford (2011) concluded that effective mentoring involved frequent assessments by the
program director to measure rate and quality of the relationship. It is important to ask students to
report at the end of academic term rather than once a year, giving an opportunity for the program
director to intervene early on, before too much time has elapsed, with students who experience
substandard relationships. Psychological needs should be considered before assigning students
to faculty mentors by assigning certain faculty mentors with mentees from same career paths.
The importance of faculty mentoring training is emphasized, in order to meet the needs of
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 53

talented students, by matching career support once the student has decided on his/her major. It is
in the best interest of the mentee if the mentor alerts the program director when they feel the
student is uninterested in being mentored, in order for the program director to offer the student
other activities. Lunsford (2011) posits that some academically talented students lack certain
personal characteristics in being receptive and accepting advice from a mentor.
The study limitations include limited generalizability to other student populations, with a
small sample (n=128) including talented students from a single institution (Lunsford, 2011). The
data collected was self-reported, with the possibility of influencing socially desirable responses
instead of honest responses. The sample was limited in ethnic diversity, since the majority of the
respondents were Caucasian, with not enough representation of non-Caucasian student records.
The study was cross-sectional; therefore, changes over time could not be monitored, as best seen
with longitudinal study design. Lunsford’s (2011) work stresses the importance of mentoring as
a reciprocal relationship. The mentor may facilitate the relationship with the mentee by
providing learning opportunities and access to a professional network. Ultimately, the mentee
and the faulty need to have motivation, interest, and curiosity or the relationship will not flourish
(Lunsford, 2011).
Summary
Most of the existing literature suggests that a mentoring relationship is unidirectional,
moving from mentor to mentee. Astin’s (1984) SIT and I-E-O (1991) research model explains
how the student’s environment influences connections with faculty and having a positive or
negative relationship can affect student outcomes (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005). Others believe
that ethnic homogeneity in mentoring can foster minority students’ becoming more involved,
which leads to improved outcomes such as higher grade point averages, better retention rates,
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 54

improved self-efficacy, and better-defined academic goals (Santos & Reigadas, 2002, 2005). A
mentor is a role model who provides insights, guidance, and emotional support, benefitting to the
mentee, especially in their chosen major (Lunsford, 2011). The following table was developed
from all the studies, summarizing a list of elements that contribute positive elements, and
detractors from creating a successful mentoring experience.
Table 1
Facilitators and Detractors of Mentoring Relationships
Facilitators Detractors
Faculty Mentor and Mentee Training focusing on
the mentoring process and building cultural
awareness
Faculty mentors who are unmotivated
unless paid for their time and effort
Ethnic Homogeneity
Cultural awareness/competence and/or positive
faculty attitudes towards other ethnicities and race
Cultural Incompetence and negative
faculty attitudes towards other ethnicities
and race, and/or the mentoring process
Mentors who care for the well-being of their
mentee
Mentee does not have a positive attitude
towards mentor or is disinterested in
developing a mentoring relationship
Mentor is a role-model Mentee is not a good listener
Mentor has a positive influence on the academic
success of the mentee
Mentee is unable to predict the level of
success in the Nursing Program:
Academically & Socially
A good connection with mentor: first encounter
and other encounters
Mentee denies playing a role in the
success of mentoring relationship
The quality and quantity of interactions between
faculty mentor and mentee
Mentee is not eager to learn
Defining academic & professional goals with
mentee
Mentor and mentee have similar career paths
Mentee has incomplete assignments
Administrative support and approval to provide
time and resources necessary to prepare faculty to
offer student support at all levels with a program
coordinator or director
There is an environment of distrust
between mentor and mentee
Students’ attitudinal adjustment to college and
degree satisfaction is positive experience
Students’ attitudinal adjustment to college
and degree satisfaction is a negative
experience

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 55

Since formal mentoring may produce undesirable outcomes, such as reduced motivation
and engagement (Scandura, 1997; Spencer 2007), Spencer (2007) suggests that faculty mentors
who are not adequately trained or supported in order to promote positive mentoring relationships
with students might derail the students’ success by creating negative pitfalls. Lastly, Wilson et
al. (2010), Lunsford (2011) and Melanson (2008) find that faculty training and workshops are
necessary in order to increase faculty knowledge of the mentoring process and to develop
cultural awareness. Training needs to be offered prior to beginning a mentoring program, since
only a few mentors who volunteer are intrinsically motivated by values other than touchable
rewards and, as a result, are dedicated participants (Lee, 1999).
It is also true that the mentee contributes significantly to the success or failure of a
mentoring relationship and that mentorship is reciprocal (Lunsford, 2011). The mentee brings
certain motivations and attitudes to the interactions with the mentor. Lunsford (2011) affirms
that early research neglected this last point and believes a shift in research is beginning, as
scholars investigate the contributions of mentees and how well the personal attributes, abilities,
and needs of both the mentee and mentor match.
In other words, both parties play equal roles in the success of the mentoring relationship.
Involvement and engagement is the key for the mentor and mentee. It is also important to note
that psychological variables, such as self-efficacy, self-determination and motivation to learn,
influence the effects of involvement on academic success in a mentoring program. Therefore,
including the aforementioned psychological variables, Astin’s SIT (1984) and I-E-O research
model is a useful framework for the formal faculty to student mentoring program, since
mentoring is a reciprocal relationship with a culturally competent faculty member who can role
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 56

model and promote student involvement and engagement by increasing student outcomes and
success.
Appendix A provides a review of some of the empirical research described in this chapter
on retention strategies for at risk nursing students, some mentoring programs, and of how the
majority of the research available does not include a quantitative evaluation tool. Most of the
research collection occurred through qualitative or mixed-methods analysis. There is little
theoretical support found in the empirical research studies; some are grounded in the research
and others did not identify any theoretical support. Only Santos and Reigadas (2005) created
their own instrument to measure the effectiveness of mentoring when comparing homogeneity.
They found an increase among the mentees’ perceptions and an increase in attitudinal adjustment
to college.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 57

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Retention of students from diverse groups (input) continues to be a challenge for many
nursing programs, and mentoring (environment) by seasoned and empathetic faculty can be a
solution to promote student success (output) (Baker, 2010; Igbo et al., 2011; Lunsford, 2011;
Santos & Reigadas, 2005; Wilson et al., 2010) by fostering a positive and supportive learning
environment (Astin, 1980; Kuh, 2001; Bandura, 1997; Vygotsky, 1978). In an effort to retain
more diverse incoming nursing students, a faculty-mentoring program was implemented during
the 2012-2013 academic year at a university in Hawai ʻi. The work of Astin’s (1984) SIT and I-
E-O (1991) research model served as the conceptual frameworks for this study. The importance
of quality faculty fostering mentoring interactions with students has been related to increasing
student involvement, leading to increased educational outcomes (Astin, 1980; Baker, 2004,
2010; Bandura, 1997; Kuh, 2011; Igbo et al., 2011; Lunsford, 2011; Wilson et al., 2010;
Vygotsky, 1978). This chapter reviews both quantitative and qualitative strategies of inquiry,
site selection, participants, instrumentation, data collection and data analysis utilized for this
study in order to answer the research questions. The purpose of this study was to explore the
mentees’ background characteristics (input) and their perceptions (output) of the formal faculty-
to-student mentoring program pilot (environment) by using a sequential explanatory mixed
method design. Four research questions guided this study:
RQ1: What are the participants’ self-reported attribute ratings, while participating in a
formal mentoring program?
RQ2: How do the mentees’ perceive their connection with their faculty mentors as facilitated
through a formal mentoring program?
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 58

RQ3: How do the mentees perceive the quality of their interactions with their faculty
mentors as facilitated through a formal mentoring program?
RQ4: What are the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor as a role model, caring for
their well-being, and having a positive influence on their academic success?
Research Design
This study used mixed methods design involving both quantitative and qualitative data
collection. The use of both data collection methods provided better insight into answering the
research questions (Creswell, 2009). Sequential design provides an opportunity for qualitative
data (focus groups) to provide insight into quantitative data results (pre- and post-surveys)
(Creswell, 2009). Sequencing is important when collecting data; phases of collection include
either qualitative or quantitative data first, and the second phase includes follow-up for the
researcher to expand understanding (Creswell, 2009). This mixed methods study was a
sequential explanatory design. The first phase involved using secondary quantitative data from
pre- and post-surveys that were collected during a pilot study conducted between Fall 2012 until
Fall 2013. After receiving USC IRB approval, the second phase started in Fall 2013 by inviting
focus groups to participate and obtaining qualitative data in order to triangulate the survey results
(Creswell, 2009). Focus groups typically consist of six to 12 people (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, &
Sorensen, 2006). The particular topics of the focus groups were derived from the coded
responses received from the survey results. The focus groups assisted the researcher in further
exploring the quantitative results based upon the participants’ perceptions from their pre-survey
and post-survey responses (Ary et. al., 2006). Further exploration included examining the
quality and frequency of the mentoring relationship and the mentees’ academic success and well-
being. Also explored were the mentees’ perceptions of the mentoring program overall and
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 59

whether they had recommendations for program improvements. Finally, the study explored the
participants’ self-reported attributes after the implementation of a formal mentoring program.
The Site, Sample and Population
The Site
The study was conducted at a single private university in Hawai ʻi. The university’s
curriculum is based on a traditional liberal arts foundation, and its mission is to produce
competent global citizens and prepare graduates for careers in a constantly changing world. This
study supports the university’s mission by increasing diversity in the nursing workforce through
graduating sufficient diverse nurses from the BSN program to meet the needs of the changing
diverse patient population. In November 2011, the nursing program underwent an accreditation
process through the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). The university is
known for having a diverse nursing student population, with student demographics composed of
66.1% Asian, 6.4% Caucasian, 11% Hawaiian or part Hawaiian, 7.9% Pacific Islander and 8.6%
other ethnicities (University’s Self-Study Report, 2011). The Dean of nursing oversees the
nursing program and the associate Dean is in charge of fiscal affairs. There are three department
chairs and three Directors. The Director of Student Retention and Progression monitors’ student
progression and retention. The Director of Clinical Facilities oversees the clinical placement for
the students, and the Director of Clinical Laboratories manages the simulation laboratories.
There are two full-time and one part-time administrative assistant in the nursing office and a
part-time lab assistant. There is one part-time student worker who reports to the Dean’s assistant.
Also, there are three nursing advisors and one scheduler/technical analyst.
The nursing program employs 40 full-time faculty members and 40 adjunct faculty
members. Each faculty member holds a minimum of a master’s degree. Thirty-one percent of
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 60

the full-time faculty members have doctorates, and 31% are in doctoral programs. The majority
(58%) are Caucasian, 4% are African-American, 1% are Hispanic/Latino, 1% are
American/Indian, 23% are Asian, 4% are Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and 9% reported being of
two or more races. The nursing enrollment is twice a year, and, on average, between 100 and
110 students are accepted into the program biannually.
The Sample and Population
A total of 196 nursing students accepted into the program were invited to participate
during level one nursing orientation between Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. The convenience
sample consisted of nursing students who volunteered to participate. The Institutional Review
Board (IRB) approved the pilot study in August 2012, prior to beginning the formal faculty
mentoring program pilot (Appendix B). Informed consent was obtained from the participants
and collected during level one orientation in a private classroom setting, with a total of 149
students consenting to participate (Appendix C). Each incoming level one nursing student was
assigned a faculty mentor, regardless of whether they consented to participate in the study or not.
Delimitations refer to the generalizability of the study and issues of external validity. This
sample is not generalizable to nursing programs with dissimilar populations, since the population
is unique to Hawai ʻi, small in size, and is a volunteer and purposive sample. The total number of
completed pre-program surveys is 108; the post-program surveys were 67. From that sample,
focus groups were created by inviting the participants to volunteer to participate in Fall 2013.
Phase two’s interview process was completed after receiving USC IRB approval.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 61

Mentor and Mentee Workshops
A solution to address the lack of training by faculty to effectively mentor nursing students
was to offer professional development and training for faculty. The faculty development was
offered prior to connecting the mentors and mentees. The university’s psychologist also spoke to
the mentors on identifying signs of anxiety and distress among the nursing students. They were
counseled that mentorship building relies on a relationship of trust, confidence and honesty
between the parties involved. Mentors were encouraged to give positive and negative feedback
and to talk about setting professional and personal goals with their mentee. Finally, self-
reflection and making a serious commitment to the mentoring process are important for the
mentor to have a personal mentoring style that is genuine and consistent (Melanson, 2008).
Mentees were encouraged to participate in the mentoring process and to build a
partnership. The mentors were informed of the importance of building trust and of reaching out
to connect with their mentee at the beginning of the semester, near midterm and near finals to
offer support. More frequent encounters were encouraged either formally or informally as
needed. The mentee was encouraged to value the opinions of the mentor and follow the advice
given. Mentees were advised to be prepared to communicate their needs clearly to the mentor
and to seek guidance on both problems and possible solutions (Melanson, 2008). A power-point
presentation and a copy of the power point were provided to the faculty mentors prior to the
“Meet and Greet” session. The mentees were provided a workshop explaining the above
information and a copy of the power point presentation after the “Meet and Greet” session
(Appendices F and G).

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 62

Instrumentation
The framework for this study supporting mentoring relationships is grounded on the work
of Astin (1984) SIT and I-E-O (1991) research model. This study is a sequential explanatory
design using a mixed methods approach that allows the researcher to elaborate on the
quantitative retrospective data results collected in the first phase, supported by the cross-
sectional results from the secondary qualitative data collection (Creswell, 2009). The pre- and
post-web surveys used a four-point Likert scale instrument. Some of the survey questions for
this study were modified from Santos and Reigadas (2005). This researcher created additional
survey questions, since a valid mentoring evaluation tool has not been published.
Phase One: The Surveys
In the first phase of this study, the quantitative data was collected by inviting the level
one nursing students who consented to participate to complete an online (Appendix D) survey,
through Survey Monkey, two weeks post implementation of the formal faculty-mentoring pilot
program. Three e-mails reminding the participants to respond to the pre-survey were sent
weekly after the initial invitation. The pre-survey examined the participants’ demographics
information, input variables (age, gender, number of courses taken during their first semester in
the nursing program, socioeconomics, etc.), their perceptions (outputs) of their mentors
(environment) as role models who care for their well-being, and the quality of their interactions.
The participants received a hard copy of a mentoring log (Appendix H), and a Word document
copy was emailed to monitor the frequency and types of interactions between the mentor and the
mentee. The participants were reminded to complete the mentoring logs and to email the
completed logs to the primary investigator during two intervals, at mid-term and at the end of the
semester. A post-survey was emailed to the participants seven months post-implementation (Fall
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 63

cohort 2012) and emailed in September 2013 to the Spring Cohort 2013 (Appendix I). Due to
low response rate in completing the post-surveys for the Fall Cohort 2012, a paper and pencil
survey was provided to the participants during a common core classroom time in the beginning
of April 2012.
The Surveys and the Variables Measures
This section presents the conceptual framework and the survey items being measured to
answer the research questions for this study. The first research question was, “What are the
participants’ self-reported attributes ratings while participating in a formal mentoring program?”
The students’ self-reported attribute ratings are the variable being measured in this question.
Santos and Reigadas (2005), measured student attitudes and found and increase in results when
students were mentored and that ethnic homogeneity indirectly affected the results. The attitude
variables measured were anxiety to succeed, self-efficacy, academic goal definition, and career
expectations as dependent variables. A three-item scale measuring the students’ level of concern
about performing well in college and meeting their academic obligations was used. The College
goal definition is a one-item scale that measured how well defined students’ academic goals were
on a four-point Likert scale (“Not defined at all” to “Very well defined”). This survey questions
for this research were modified from Santos and Reigadas (2005) study, the reliability of the
survey questions were measured by analyzing in SPSS by using the Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient to internal consistency with a score above 0.7 (Pallant, 2010).
Research question two asked, “How do the mentees’ perceive their connection with their
faculty mentors as facilitated through a formal faculty mentoring program?” The variable is the
mentees’ perception of connection with their faculty mentor. The frequency of the mentoring
encounters and the mentoring relationship are important to student learning and satisfaction.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 64

Santos and Reigadas (2005) found that ethnic homogeneity indirectly had an effect on the
perceived mentor support via the quantity and quality of the student-mentor encounters. This
researcher created a survey question to evaluate the connection between the mentee and the
mentor, asking, “How well did you connect with your mentor during your first encounter”, and
for the post-survey, “other encounters” was added to the survey. The Likert scale answers were
“did not connect at all, slight connection, moderate connection and very good connection”. The
triangulation with the survey interview results further explain the quantitative results found from
the pre- and post-test surveys.
Research question three asked, “How do the mentees perceive the quality of their
interactions with their faculty mentors as facilitated through the formal mentoring program?”
Student perceptions as having positive interactions with nursing faculty affected student degree
completion in nursing programs (Higgins, 2004; Jeffreys, 2002; Lockie & Burke, 1999; Nugent,
Childs, Jones & Cook, 2004; Poorman, Webb, & Mastorovich, 2002; Shelton, 2003). This
researcher created a question asking about “the quality of your interactions” and answers on a
four-point Likert scale were “poor, fair, good and excellent.” This includes interactions with
faculty, students, advisors, mentors, nursing staff and administration.
Research question four was, “What are the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor
as a role model, caring for their well-being, and having a positive influence on their academic
success?” The variables were the students’ descriptions of their faculty mentors as role models,
whether they care for their well-being and whether they provided a positive influence on their
academic success. These common themes and characteristics among positive mentors as seen in
Wilson et al.’s study (2010) were included in the survey. Table 2 identifies the variables
measured in this study from the surveys through the application of Astin’s I-E-O research model.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 65

The mentoring program (environment) and the student inputs are the background characteristics
and outputs are the student perceptions of the mentoring program
Table 2
Variables Measured by Survey Questions, with the Application of Astin’s I-E-O Research Model
Student Input
Student Environment
MENTORING
Student Output
BACKGROUND PERCEPTIONS= RQ-2, 3, 4
SELF-REPORTED
ATTRIBUTES –RQ-1
Gender/Age/Sexual
Orientation/S/M/D
Quality of Interactions with students,
faculty, faculty mentor, academic
advisors, student services staff (career
services, student activities, housing),
other administrative staff and offices
Level of Anxiety in
performing well and in
meeting academic
obligations
Hours Per Week Caring for
Dependents
Present Occupation
First Generation Student Mentor as caring for your well-being
Level of Satisfaction
university experience
Socio-Economics Mentor as role-model
Defining Academic &
Professional Goals
Number of People Living in
Household
Mentor as positive influence on your
academic success
Predicting Level of Success
in the Nursing Program:
Academically & Socially
Culture/Languages Spoken
Connection with mentor: First encounter
and other encounters
As mentee, do you play a
role in success of mentoring
relationship
Military Spouse/Self
Deployment

Describe yourself as eager
to learn
Past Educational Experience Having a positive attitude
Mother’s Education
Do you share ideas with
others
Full Time/Part Time Status A good listener
Hours Spent Working
Completing assignments on
time
Scholarships/Stipends
Do you seek help when
needed from: family,
friends, classmates, mentor,
instructor and nursing
advisors
Hours Spent Studying

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 66

Phase Two: The Focus Group Interviews
In order to explain the survey results, two focus groups were interviewed for one hour
during Fall 2013 for both cohorts (Fall 2012 and Spring 2013). The participants were invited to
participate by e-mail and through flyers posted in the nursing campus elevators and on the
nursing bulletin board with a chance of winning a $25.00 I-Tunes Card. The volunteer
participants (n=11) were interviewed and audio recorded after obtaining permission through
completion of an informed consent form. The interview questions (Appendix E) were further
explored to answer the research questions. Prior to performing the interviews with the focus
groups, the questionnaire was reviewed by colleagues who are experts in qualitative research
design to provide a peer review. Asking a panel of experts to review the qualitative instrument
gave the instrument validity (Creswell, 2009). Participants’ anonymity was maintained by not
collecting sensitive information such as names, student identification numbers, or social security
numbers, during the interview. Participants were given pseudonyms of their choice to maintain
confidentiality and anonymity. Table 3 presents the relationship between survey items and
interview items, the use of the mentoring logs indicating the frequency and type of mentoring
interaction that occurred, and how all three answer the four research questions for this study.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 67

Table 3
Relationship between Survey Items and Interview Items
RQ3: How do the mentees
perceive the quality of their
interactions with their faculty
mentors, as facilitated through
the formal mentoring
program?

Mentees’
perceptions on the
quality of their
interactions with
faculty mentor
Wilson et al. 2010;
Santos & Reigadas,
2005
Survey Questions: Mentees’ perceptions of
quality interactions with their faculty mentor:
Question 36
Interview Questions: Mentees’ perceptions of
quality interactions with their faculty mentor:
Questions: 1-3
Mentoring Logs: Will be reviewed and
analyzed for the frequencies and type of
interactions that occurred between the mentee
and mentor
RQ 4: What are the mentees’
perceptions of their faculty
mentor as a role model, caring
for their well-being, and
having a positive influence on
their academic success?

Students’
description of their
faculty mentor as a
role model, cares
for their well-being
and a positive
influence on their
academic success
Wilson et al. 2010 &
Santos & Reigadas,
2005
Survey Questions:
Mentees’ perception of the faculty mentor as a
role model, cares for their well-being and a
positive influence on their academic success:
Question 42
Interview Questions:
Mentees’ perception of the faculty mentor as a
role model, cares for their well-being and
having a positive influence on their academic
success: Question 1-3

Research Questions (RQ) Variables Survey/Interview Items & Mentoring Log
RQ1: What are the
participants’ self-reported
attribute ratings, while
participating in a formal
mentoring program?
Students’
Perceptions Self-
Reported
Attributes:
Jeffreys (2002) Baker
(2010), Santos &
Reigadas (2005)

Survey Questions: Mentees’ perceptions of
self-reported attributes:
Questions: 38, 39, 40, 43, 44
Interview Questions: Mentees’ perceptions
of self-reported attributes:
Questions: 1-6
RQ2: How do the mentees’
perceive their connection
with their faculty mentors?

Mentees’ connection
with their faculty
mentor
Santos & Reigadas
(2005)

Survey Questions: Mentees’ connection with
faculty mentor: Questions: 41& 45
Interview Questions: Mentees’ connection
with faculty mentor: Questions 1-3
Mentoring Logs: Will be reviewed and
analyzed for the frequencies and type of
interactions that occurred between the mentee
and mentor
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 68

Data Collection
Meet and Greet
A copy of the mentees’ names and contact information was given to the mentors. The
incoming nursing students were informed that they would be meeting their mentors. The ratio
between mentors to mentee was 1:2 or 1:3 for each cohort. A “Meet and Greet” session, with
drinks and snacks provided, allowed the mentors and mentees to exchange contact information
and to determine goals and objectives during this preliminary mentoring relationship. The
mentors and mentees who did not meet during this session, due to absenteeism from either party,
were invited to join other groups to feel included. Both mentors and mentees were encouraged
to meet as soon as possible and to develop a connection. An informed consent was explained
and collected from the sample during level one orientation in a private classroom. Each
incoming level one nursing student was assigned a faculty mentor, regardless of whether they
consented to participate in the study or not.
Pre- and Post-Surveys
Two weeks post implementation of the mentoring program, the participants were invited
to complete an online pre-survey through Survey Monkey. The participants received a hard copy
of a mentoring log, and a Word document was forwarded through their email to monitor the
frequency of their interactions with their mentors. The group was reminded to complete their
mentoring logs and email completed forms to the researcher at two intervals: mid-term and the
end of the semester. A post-survey was emailed to the sample seven months post
implementation of the mentoring program. Due to low response rate from the post-survey, paper
and pencil surveys were collected from the participants during class time.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 69

Formal Faculty Student Mentoring Pilot-Spring 2013 Cohort
The same procedure was followed for the Spring 2013 Cohort, with minor changes.
Faculty recommended that mentees receive a workshop explaining their role in the relationship.
Mentees received a workshop by the same educator from the institution’s faculty development
program. Power point handouts were provided for the mentors and mentees. Post-surveys were
collected seven months post implementation (September 2013).
Focus Groups
Solicitation for interview participants included e-mail invitations, a flyer in the campus
elevator, and classroom visitations to extend the invitation to participate in focus groups. An
informed consent was obtained, protecting the participant’s rights, confidentiality and any risks
of participating in the study prior to beginning the interview process (Appendix L). Questions
related to the informed consent were answered prior to beginning the session.
In September 2013, focus group interviews were performed in a private room on campus
and audio taped. Investigator introductions were performed prior to beginning the interview.
The interview consisted of 14 open-ended questions. The entire process did not exceed an hour,
and light refreshments were provided in order to encourage mentee participation. Audio taped
responses were transcribed to capture the observations made by the researcher during the
interview and emic impressions were remembered and documented. All data collected for this
study was kept in a locked cabinet in a secured office, including informed consents. Participant
identifiers were not collected, translated or transcribed in the written results for this research;
confidentiality and safety of sensitive information was maintained throughout this research.
Data Analysis
Demographic information was collected from the survey instrument to better understand
any confounding variables that may have contributed to the mentoring relationship and to
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 70

describe the participants in this study and was analyzed by using descriptive statistical tests
(Creswell, 2009). The data from the mentoring logs, describing the frequency and types of
interactions that occurred between the mentees and the mentors, were analyzed through
descriptive statistics. The qualitative survey instrument allowed the participants to elaborate on
aggregated responses from the survey data collected. The following section describes the
quantitative data analysis and testing that implemented to answer the research questions.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Analytical techniques were performed, involving quantitative methods such as
descriptive statistics, to analyze demographic characteristics of the mentees (Pallant, 2010). The
survey’s quantitative and qualitative data from the student mentees’ perceptions were organized
and analyzed for each research question. The IBM SPSS version 21, data analysis tool was
utilized to explore the impact of the mentoring program pilot from the pre- and post-survey
results. The research questions were answered through data collected from the pre-survey and
post-surveys for Fall 2012 cohort and Spring 2013 cohort.
For each cohort, the first analysis included using independent samples t-test in order to
compare the mean scores of the mentees’ perceptions of self-attributes occurring at two different
times. Pre-survey data collection took place at the beginning of the mentoring program and the
second occurred post-survey, seven months post implementation of the mentoring program.
Second, the One-way ANOVA compared the mean scores between the two cohorts to find
significance between them (Pallant, 2010). The survey questions for this research were
modified from Santos and Reigadas (2005) study, and the reliability of the survey questions was
measured by analyzing in SPSS by using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for internal consistency
for the survey items measuring the variables for RQ 1 and RQ 4 (Pallant, 2010). Table four
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 71

identifies the research question and the statistical test utilized to answer the research questions.
Table 4
Research Question and Statistical Tests
Research Questions Variables Statistical Tests
RQ1. What are the
participants’ self-reported
attribute ratings, while
participating in a formal
mentoring program?

Mentees ’ Perceptions of
Attributes

Descriptive statistics;
Independent Samples t-test
One-way ANOVA compare the
mean scores between pre-and
post-surveys; Cronbach’s alpha
to measure Attribute for
internal consistency and Factor
Analysis to group variables
RQ2. Formal Mentoring
Program and Connection with
Faculty Mentors
Connections with Faculty
Mentors

Descriptive statistics;
Independent Samples t-test
One-way ANOVA compare the
mean scores between pre- and
post-surveys
RQ3. Mentees Perception
Quality of Interactions with
Faculty Mentors
Quality interactions with
Faculty Mentors

Descriptive statistics,
Independent Samples t-test
One-way ANOVA compare the
mean scores between pre- and
post-surveys
RQ4. Mentees’ Perception of
Faculty Mentor as Role
model, Cares for their Well-
Being, Positive Influence
Academic Success
Perceptions Mentors
Role Model, Cares for
Well-Being, Positive
Influence Academic
Success
Descriptive statistics,
Independent Samples t-test
One-way ANOVA compare the
mean scores between pre- and
post-surveys

Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data was analyzed by using constant comparative methods with thematic
presentation of findings. The interview process through focus groups explored high interacting
student versus low interacting students, high satisfaction versus low satisfaction with the
program, and male nursing students versus female students. The analysis of the interview
responses utilized Creswell’s (2009) six-step approach. The first step is to organize the data for
analysis by transcribing interview data from the field notes (Creswell, 2009). The second step is
to read through all the data, look for themes, and document notes of certain tones or ideas that
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 72

are common. The third step involves a coding process involving separating data into certain
categories or themes. Categories or grouping can be defined by expected findings, surprising
and unexpected results, unusual themes and codes that are applicable to theoretical frameworks.
Step four is the coding process that defines the setting or people as well as themes that need to be
analyzed. The last step involves the presentation and interpretation of the data. The final step for
this study compared literature or theories in this domain and raised new questions based on the
findings (Creswell, 2009).
Limitations and Delimitations
Very few mixed method empirical research studies supporting the implementation of a
formal faculty-mentoring program are published; there is a gap in available valid and reliable
tools to evaluate mentoring relationship between the undergraduate faculty and student. The
majority of mentoring studies are qualitative or mixed-method studies, mostly at the graduate
level. Some of the survey questions were modified from a single study that created their own
mentoring tool (Santos & Reigadas, 2005). This study serves as an initial data collection and
evaluation tool for student perceptions of a formal faculty-mentoring undergraduate program.
Therefore, the reliability of the instrument used in this study is unsupported by other empirical
research findings. To claim validity to this study, the triangulation among the data collected
from the pre- and post-surveys and the data collected during focus group interviews was
carefully analyzed (Creswell, 2009). Another study limitation is related to the small sample size,
which is unsupportive of external validity and generalizability, since the participants are nursing
students from a single institution found in the Pacific Rim region. There was high attrition from
the mentees between the pre- and post-surveys due to the seven-month timeframe between the
two surveys. The survey attrition can cause a response bias in that, had the non-respondents had
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 73

responded to the survey, the overall results of this study might be different (Creswell, 2009).
Other variables that may have influenced the lack of participation between the mentees and
mentors include lack of motivation, being too busy to meet with each other, or never having had
a connection at all. The focus group interview process explored this area of concern further by
elaborating on the connection between the mentee and the mentor.
Researcher bias has been taken into consideration and discussed with the dean of the
nursing college and the dissertation chair. As the primary investigator for this study, extra
precautions were taken by encouraging the participants to feel comfortable participating on a
volunteer basis, permitting withdrawal from the study at any time without any repercussion from
the investigator or from any faculty member in the nursing program. No grades were awarded to
the participants by the investigator, who is also a faculty member. This researcher took extra
precautions not to expose past personal experiences or personal biases by monitoring non-verbal
language during the interview process and maintaining neutral tone when respondents answered
the interview questions (Patton, 2002).
This study was conducted at a single institution on Oahu, with a small sample of nursing
students. Therefore, generalizations to other populations and programs are limited. The mentees
were unaware of continuing with the mentoring relationship after their first semester in the
nursing program. This lack of knowledge may have contributed to the mentoring connection and
the quality of connection results. There were several administration changes within the college
and institution during the time of this research, possibly affecting the morale of the faculty and
motivation to participate in the mentoring program.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 74

Ethical Considerations
Institutional Review Board permission was obtained from the site where the study was
conducted in order to collect retrospective survey results. Once approval was granted by the
dissertation committee, approval from the University of Southern California’s Institutional
Review Board was obtained in order to complete the second phase of this research. All
participants signed an informed consent form in order to participate in this study. All
confidential forms were kept in a locked cabinet in a locked office. The participants selected a
pseudonym name to maintain confidentiality and anonymity.
Summary
This chapter describes the mixed method research design conducted in this study,
including sample and population, instruments, data collection, and data analysis. This study is an
explanatory sequential design, with quantitative data collection occurring in the first phase,
considered to be secondary analysis, followed by focus group interviews (Creswell, 2009).
Incoming nursing students from a single private university were sampled. The study consisted of
surveys to measure the students’ perceptions of their faculty mentors pre- and post-program, the
quality of the mentoring interactions, self-reported attributes and demographic data. The
analysis of the data was achieved by using SPSS 21. The qualitative data further explains the
students’ perceptions post implementation of the mentoring program, of the mentor relationship
and of their self-attributes retrieved from quantitative and qualitative data results. The qualitative
data was analyzed by using constant comparative analysis. Chapter Four presents the findings
that resulted from this mixed-method study design.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 75

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This chapter analyzes the secondary data collected from pre- and post-surveys and the
interviews from the focus groups to answer the research questions guiding this study.
Descriptive data is discussed first, as these describe the characteristics of the mentees
participating in this study. Second are an explanation of the data analyses collected and a
discussion of the findings. Last, the overall relevance of the findings in relation to the research
questions posited in this study is described.
Description of Data
This mixed method study utilized quantitative analysis from pre- and post-surveys that
were collected during two time frames, in Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. The second step of this
sequential explanatory design was collecting and analyzing qualitative data from two focus
groups. The survey consisted of 45 questions related to demographics, study habits, time spent
studying, caring for dependents, working outside of school, self-reported attributes, quality of
mentoring relationship and their role in the mentoring relationship. The interview questions
further explored the results from the survey data and assisted in triangulating the results.
A total of 196 nursing students accepted into the program were invited to participate
during level one nursing orientation between Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. Informed consent was
obtained from the participants and collected during level one orientation in a private classroom
setting, with a total of 149 students consenting to participate. The convenience sample of 149
nursing students who volunteered to participate from both cohorts yielded a 73% (n=108)
response rate for pre-surveys, followed by a 62% (n=67) response rate for the post-surveys. The
Fall 2012 cohort completed 60 pre-surveys, and 48 were collected from Spring 2013 cohort. The
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 76

post-survey response for Fall 2012 was 41, with a 31% attrition rate; only 26 responded in
Spring 2013, with a 46% attrition rate.
Pre-Survey Sample
Table 5 represents the demographic characteristics from all (n=108) pre-survey
respondents collected in Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. The modes for age were 21 (mode=19), and
22 (mode=15), representing 52.8% of the population. The most common gender is female at 88%
(n=95).
Table 5
Pre-Survey Demographic (n = 108)
Variable Category n %
Age
20 to 25 57 52.8
26 to 31 21 19.4
31 to 46 30 27.8
Gender
Female 95 88.0
Male 13 12.0
Note. Age: M = 27. 28, SD = 6.18.
The majority of the respondents (40%) were Filipino (Table 2), followed by Caucasian
(19%), Asian mixed race (14%) and Native Hawaiian or part Hawaiian (14%). Most respondents
have never been married at 73.1% (n=79).

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 77

Table 6
Pre-Survey Marital Status and Race (n =108)
Variable Category n %
Marital Status
Married 28 25.9
Divorced 1 .9
Never Been Married 79 73.1
Race
Filipino 43 39.8
Caucasian 20 18.5
Asian Mixed 15 13.9
Part/Full Hawaiian 15 13.9
Hispanic 6 5.6
Japanese 5 4.6
Asian Indian 1 .9
Korean 1 .9
Samoan 2 1.9
Note. Majority Filipino (40%), less than 14% are Part/ Full Hawaiian (13.9%).
In order to better understand the participants and identify demographic characteristics,
inquiry as to the combined household earnings from all members was asked. Table 3 identifies
the most common results of combined household earnings at $20,000 to $34,000 (18.5%), and
less than $20,000 at 17.6%. The third most common income was tied at 15.7% between $35,000
to $49,999 and $75,000 to $99,999. More than half (53.7%) of the survey respondents received
a stipend, scholarship or work-study position, which contributed to their income.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 78

Table 7
Combined Income All Household Members (n = 108)
Variable Category n %
Combined Income
Less than $20,000 19 17.6
$24,000 to $34,999 20 18.5
$35,000 to $49,999 17 15.7
$50,000 to $74,999 14 13.0
$75,000 to $99,999 17 15.7
$100,000 to $149,999 12 11.1
$150,000 or More 9 8.3
For the variable Military Service Student Profile and Housing, according to the pre-
survey results, 86.1% (n=93) of the respondents are not serving in the military, and 13.9%
(n=15) did serve in a military branch. Twenty-five percent (n=27) of the respondents identified
someone in their household as currently serving in the U.S military, 7.4% (n=8) are currently
serving in the U.S. military. Thirteen percent live in military housing accommodations. The
majority of the respondents live in single-family housing (57.4%). A single student is living on
campus in the dorms. The others live in apartments (14.8%), condominiums (5.6%), townhouses
(4.6%), or in duplex housing (2.8%) Table 8 presents these results.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 79

Table 8
Type of Housing (n = 108)
Variable Category n %
Type of Housing
Apartment 16 14.8
Condominium 6 5.6
Townhouse 5 4.6
Duplex 3 2.8
Military housing 14 13.0
Mobile home 1 .9
Single-family housing 62 57.4
Campus Dormitory 1 .9
Note. Single-family housing at 57.4% is the common type of housing for this sample.
Several generations living together is a common practice in Hawai‘i (Table 9). Almost
half (43%) have lived in Hawai‘i for more than 20 years, 38% have resided in Hawai‘i for less
than 6 years. Twenty-seven percent reside with one or more senior (65 or older). The majority
(68%) are not responsible for the care of minor children under the age of 17. However, 62.9%
share their household with 4 to 14 other people.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 80

Table 9
Total Number of People Living Together in Household (n =108)
Variable Category n %
Number Living Together
1 7 6.5
2 16 14.8
3 17 15.7
4 28 25.9
5 17 15.7
6 10 9.3
7 4 3.7
8 4 3.7
9 1 .9
11 1 .9
12 2 1.9
14 1 .9
Note. Common number of people living together is 4, 62.9% share with 4-14 other people.
Time management can be an issue for the mentees, since most of them (81.5%) are
enrolled full time in the nursing program. Table 10 reflects more than half (52%) of the mentees
spend at least 20 hours per week preparing for class by studying, reading, doing homework
and/or analyzing data. Almost 19.4% spend more than 30 hours per week preparing for class.
Table 10
Hours per Week Preparing for Class (n =108)
Variable Category n %
Hours Per Week Preparing For Class
1 to 5 7 6.5
6 to 10 9 8.3
11 to 15 16 14.8
16 to 20 23 21.3
21 to 25 20 18.5
26 to 30 12 11.1
More than 30 21 19.4
Note. 52% mentees spend < 20 hrs/week preparing for class, 19.4% spend > 30 hours per week.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 81

As seen in Table 11, a third of the sample (33.3%) is not interested in finding work.
Eight mentees (7.4%) are working full time between 31 and40 hours/week. The majority
(23.1%) of the mentees work four to twelve hours per week, followed by 16.7% who work 13 to
20 hours per week, and 13.9% work 21to 30 hours per week.
Table 11
Employment Status (n =108)
Variable Category n %
Employed, Work Hours Per Week
4 to 12 25 23.1
13 to 20 18 16.7
21 to 30 15 13.9
31 to 40 8 7.4
Not Employed, Looking for Work 5 4.6
Not Employed, Not Looking for Work 36 33.3
Retired 1 .9
Note. 33.3% are not employed, 7.4% work fulltime (31-40 hrs/week), 43.7% work between 4-30 hrs/week.
Regarding first generation students and education experience, more than half of the
mentees surveyed (52%) reported being the first in their family to attend college. Almost a third
(27.8%) of the mentees selected high school degree or equivalent (GED) as the highest level of
education or highest degree they received upon entering into the nursing program. Others
identified some college but no degree (29.6%), some received an associate’s degree (25.0%) or a
bachelor’s degree (17.6%). As seen in Table 12, 72.2% of the respondents have experienced
higher education.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 82

Table 12
Highest Level of Education (n =108)
Variable Category n %
Highest Degree
High School or GED 30 27.8
Some College, No degree 32 29.6
Associate Degree 27 25.0
Bachelor Degree 19 17.6
While more than half (52%) were identified as first-generation students, approximately
32.4% of their mothers completed a high school degree or the equivalent, 10.2% completed less
than a high school degree, and 17.6% did complete some college but did not earn a degree. In
Table 13, 40% of the mentees’ mothers attained a degree in higher education, 14.8% with an
associate degree, 22% have a bachelor degree, or 2.8% have a graduate degree.
Table 13
Mother’s Highest Level of Education (n =108)
Variable Category n %
Mother’s Highest Degree
Less < High School 11 10.2
High School or GED 35 32.4
Some College, No degree 19 17.6
Associate Degree 16 14.8
Bachelor Degree 24 22.2
Graduate Degree 3 2.8

The pre-survey mentee profile is predominantly (88%) female; 82% are full time nursing
students, living in Hawai‘i for more than 20 years (47.2%). The majority (86%) of the sample
have not served in the U.S. Military. The average respondent age is 27 years old, not married
(78%), and is of Filipino decent (40%). The most common living accommodations are in single-
family housing (57.4%), living with 4 to 14 people (63%), with no dependents under the age of
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 83

17 (63%) or people above the age of 65 (75%). A third of the respondents (33%) are not
interested in working or finding work. Of the respondents 40% work at least 20 hours per week,
and 55% spend on average between 11 to 25 hours per week preparing for class, and 54%
received a stipend, scholarship or work study position. More than half (52%) are identified as
first generation students, and 72.2% did attend college before entering into the nursing program.
Approximately 32.4% of their mothers finished high school or the equivalent, 18% attained some
college but no degree, and 40% completed a degree in higher education with an associate’s
degree (14.8%), a bachelor’s degree (22.2%), or graduate degree (2.8%).
Post-Survey Sample
Table 14 represents all (n = 67) demographic data from the post-surveys collected in
Spring and Fall of 2013. The average age was 26 years; the most common age was 21 (mode =
16) and 22 (mode = 14) and was negatively skewed. The majority of the respondents were
female at 91% (n = 95), with only 9% (n = 6) males participating in post-survey, a decrease by
3% (12% pre-survey male participants). The majority (73%) not married and are of Filipino
decent (42%). A concern was only five out of the fifteen Native Hawaiians/Part Hawaiian
mentees from the pre-survey sample were retained (33%), with a 67% attrition rate.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 84

Table 14
Post-Survey Demographic (n = 67)
Variable Category n %
Age 20 to 25 40 59.7
26 to 31 11 16.4
31 to 46 16 23.9
Gender Female 61 91.0
Male 6 9.0
Marital Status Married 17 25.4
Separated 1 1.5
Never Been Married 49 73.1
Race Filipino 28 41.8
Caucasian 13 19.4
Asian Mixed 10 14.9
Japanese 8 11.9
Part/Full Hawaiian 5 7.4
Hispanic 2 2.9
Samoan 1 1.5
Cross Tabulation and Chi-Square Test for the Sample
To ascertain whether the sample remained consistent over time, a Chi-square test for
independence was implemented in SPSS 21 to compare the demographic data between the pre-
and post-survey samples. The Chi-square ( 
2
) test explores the relationship between the
demographic variables by comparing the observed frequencies or proportions of cases that
occurred in each category (Pallant, 2010). Table 15 shows the cross tabulation, comparing
gender between two points in time. The column proportions do not differ significantly from each
other, at the level of .05.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 85

Table 15
Cross Tabulation Gender and Time (n =175)
Variable Time Total
Gender Pre-Survey Post-Survey
Male Count 13
a
6
a
19
% Within Male 68.5 31.6 100
% Within Time 12.0 9.0 10.9
% Within Total 7.4 3.4 10.9

Female Count 95
a
61
a
156
% Within Female 60.9 39.1 100
% Within Time 88 91 89.1
% Within Total 54.3 34.9 89.1

Total Count 108
a
67
a
175
% Within Female and Male 61.7 38.3 100
% Within Time 100 100 100
% Within Total 61.7 38.3 100
Note. Gender Count
a
= Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Time categories whose column proportions do not
differ significantly from each other at the .05 level.

The Chi-square tests were conducted to examine whether the mentees from the pre-
survey groups (n=108) were different from the remaining sample who continued to participate
(post-survey groups, n= 67). Results from Chi-square tests (Table 16) revealed no significant
difference between the groups (p >.05) (Pallant, 2010).

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 86

Table 16
Chi-Square Test-Gender and Time (n =175)
Statistical Test Value df Sig. (2 Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .406
a
1 .524
Continuity Correction
b
.150 1 .699
Likelihood Ration .415 1 .519
Linear-by-Linear Association .403 1 .525
Number of Valid Cases 175
Note. a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected value count is 7.27 b. Computed only
for a 2x2 table
All cross tabulations and Chi-square tests were repeated for all demographic
characteristic measures and the results did not show significance over time between the pre- and
post-sample groups at the .05 significance level, indicating insignificant differences between
sample groups over time.
Demographic Data for Focus Groups
Table 17 represents the combined demographic information from focus groups during
Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. There were 11 total participants: the first focus group (Fall 2012)
had six mentees and the Spring 2013 cohort had five mentees. The demographics closely
matched the percentages found in both pre- and post-survey samples. The majority are female,
82% (n=9), and 18% (n=2) are male, which presents a higher percentage than do the pre- (12%)
and post-survey (9%) samples. The ages represent the survey sample in that the majority
(54.5%) are between the ages of 20 and 25 (M= 27.5). There was a higher Caucasian
representation at 27.2% for the focus groups in comparison to the survey samples (pre=18.5%;
post=19.4%), with adequate Filipino (9.1%) and Asian Mixed/Part Filipino (27.2%) combined
(36.3%), and Native Hawaiian/Part Hawaiian (18.2%) representation. Seven out of 11 mentees
(63%) had the same gender as their mentors; only one (9.1%) matched in ethnicity. The mentees
and mentors were randomly selected without intentional gender or ethnicity match.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 87

Table 17
Focus Group Demographic (n = 11)
Variable Category n %
Age 20 to 25 6 54.5
26 to 30 2 18.2
31 to 46 3 27.3
Gender Female 9 81.8
Male 2 18.2
Race Caucasian 3 27.3
Asian Mixed/Part Filipino 3 27.3
Filipino 1 9.1
Part/Full Hawaiian 2 18.2
Other Asian 1 9.1
Hispanic 1 9.1
Quantitative Results for Research Question One
Research Question One asked, “What are the participants’ self-reported attribute ratings
while participating in a formal mentoring program?” The aim was to identify the mentees’ self-
reported attribute ratings at the beginning of the formal mentoring program and the evolution of
the ratings over time at seven months post-implementation of the mentoring program. The
survey questions were modified from the Santos and Reigadas’ (2005) study evaluating the
influence of faculty mentoring relationships on students’ attitudinal adjustment to college and
students’ academic performance and satisfaction with faculty mentoring program. The students’
attitudinal adjustment (Santos & Reigadas, 2005) was revised for this study and renamed as Self-
Reported Attribute Ratings, examining four variables. The four variables are college anxiety,
college self-efficacy, college goal definition and self-assessment as a mentee.
There were three factors examining the students’ level of college anxiety in performing
well and meeting academic obligations. A four-point Likert scale to measure anxiety was
implemented. The options ranged from “not anxious” (1) to “very anxious” (4). Santos and
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 88

Reigadas (2005) presented a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .70, indicating internal consistency
of the survey items measuring anxiety within the scale (Pallant, 2010). The Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient score measuring anxiety for this study was .89, suggesting very good internal
reliability for the scale with this sample, since any score above .7 is acceptable, and values above
.8 are preferable (Pallant, 2010).
Regarding college self-efficacy, three factors examined the students’ perceptions of their
likelihood of succeeding academically in the nursing program and in developing social ties. A
four-point Likert scale measured the responses, which ranged from “not very successfully” (1) to
“very successful” (4). Santos and Reigadas (2005) had an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha value =
.71. The value obtained from this study with an acceptable alpha value = .70.
College goal definition according to Santos and Reigadas (2005) had one item scale
measuring the students’ academic goals, with a four-point Likert scale utilizing options ranging
from not defined at all (1) to very well defined (4). For this study, another item measuring the
students’ professional goals had a Cronbach’s alpha value of .84, indicating good internal
reliability for measuring college goal definition (Pallant, 2010).
As for self-assessment as a mentee, five items from Wilson et al. (2010) study identified
qualitative themes from the mentor’s point of view. The themes of a good mentee were being
eager to learn, having a positive attitude, completing assignments on time, is able to share ideas
with others, and is being a good listener. All five themes were added to this research in the form
of survey questions asking the mentees’ perception of having the characteristics through a four-
point Likert scale that utilized options ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree”
(4). A Cronbach’s alpha value of .89 demonstrates good internal consistency and reliability in
assessing the five themes (Pallant, 2010).
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 89

The Cronbach’s alpha for the Self-Reported Attribute Ratings combined was .80,
demonstrating good internal reliability for the 11 survey items measuring the mentees’ self-
attribute ratings. A factor analysis was performed to evaluate the variables measuring the
mentees’ self-attribute ratings with all 11 items (Pallant, 2010). They were further grouped into
a smaller number of factors. The analysis of the correlation matrix identified several coefficients
at 0.3 and above (Pallant, 2010). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was statistically significant with
a value of 0.78 surpassing the recommended value of 0.6 (Pallant, 2010). Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity was significant with a value of 0.00, supporting the factorability of the correlated
matrix (Pallant, 2010). There were three components exceeding the Eigenvalues of one or
above: Eager to Learn (39.7%), Having a Positive Attitude (21.8%) and Completes Assignments
on Time (10.2%). The mean value of Eager to Learn was 3.63 out of 4. For Having a Positive
Attitude, the mean value was 3.54, and the mean value for Completes Assignments on Time was
3.59. Closely following are well-defined Academic Goals, with a mean score of 3.59. The four-
point Likert scale provided options ranging from (1) as the lowest rating to (4) as the highest
rating. The three components that were added to the survey came from Wilson et al. (2010)
qualitative themes, identified as good components for measuring qualities found in positive
mentoring relationship as Self-Attributes found in a good mentee.
Independent Sample T-Test Results for Attribute Self-Ratings
Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the Self-Reported Attribute
Ratings mean scores for the participants pre- and post-survey. The post-survey mean scores for
Self-Reported Attribute Ratings did not change between the pre- and post-surveys regardless of
participating in the mentoring program. Eager to Learn had the highest mean at 3.54, and tied in
second place were Having a Positive Attitude and Completes Assignments on Time at 3.49.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 90

There was no significant difference in mean scores from the mentees (pre- and post-survey) for
Self-Attribute Ratings, p >.05 in column Sig. (2-tailed), indicating no difference between groups.
Individual results for the 11 items measuring four variables are as follows and
represented in Table 18. To measure college anxiety, there was no significant difference
between the pre-survey scores for the mentees’ level of anxiety for performance (M= 3.15, SD=
0.73) and the post-survey score on anxiety for performance (M= 3.17, SD= 0.70) for the
mentees; t (173) = - .19, p = .85 (two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means
(mean difference = -.02, 95% Cl: -.24 to .20) was very small (eta squared = .000). The effect
size indicates whether the differences between the pre- and post-survey groups occurred by
chance. Eta squared can range from 0 to 1, representing the proportion of variance in the
dependent variable that is explained by the independent variable with small effect (.01),
moderate effect (.06), and large effect (.14) (Pallant, 2010). Moving forward, this research only
includes eta squared results if showing an effect with >.01 value. As well, there was no
significant difference between the pre-survey scores on the mentees’ level of anxiety in meeting
academic obligations (M= 3.22, SD= .82) and the post-survey score on level of anxiety in
meeting academic obligations (M= 3.15, SD= .76) for the mentees; t (173) = .59, p = .56 (two-
tailed).
For college self-efficacy, the difference in two items examining the students’ perceptions
of their likelihood to succeed academically in the nursing program was not significant from the
pre-survey scores (M=3.41, SD= .61) and post-survey scores (M= 3.27, SD= .73); t (173) = 1.44,
p = .15 (two-tailed). The changes in the second item in developing social ties were insignificant
between pre-survey scores (M=3.29, SD= .69) and post-survey scores (M=3.15, SD= .74); t
(173) = 1.33, p = .18 (two-tailed).
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 91

In measuring college goal definition, there was no significant difference between the
mentees’ perception of how well their academic goals are defined on the pre-survey scores (M=
3.59, SD=.58) an on the post-survey scores (M=3.48, SD=.58); t (173)= 1.27, p =.20 (two-
tailed). Another item measuring the mentees’ perceptions of their professional goals as well
defined was not significantly different from the pre-survey scores (M=3.47, SD=.63) to post-
survey scores (M=3.40, SD=.60); t (173)=0.71, p =.48 (two-tailed).
The differences in scores measuring the self-assessment as a mentee were not significant
between the pre-survey scores as being eager to learn (M=3.64, SD=.59) and the post-survey
scores (M=3.54, SD=.53); t (173)=1.15, p = .25 (two-tailed). Having a positive attitude was not
significantly different between the pre-survey scores (M=3.55, SD= .63) and the post-survey
scores (M= 3.5, SD=.56); t (173)= .57, p = .56 (two-tailed). Sharing ideas with others was not
significantly different between the pre-survey scores (M=3.44, SD=.63) and the post-survey
scores (M=3.44, SD=.49); t (173)= .128, p = .89 (two-tailed). Being a good listener was not
significant between the pre-survey scores (M=3.57, SD= .59) and post-survey scores (M=3.47,
SD=.50); t (173)=1.09, p = .27 (two-tailed). Completes assignments on time was not
significantly different between the pre-survey scores (M=3.59, SD= .61) and post survey scores
(M=3.49, SD=.50); t (173)=1.12, p = .26 (two-tailed) (see Table 18). All mean scores for five
themes assessing the characteristics of a good mentee were at 3.44 or above (out of 4).

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 92

Table 18
T-Test for Self-Attribute Ratings (n = 175)
Variable t df Sig. (2 tailed)
Anxiety for Performance -.19 173 .85
Anxiety in Meeting Obligations .58 173 .5
Performance Academically 1.44 173 .15
Developing Social Ties 1.33 173 .18
Academic Goals 1.26 173 .20
Professional Goals .71 173 .47
Eager to Learn 1.15 173 .25
Positive Attitude .57 173 .56
Sharing Ideas .128 173 .89
Good Listener 1.09 173 .27
Completes Assignments on Time 1.12 173 .26
Note. Level of Significance (2-tailed) values * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .005. **** p< .001. All Sig. values
are >.05, therefore insignificant. t= t-test. df= degrees of freedom was 173.
To compare the validity of the independent samples t-test results, a one way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was performed while measuring the same participants at different points in
time and revealed the same results without significance, with a value of p > .05 and small F ratio
(Pallant, 2010). As part of the one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the assumption of
homogeneity of variance, the Levene’s test for equality of variance between scores in Table 19,
indicated no variance between the two groups with a value of p >.05, no violation occurred
(Pallant, 2010).

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 93

Table 19
Test of Homogeneity of Variances Self Attribute Ratings (n = 175)
Variable Levine df Sig.
Anxiety for Performance .20 173 .65
Anxiety in Meeting Obligations 1.38 173 .24
Performance Academically 1.48 173 .22
Developing Social Ties .001 173 .97
Academic Goals .73 173 .39
Professional Goals .12 173 .72
Eager to Learn .30 173 .58
Positive Attitude .14 173 .70
Sharing Ideas 3.09 173 .08
Good Listener .36 173 .54
Completes Assignments on Time .28 173 .59
Note. Level of Significance (2-tailed) values * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .005. **** p< .001. All Sig. values
are >.05, therefore insignificant. df= degrees of freedom.
To compare the validity of the independent samples t-test results, the one way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was performed while measuring the participants at different points in time
and revealed the same results without significance, with a value of p> .05 and small F ratio
(Pallant, 2010). An F ratio is calculated to represent the variance between groups and is divided
by the variance within the groups. A large F ratio indicates there is more variability between
groups (maybe caused by IV) than within each group (considered as the error term) (Pallant,
2010). Table 20 represents no significant difference in mean scores between the mentees’ pre-
and post-survey scores for Self-Attribute Ratings. Examining the mentees’ anxiety level for
performance as determined by one-way ANOVA (F(1,173) = .03, p = .85); and in meeting
obligations was not significant (F(1,173) = .34, p = .5). The academic performance (F(1,173) =
2.07, p = .15 and developing social ties (F(1,173) = 1.77, p = .18 was not significant. Defining
academic goals (F(1,173) = 1.6, p = .20 and defining professional goals (F(1,173) = .51, p = .47
was not significant. Being eager to learn (F(1,173) = 1.3, p = .25 and having positive attitude
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 94

(F(1,173) = .32, p = .85 was not significant. Not significant was sharing ideas others (F(1,173) =
.01, p= .89; being a good listener (F(1,173) = 1.2, p = .27 and completing assignments on time
(F(1,173) = 1.2, p = .26. A post-hoc test was not performed to determine where differences lie
between the groups, since only two groups were measured.
Table 20
One-way ANOVA Test for Self-Attribute Ratings (n =175)
Variable F Sig.
Anxiety for Performance .37 .85
Anxiety in Meeting Obligations .34 .55
Performance Academically 2.0 .15
Developing Social Ties 1.7 .18
Academic Goals 1.6 .20
Professional Goals .51 .47
Eager to Learn 1.3 .25
Positive Attitude .32 .56
Sharing Ideas .01 .89
Good Listener 1.2 .27
Completes Assignments on Time 1.2 .26
Note. Level of Significance values * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .005. **** p< .001. All Sig. values are >.05,
therefore insignificant. Large F ratio indicates more variability between groups. All df= degrees of freedom were 1
and 173.
Discussion for Quantitative Analysis for Research Question One
Santos and Reigadas (2005) found that student-mentor ethnic homogeneity and frequency
of student mentor contact directly influenced students’ attitudinal adjustment to college and
positively affected students’ academic performance and satisfaction with the Faculty Mentoring
Program. The mentees’ Self-Reported Attribute Ratings for this study maintained the same
mean scores and did not change over time with insignificant results from the t-test and ANOVA
tests performed in this study. Having a positive attitude, completing their assignments on time
and being eager to learn were the facilitators of being a good mentee, as reported in the Wilson et
al. (2010) qualitative study. No change in the mentees’ scores for Self-Reported Attribute Rating
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 95

may indicate the mentoring program assisted in sustaining the mentees’ self-attribute ratings.
Further triangulation of the qualitative date is discussed next.
For all the qualitative data, results are presented by using indicators for facilitators and
detractors for the mentoring process. The facilitators and detractor from research were
previously presented in Chapter Two (Table 1). For this study, a summary table in Appendix M
of the emerging facilitators and detractors for each research question.
Qualitative Results for Research Question One
Research Question One asked, “What are the participants’ self-reported attribute ratings
while participating in a formal mentoring program?” The quantitative data did not change for
the Self-Reported Attribute Ratings for the mentees between the pre- and post-surveys. Further
exploration on college anxiety, college self-efficacy, college goal definition and self-assessment
as a mentee are presented next. Table 21, represents the results for each category for self-
reported attribute ratings as facilitators and detractors of mentoring for research question one.
Table 21
Facilitators and Detractors for Research Question One (n =11)
Self-Attribute Ratings Mentoring Facilitators Mentoring Detractors
College Anxiety 6 did discuss anxiety 5 did not discuss anxiety
College Self-Efficacy 7 did change in self-efficacy 4 did not change
College Goal Definition 1 did discuss goals 10 did not discuss goals
Self-Assessment as Mentee 7 did play a role in M.P 4 did not play a role in M.P
Note. M.P. = Mentoring Program
The quantitative data indicated the mentees were moderately anxious, with a mean score
of 3.2 out of 4.0. Their anxiety levels for performance in the nursing program between the pre-
and post-survey mean scores remained the same. During the interview process, the mentees’
provided their perceptions of having a faculty mentoring experience as influential on their level
of anxiety in terms of the pressure to perform well in the nursing program and in meeting their
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 96

academic obligations. The predominant facilitators for college anxiety were referring the mentee
to the psychologist to assist in reducing high levels of anxiety, or their mentor’s providing
resources to facilitate learning and strategies to reduce test taking anxiety, and frequent
encounters in the hallway between mentee and mentor. The detractors for college anxiety
include not having a connection, having a poor connection, or not discussing issues on college
anxiety.
Some facilitators of college anxiety levels were expressed by 6 of 11 mentees’ as being
referred to the nursing program’s psychologist, or their mentor’s providing resources to facilitate
learning and strategies to reduce test taking anxiety, and frequent encounters in the hallway were
viewed by the mentee as reducing level of anxiety. A focus group participant, Star, affirmed the
positive influence on having her mentor recommend a visit to the psychologist: “My mentor did
recommend the nursing psychologist. I did see her, and she was very helpful and a good
resource. It was great. We only learn along the way that they will send us in the right direction.”
Joy, another participant, had a good experience, and said, “They have been through this and they
were very resourceful as mentor.” Even informal encounters with their mentors were beneficial,
as participant Kyle states: “We had two official meetings. The first time was reading off a paper.
Second time, we talked and often met in the hallway talked about stress levels. It felt good to
meet.” In support, Sunshine spoke well of her mentor as having a wealth of information: “I did
speak to my mentor on my level of anxiety and she offered more math materials and
recommended that I see the psychologist, which was very helpful. The mentors have a wealth of
information that is beneficial for us.” Informal encounters in the hallway, referring the mentee to
the psychologist and offering strategies on reducing test taking anxiety were beneficial in
facilitating the mentee’s coping with college anxiety issues.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 97

In terms of some detractors for college anxiety, 2 of 11 mentees’ disclosed they did not
have a connection with their mentor, and others (3 of 11) did not have discussions on college
anxiety with their mentors. Charley admitted that he did not reach out to seek assistance from
his mentor on dealing with issues on college anxiety. Monique had an initial connection, but this
decreased over time. She stated, “I had a different experience. I met her at level I orientation and
gave her my email and phone number and never heard from her again. In theory, I think it would
be good. I didn't try to reconnect and I forgot about her.” Overall, 5 of 11 mentees did not
discuss college anxiety.
Topics on self-efficacy included asking the mentees’ perceptions of their mentor
experience as influential on their academic experience and on their success in the nursing
program. Most of the mentees’ (7 of 11), felt their mentor has some influence on their academic
experience and success in the nursing program by improving their skills. Several participants
agreed the predominant facilitators included developing time management skills and study
strategies. Star identified her mentor as offering strategies that assisted with her academic
success:
My mentor assisted me with time management and study strategies; I thought it was
really helpful in scheduling my hours to study. Also, looking at how I study and how I do
the best. I saw my mentor twice and felt comfortable and telling me to connect with other
students and instructors. Very helpful and I did struggle with level one and all the
students felt the same way. I encourage other students to visit their mentor’s office and
take the chance and understand they are busy, too. Just take five, ten minutes of their
time and follow their schedule.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 98

Joy agreed and described her mentor as helpful in offering study strategies, saying, “I think it
was pretty good to have a mentor to answer my questions; she gave me an outline, laid down
some supplies and went over my study habits.” Some detractors from the faculty mentor having
an influence on their education experience in view of improving their self-efficacy, as expressed
by the mentees were not developing an initial connection or subsequent connections (4 of 11).
The following are examples of not having a connection with their mentor, and the mentees’
success was solely based on their self-efficacy. Vanessa did not find her mentoring experience
beneficial to her academic success and believed “It didn't help me with my success. I only met
once with mentor, and a phone conversation once. It did not help with my educational
experience.” Ryan also did not connect well with his mentor, stating that his own motivation
influenced his academic success, “It may be beneficial if there is a connection. My success is
based on whether or not I want to be in class.” Mentees who did not connect with their mentors
had the internal locus and motivation to succeed academically and felt their academic success
was not related to the mentoring program.
Having well defined academic and professional goals was emphasized in the mentoring
workshop as a topic of discussion between both mentor and mentee. A follow-up question asked
whether the mentees’ perceived their mentor as influential on their academic and professional
goals. Only one of eleven mentees discussed goals with their mentors. Joy states, “My Mentor
said it was helpful to have professional goals to fall back on and keep them in mind when you
want to quit.” Most group members (10 of 11) did not discuss their academic and professional
goals with their mentors. One mentoring detractor is not having the conversation or connection
to discuss goals.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 99

Most mentees (76.8%) agreed they played a role in the success of the mentoring
relationship, and 23.1% disagreed, according to the pre-survey results. The post-surveys
revealed only 64.7% believed the mentee played a role in the success of the mentoring
relationship, and 35.8% disagreed, which was a statistically insignificant change from the pre-
surveys with t-test and ANOVA value of p =.07. The mentees were asked, during the interview
process, which role they played in the mentoring relationship and which characteristics are
needed to foster a successful mentoring relationship. Seven of 11 mentees identified facilitators
in successful mentoring as being receptive to their mentor’s advice, reaching out for help, having
a mentor they trust, and having a reciprocal mentoring relationship either by informal or formal
communication. Again, most mentees’ (7 of 11) felt they played a role in the mentoring
relationship.
Kyle confirmed that being receptive to your mentor’s advice was important when he
stated, “I fell like the little grasshopper and mentor is the sensei. Some people had a good
experience and some didn't have a good experience. For me, it’s all about trying to get help.”
Star developed a relationship of trust and felt that being receptive and by reaching out and
reciprocating is important:
Seeking help and finding resources. For me, personally, my mentor became someone
that I could vent and talk about anxiety, and she worried about my performance, very
supportive. I really needed that support. I became dependent on her and felt I could trust
her. Reciprocate and communication is key, email each other.
Sunshine connected with her mentor regardless of seeing each other in person, saying, “We e-
mailed each other, didn’t get to meet her in person. We e-mailed back and forth. Have never met
face to face.” Regardless of the type of connection, responses pointed to the fact that providing
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 100

support and offering assistance to the mentee is important in developing a positive connection
and staying connected.
Some detractors in mentoring for 4 of 11 mentees included negative first impressions, the
mentees’ stress level and lack of time to build a relationship with their mentors, and feelings of
avoidance from their mentor. Monique described that some mentees felt as if they were being
avoided. She said, “I knew a student that emailed her professor several times and even went to
her office, and felt like she was being avoided.” Ryan confirmed that his stress level hindered
connecting with his mentor. He mentioned, “The student is reaching out. We are so stressed, it’s
like let’s see how our mentor is doing.” Joy agreed that the first impression counts, although she
did have a good mentoring connection with her mentor:
I think the first impression counts and if you want to seek help from that person in
comparison to going to other professors. I think that it got to other students because their
mentor was not present at the level one orientation. Other students felt left out and didn't
care for it, and shied away from the mentorship program.
First impressions can leave the mentee feeling confident in developing a mentoring relationship,
or with distaste for further pursuit. To conclude, 4 of 11 mentees felt they did not play a role in
the mentoring relationship.
Conclusion for Research Question One
The analysis from the survey data was statistically insignificant for the mentees’ Self-
Attribute Rating over time, although the qualitative data indicated positive mentoring support.
The mentoring facilitators include offering study strategies, reducing test-taking anxiety, and
referring to the psychologist as needed. The mentee is eager to learn from their mentor and is
receptive to the lessons on time management and to having a reciprocal and trusting relationship
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 101

with the mentor. Communication is essential to developing a mentoring relationship either by
formal (face to face) or informal means (by email, frequent hallway encounters). The detractors
for mentoring include not having any connection or having a poor connection. Negative first
impressions and feelings of avoidance from their mentors can discourage the mentee from
pursuing the relationship. The mentee’s lack of time and high stress level also contributed to not
building a mentoring relationship.
Quantitative Results for Research Question Two
Research question two asked, “How do the mentees perceive their connection with their
faculty mentors as facilitated through a formal faculty-mentoring program?” Two survey
questions containing seven factors evaluating the mentees’ perception of their connection with
their faculty mentor had a significant Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.8. The questions evaluated
their first connection with their mentor and whether they would ask for assistance in comparison
to others using a four-point Likert scale. The first encounter with the mentor had a mean score
of 2.7 out of 4. The highest mean score results from the mentees’ responses, when asking for
help from others came from their family (3.5), followed by friends (3.5), classmates (3.4), course
instructor (3.4), faculty mentor (3.2), and the nursing advisors (3.1).
An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the connection between the
mentee and their mentor and with other people (Table 22). The results comparing the means
between the pre- and post-surveys was not significantly different between the scores, except
when asking for assistance from their mentors (p =.004). The following were not significantly
different from the pre-survey scores for first encounter with mentor (M=2.7, SD=1.0) to post-
survey scores (M=2.5, SD=1.0); t (173)=1.09, p = .27 (two-tailed). Asking for help from family
was not significantly different from the pre-survey scores (M=3.53, SD= .68) to post-survey
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 102

scores (M= 3.35, SD=.75); t (173)= 1.61, p = .10 (two-tailed). Asking assistance from friends,
was not significantly different from the pre-survey scores (M=3.45, SD=.66) to post-survey
scores (M=3.34, SD=.72); t (173)= 1.03, p = .30 (two-tailed). Asking for assistance from
classmates was not significantly different from the pre-survey scores (M=3.44, SD= .61) to post-
survey scores (M=3.32, SD=.61); t (173)=1.2, p = .22 (two-tailed). Seeking assistance from
their course instructor was not significantly different from the pre-survey scores (M=3.42, SD=
.61) to post-survey scores (M=3.34, SD=.56); t (173)=.89, p = .37 (two-tailed). Seeking
assistance from nursing advisors was not significantly different from pre-survey scores (M=
3.11, SD= .75) to post-survey scores (M= 2.89, SD= .88); t=(173)= 1.7, p =.08 (two-tailed).
However, seeking assistance from faculty mentors was significantly different from pre-survey
scores (M= 3.19, SD= .77) to post-survey scores (M= 2.80, SD= .94); t=(173)= 2.95, p =.004
(two-tailed), showing a decrease in the means scores for the post-survey.
Table 22
T-Test for Connection with Mentor and Others (n =175)
Variable t df Sig. (2 tailed)
First Encounter with Mentor 1.09 173 .27
Family 1.61 173 .10
Friends 1.03 173 .30
Classmates 1.2 173 .22
Course Instructor .89 173 .37
Nursing Advisor 1.7 173 .08
Faculty Mentor 2.95 173 ***.004
Note. Level of Significance (2-tailed) values * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .005. **** p< .001. Significance found,
Faculty Mentoring Connection. t= t-test. df= degrees of freedom.
The post-survey responses included another item evaluating other encounters with their
faculty mentor (Table 23). More than a third of the respondents (35.8%, n= 24) did not have
other connections with their mentor and 25.4% (n= 17) had a slight connection. Overall, 61.2%
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 103

did not have a good connection with their mentor after the first encounter. The results indicated
a decrease in the mentoring connection between the pre- and post-surveys.
Table 23
Other Encounter with Faculty Mentor-Post Survey Only (n =67)
Variable Frequency % Valid % Cum. %
Did Not Connect At All 24 13.7 35.8 35.8
Slight Connection 17 9.7 25.4 61.2
Moderate Connection 14 8.0 20.0 82.1
Very Good Connection 12 6.9 17.9 100
Note. 61.2% had a slight connection or did not connect at all after their first encounter with mentor.
Figure 1 represents a negatively skewed histogram with the majority of the data to the left
of the mean (2.2). A four-point Likert scale was used, yielding a 36% response rate for did not
connect (1), and 26% for had a slight connection (2). Since this question was not asked on the
pre-survey, t-test and ANOVA tests could not be measured.

Figure 1. Histogram Other Encounters with Faculty Mentor
Note. Negatively Skewed Histogram, data is skewed to the left with high ratings of (1) Did not connect at all;
followed by (2) Slight connection; (3) Moderate connection; and last (4) Very Good connection.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 104

Table 24 represents the test results from ANOVA, examining the mentees’ connection
with mentor and others. As determined by the ANOVA, test results for the first encounter with
mentor were not significant (F(1,173) = 1.2, p = .27). Asking for assistance from family was
also not significant (F(1,173) = 2.5, p = .10). Seeking assistance from friends (F(1,173) = 1.0, p
= .30 or from classmates (F(1,173) = 1.4, p= .22 were not significant. Seeking assistance from
the course instructor was not significant (F(1,173) = .79, p = .37. Seeking assistance from
nursing advisor was not significant (F(1,173) = 2.9, p = .08. However, seeking assistance from
faculty mentor was found to be significant (F(1,173) = 8.7, p = .004. A post-hoc test was not
performed to determine where differences lie between the groups, since only two groups were
measured.
Table 24
ANOVA Test-First Encounter with Mentor and Seeking Help from Others (n =175)
Variable F Sig.
First Encounter with Mentor 1.2 .27
Assistance From Family 2.5 .10
Assistance From Friends 1.0 .30
Assistance From Classmates 1.4 .22
Assistance From Course Instructor .79 .37
Assistance From Nursing Advisor 2.9 .08
Assistance From Faculty Mentor 8.7 ***.004
Note. Level of Significance values * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .005. **** p< .001. Significance found, Faculty
Mentor. Large F ratio indicates more variability between groups. All df= degrees of freedom were 1.

The t-test results, seeking assistance from the faculty mentor (M= 3.19, SD= .77) and
post-survey scores (M= 2.80, SD= .94); t=(173)= 2.95, p =.004 (two-tailed), showed a decrease
in connection that was significant. As well, ANOVA determined that seeking assistance from
faculty mentor was significant (F(1,173) = 8.7, p = .004. The post-survey responses evaluating
other encounters with their faculty mentor had a negatively skewed histogram that showed the
majority of the data to the left of the mean (2.2), 36% did not have other connections and 26%
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 105

had a slight connection with their mentor. There was a decrease in connection between the
mentee and the mentor between the pre- and post-surveys.
Qualitative Results for Research Question Two
Research question two asked, “How do the mentees’ perceive their connection with their
faculty mentors as facilitated through a formal faculty-mentoring program?” Two open-ended
questions during the focus group interview process asked participants to describe their
connection with their mentor by providing an example and the frequency and the type of
connections they had with their mentor over the previous several months and by providing
examples on the type of interactions. Table 25 provides the number of facilitators and detractors
for perceived connection with mentor.
Table 25
Facilitators and Detractors for Research Question Two (n =11)
Mentoring Connection Mentoring Facilitators Mentoring Detractors
Connection with Mentor 9 did have a connection 2 did not connect
Type of Connection 7 had good connection 4 did not really connect
Connection Over Time 0 maintained connection 11 loss connection

The interviews revealed that some mentees (7 of 11) did have a good connection with
their mentor. Facilitators for mentoring connection were having the faculty mentor as course
instructor, assisting with a personal dilemma, being very supportive, and having at least three
official meetings per semester. Kimo felt that having his mentor as a professor was a positive
experience. He stated, “I had a different experience. My mentor was my professor as well and it
did influence my classes.” Kyle criticized his mentor’s approach, but did feel a connection, by
stating, “I had two official meetings. First time, she was reading off a paper. Second time, we
talked and often met in the hallway. We talked about stress levels. It felt good to meet.” Charley
explained, “I saw my mentor twice. It was a decent experience, helped with organizing my
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 106

thoughts.” Janiece supported the others by explaining, “My mentor was really good. We had
three official meetings. Like Kyle said, we met often in the hallways bumping into the mentor,
and he was available when needed. Helped me with a situation for jury duty and helped to get
out jury duty.” Star reaffirmed that she had a great mentoring experience with a rating scale:
It was a ten out of ten. I had a good connection, a good interest in my anxiety, worries,
goals and very supportive. It helped me to want to see my mentor three times last
semester, but I did know I could continue meeting this semester.
Overall, nine out eleven (82%) mentees had an initial connection with their mentor, and 7 of 11
felt their connection was positive on their academic success.
Some detractors for connecting included losing interest over time, having a class
instructor as a mentor, and not being aware they could continue the relationship after level one.
Some students expressed that having a mentor as an instructor could be intimidating and did not
feel any different from other students in the class. Star stated she was surprised to hear from the
interviewer that she could have continued her mentoring relationship after level one. Others
agreed they were not aware they could continue after level one. Joy’s connection decreased over
time, and she is now intimidated to connect. She said, “In the beginning it was 7, 8 connection.
Then, it went down to 6. Recently, haven’t contacted with each other. Also, no connection now
because she is an instructor in my level, and it can be intimidating.” Unfortunately, Ryan did not
connect with his mentor and expressed, “I didn’t really have much of a connection, didn’t meet,
and didn’t work out. Even though my mentor was my professor, I didn’t feel any different than
any other student in the class.” Monique rated her connection as follows:
I rate my connection as a three out of ten. My mentor just arrived from (out of town) that
morning and stated that she was going to email us at midterm and finals and then I didn’t
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 107

hear from her. I was excited initially and then no more connection. First impression, she
was excited. Then, no more connection after that.
Conclusion for Research Question Two
The post-surveys, were completed seven months after the pre-surveys were collected and
showed a decrease in connection between the mentee and the mentor, as supported by t-test and
ANOVA results, as statistically significant when seeking assistance from the faculty mentor (p =
.004) and when asking for help in comparison to others. The other connections remained
unchanged: family, friends, classmates, course instructor, and the nursing advisors. Last, the
largest decrease was found in terms of the faculty mentor (pre-survey M= 3.2 and post-survey
M= 2.8). This difference was statistically significant (p =. 004).
There was a decrease in connection over time found through the quantitative results, and
the interview results identified an initial connection did exist (9 of 11). Only 63% (7 of 11) of the
mentees did have a good connection with their mentor, and all (100%) connections did not
continue after level one. A facilitator for connecting was having the faculty mentor as course
instructor, assistance with a personal dilemma, and having at least two to three official meetings
per semester, either formally or informally. The mentoring detractors included losing interest
over time, having a class instructor as a mentor, and being unaware they could continue the
relationship after level one.
Quantitative Results for Research Question Three
Research question three asked, “How did the mentees perceive the quality of their
interactions with their faculty mentors as facilitated through a formal mentoring program?” The
survey examined the quality of interactions as reported by the mentee in comparison to other
support systems that may have been available to them. The question evaluating the quality
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 108

interactions between the mentee and others was significant and had Cronbach’s alpha value of
0.8. Over time, the mentees had a significant decrease in their quality interactions with academic
advisors (p =. 002), student services staff (p =. 001), other administration (staff, registrar,
financial aid, etc.) (p =. 004), and faculty mentors (p =. 02). The post-survey response rate was
only 67 in comparison to 108 for the pre-surveys, which may have affected the results.
Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the quality interactions with their
mentor and others, from the pre- and post-surveys. Some quality interactions were significantly
different between scores. The results for quality interactions with other students were not
significantly different between pre-survey scores (M=3.25, SD=.06) and post-survey scores
(M=3.1, SD=.69); t (173)=1.43, p = .15 (two-tailed). The results for quality interactions with
faculty were not significantly different from the pre-survey scores (M=2.94, SD= .68) to post-
survey scores (M= 2.85, SD=.60); t (173)= .92, p = .35 (two-tailed).
Conversely, as shown in Table 26, Quality interactions with academic advisors, were
significantly different from the pre-survey scores (M=2.75, SD=.82) to post-survey scores
(M=2.35, SD=.81); t (173)= 3.0, p = .002 (two-tailed). The results for quality interactions with
student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.) were significantly
different from the pre-survey scores (M=2.67, SD= .79) to post-survey scores (M=2.28,
SD=.61); t (173)=3.2, p = .001 (two-tailed). The results for quality interactions with other
administration staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.) were significantly different from the
pre-survey scores (M=2.77, SD= .77) to post-survey scores (M=2.43, SD=.74); t (173)=2.9, p =
.004 (two-tailed). Lastly, the results for quality interactions with faculty mentor was
significantly different from pre-survey scores (M= 2.77, SD= .96) to post-survey scores (M=
2.41, SD= 1.03); t=(173)= 2.3, p =.02 (two-tailed).
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 109

Table 26
T-Test for Quality Interactions with Mentor and Others (n =175)
Variable t df Sig. (2 tailed)
Students 1.43 173 .15
Faculty .92 173 .35
Academic Advisors 3.0 173 ***.002
Student Services 3.0 173 ****.001
Other Administration Staff and Offices 2.9 173 ***.004
Faculty Mentor 2.3 173 *.02
Note. Level of Significance (2-tailed) values * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .005. **** p< .001. t= t-test. df=
degrees of freedom. Four-point Likert scale rating for Quality of Interactions: Poor (1), Fair (2), Good (3),
Excellent (4). Very Significant. *** p =.002 for Academic Advisors; ****p =.001 for Student Services Staff;
***p =.004 for Other Administration Staff and Office; and Faculty Mentor *p =.02.

To further support the results demonstrated by the t-test, a one-way ANOVA was tested,
yielding the same results (Table 27). Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was performed
and was not significant with a value >.05, indicating no violation in the assumption of
homogeneity of variance between groups (Pallant, 2010).
Table 27
ANOVA-Quality Interaction with Mentor and Others (n =175)
Variable F Sig.
Students 2.06 .15
Faculty .84 .35
Academic Advisors 9.49 ***.002
Student Services 10.46 ****.001
Other Administration Staff and Offices 8.41 ***.004
Assistance From Faculty Mentor 5.48 *.02
Note. Level of Significance values * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .005. **** p< .001. Large F ratio indicates more
variability between groups. All df= degrees of freedom were 1. Four-point Likert scale rating for Quality of
Interactions: Poor (1), Fair (2), Good (3), Excellent (4). Very very significant ****p =.001 Student Services Staff,
very significant *** p =.002 Academic Advisors, and ***p =.004 Other Administration Staff and Office, and
significant Faculty Mentor *p =.02.
The ANOVA results indicated the means for quality interactions between the pre- and
post-survey (seven months after the pre-survey) was not significant between the mentee and
other students (F(1,173) = 2.06, p = .15 and was not significant between the mentee and faculty
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 110

(F(1,173) = .84, p = .35. However, the difference in the quality of interactions between the
mentee and student services was very significant (F(1,173) = 10.46, p = .001, and academic
advising yielded significant results (F(1,173) = 9.49, p = .002. The results for quality interactions
with other administration staff and offices was significant (F(1,173) = 8.41, p = .004, and results
for quality interactions with faculty mentor were significant (F(1,173) = 5.48, p = .02.
Qualitative Results for Research Question Three
Research question three asked, “How did the mentees perceive the quality of their
interactions with their faculty mentors as facilitated through the formal mentoring program?”
Three open-ended questions during focus groups interviews asked the mentees to describe the
quality of their interactions with their mentor and to provide some situations where they achieved
quality interactions with their mentor. Six of eleven participants did have quality interactions
with their faculty mentors. Five of eleven were unable to break the barrier or did not have the
time to develop a quality mentoring relationship. Table 28 represents the facilitators and
detractors for quality interactions between mentee and mentor.
Table 28
Facilitators and Detractors for Research Question Three (n =11)
Quality Mentoring Connection Mentoring Facilitators Mentoring Detractors
Quality Interactions 6 had quality connection 5 lacked quality connection

The quality interactions (6 of 11) were facilitated when feeling comfortable with the
mentor, “like a peer,” and having an open relationship. Janiece felt that her connection with her
mentor was very comfortable and easy. She said, “My connection with my mentor was too
comfortable, talking to him like he was my peer very open relationship.” Vanessa stated, “I had
an open relationship and my mentor who was also my instructor last semester, didn't really need
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 111

much help. The first meeting was positive, second meeting I was anxious about test taking and it
helped me calm down.” Good connections were related to feeling comfortable and open with
their mentor.
Some detractors in developing quality interactions with their mentor (5 of 11) included
being busy, not establishing a connection by not being able to break down the barrier and ask for
help, and already having a connection with another instructor. Ryan expressed, “My mentor
wasn’t terrible, would say ‘hi’, but didn't have a great connection. Would just acknowledge me
and she was very busy.” Kyle rated the quality of mentoring interactions as “Four out of ten and
would have wanted a higher connection with my mentor. Everyone is busy.” Some additional
barriers to developing quality interactions, as Kimo believed, were “breaking the barrier and
getting to know each other first, and not being afraid to ask for help. After time, I felt
comfortable to ask for help.” Kyle felt that time management was an issue and described, “It
was even hard to even get the first meeting, classes got in the way obstacle wise, it was with each
other’s schedules.” Vanessa agreed, “Yeah, especially in level one, even more work than in
level two, very busy.” Ryan already had a relationship with another instructor. He stated, “I
already had a close relationship with another instructor, so do I want to create another
relationship with my mentor? I was struggling and comparing both relationships that I had
already created.” Building a good connection occurred after the mentee “broke the barrier” and
felt comfortable in seeking help from their mentor. Time management and busy schedules, is a
mentoring detractor to building a quality mentor relationship.
Conclusion for Research Question Three
Over time, the mentees had a significant decrease in the quality of their interactions with
academic advisors (p =. 002), student services staff (p =. 001), other administration (staff,
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 112

registrar, financial aid, etc.) (p =. 004), and faculty mentors (p =. 02). The quality of
interactions remained unchanged with classroom faculty and other students.
Some of the participants (6 of 11) viewed quality interactions as comfortable, “like a
peer,” trustworthy, accessible and having an open relationship assisting with life problems.
Mentoring detractors in developing quality interactions with mentor (5 of 11) included being too
busy and not establishing a connection. It was challenging for some to break the barrier and ask
for help. One mentee had a connection with another instructor, making it difficult to reach out to
a formal mentor when an informal mentoring relationship was already working. All mentees
discontinued their connection after their first semester in the nursing program due to being
unaware they could continue as needed.
Quantitative Results for Research Question Four
Research question four asked about the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor as a
role model, caring for their well-being, and as a having a positive influence on their academic
success. Through the use of a four-point Likert scale, from Strongly Agree (4), Agree (3),
Disagree (2), to Strongly Disagree (1), results revealed three factors evaluating the mentees’
perceptions of their faculty mentor did not show significant difference between the two-points in
time, with a mean score of 3.0 (Agree).
Table 29 represents the t-tests results comparing the mentees’ perceptions of their mentor
as a role model on the pre- and post-survey. There was no significant difference from the pre-
survey scores (M=3.05, SD=.79) to the post survey scores (M=2.98, SD=.86); t (173)=.55, p =
.58 (two-tailed). Perceptions of mentors caring for their well-being was not significantly
different from the pre-survey scores (M=3.11, SD= .80) to the post survey scores (M= 3.02,
SD=.85); t (173)= .63, p = .52 (two-tailed). Finally, perceptions of their mentor as having a
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 113

positive influence on their academic success was not significantly different from the pre-survey
scores (M=3.13, SD= .81) to the post survey scores (M= 3.0, SD=.88); t (173)= 1.0, p = .29
(two-tailed).
Table 29
T-Test for Perceptions of Mentor (n =175)
Variable t df Sig. (2 tailed)
Mentor as Role Model .55 173 .58
Mentor Cares for Well-Being .63 173 .52
Mentor Positive Influence on Academic Success 1.06 173 .29
Note. Level of Significance (2-tailed) values * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .005. **** p< .001. t= t-test. df=
degrees of freedom.
To further support the results found in the independence t-test, one-way ANOVA was
tested, yielding the same results (Table 30). Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances, was
performed and was insignificant with a p>.05, therefore not violating the assumption of
homogeneity of variance between groups (Pallant, 2010).
Table 30
ANOVA for Perceptions of Mentor (n =175)
Variable F Sig.
Mentor as Role Model .305 .58
Mentor Cares for Well-Being .405 .52
Mentor Positive Influence on Academic Success 1.06 .29
Note. Level of Significance values * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .005. **** p< .001. Large F ratio indicates more
variability between groups. All df= degrees of freedom were 1. Four-point Likert scale, Strongly Disagree (1),
Disagree (2), Agree (3), Strongly Agree (4).
The ANOVA determined whether the mentees’ perceptions changed between the means
scores for pre- and post-survey, and these changes were not found to be significant. Their
perceptions of their mentor as a role model was not found to be significant (F(1,173) = .305, p =
.58; changes in the perception of their mentor caring for their well-being were not significant
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 114

(F(1,173) = .405, p = .52; and changes in their mentors’ having a positive influence on their
academic success were not significant (F(1,173) = 1.05, p = .29.
Qualitative Results for Research Question Four
Research question four asked, “What are the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor
as a role model, caring for their well-being, and having a positive influence on their academic
success?” Three questions explored the mentee’s perception of their mentor as a role model, as
caring for their well-being, in relation to cultural sensitivity and/or gender differences, and as
having a positive influence on their academic success. The following Table 31 represents the
number of facilitators and detractors for questions four.
Table 31
Facilitators and Detractors for Research Question Four (n =11)
Perceptions of Mentor Mentoring Facilitators Mentoring Detractors
As Role Model 5 Did Agree 6 Did not Agree
Cares for Well-Being 6 Did Agree 5 Did not Agree
Influence on Academic Success 6 Did Agree 5 Did not Agree
Gender and Cultural Difference 11 Not an issue 0 Issues
Five respondents believed their mentors to be role models, and six did not. Facilitators of
the perception of mentors as role models were demonstrating time management skills, having
knowledge and nursing experience, being pleasant while teaching, and being encouraging and
positive towards their mentee. Kyle felt his mentor was a role model and stated, “I felt she is a
role model because she is already a nursing professor, and she's been through everything
already.” In agreement, Ryan described, “My mentor is a role model and is able to juggle so
many things through my own observation and still smile and as instructor she is good.” Star
agreed and viewed her mentor as a role model. She stated, “Yes, I did see her as a role model.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 115

She was encouraging and positive, as time seemed rushed even though she had a wealth of
information. She wanted me to be ok.”
Some detractors for 6 of 11 mentees, who did not perceive their mentor was a role model,
were being unable to connect with their mentor on a personal level. Sunshine did not perceive
her mentor to be a role model due to a lack of connection: “I didn't really see her as a role model.
We didn’t get to know each other on a personal level.” Joy did not view her mentor as a role
model but did identify “her quality. She was positive. I don't see her as role model, but she does
have a positive attitude and drive.” Monique, did not see her mentor as a role model, and would
not emulate her behavior:
I would say NO, not a role model, because I assumed she signed up to be your mentor, if
she was expecting me to be the contact, then I should have been told that. But I was told
that she would follow through and never did. To me, that is not a role model and not the
type of behavior that I would mimic. Then you reaffirm, I will email you three times,
then I get nothing, and that is not a role model to me.
In order to further explore whether the mentors were culturally sensitive, the following
question was asked during the focus group interview, “What is your perception of your mentor as
caring for your well-being, in relation to cultural sensitivity and/or gender differences?”
Facilitators included discussing gender differences during clinical experiences and understanding
the local culture. Kyle was confident and quick to answer, “The first thing my mentor brought
up, she did talk about gender differences. There are differences in clinical experience and if I had
any issues just to talk about it and she was caring about that.” Janiece viewed her mentor as
understanding the local culture: “I don't think my mentor is from here, but I think he understands
the local culture and how I have to uphold my family by working and go to school and he gave
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 116

me good advice on that.” Star agreed and expressed, “I didn't sense any cultural tension. It was
neutral. It was fine.” Sunshine felt the same way and verbalized, “It was neutral.” Others
commented that they did not feel any cultural or gender differences or insensitivities with their
mentors.
Last was a discussion regarding the mentees’ perception of their mentor as having a
positive influence on their academic success. Kimo and Kyle both agreed and responded:
Kimo: I got positive advice on taking exams that was my biggest problem and my mentor
explained to take the time, to relax and not always focus on school not to burnout. I did take
the time to make me happy and comfortable and noticed a difference in my attitude and
grades.
Kyle: Positive influence was instilled from the first meeting even though my mentor was
reading from a paper, advised to make sure that I have a social life and helped to focus on the
semester and how to manage the amount of time I was spending.
Facilitators for positively influencing the mentees academic success were giving advice on
taking examinations and tests and encouraging the mentee to take the time to relax and not to
burn out from nursing school by having a social life and better time management.
Conclusion Research Question Four
The last question evaluated the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor as a role
model, as caring for their well-being and as having a positive influence on their academic
success. The three-factor question evaluating the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor
did not change between the pre- and post-survey mean scores and remained at 3.0 (Agree) for all
three factors. Independent sample t-tests and one-way ANOVAs were not significant with value
of p>.05. The mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentors, taken from the focus group
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 117

responses, revealed that 5 of 11 agreed that their mentors were role models, 6 of 11 perceived
their mentor cared for their well-being, and 6 of 11 did have a positive influence on their
academic success.
The facilitators were role modeling time management skills, having a wealth of
knowledge and nursing experience, being pleasant while teaching, and always encouraging and
positive towards the mentee. Mentees described their mentors as positively influencing their
academic success by giving advice on test-taking strategies, advising the mentee to take the time
to relax and not to burnout from nursing school and to have a social life and good time
management skills. The detractors were again related to not having a mentoring connection with
their mentor as a role model, with the inability to connect on a personal level and, therefore, not
representing the type behavior that the mentee would emulate. When further explored, cultural
issues were not identified by the mentees as the cause of a lack of connection between the
parties. Overall, no focus group participants identified cultural and gender issues as detractors
towards their mentoring relationship. Cultural diversity was synonymous with ethnicity during
the interview process. None of the mentees identified feeling any form of cultural insensitivity.
The facilitators included discussing gender differences during clinical experiences and the
mentors’ sensitivity to understanding the local culture. All commented that they did not feel any
cultural or gender insensitivities.
Next, Chapter Five discusses the theoretical principles and past research in favor of the
results and presents conclusions in response to the four research questions. The significance of
the results in relation to mentoring, as identified by facilitators and detractors of mentoring
success, is discussed. Finally, the study’s recommendations for future research are discussed.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 118

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This chapter begins with a brief overview of the problem and purpose of this study
followed by the findings from this research, implications for practice. Recommendations for
future research and conclusions will be presented last.
The retention of students from diverse groups continues to be a challenge for many
nursing programs. As is the case nationwide, Hawaiʻi’s male Registered Nurse workforce
continues to be underrepresented. They make up 10% of nurses (Lederman, 2012; Matthews,
LeVasseur & Mark, 2008; Wilson, Sanner & McAllister, 2010). Mentoring by seasoned and
empathetic faculty can promote student success (Baker, 2010; Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Igbo,
Straker, Landson, Symes, Bernard, Hughes & Carroll, 2011; Cole and Griffin, 2013; Lunsford,
2011; Santos & Reigadas, 2002, 2005; Wilson et al., 2010) by fostering a positive learning
environment (Astin, 1980, Bandura, 1997; Kuh, 2001; Tierney, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978).
In an effort to retain diversity among incoming nursing students, a formal faculty-
mentoring program was implemented at one nursing school during the 2012-2013 academic year.
The purpose of this study was to explore the nursing students’ perceptions of the mentoring
program upon entering the nursing program and post implementation of said program. This
research utilized Astin’s SIT (1984) and the I-E-O research model (1991) to explore the nursing
student’s inputs (student characteristics), environment (implementation of mentoring pilot
program), and outputs (student perceptions). This study used a sequential explanatory mixed
method design to address four research questions:
RQ1: What are participants’ self-reported attribute ratings after participating in a formal
mentoring program?
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 119

RQ2: How do the mentees’ perceive their connection with their faculty mentors as
facilitated through a formal faculty-mentoring program?
RQ3: How do the mentees’ perceive the quality of their interactions with their faculty
mentors as facilitated through the formal mentoring program?
RQ4: What are the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor as a role model, caring
for their well-being, and as a positive influence on their academic success?
In order to explore the mentees’ perceptions, a mixed method approach was implemented. Data
was collected from surveys measuring pre- and post-implementation of a mentoring program.
Qualitative data from the focus groups identifying facilitators and detractors for mentoring
success was further triangulated with the quantitative data results.
Findings of this Study
In response to the research questions, there were two significant research findings. The
results for research questions two and three were significant. The second question examined the
mentees’ perceptions of their connection with their faculty mentors. The mentoring connection
mean scores decreased between the pre- and post-survey and were statistically significant (p
=.004). All (11 of 11) mentees did not stay connected with their mentors after level one in the
nursing program. The mentees’ lack of knowledge in continuing with their mentoring
relationship after level one was found to be a mentoring detractor. Some other mentoring
detractors found (4 of 11) included losing interest over time or being too busy to pursue the
mentoring relationship.
Having a class instructor can be intimidating for the mentee and may lead them to feel
indifferent as compared to other students in the class. Some mentees had a negative first
impression and did not pursue the relationship. Degazon and Mancha (2012) found that, if a
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 120

mentee experienced a negative first impression when meeting his/her mentor, s/he would not
pursue the relationship or seek the assistance required to be successful in their academic career.
Upon college entrance, first-generation students do not have the same social networks as their
second-generation peers to gain the benefits that come from interacting with faculty (Padgett et
al., 2012), but interactions with faculty can negatively affect first-generation students by causing
them to feel uncomfortable due to the faculty member’s position of power (Tierney, 2004).
Contrastingly, their counterparts, second-generation students, may feel at ease with faculty
interactions (Degazon & Mancha, 2012; Padgett et al., 2012). In this study, more than half of
the mentees surveyed (52%) reported being the first in their family to attend college. Therefore,
it is important to analyze whether the position of power held by the faculty, as explained by
Tierney (2004), affected 52% of the first-generation students and contributed to the decrease in
the mentoring connection.
Quite possibly, the mentees who maintained the quality of their connections with their
peers, as demonstrated by the quantitative results (p>.05), felt disinterested in continuing in the
connecting with their mentor because of the position of power (Tierney, 2004). Some mentors
and mentees did not reciprocate in the relationship; a facilitator to mentoring success is
communication and reciprocity between parties. The decrease in connection could be related to
the fact that 31% of the faculty mentors are in doctoral programs. There is a stronger emphasis
on faculty research and scholarship than service to the institution in providing time as an
effective mentor (Cole & Griffin, 2013; Tierney, 2004). Astin (1993) stressed, “Research
Orientation” faculty, is negatively correlated with amount of hours spent per week teaching and
advising, promoting student development, the use of active learning techniques in the classroom,
and the percentage of resources invested in student services (Tierney, 2004). This orientation
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 121

leaves less time to spend for university service and mentoring commitment.
The environment between the mentee and the mentor needs to be reciprocal, positive,
respectful, and without racist tones between the two parties in order to promote the best student
outcomes (Cole, 2007, 2011; Hurtado et al., 2011; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Santos &
Reigadas, 2005; Wilson et al., 2010). In addition, Lunsford (2011) stressed the importance of
mentoring as a reciprocal relationship. The mentor may facilitate the relationship with the
mentee by providing learning opportunities and access to a professional network. Ultimately, the
mentee and the faculty need mutual motivation, interest, and curiosity, or the relationship will
not flourish.
Although there was a decrease in connection over time based on the quantitative results,
the majority of the mentees did have a good initial connection (7 of 11) with their mentor during
their first semester in the nursing program, as revealed through the qualitative analysis. The
mentees were interviewed seven months after the implementation of the program, and all
admitted to a decrease in their mentoring connection. Other connection facilitators were having
the faculty mentor as a course instructor and receiving assistance with a personal dilemma.
Some felt well-supported through at least two to three official meetings per semester.
The third question examined the mentees’ perceptions of the quality of their interactions
with their faculty mentors. There was a statistically significant (p =.02) decrease in quality
interactions between pre- and post-surveys. Mentoring seems to be relatively uncommon in
higher education, specifically for minority students (Tsui, 2007). These programs offer low
incentives for mentors (including faculty) to be significantly involved with mentees (Lee, 1999).
Lee (1999) believed only few faculty members who volunteer their time to become prized
mentors are intrinsically motivated by values other than tangible rewards. The faculty mentors
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 122

for this study where not compensated in any way. Some mentors went so far as to arrange lunch
sessions with their mentees, and others admitted to not connecting at all with their mentees
regardless of their attempts through email.
Some of the interview responses for quality interaction facilitators from the mentees (6 of
11) revealed they viewed their relationship as comfortable, “like a peer,” as an open and trust
worthy relationship. They say their mentor was accessible to assist with life situations. One
mentee did not need help from her mentor even though she did have a good connection. In
agreement with this study’s findings, Lunsford (2011) stresses the importance of mentoring as a
reciprocal relationship. Moreover, both parties need to participate in the mentoring relationship
in order to achieve success. Some mentoring detractors in terms of developing quality
interactions with mentors (5 of 11) were being too busy and did not establish a good connection.
It was challenging for some to break the barrier and ask for help, and one mentee already
had a connection with another instructor that made it difficult to reach out to a formal mentor
because an informal mentoring relationship was already working. The mentor may facilitate the
relationship with the mentee by providing learning opportunities and access to a professional
network. All mentees discontinued their connection after their first semester in the nursing
program due to being unaware that they could continue as needed. The lack of knowledge or
interest from the mentees may have contributed to a decrease in connection and quality over time
and the position of power between the faculty (mentor) and the student (mentee) may have also
contributed (Tierney, 2004).
The findings for research questions one and four were not statistically significant. The
first research question examined the participants’ self-reported attribute ratings after participating
in a formal mentoring program. The mean data results showed high self-reported attribute
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 123

ratings from the participants that did not change after participating in a mentoring program.
Wilson et al. (2010) identified five themes of a “good mentee,” from the mentors’ point of view,
which were included in this research: eager to learn, having a positive attitude, completing
assignments on time, able to share ideas with others, and being a good listener. The mean scores
for the five themes did not change between the pre-survey and post-surveys (p>.05). The
mentees’ had strong self-reported attribute ratings and good mentee characteristics. No change
in the mean scores between the pre- and post-surveys may indicate that mentoring program could
have supported the mentees’ self-reported attribute ratings.
Researchers Pascarella and Terenzini, (2005) and Santos and Reigadas (2002) found the
frequency of interactions between the mentee and mentor were positively related to the mentee’s
college integration and perception of the mentor as supportive and effective. In this study, 6 of
11 participants identified frequent encounters in the hallway between mentor and mentee as
encouraging the mentee’s sense of self and a mentoring facilitator. Other facilitators were
discussions on developing professional goals and assisting the mentee to persevere and stay
focused during their academic experience (Cole & Griffin, 2013). Although 10 of 11
participants did not discuss academic or professional goals with their mentors, the mentoring
workshops did encourage this type of discussion to occur.
Astin’s (1984) SIT described how a student’s environment affects his/her outcomes,
specifically among ethnic minority students. In support 7 of 11 participants found their mentors
were resourceful, had a wealth of knowledge and experience, and offered the mentee a
supportive environment and resources to facilitate learning in terms of time management skills
and the development of study habits. Six of eleven participants discussed issues regarding test-
taking anxiety and were referred to the nursing department’s psychologist as needed.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 124

The mentoring detractors were not connecting with the mentor or having a poor
connection that did not have an influence on their academic experience (4 of 11). Lunsford
(2011) identified implications for effective mentoring include not making assumptions that
student participants in a faculty-mentoring program are being mentored. A few mentees did not
have a connection with their mentor, and their success was solely based on their willingness to
be in class. Similarly, other research found that formal mentoring may produce undesirable
outcomes, such as reduced motivation and engagement (Scandura, 1997; Spencer 2007), and can
be unsuccessful among talented students (Lunsford, 2011). Spencer (2007) suggests that faculty
mentors who are not adequately trained or supported in order to promote a positive mentoring
relationship with students might derail students’ success by creating negative pitfalls (Cole and
Griffin, 2013). Although all faculty were invited to participate and attend the workshops and
training in order to prepare for the mentoring process for this study, not all attended.
The last question examined the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor as a role
model, as caring for their well-being and as having a positive influence on their academic
success. The three-factor question evaluating the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor
did not change and had an average rating score of Agree (3.0) for all. Only 5 of 11 participants
perceived their mentors as role models, 6 of 11 felt the mentor cared for their well-being, and 6
of 11 felt the mentor did have a positive influence on their academic success. One mentoring
facilitator was viewing the mentor as a role model. Others were the mentor’s characteristics:
demonstrating time management skills, having a wealth of knowledge and nursing experience,
being pleasant while teaching, and always being encouraging and positive towards the mentee.
Wilson et al. (2010) and Igbo et al. (2011) found that mentoring relationships that fostered
reflection and self-awareness and role modeling, and that offered personalizing methods of
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 125

learning for underrepresented nursing students, had better retention and learning outcomes. The
mentees in this study described their mentors as positively influencing their academic success by
providing advice on test-taking strategies and by advising the mentee to take the time to relax
and not to burn out from nursing school and to have a social life and good time management
skills. An important finding from Wilson et al. (2010) was that both the mentees and mentors
describe a good mentor as a coach and good listener, cheerleader, encourager, facilitator and
supporter. Those findings are very much in line with the themes found in this research.
The detractors were not having a connection with the mentor and not viewing the mentor
was a role model (6 of 11) and not representing the behavior that the mentee would mimic.
Cultural incompetence and faculty attitudes can cause troublesome psychological and behavioral
obstacles affecting the frequency and quality of the interactions between the two parties (Cole,
2007, 2011; Cole & Griffin, 2013; Hurtado et al., 2011). However, when explored in this study,
cultural and gender issues were denied by the mentees as the cause for a lack of connection
between both parties. Cultural diversity was synonymous with ethnicity during the interview
process. Santos and Reigadas (2005) found that ethnic homogeneity indirectly had an effect on
perceived mentor support via the quantity and quality of the student-mentor encounters. Results
from their study indicated that students and mentors of the same ethnicity had more encounters
and, therefore, the students viewed the mentors as being more supportive in advancing their
career and personal development and voiced greater satisfaction with their participation in the
FMP (Cole & Griffin, 2013).
In order to further explore whether the mentors were culturally sensitive to their mentees,
the question was asked during the focus group interview. None of the mentees identified any
form of cultural issues. Mentoring facilitators included discussing gender differences during
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 126

clinical experiences and the mentors’ understanding of the local culture. All commented that
they did not experience any cultural or gender insensitivities.
Implications for Practice
The focus of this research was to explore the students’ perceptions of the formal faculty-
mentoring program, whether the program benefits nursing students from diverse groups, and
whether the program improves retention. Other nursing programs or colleges might be interested
in implementing a formal faculty-mentoring program in order to retain diverse students by
reviewing the facilitators and detractors of mentoring identified through this research.
A peer-mentoring program in combination with a formal faculty-mentoring program is
recommended, since the mentees felt connected to their peers and did not lose connection over
time. The focus groups participants believed a peer-mentoring program would be beneficial,
since there is a natural comfort and openness already established between peers as compared to
faculty mentors. In support, Astin and Kuh et al. (2005) emphasized that the power in peer
mentoring lies in how students become more analytical by criticizing their own and their peer’s
work and stated that peer tutoring is reciprocal learning.
As an extension of a finding from this study, workshops are recommended on educating
both mentors and mentees regarding their roles in the mentoring relationship and regarding
cultural sensitivity. Administrative support is recommended for financial assistance in offering
the workshops and in facilitating faculty cooperation and accountability. Kuh et al., (2005)
found that, when institutional leaders make student success a fiscal priority, the energy of the
institution from the top down directly affects the culture of the environment and promotes
student engagement.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 127

Future Research
This study was unable to measure the long-term effects of the formal mentoring program
and did not identify at-risk students prior to implementation of the program. Future research is
needed to focus on diverse nursing students, identified as Native Hawaiians or Part Hawaiians,
males and those with a GPA <3.0 (as recommend by the focus group), and on matching faculty
mentors either by ethnicity or gender. It is recommended that workshops prepare both the
mentee and the mentor in terms of their roles in the mentoring relationship. In addition, classes
on cultural competence may encourage a forum of respect. A longitudinal study would be
necessary in order to assess whether formal mentoring retains diverse students. Success would
be measured by rates of graduation and of passing the national certification examination on the
first attempt. A mixed-method approach is recommended, so additional survey items may
measure cultural competence to capture any gender and/or cultural differences.
Conclusions
A formal mentoring program is effective when a connection is created between
participants and administrative support is necessary to encourage faculty accountability and
training for participation in the mentoring program. Workshops are important for both mentor
and mentee in terms of understanding their role in the relationship. Monitoring by a program
director is essential to promoting success in the program and to early intervention when
mentoring connections do not occur.
Faculty mentors have the wealth of knowledge that is required to be successful in the
nursing profession and in teaching others on achieving academic and professional goals. Good
mentees are required to be receptive to the lessons and advice that is provided to them. Good
mentors are viewed as having a positive attitude, role modeling skills on time management,
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 128

providing information on test-taking strategies, and as providing resources to reduce anxiety
while in nursing school. The findings from this research identified that mentor accessibility,
with at least three connections per semester, is the minimum requirement for building a
mentoring connection. Similar to any relationship, being trustworthy and reciprocating with
communication is key to successful mentoring. Although culture and gender differences were
not an issue in this study, future researchers should be mindful of all possible detractors and
facilitators identified in this research when developing a formal mentoring program.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 129

References
Adams, J.E. (2010). Smart Money: Using Educational Resources to Accomplish Ambitious
Learning Goals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Arum, R, Roksa, J., & Cho, E. (2011). Improving undergraduate learning: Findings and policy
recommendations for the SSRC-CLA longitudinal project. Brooklyn, NY: Social Science
Research Council.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education.
Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing Students From Dropping Out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four Critical Years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student Involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of priorities and
practices in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass
Baker, B. (July/August, 2010). Faculty ratings of retention strategies for minority nursing
students. Nursing Education Perspective, 31(4), 216-220.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 130

Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship on student success. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469.
Brewer, Dominic J. and McEwan, Patrick J. (2010). Economics of Education. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press (Elsevier).
Brewer, D.J., Hentschke, G.C. and Eide, E.R. (2010). Theoretical Concepts in the Economics of
Education, Chapter 1, 3-8. In Brewer, Dominic J. and McEwan, Patrick J. (2010).
Economics of Education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press (Elsevier).
Bryson, C. & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44 (4), 349-362.
Botma,Y., Hurter, S. & Kotze, R. (February, 2012). Responsibilities of nursing schools with
regard to peer mentoring. Nurse Education Today. Doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2012.02.021
Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practices in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 1(4), 16-21
Cole, D. G. (2007). Do interracial interactions Matter? An examination of student–faculty
contact and intellectual self–concept. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249–281.
Cole, D. (2008). Constructive Criticism: The Role of Student-Faculty Interactions on African
American and Hispanic Students' Educational Gains. Journal of College Student
Development 49(6), 587-605. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved May 26, 2013,
from Project MUSE database.
Cole, D & Espinoza, A. (2009). When gender is considered: Racial ethnic minority students in
stem majors. Journal of Women in Minorities in Science and Engineering, (5), 263-277.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 131

Cole, D., & Jackson, J. (2005). Racial integration in higher education and students’ educational
satisfaction 50 years beyond Brown. In D. N. Byrne (Ed.), Brown v. Board of Education:
Its impact on public education 1954–2004 (pp. 249–270). New York: The Thurgood
Marshall Scholarship Fund.
Cole, D. G., Bennett, C., & Thompson, J. (2003). Teacher education in a collaborative
multicultural classroom: Implications for critical-mass-minority and all-minority classes
at a predominantly White university. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 38(1), 17–28.
Cole, D.G. & Griffin, K.A. (2013). Advancing the study of student-faculty interaction: A focus
on diverse students and faculty. In M.B. Paulsen (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of
Theory and Research, 561 Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research 28, DOI
10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0_12,
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design-qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Third Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dorsey, L., & Baker, C. (2004). Mentoring undergraduate nursing students: Assessing the state
of the science. Nurse Educator, 29(6), 260-265.
Duncheon, J., & Tierney, W. (2013). Changing conceptions of time. Implications for
educational research and practice. American Educational Research Association, 83(2),
236-272. doi: 10.3102/0034654313478492
Geographical Report, http://hawaii.gov/dcca/pvl/reports/pvl_geo, 2013
Groves, A. (2010). Cultural awareness at the bedside. Med-Surg Matters, 19(4), 4-7.
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S. & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and
impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-366.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 132

Higgins, B. (2004). Relationship between retention and peer tutoring for at-risk students. Journal
of Nursing Education, 43(7), 319-321.
Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Tran, M. C., Newman, C. B., Chang, M. J., & Velasco, P. (2011).
“We do science here”: Underrepresented students’ interactions with faculty in different
college contexts. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 553-579.
Igbo, I., Straker, K., Landson, M., Symes, L., Bernard, L., Hughes, L. & Carroll, T. (November,
2011). An innovative, multidisciplinary strategy to improve retention of nursing students
from disadvantaged backgrounds. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32 (6), 375-379. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-32.6.375
Jeffreys, M. (2002). Students’ perceptions of variables influencing retention: A pretest and
posttest approach. Nurse Educator, 27(1), 16-19.
Johnson, D., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. & Alvarez, P. (2007). Examining sense of belonging
among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College
Student Development, 48 (5), 525-542.
Kuh, G.D., Schuh, J., Whitt, E. & Associates. (1991). Involving Colleges. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J. & Associates. (2005). Student success in
college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kuh G, Kinzie J, Buckley J, Bridges, B, & Hayek, J. (2006). What matters to student success: A
review of the literature. Commissioned Report:
http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/research/pdf/Kuh_Team_Report.pdf
Krause, K. L. & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first year university. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 133

LeVasseur, S.A. (2010). 2009 Registered Nurse Survey. Hawaii State Center for Nursing,
University of Hawaii at Manoa; Honolulu: Hawaii.
Lee, W. Y. (1999). Striving toward effective retention: The effect of race on mentoring African
American Students. Peabody Journal of Education, (74)2, 27-43.
Lederman, D. (October, 2012). UMass professor receives nearly $900,000 grant to increase
number of minority nurses. The Republican. Retrieved from:
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/umass_professor_receives_a_nea.hml
Lockie, N., & Burke, L. (1999). Partnership in learning for utmost success (Plus): evaluation of a
retention program for at-risk nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education, 38(4), 188-
192.
Lunsford, L. G. (Spring, 2011). Psychology of mentoring: the case of talented college students.
Journal of Advanced Academics, (22) 3, 474-498.
March, K. & Ambrose, J. (2010). Rx for NCLEX-RN success: reflections on development of an
effective preparation process for senior baccalaureate students. Nursing Education
Perspectives, 31(4), 230-232.
Mathews, B., LeVasseur, S. A. & Mark, D. (2009). Hawaii state center for nursing-strategic plan
for the nursing workforce in Hawaii 2009-2014. Retrieved from: Melanson, M. A.
(2008). Mentors & Protégés: Simple rule for success. Retrieved from International
Mentoring Association Web Site: http://www.mentoringassociation. org/MP_rules.html
Mearns, K., Meyer, J., & Bharadwaj, A. (2007). Student engagement in human biology practical
sessions. Refereed paper presented at the Teaching and Learning Forum, Curtin
University of Technology: http://otl.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2007/refereed/mearns.html
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 134

Mitchell, A. M., Fioravanti, M., Founds, S., Hoffmann, R. L., & Libman, R. (2010, September).
Using simulation to bridge communication and cultural barriers in health care encounters:
Report of an international workshop. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 6(5), 193-198.
doi:10.1016/j.ecsn.2009.10.001
Nugent, K., Childs, G., Jones, R., & Cook, P. (2004). A mentorship model for the retention of
minority students. Nursing Outlook, 52(2), 89-94.
Padgett, R. D., Johnson, M. P., & Pascarella, E.T. (March/April, 2012). First-generation
undergraduate students and the impacts of the first year of college: additional evidence.
Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 243-266. doi: 10.1353/csd.2012.0032
Pallant, J. (2010). A step by step guide to data analysis using the SPSS program. SPSS survival
manual. (4
th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1979). Student-faculty informal contact and college
persistence: A further investigation. The Journal of Educational Research, 72(4), 214-
218.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive
development: A critical review and synthesis. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 1). New York: Agathon.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., Wolniak, G. C., Cruce, T. M., & Blaich, C. F. (2004). Do liberal arts colleges
really foster good practices in undergraduate education? Journal of College Student,
45(1), 57–74.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 135

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First generation
college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal
of Higher Education, 75, (3), 249-284.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E.T., Blaich, C., Martin, G.L., & Hanson, J.M. ( 2011, May/June). How robust are the
findings of Academically Adrift? Change, 20-24.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pike, G.R. & Kuh, G. (March, 2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges
and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, (2). DOI: 10.1007/s 11162-004-
1599-0
Poorman, S., Webb, C., & Mastorovich, M. (2002). Students’ stories: How faculty help and
hinder students at risk. Nurse Educator, 27(3), 126-131.
Reigadas, E., & Santos, S. J. (1996, October). Evaluation of a faculty mentoring program. A
preliminary qualitative study. Paper presented at the IV Mexican Conference of Social
Psychology, II Meeting of Latin American Cross-Cultural Psychology, Hermosillo,
Sonora, Mexico.
Roberts, J., & McNeese, M. N. (2010). Student Involvement/Engagement in Higher Education
Based on Student Origin. Research in Higher Education Journal, 7, 1-11.
Santos, S. J., & Reigadas, E. T. (2002). Latinos in higher education: An evaluation of a
university faculty mentoring program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,(1), 40-50.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 136

Santos, S. J., & Reigadas, E. T. (2005). Understanding the student-faculty mentoring process: Its
effects on at-risk university students. J. College Student Retention, (6) 3, 337-357.
Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of
Management, 24, 449-467.
Shelton, E. N.,(2003). Faculty support and student retention. Journal of Nursing Education,
42(2), 68-76. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/203924019?accountid=14749
Spencer, R. (2007). “It’s not what I expected”: A qualitative study of youth mentoring
relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(4), 331-354.
Stein, K. (March, 2009). Cultural awareness: Where it is and where it’s headed. Journal of
American Dietetic Association. Doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.01.0182
Tierney, W. G. (1992). Official Encouragement, Institutional Discouragement: Minorities in
Academe--The Native American Experience. Interpretive Perspectives on Education and
Policy [Series].
Tierney, W. (2004). Power, identity, and the dilemma of college student departure. In J.M.
Braxton (ed.) Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville: Vanderbilt University
Press.Z.
Tierney, W., Colyar, J., Corwin, Z. (2003). Preparing for college: building expectations,
changing realities. Retrieved from ERIC: ED482059
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (2nd ed.).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tsui, L. (2007). Effective strategies to increase diversity in STEM fields: A review of research
literature. The Journal of Negro Education, (76) 4.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 137

Upcraft, M. L., Chrissman Ishler, J. L., & Swing, R. L. (2005). A beginner’s guide for assessing
the first college year. In M. L Upcraft; J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.).
Challenging & Supporting the First-year Student: A Handbook for Improving the First
Year of College (pp. 486-500). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walden, P. (Jan/Feb, 2013). Embracing a diverse nursing workforce. Nursing made Incredibly
Easy. DOI: 10.1097/01.NME.0000423377.91140.37
Weidman, J. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. Smart
(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 5). New York:
Agathon.
Wilson, A., Sanner, S., & McAllister, L. (2010). An evaluation study of a mentoring program
to increase the diversity of the nursing workforce. Journal Of Cultural Diversity, 17(4),
144-150. Retrieved from:
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.hpu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=
2010894614&site=ehost-live
Wilson, M. E., & Wolf Wendel, L. (Eds.). (2005). ASHE reader on college student
development theory. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: the overlap and unique
contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college
student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50 (4), 407–428.
Wong, M. A., & Tierney, W. G. (2001). Reforming Faculty Work: Culture, Structure, and the
Dilemma of Organizational Change. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1081-1101.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 138

Yorke, M. & Knight, P. (2004). Self-theories: some implications for teaching and learning in
higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 29 (1), 25-37
Zepke, N. & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: ten proposals for action. Active
Learning in Higher Education 11(167). Doi: 10.1177/1469787410379680

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 139

Appendix A
Critique of Nursing Research on Mentoring
Article and
Author
#1. Faculty
Ratings of
Retention
Strategies
For Minority
Nursing Students
(2010)
Baker, B
#2. Multidisc.
Strategy
Improve
Retention
Disadvantage
Nursing
Igbo et al.,
(2011)
#3 Evaluation
study on a
mentoring
program to
increase the
diversity of the
nursing
workforce
Wilson et al.,
2010
#4. Psychology
of Mentoring:
The Case of
Talented
College
Students
By Lunsford, LG
(Spring, 2011)
#5. Santos &
Reigadas (2002)
(38 at risk
student)

Santos &
Reigadas (2005)
(65 participants)

Problem Student
Retention issues
in Nursing
Programs among
minority
students, leading
to minority
workforce deficit
Increase Nsg
diversity often
met with high
attrition rates

Increasing
diversity in the
nursing
workforce in US
to care for the
increased
diversity of
patients and
families
healthcare.

Little empirical
research on
practice of
mentoring
literature
suggest that
mentoring
relationship is
one directional,
Understanding
the Student
Faculty
Mentoring
Process: Its
Effect on at-risk
students
Research
Question
Or Purpose of
Study
Investigate/descr
iptive study
Types of
retention
strategies by
undergraduate
nursing
programs for the
purpose of
retaining
minority
students

(HRSA) Nursing
Workforce
Diversity
Initiative, to
implement a
three-year
program known
as the CANDO
Purpose of
program
evaluation
study was to
determine the
effectiveness of
a formal
mentoring
program,
entitled
Preparing the
Next
Generation of
Nurses
Mentoring
Program
(NGN), over a
three-year
period.
Examines how
student identity
might influence
students’
relationships
with their
mentors.
What
psychological
needs do
students bring
into mentor
relationships?
Concludes with
policy
implications for
the practice
The purpose was
to understand the
student-faculty
mentoring
process and how
mentoring
facilitates Latino
students’
adjustment
to college
Conceptual Or
Theoretical
Framework
Conceptual
Framework
Research &
literature review
the impact that
faculty have on
retaining
minority nursing
students in
nursing
A theoretical
framework was
not identified in
the article
Conceptual
Framework
mentoring
(Kram, 1985).
helping
relationship
emotional
support,
personal
interaction and
Grounded
theory was
used to
quantify the
qualitative data.
Psychosocial
Developmental
Theory
Literature
Mentoring
Tinto &
Social Network
Theory
(Thompson

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 140

programs

role modeling
(Scott, 2005)
Talented
Students
Sample Administrator-
selected faculty
were randomly
sampled BSN and
AD nursing
programs (16-
state, District of
Columbia)
Sample of 138
full-time faculty
having
Female (96.4%)
Caucasian (84.1)

Nsg students
disadvantage
backgrounds 3
nursing schools
Sample: 105
nursing
students as at-
risk students,
federally
defined criteria
10-faculty
mentor
30 student
mentee
students
disadvantaged
status as
defined by
federal
government
which included
an ethnic
minority and as
either
financially or
educationally
disadvantage
N=128
academically
talented
students in a
faculty
mentorship
program for six
semesters.
SAT score was
1400. 70
women & 58
men three
cohorts. 80%
White students
n=105
65 participant in
Faculty
Mentoring
Program were
surveyed
At risk: ethnic
minority or >40
years
Methods Cross-Sectional
Descriptive
Survey Design

36 Q online
questionnaire
of retention
strategies.

Descriptive
statistics using
SPSS

Program
activities
professional
socialization,
and career
coaching.
Students
surveys
portfolio &
networking
Qualitative
Program
Evaluation
Focus groups
one hour audio-
taped &
transcribed
verbatim focus
groups
perceptions of
the mentoring
program.

Mentor
Relationship
Quality (DV)
and Career
Certainty (IV)
Review of
Interview
records
Mixed-Methods

FMP survey in
two part
instrument on
perceived
adjustment and
perceptions of
faculty mentors ,
program and
ethnic homo.
Attitudinal
adjustment:
Anxiety
Self-Efficacy
Goal definition
Career
Expectation

Findings &
Implications
Organized study
groups and peer
mentoring were
least used
strategies (BSN,
29.2/21.6) (AD,
34.9/39.7%)
Highest rated
strategies faculty
availability
(54%), timely
feedback on tests
(53.3%) & timely
feedback on
clinical
performance
(65%)
Study skills
helped
organized,
Schools average
progression
rate 82%
completion rate
76.8%
exceeding state
average of 69%
Faculty mentor
Role Model
Caring
Academic
Success
Coach and good
listener
Student Mentee
Support System
Enhanced
perception of
the nursing
profession
Academic
enrichment
Perceptions

No statistical
significance
differences by
cohort, college,
gender or
ethnicity when
regressed on
the DV.
1 in 4 students
did not feel
mentored lack
of connection
mentor
Increase in self-
efficacy and
academic goal
Homogeneity:
perceived
mentors to be
more supportive
greater program
satisfaction than
nonmatched
students
frequency
student-mentor
contact was
positively
correlated with
students’
adjustment to
college,
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 141

satisfaction
Discussion &
Recommendati
ons
Three strategies
found effective
by most faculty
respondents:
1. Faculty
availability
2. Timely
feedback on
Tests
3. Timely
feedback on
clinical
performance
Literature
supports study
groups and peer
mentoring, these
strategies were
not properly
utilized.
Add social work
to address
students’ social
and personal
needs.
Funding
support design
of data and
analysis
grad rates 56%-
76.8% did not
reach
benchmark of
85%
Success related
to workshops
faculty
attended to
increase
knowledge of
mentoring
process and
develop
cultural
awareness.
Not all faculty
were willing to
serve as a
mentor
Administrative
support by
sponsoring
workshops to
prepare faculty
to become
mentors.
Some talented
students do not
want to
participate in a
mentor
relationship.
1 in 4 students
were not
psychologically
ready to have a
mentor, despite
a high level of
academic talent
and
preparedness.

Mentors
facilitated
students’
personal,
social, and
academic
adjustment to
college.
Specifically,
student mentor
contact and
ethnic
homogeneity in
student-mentor
backgrounds as
important
affiliative factors
influencing the
quality of the
mentoring
process in
perceived
mentor support
and students’
attitudinal
adjustment to
college
In turn was
positively
related to
earning a higher
grade-point
average
Analysis
Strengths/Wea
knesses
Weakness:
Selection bias
Faculty
Small sample &
limited
generalize.
questionnaire
developed by
investigator, no
tool validity
Strength:
Face & content
validity by panel
of three faculty
Weakness:
Sm. volunteer
sample,
selection bias
threat to
internal validity
Strength:
Did increase
grad. rates
Strength:
Each
investigator
developed
patterns and
themes from
transcripts
All passed
NCLEX on first
attempt except
for one,
Weakness:
Small volunteer
sample,
Weakness:
Limited
generalizability
and validity due
to sample
selection from
talented
students from
one institution.
self-reported
response

Small sample
size
College anxiety
(alpha .70)
College Self-
Efficacy (alpha
.71)
College Goal
definition
Career
Expectation
Modified
version of
Granger’s 20
item faculty
mentoring
perception scale

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 142

Appendix B
Conceptual Framework Comparison Table
Astin (1984, 1993)
SIT & I-E-O
Kuh et al. (2005,
2006)
Engagement
Theory

Bandura’s (1984)
Social Cognitive Theory
Vygotsky’s (1978)
Sociocultural &
Sociohistorical
Chickering & Gamson (1974)
“7 Principles
Good For Practice in UG Ed”
1. Inputs
Major
GPA
College Tests
1. Pre-college
experiences
Enrollment
choices
Financial aid
Transfer Students
1. Student Behavior 1. Cultural and
Social Background

2.Environment
Culture
Student Behavior,
Faculty & Peer
mentoring, Student
Organization
Activity, Policies
etc.
Student
Involvement:
Causal relationship:
student’s academic
& social
involvement
learning increases
the more student
becomes involved
2. Institutional
Conditions
Student Behavior
Intersect with
below
Student
Engagement:
Time & Effort into
studies and other
activities
Environmental
issues:
Peer to peer
Financial Aid
Faculty
Involvement
2. Person-Behavior -
Environment (reciprocal)
Environmental Influence
Student Behavior
Dynamic Interactions of
person (beliefs, values,
attitudes, cognition)
Specific learning Tools
Observational Learning
Modeling
Mentoring
Self-Regulation
Self-Efficacy
2. Culturally
responsive
instruction

ZOPD –learner’s
level of
independent
learning
Scaffolding:
Contingency
Management,
Modeling,
feedback,
cognitive
structure,
questioning, task
structuring
1.Student-Faculty Contact
2. Student Cooperation &
Reciprocity (diminish
competition)
3. Encourages Active
Learning
4. Gives Prompt Feedback
5. Communicates High
Expectations
6. Respect of Diverse Talents
and ways of learning
7. Emphasizes Time on Task
3.Outputs
Grades
Graduation
Grad School
3. Post College
Outcomes
3.Outcomes:
Increased problem solving
skills
Role model Imitation
Increases Mental Effort,
Persistence and
Attributions
Improved control on
behavior and cognition

3. Outcomes:
Familiar cultural
settings promote
learning and
transfer
Learning through
performance
within his/her
ZOPD

Kuh G, Kinzie J,
Buckley J, Bridges,B,
& Hayek, J. (2006).

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 143

Bl
Appendix C
Hawai‘i Pacific University
Institutional Review Board
Project Application

Please complete and submit the form to the IRB chair via email: to irbchair@hpu.edu
Study title:
Nursing Faculty and Student Mentoring Program: Does Faculty
Mentoring Effect Student Outcomes?
Investigator:

Name: Lise Choucair, MSN, FNP-BC, APRN-Assistant Professor CNHS-Director, Student
Retention and Progression (Dissertation topic for Ed.D attending U.S.C.)
(Please check one)
√ Faculty Student Outside Investigator

Phone: 808-263-5833 or Cell: 808-561-1840

Email: lchoucair@hpu.edu

Sponsoring HPU Faculty Member: (if Investigator is not an HPU faculty member)

Please attach a brief summary of the project. This should include an explicit statement of
methods, data collection, and how confidentially of subjects/data will be protected including
consent form.

This study will investigate the effect of implementing a nursing faculty mentoring (Fall
2012) with Level One Nursing Students. An informed consent will be obtained from the
Nursing Faculty and Nursing Students Participating in the Study. The Nursing Faculty will
receive a Mentoring Workshop prior to engaging with the Nursing Students in the study, in
order to understand the conceptual definition of Faculty Mentoring.
Surveys will be distributed throughout each semester through survey monkey and
anonymity and confidentiality will be maintained. Nursing Student Data; such as
Cumulative and NUR GPAs , course failures and attrition rates will be reviewed and the
data maybe included in the study while maintaining anonymity and confidentiality.
Confidentiality will be maintained by assigning each participant with an identification
number and all information that is collected in paper form will be locked storage area.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 144

Category for Review:

Check one level of review (Exempt, Expedited, Full) for which you believe the project
qualifies, and each criterion that your project meets.

____ Exempt from review (nil or minimal risk study, or already reviewed by an IRB)

____ Research involves ONLY investigation into or comparison of normal instructional strategies.

√ Tests, interviews, and surveys are unlikely to elicit emotion or place subjects at risk of civil/criminal
liability or damage to their reputation, financial standing, employability, etc. AND information will
not be recorded in such a way that subjects can be identified.

√ Research involves only the study or analysis of existing data, documents, records, or specimens that are
publicly available or recorded in such a way that subjects cannot be identified.

____ If study involves ingestion of food: only wholesome food without additives in excess of USDA
recommended levels is consumed.

√ Brief informed consent will be done (except in the case of existing data, etc.).

√ No use of vulnerable subjects (children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally ill, etc.).

____ Has already been approved by IRB at _________________________________.
(Include copy of signed IRB approval form.)

____ Expedited review (minor risk study)

__√___ Research and data collection methods are unlikely to elicit strong emotion and deception is not
involved.

____ Research involves only noninvasive, painless, and non-disfiguring collection of physical samples,
such as hair, sweat, excreta.

__√___ No use of vulnerable subjects (children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally ill, disabled, etc.).

____ Data are recorded using noninvasive, painless, and non-disfiguring sensors or equipment, such as
EKG, weighing scales, voice/video recording.

____ Research involves only moderate levels of exercise in healthy volunteers.

__√___ Research does not involve ingestion of drugs or use of hazardous devices.

__√__If existing data, documents, records, or specimens with identifiers are used, procedures are in place
to ensure confidentiality.

__√__ Informed consent process will be done (attach copy of informed consent form).

__√__ Data will be kept confidential and not reported in identifiable fashion.

____ Full review required (more than minor risk)
Attach a statement that describes the use of vulnerable subjects or the study procedures and conditions that
place subjects at risk. Describe the precautions that will be taken to minimize these risks. Attach a copy of the
informed consent form that will be used.
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 145

Certification by Principal Investigator: The above represents a fair estimate of risks to human
subjects.
Lise Choucair, Assistant Professor CNHS, Director of Student Retention and Progression July
28, 2012
______________________________________________________________________________
Name/ Title/ Date: Lise Choucair, MSN, FNP-BC, APRN Assistant Professor, Director
Student Retention and Progression 7/31/2012
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
FOR IRB USE ONLY
-
Certification by IRB Chair: I have read this application and believe this research qualifies as:
____ Exempt from IRB review
_X___ Appropriate for expedited review, and
__X__ approved
____ disapproved
____ Appropriate for review by the full IRB

__#560412081_____ ___8/31/12____________
IRB Chair Date

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 146

Appendix D

INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT

Project Title: Nursing Faculty and Student Mentoring Program: Does Faculty Mentoring Effect
Student Outcomes Among a Diverse Student Population?

Investigator(s): Lise Choucair, MSN, FNP-BC, APRN, Assistant Professor CNHS and Director,
Student Retention and Progression, is the Principal Investigator and will obtain the Informed
Consent from the research subjects.

PURPOSE
This study involves research. The purpose of the research is to investigate the effect on
implementing a nursing faculty mentoring program with Level One Nursing Students and to
investigate if is there is an effect on student outcomes, such as retention rates, grades, and
student satisfaction. Surveys will be distributed throughout the semester through survey monkey
and anonymity and confidentiality will be maintained. Nursing student data; such as cumulative
and NUR GPA, course failure and attrition rates will be reviewed and maybe included in the
study while maintaining anonymity and confidentiality. Demographic information will be
collected in order to identify race, age, marital status and income. We are inviting you to
participate in this research as the first incoming Level One Nursing Students to participate in a
faculty to student mentoring program. This project will last for 2012-2013 academic year.

PROCEDURES
Those agreeing to participate can expect the following to occur:

1. Mentors will receive a mentoring workshop on August 27
th
, 2012 at 0830-1000.
2. Mentees will be given a briefing on the Faculty-Student Mentoring Program during Level
I orientation and will be asked to participate in the study.
3. There will be a meet and greet encounter on August 27
th
, 2012 and the mentees and
mentors will meet to exchange contact information.
4. Mentees and Mentors will be expected to maintain a weekly log on interactions between
both parties and indicate the method of contact, ie: text, phone, email or face to face
encounters and for how long.
5. Mentees and Mentors will be asked to complete surveys in the beginning, middle and end
of each semester.
6. In the middle and the end of each semester, mentors and mentees will be asked to submit
their weekly logs to the primary investigator.

RISKS
The are no foreseeable risks associated with participating in this research project.

BENEFITS
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 147

There may be a personal benefit for participating in this study by having a faculty mentor
available to offer guidance during the full academic year. However it is hoped that in the future,
HPU and nursing education could benefit from this study by implementing a Faculty-Student
Mentoring Program if the student outcomes prove to be beneficial. Note that monetary
compensation is not a benefit by participating in this study.

COSTS AND COMPENSATION
There will not be any costs to the subject for participating in this research project.
Subjects will not be compensated for their time and inconvenience for participating in this
research project.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Records of participation in this research project will be maintained and kept confidential to the
extent permitted by law. However, federal government regulatory agencies* and the Hawai’i
Pacific University IRB may inspect and copy a subject's records pertaining to the research, and
these records may contain personal identifiers. Confidentiality will be maintained by assigning
each participant an identification number. This identification number will be used to analyze data
and will remain separate from participant’s personal identification. All collected data in paper
form will be secured in a locked storage area. In the event of any report or publication from this
study, the identity of subjects will not be disclosed. Results will be reported in a summarized
manner in such a way that subjects cannot be identified.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
All participation is voluntary. There is no penalty to anyone who decides not to participate. Nor
will anyone be penalized if he or she decides to stop participation at any time during the research
project.

QUESTIONS
Questions are encouraged. Questions about this research project and questions about the rights of
research subjects or research related injury may be addressed to the IRB Chair (Dr. Trish
Ellerson at 566-2467 or irbchair@hpu.edu)

Subject’s name (printed): _______________________________________________

__________________________________________ ___________________
(Signature of Subject) (Date)

INVESTIGATOR STATEMENT
I have discussed the above points with the subject or the legally authorized representative, using
a translator when necessary. It is my opinion that the subject understands the risks, benefits, and
obligations involved in participation in this project.

__________________________________________ ___________________
(Signature of Investigator) (Date)

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 148

Appendix E
Survey Instrument

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 149

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 150

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 151

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 152

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 153

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 154

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 155

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 156

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 157

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 158

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 159

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 160

Appendix F
Debriefing
Thank you for participating in our study. We have gotten useful information on the effects of
faculty to student mentoring. The main purpose of our study is to see if faculty to student
mentoring improves student outcomes and student satisfaction while attending the nursing
program at Hawai`i Pacific University.
You were provided a faculty mentor during level one orientation and you met your mentor. We
expected you to maintain a weekly log documenting how often and by which means you
connected with your mentor (ie: email, text messaging, phone, or in person). It was
recommended that you had face to face meeting once a month for at least one-two hour(s). You
were required to complete a 15 minute survey at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of
the semester, through survey monkey.
If you have any questions about this study, feel free to contact me, Lise Choucair, at
lchoucair@hpu.edu or 808-236-5833. If you have any questions about your rights as a research
participant, please contact the IRB Chair at 808-566-2467 or irbchair@hpu.edu.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Reference:
Wilson, A., Sanner, S., & McAllister, L. (2010). An evaluation study of a mentoring program to
increase the diversity of the nursing workforce. Journal Of Cultural Diversity, 17(4), 144-150.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 161

Appendix G
Hawai`i Pacific University-CNHS
Faculty-Student Mentoring Program-Contact Log

Please indicate by checking the appropriate box: Mentor ◻ or Mentee ◻
Legend for contact: RECEIVED E-MAIL SENT E-MAIL
RECEIVED TEXT SENT TEXT
CALLED MENTOR RECEIVED CALL FROM MENTOR
FACE-TO-FACE CONTACT
OR OTHER (Please specify)

NO Date of Contact Type of Contact (Use Legend Above)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Please send a copy of log, via email to Director, Student Retention and Progression, by
midterm and at the end of semester to: lchoucair@hpu.edu

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 162

Appendix H
Mentoring Form
My Personal Plan for Success
Name: _________________________________
Date: _________________________
Mentoring Goals and Objectives:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Developmental
Need/Activity:
Beginning Date Projected Ending
Date
Notes:

Developmental
Need/Activity:
Beginning Date Projected Ending
Date
Notes:

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 163

Appendix I
The Benefits of having a Mentor PPT Outline
The Mentoring Program

 Mentoring is a developmental partnership through which one
person shares knowledge, skills, information and perspective
to foster the personal and professional growth of someone
else. The power of mentoring is that it creates a one-of-a-kind
opportunity for collaboration, goal achievement and problem solving.

 The program will provide students with a mentor that will help
guide, teach, and support students with their academic
careers.

Definitions
 Mentor (professor): A mentor is an experienced person who
helps the mentee clarify and reach their important life goals. A
formal mentor agrees to an ongoing planned partnership that
focuses on helping the mentee reach their career goals.

 Mentee (students) : A mentee is someone seeking personal
and professional development and growth through the
assistance of an experienced and knowledgeable
professional.

Mentoring Goals
 Get A’s and B’s (C’s are a red flag)
 Seek help from mentor for help when needed
 Communicate with mentor openly and frequently
 Prioritize and learn effective time management.
 initiate and take charge of your education.
 Mentees are PROTEGEES.

The Role of Your Mentor:
 Provide exposure and access to different levels throughout

The Role of Your Mentor:
 Provide exposure and access to different levels throughout
the HPU Community
 Share their understanding of organizational values,
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 164

relationships and unwritten rules
 Identify skills needed for mentee to be successful at HPU
 Assist mentee with setting developmental goals
 Make realistic, achievable academic plans
 Identify opportunities for development
 Act as sounding board
 Provide developmental feedback
 Benefits of Mentoring

Responsibilities of the Mentor & Mentees
THE MENTOR – MENTEE PARTNERSHIP
 Things to consider:
 Work ethic
 Compatible hours
 Expectations of the relationship
 A sense of trust and openness

What do you as a mentee need developmentally?
Getting Started…
1) TALK ABOUT WHAT MENTORING IS
 Mentor and mentee need to have a realistic understanding
and agreement of where the mentee is now and where they
would like to be.
 Then they need to decide what some of the developmental
activities are that the mentor needs to be involved in to get
where they want to go.

 Mentee needs to be mindful of what they need and if their
needs are not getting met, they need to let the mentor know
that and request what they need

Getting Started…
2) GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER
 Mentor and mentee exchange some background info about
themselves (reasons for going into nursing, goals, family,
hobbies, etc.)
 Mentor will then ask the mentee some questions about what
the mentees will need from them:
- Types of support you most likely need (academic, time
management, personal coaching, etc.)
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 165

- How do you like to be supported to accomplish goals? (e.g.:
Forcefully pushed? Gently encouraged? Challenged? Need a
lot of acknowledgement for what is working or what you are
doing right in relationship to what you want?)

 Mentee needs to proactive in reaching out to their mentor.

Getting Started…
3) DECIDE ON LOGISTICS AND STRUCTURE
 Meeting times
 Length of meetings
 Frequency of meetings
 Frequency of meetings
 Where
 Who initiates
 How will you structure your meetings or use your time
 together?
 Any forms or structures you want to use

Getting Started…
4) DRAFT AGREEMENT AND DECIDE ON NEXT STEPS
 Mentor and mentee make some arrangements based on the
conversations about how they want to be with each other to
best support mentee in achieving their goals.

Getting Started…
5) CLOSE WITH WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE AND AGREE
ON NEXT MEETING
 Agree on frequency of meetings, and a day and time to meet
next. Not all your meetings need to be face-to-face. Some can
be virtual meetings using Skype or even social media.
 Mentor may also ask mentee to come up with some goals or
areas they want support from the mentor in developing.
 At the next meeting the mentor and mentee can agree on the
goals and decide what some of the developmental activities
are that the mentor needs to be involved in to get where they
want to go.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 166

Check Points

before finals.

Tips for Successful Mentorship
 Strive for mutual benefits-
 The relationship should be defined from the beginning as mutually beneficial.
 Each participant has committed to the relationship by choice.
 Each should openly share his or her goals for the relationship and work
collaboratively to help achieve them.

 Agree on confidentiality- Maintaining an environment of
confidentiality is a critical component in building a trust
between the participants.
 Commit to honesty- Participants should be willing to candidly
share what they expect to gain from the relationship and their
vision for getting there. They should be prepared to offer frank
feedback as appropriate, even if the feedback is critical.
 Listen and learn- Mutual benefit and honesty can only be
achieved when both members feel their viewpoints are heard
and respected.

“Mentoring is a brain to pick, an ear to listen, and a push in
the right direction.”
John C. Crosby
Any Questions?
MAHALO!
Dr. Han Nee Chong Wester
Instructional Design & Technology Specialist

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 167

Appendix J
Being an Effective Mentor PPT Outline
The Mentoring Program

 Mentoring is a developmental partnership through which one
person shares knowledge, skills, information and perspective
to foster the personal and professional growth of someone
else. The power of mentoring is that it creates a one-of-a-kind
opportunity for collaboration, goal achievement and problem solving.
 The mentor will help guide, teach, and support students with
their academic careers.
 The mentor works with the mentee to strengthen
competencies needed to enhance academic performance and
career progression.

Definitions
 Mentor (faculty): A mentor is an experienced person who
helps the mentee clarify and reach their important life goals. A
formal mentor agrees to an ongoing planned partnership that
focuses on helping the mentee reach their career goals.

 Mentee (students) : A mentee is someone seeking personal
and professional development and growth through the
assistance of an experienced and knowledgeable
professional.

Mentoring Goals

p students with prioritization and time management.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 168

What Does A Mentor Do:

the Community
relationships and unwritten
rules

developmental goals

Coaching Skills
 Coaching is the artful use of conversation employing the communication skills
of:

change, and
accountability

Benefits of Mentoring
Responsibilities of the Mentor & Mentees
THE MENTOR – MENTEE PARTNERSHIP

 Things to consider:

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 169

Getting Started…
1) TALK ABOUT WHAT MENTORING IS
 Mentor and mentee need to have a realistic understanding
and agreement of where the mentee is now and where they
would like to be.

 Then they need to decide what some of the developmental
activities are that the mentor needs to be involved in to get
where they want to go.

 Mentor needs to help mentee create a vision, clarify and set
goals, and develop action strategies.

Getting Started…
2) GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER
 Mentor and mentee exchange some background info about
themselves (reasons for going into nursing, goals, family,
hobbies, etc.)

 Mentor will then ask the mentee some questions about what
the mentees will need from them:
 Types of support you most likely need (academic, time
management, personal coaching, etc.)

How do you like to be supported to accomplish goals? (e.g.:
Forcefully pushed? Gently encouraged? Challenged? Need a
lot of acknowledgement for what is working or what you are
Forcefully pushed? Gently encouraged? Challenged? Need a
lot of acknowledgement for what is working or what you are
doing right in relationship to what you want?)

 *Mentor may also ask mentee for ways he/she can best
support the mentee. E.g., how do you want me to be when
you have not completed something you’ve agreed to
complete? In other words, hold mentee accountable for what
they say they want and will do.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 170

Getting Started…
3) DECIDE ON LOGISTICS AND STRUCTURE

structure your meetings or use your time
together?

Getting Started…
4) DRAFT AGREEMENT AND DECIDE ON NEXT STEPS

conversations about how they want to be with each other to
best support mentee in achieving their goals.
Getting Started…
5) CLOSE WITH WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE AND AGREE
ON NEXT MEETING

next. Not all your meetings need to be face-to-face. Some can
be virtual meetings using Skype or even social media.
ask mentee to come up with some goals or
areas they want support from the mentor in developing.

goals and decide what some of the developmental activities
are that the mentor needs to be involved in to get where they
want to go.

Check Points

Tips for Successful Mentorship
- The relationship should be defined
from the beginning as mutually beneficial. Each participant
has committed to the relationship by choice. Each should
openly share his or her goals for the relationship and work
collaboratively to help achieve them.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 171

- Maintaining an environment of
confidentiality is a critical component in building a trust
between the participants.

- Participants should be willing to candidly
share what they expect to gain from the relationship and their
vision for getting there. They should be prepared to offer frank
feedback as appropriate, even if the feedback is critical.

- Mutual benefit and honesty can only be
achieved when both members feel their viewpoints are heard
and respected.

Suggestions

working out (challenges/brainstorm)

help students succeed? (Google doc)

– how to navigate through the system? Resource
sheet for students (e.g., child care, programs within the
community, HPU)

– what have we learned?
– counseling, Rev Dale Burke
– How many courses to take? Successful credit load
– referral (16 credits), online courses, UH courses
– red flags?
-management – working part time?
– set realistic expectations
– peer-to-peer

“Mentoring is a brain to pick, an ear to listen, and a push in
the right direction.”
John C. Crosby
Any Questions?
MAHALO!
Dr. Han Nee Chong Wester
Instructional Design & Technology Specialist
Center for the Advancement of Innovative Teaching (CAIT)
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 172

Appendix K
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Formal Faculty Mentoring Program and Nursing Students’ Perceptions
Interview Questions for the Mentee Participants
Welcome! My name Lise Choucair and I am a doctoral candidate at USC in the Higher
Education Leadership Program in the Rossier School of Education. Under the leadership of Dr.
Darnell Cole, Dr. Melora Sundt, and Dr. Rueda, I am working on evaluating your perceptions of
the mentoring program.
The purpose of this study is to explore the mentees’ perceptions of the formal faculty-to-student
mentoring program pilot, by using mix-method design including surveys and interview process.
The purpose of this interview is collect further data from the mentee about their perceptions, of
the mentoring program and of their faculty mentor, post the implementation of the faculty
mentoring program.
At this time I will review the consent and you have the right to participate or not, without any
penalty. (Read consent here)
Sign In Sheet Information For Focus Group:
1. What is your age?
2. What is your gender?
3. What is your ethnicity?
4. What level are you in the nursing program?
RQ: 1
What are participants’ self-reported attribute ratings, after participating in a formal
mentoring program?
1. To what extent, if any, do you perceive having a faculty mentor experience as influential
on your educational experience? Please explain by providing an example if possible.
2. To what extent, if any, do you perceive having a faculty mentor experience as influential
on your level of anxiety-- in terms of the pressure to perform well in the nursing program
and in meeting your academic obligations?
3. To what extent, if any, do you perceive having a faculty mentor experience as influential
on your success in the nursing program?
PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 173

4. To what extent, if any, do you perceive having a faculty mentor experience as influential
your academic and professional goals?
5. What role do you play in the mentoring relationship?
6. What characteristics do you need in order to foster a successful mentoring relationship?
What about the characteristics of your faculty mentor?
RQ: 2
How do the mentees perceive their connection with their mentors?
1. Can you describe your connection with your mentor? Please explain by providing an
example.
2. What were the frequency and the type of connections that you had with your mentor over
the past several months? Please explain by providing examples on the type of interactions
with your mentor.
RQ: 3
How do the mentees perceive the quality of their interactions with their faculty mentors, as
facilitated through the formal mentoring program?
1. How would you describe the quality of your interactions with your mentor? Please explain by
providing an example.
2. Can you describe some obstacles in achieving quality interactions with your mentor, if any?
3. Are there examples or situations in which you achieved quality interactions with your
mentor?
RQ: 4
What are the mentees’ perceptions of their faculty mentor as a role model, caring for their
well-being, and as a positive influence on their academic success?
1. What is your perception of your mentor as a role model? Please answer by providing an
example.
2. What is your perception of your mentor as caring for your well-being, in relation to
cultural sensitivity and/or gender differences? Please answer by providing an example.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 174

3. What is your perception of your mentor as having a positive influence on your academic
success? Please answer by providing an example.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 175

Appendix L
Informed Consent

You are invited to participate in a research study, which aims at evaluating your perceptions of
the mentoring program. The study is conducted by Lise Choucair, a doctoral candidate at USC in
the Higher Education Leadership Program at the Rossier School of Education; I under the
leadership of Dr. Darnell Cole, Dr. Melora Sundt, and Dr. Rueda.

You are eligible to participate in this study because you are an undergraduate nursing student
who consented to participate in this study during level one orientation, when you were assigned a
mentor. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate. Your participation is voluntary. Your
relationship with your school will not be affected, whether or not you participate in this research
study.

Purpose of the study
We are asking you to take part in this research study because we are interested in your
perceptions’ as a mentee, of the mentoring experience as a result of having a faculty mentor.

Participation
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a focus group interview that will
involve yourself and other participants in the group. The focus group will consist of
undergraduate nursing students.

Procedures
You will be asked to:

1. Participate in a focus group interview which will last approximately 60
minutes. The interview will be conducted on-campus in a secure location.
2. If you have not completed the post-survey you will be asked to complete the survey prior
to beginning the focus group interview.
3. During the focus group interview you will be asked several open-ended questions and
allow for you to offer information not asked by questions guiding this study.
4. The focus group will be audio-taped with your permission; if you do not want to be
audio-taped, handwritten notes will be taken.
5. Once I have summarized the findings you will have an opportunity to provide any
follow-up feedback that you feel is needed for clarification.

Potential Risks and Discomforts
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some discomfort during
the focus group interview or you may be inconvenienced from taking time out of your day to
complete the interview. If so, you may stop the focus group interview at any time and leave the
session if you are feeling uncomfortable.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 176

Potential Benefits to Subjects
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study. It is hoped that the
results of this study will help mentoring programs address the needs of their students.

Confidentiality
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you
will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.

The information collected about you will be coded using a fake name (pseudonym) or initials
and numbers, for example abc-123, etc. The information, which has your identifiable
information, will be kept separately from the rest of your data.

The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HPSS) may access to the data. The HSPP
reviews and mentors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

Audio-tape recordings of you will only be used for educational purposes; your identity will be
protected or disguised.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will
be included that would reveal your identity.

Participation and Withdrawal
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may
withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any
questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw
you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.

Alternatives to Participation
Your alternative is to not participate; if you choose not to participate, you will be asked to
continue with your regular scheduled activities. Your grades will not be affected, whether or not
you participate in this study.

Rights of Research Subjects
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have any questions about your rights as a study subject or you would like to speak
with someone independent of the research team to obtain answers to questions about the
research, or in the event the research staff cannot be reached, please contact the University Park
Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 177

Identification of Investigators
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the Principal
Investigator, Lise Choucair via email at lchoucai@usc.edu or the Faculty Advisor, Darnell Cole,
Ph.D., via email at dcole@usc.edu.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS-IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or
the research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to
someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional
Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 9008-0702, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 178

Appendix M
Facilitators and Detractors for Mentoring Success per Research Question
Themes Per RQ Facilitators Detractors
RQ1Self-Attribute
Ratings
College Anxiety

 6 of 11 mentees did discuss anxiety
with mentors
 Mentor is resourceful and offers
strategies on reducing test taking
anxiety
 Referring the mentee to the
psychologist to assist in reducing high
levels of anxiety
 Frequent informal encounters in the
hallway between mentee and mentor

 5 of 11 mentees did not discuss anxiety
with mentors
 Not having a connection or having a
poor connection with mentor

College Self-Efficacy

 7 of 11 mentees believed their mentor
assisted in improving their skills on
time management and developed
study strategies

 4 of 11 mentees felt their motivation
was the reason for their academic
success and not related to the
mentoring program

College Goal Definition

 1 of 11 did have well defined goals to
maintain focus and persevere in the
program

 10 of 11 did not discuss goal
definitions with mentor

Mentee’s Self-
Assessment
 7 of 11 mentees believed they played
a role in mentoring relationship
 Being receptive to their mentor’s
advice and reaching out for help when
needed
 Having mentor that can be trusted
 Reciprocal mentoring relationship,
either by informal or formal
communication
 2 of 11 did not have a mentoring
connection
 1 of 11 believed negative first
impressions and feelings of avoidance
from their mentor, discouraged their
connection, decreased after first initial
contact
 1 of 11 mentee had high stress level
and lack of time in building a
relationship with their mentor
RQ2 Mentoring
Connection
p = .004
 9 of 11 mentees did have a mentoring
connection
 7 of 11 had good connection (rating
scale 7-10)
 Connecting with mentor at least three
or more times per semester, formally
or informally (email, encounters in
hallway)
 2 of 11 mentees did not have a
mentoring connection
 Mentor not present at Level I
Orientation, creating a negative first
impression
 No follow up connection or having few
connections
 11 of 11 mentoring connections
decreased over time, mentee was too
busy and unaware mentoring
relationship could continue after level
one

PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MENTORING 179

RQ3 Quality
Interactions
p =.02
 6 of 11 had quality interactions with
mentor
 Mentor was trust worthy, accessible
and comfortable to talk to
 Supportive and dependable in
assisting with life problems
 Mentor is like a peer with a very
open relationship
 5 of 11 did not have quality interactions
 Mentee was too busy and stressed with
class schedule in coordination with
mentor’s busy schedule
 Breaking the barrier and building a
quality relationship takes time

RQ4 Mentor is a Role
Model, Positive and
Caring

 5 of 11 viewed their mentor as a role
model and as an experienced faculty
and nurse
 6 of 11 viewed a mentor who is
caring as positive and a good
instructor, and models good time
management skills, encouraging self-
care and not to burnout in nursing
school
 6 of 11 felt their mentor influenced
their academic success by being
encouraging and positive and cares
about their mentee’s well-being
 6 of 11 did not view their mentor as a
role model, since they did not
connecting on a personal level

Culture and Gender
Sensitivity

 Mentor is cognizant and willing to
discuss gender differences in the
nursing profession.
 Mentor is culturally sensitive and
offers advice on work, family and
school.
 None of the mentees indicated that
cultural or gender issues led to a lack of
connecting with their mentor
Further
Recommendations from
Mentees

 Good Mentors should be assigned to
students with a GPA of <3.0 (at risk)
 Peer to peer mentoring maybe more
beneficial in comparison to formal
faculty mentoring, one level above
 Mentors should be present during level I
orientation and meet their mentee,
faculty accountability and participation
should be a requirement

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this dissertation was to explore nursing students’ perceptions of a formal faculty‐mentoring program in effort to retain diverse incoming nursing students. Astin’s Student Involvement Theory (1984) and the I-E-O research model (1991) were the framework for this study exploring the nursing students’ inputs (student characteristics), environment (implementation of mentoring pilot program), and outputs (student perceptions). ❧ The faculty-mentoring program was implemented during the 2012-2013 academic year in Hawai‘i. A convenience sample of 108 participants completed the pre‐surveys and 67 of the participants completed the post‐surveys. A comparison between pre‐ and post‐surveys measuring perceptions of the mentoring program was further triangulated through focus groups by using a sequential explanatory design. ❧ Findings from this study indicate a decrease in mentoring connection and quality interactions over time. The facilitators of mentoring were identified as discussions on time management, study strategies, reducing test‐taking anxiety and the mentor as a resource with a wealth of knowledge. Cultural sensitivity was not of concern, since the mentees felt supported regardless of culture and gender differences with their mentors. Some mentoring detractors were not having a connection with the mentor, negative first impressions and the mentee’s experiencing high levels of stress with inadequate time to follow up with their mentors. All mentees discontinued their connection after their first semester in the nursing program. Cultural or gender differences were not identified as detractors. Other nursing programs or colleges interested in implementing a formal faculty‐mentoring program in order to retain diverse students may find the result of this study beneficial by reviewing the facilitators and detractors of mentoring.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

The impact of student-faculty interaction on undergraduate international students' academic outcome

PDF

Differentiated motivations of preservice teachers to enter the teaching profession in Hawai‘i

PDF

Values and beliefs related to diversity amongst students being prepared as teachers

PDF

Developing effective mentoring programs for non-tenure track faculty

PDF

Impact of culturally responsive education on college choice

PDF

Short-term study tours and global competence development

PDF

Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

Raising cultural self-efficacy among faculty and staff of a private native Hawaiian school system

PDF

Self-efficacy beliefs and intentions to persist of Native Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors

PDF

Building mentoring relationships: the experiences of first-generation Latinx scholars

PDF

The mentoring experience: a case study of a mentoring program for first-generation students transitioning to a postsecondary institution

PDF

The impact of work study on the integration and retention of undergraduate students at the University of California

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement

PDF

The development of a comprehensive first-year experience program for the University of Southern California: Using an innovation GAP analysis model

PDF

Peer mentor curriculum: post-secondary students with autism: success in self-regulation and thriving

PDF

Supporting faculty for successful online instruction: factors for effective onboarding and professional development

PDF

Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions

PDF

Improving hospital readmission rates: the benefit of a transitional case management program

Asset Metadata

Creator Choucair, Lise Marie (author)

Core Title Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/11/2014

Defense Date 02/21/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag formal mentoring,mentee,mentoring,nursing,OAI-PMH Harvest,undergraduate mentoring

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cole, Darnell G. (committee chair), Rueda, Robert (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email lchoucair@hpu.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-377221

Unique identifier UC11297382

Identifier etd-ChoucairLi-2342.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-377221 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChoucairLi-2342.pdf

Dmrecord 377221

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Choucair, Lise Marie

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA