Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The role that mentoring interactions between faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors among students play in cultivating a culture of mentoring in higher education institutions
(USC Thesis Other)
The role that mentoring interactions between faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors among students play in cultivating a culture of mentoring in higher education institutions
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE ROLE THAT MENTORING INTERACTIONS BETWEEN FACULTY, STAFF,
CAMPUS STAKEHOLDERS, AND PEER MENTORS AMONG STUDENTS PLAY IN
CULTIVATING A CULTURE OF MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
By:
Eric Jon Greer
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 2020
ii
Acknowledgments
In the last three years, while penning my study, I have faced many challenges and uphill
battles. During the pursuit of my doctoral degree, I struggled to overcome a significant break-up
from a seven-year relationship. I survived, thrived, and morphed into a better 'me' within a
transitional work environment. Additionally, I maintained two employment commitments to
keep a roof over my head, served as an online faculty member at an international university, and
spent every hour I could over the past ten months continuously polishing my dissertation. This
academic experience, coupled with my personal and professional challenges, has served as
mechanisms of empowerment and validation. They have bolstered my professional and personal
confidence while providing the needed skills to pursue various professional endeavors.
While writing these acknowledgments, I smiled, reflecting on the study I have
accomplished and how this endeavor has aided in my transition to the man I am becoming. As a
product of a low income, single-parent household, and one who identifies as a first-generation
college student, I had never viewed myself as smart enough to enroll, let alone, graduate from
one of the top-tier research-based institutions in the country.
To my family, friends, and dissertation committee, their dedication and commitment to
my success have provided the confidence and knowledge needed to attain any goal pursued. I
am also indebted to their servitude. I want to thank my mother, Phyllis Webb, who would have
never imagined my achieving such an academic goal. When unsure of how to support my
literary endeavors, she always provided the spiritual inspiration that served as my impetus to
proceed forward. I would especially like to thank my friends Dr. Lica Abu-Esba, Donna S.
Lyons, Nicole Valdez, and Nola Daniels.
iii
Additionally, Dr. Scott Amundsen, Dr. Heidilinn Smith, Avery Johnson, and Kara More.
Each of these individuals motivated me to pursue my doctoral degree. Their gifted ability to
serve as eloquent word-smiths and assist with putting thoughts to paper (sometimes even better
than I could phrase things myself), analyze data, voluntarily proofread my chapters, and serve as
cheerleaders are several reasons this study has come to the point of actualization.
Next, I want to thank my dissertation committee, chaired by Dr. Adrianna Kezar. Dr.
Kezar served as a role model and validating agent. She also provided the guidance I needed to
achieve this goal. I sincerely appreciate her leadership and commitment to educational research
in the field of higher education. Furthermore, I want to thank my two other dissertation reading
committee members, Dr. Joseph Kitchen and Dr. Brina Hinga. I am appreciative of their time,
insight, and holding this study to the high standard that it deserves.
Moreover, I would be remiss if I did not express gratitude for the research data shared by
the Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC) on the faculty, staff, campus stakeholders,
and Buffett Scholars. Without detailed information about the program, related activities, and
transparency from each participant, I would have been unable to clearly understand and articulate
the many ways to cultivate a mentoring culture in higher education institutions. Finally, I now
embody a dream that I once considered farfetched and unattainable. Now, it is time to share
what I have learned of ways to develop a mentoring culture with other higher education
professionals.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .......................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................................8
Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................................9
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................10
Chapter Two: Literature Review ..................................................................................................11
Defining Mentoring .................................................................................................................12
Outcomes of Mentoring to Student Success ............................................................................14
The Process of Developing a Mentoring Culture ....................................................................17
Types of Mentoring..................................................................................................................23
Process of Mentoring ...............................................................................................................31
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................34
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................37
Chapter Three: Research Methods ................................................................................................39
Overall Design .........................................................................................................................39
Overview of Program ...............................................................................................................43
Participants ...............................................................................................................................48
Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................................52
v
Trustworthiness and Role of the Researcher ...........................................................................54
Limitations ...............................................................................................................................55
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................55
Chapter Four: Data and Findings ..................................................................................................57
Systems to Support Development of Mentorship ....................................................................59
Norms that Influenced Referrals to Campus Resources ..........................................................74
Mandatory Themed Rituals and Events ...................................................................................86
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................93
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion ....................................................................................94
Discussion of the Data .............................................................................................................95
Data Analysis through Empowerment Theory ........................................................................97
Data Analysis through Validation Theory .............................................................................105
Implications for Policy and Practice ......................................................................................109
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................114
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................118
References ....................................................................................................................................120
Appendices
Appendix A: Faculty, Staff, and Stakeholder Informed Consent ...............................................135
Appendix B: TSLC Buffett Scholar Digital Diary Informed Consent .......................................137
Appendix C: Faculty, Staff, and Stakeholder Interview Protocol ..............................................140
Appendix D: TSLC Buffett Scholar Interview Questions ..........................................................142
Appendix E: TSLC Buffett Scholar Digital Diary Questions .....................................................143
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The Six Lenses of Mentoring .........................................................................................13
Table 2: Participants in the TSLC Study at the UNO Campus .....................................................52
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Figure 1: Developing Mentoring Culture from Organizational and Interpersonal Levels ...........22
Figure 2: Diagram of Comprehensive College Transition Program Components ........................44
viii
Abstract
Mentoring is seen as the development of meaningful relationships with others. The key focus of
these interactions is placed on mutual respect and a willingness to learn from one another
(Salinitri, 2005). When utilized as a retention method it differs from other intervention programs
because the primary emphasis is on a participant’s desire to learn from the other (Salinitri, 2005).
Usually, mentoring programs in higher education institutions pair senior-level students or staff
with first-year students. Higher education literature has discussed the positive impact that
mentoring has on student outcomes (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Bjorkland, Parenti & Sathianathan,
2004; Cole & Griffin, 2013; Harper & Hurtado, 2011). However, there is very little research that
discusses ways to develop a mentoring culture between faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and
peer mentors among students in higher education institutions. The goal of this study was to
advance knowledge on ways Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC) faculty and staff,
campus stakeholders, and peer mentors develop a mentoring culture amongst Buffett Scholars in
TSLC at the University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO). My research sought to understand the
various intentional approaches and practices that institutional agents (faculty, staff, and campus
stakeholders) and peer mentors in TSLC apply to enhance student outcomes. Through this
knowledge, other higher education institutions may be able to employ a few of these intentional
mentoring tactics on their campuses to cultivate a culture of mentoring and enhance student
retention and success.
1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Days prior to writing chapter one of my dissertation, I viewed a few YouTube videos to
gain a better understanding of the characteristics and experiences of first-generation college
students. Based on prior research I was aware of this student population’s characteristics
however, I wanted to hear factual student accounts shared via their own experiences of being the
first in their family to attend college. During my search, I came across the story of novelist and
professor Jennine Capo Crucet on PBS NewHour. Crucet recollects on the challenges of being
the first in her family to attend college and how much she didn’t know during her pursuit to
degree completion. She recalled experiences such as her parents remaining for her entire
orientation because the paper work for move-in day did not explicitly state when they should
leave; learning ‘dorm-norms’ like wearing flip-flops in the showers from students whose parents
had attended college (continuing-generation); or dropping a core class in her first semester
because the books were too expensive and being unaware that the reading material was
available to download for free via the student portal. Additionally, Crucet discusses her lack of
understanding the benefits of attending professor’s office hours to discuss course material and
concerns and being paired with a peer mentor whose parents who had attended college prior
and was unable to understand the experiences and concerns of first-generation students. At the
conclusion of her segment, Crucet recommended the need for colleges and universities to do
more to support first-generation college students by pairing them with mentors who are also
first-generation students; compensate peer mentors for the valuable support they provide to their
mentees; and train faculty, staff, administrators, and students to proactively connect with this
2
growing student population in-and out-of-the classroom during their first-semester to improve
their sense of belonging and validation.
Stories like Crucet’s have been shared time and time again regarding the barriers first-
generation college (FGC) students during their matriculation into college. The term first-
generation college (FGC) references students that are the first in their family to attend a two-year
or four-year college (Billison & Terry, 1982; Chen & Carroll, 2005; Chen, 2016; Davidson,
2016; DeRosa & Dolby, 2014; Ishiyama, 2007; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011; Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017; Sanenz,
2007; Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996). FGC students represent the
fastest growing population in the U.S. According to results from the National Center for
Educational Statistics (NCES), 72% of students entering the nation’s four-year institutions by
2012 were FGC students, and this number is continuing to increase (Chen, 2016). Once FGC
students matriculate into college, they are more likely to take remedial courses than their
continuing-generation college (CGC) peers (Cominonle, 2004), lack time management skills,
possess low self-efficacy in their academic abilities, and experience more difficulty adjusting to
college life (Warburton et al. 2001; Chen, 2005). Continuing-generation college (CGC) student
refers to learners with at least on parent or guardian that has attained a bachelor’s degree (Bui,
2002; Ishitani, 2006; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak & Terenzini,
2004; Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996; Stephens, Fryberg, Markus,
Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012). Research also shows that FGC students are more likely to come
from low-income families (Bui, 2002), are students of color (Chen, 2005), face issues with
balancing the pursuit of academic achievement and remaining in contact with family (Wang,
2012), work full-time outside of school (Davidson, 2016), reside with parents or their significant
3
others (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998), and face more financial hurdles to pay for college in
contrast to their continuing-generation peers (DeRosa & Dolby, 2014).
While enrollment for FGC students increases, a lower percentage of this student
population persists to degree completion, in comparison to their CGC peers whose parents have
attended college (Redford &Mulvaney-Hoyer, 2017; Stephens et al., 2012). Over the past few
decades, colleges and universities have developed mentoring programs (Colton et al., 1999) or
have encouraged mentoring relationships for their undergraduates to improve retention
(Hegrenes, 2013). Such initiatives serve as an institution’s fundamental measurement to assess
their success in supporting students and improving persistence (Tinto, 1987, Wild & Ebbers,
2002).
First-Generation Students
First-generation college (FGC) students are the first in their family to attending college.
Research shows that 1 in 6 students at four-year American universities are FGC students
(Sanenz, 2007). While matriculation rates for this student populace continues to rise, so do
barriers that lead to their attrition. FGC enrollees are more likely to come from low income
households (Bui, 2002), are students of color (Chen, 2005), enroll in more developmental
courses than their CGC peers, take less units during their first-year (McCormick, 2001), and are
less likely to engage in on-campus and major related activities and events and develop close
relationship with faculty and peers (Billson & Terry, 1982; Colton et al., 1999; Richardson &
Skinner, 1992; Terenzini et al., 1994). Additionally, FGC students are more likely to work full-
time outside of school (Davidson, 2016); reside with parents or their significant others (Nunez &
Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998); face more financial hurdles to pay for college in contrast to their
continuing-generation peers (DeRosa & Dolby, 2014), and struggle to strike balance between
4
achieving high grades in class and making time to remain involved in family events (Wang,
2012).
Tinto’s (1975) theory of student attrition argues that a students’ commitment to become
involved in their specific institution by cultivating relationships with faculty and peers dictates
their level of academic success (p. 96). Although studies have tested this theory to be true
(Billson, & Terry, 1982; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979), research
show that this approach comes from a privileged standpoint and proves less effective with FGC
students. Many FGC students, particularly populations of color, struggle to integrate socially
and academically in their specific institutions because of the middle- and upper-class cultural
norms that exist in institutions of higher education, which requires students to become
“independent thinkers”, make their own decisions on academic and personal goals, and seek out
institutional support when required (Stephens, et al., 2012). Researchers assert that minoritized
students in predominantly White institutions achieve higher academic success and persistence
rates when faculty and administrators validate their intellectual ability (Bensimon, 2007; Rendon
Linares & Munoz, 2011), address racial disparities on campus (Chang et al., 2011; Harper &
Hurtado, 2007, Hurtado, 1992; Hurtado et al., 2012), and construct environments that cultivate
feelings of belonging for FGC students (Patton, 2006; Rendon Linares & Munoz,
2011;Strayhorn, 2008; Strayhorn 2012). Hurtado and Carter (1997), linked persistence to sense
of belonging and posited that undergraduate students who feel they belong, valued, and respected
are more likely to achieve academic success. A sense of belonging, as mentioned in this
research, refers to students feeling that their prior experiences are valued and respected which
influences the belief that their presence in a learning community is appreciated. Such feelings
can be acquired through observations, and experience, or words of affirmation and support from
5
institutional agents or the students personal support system (Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011;
Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012; Tatum, 2007). Several higher
education researchers have documented the importance of institutional agents playing a crucial
role in cultivating a sense of belongingness for students, and validating their competence, and
prior experiences (Harper, 2013; Rendon Linares & Munoz, 2011). Institutional agents are
faculty, staff, administrators (campus stakeholders), or students within a university (Ishitani,
2006; Nora & Rendon, 1990; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011). Harrell (2016) as well as
Rendon Linares & Munoz (2011) state that this process to improve the academic self-efficacy,
persistence, and success rates for FGC students is most effective when institutional agents take
the initiative to reach out to students both in and outside of the classroom. It is important to note
that throughout this research, I will use institutional agents and mentors, and students and
mentees interchangeably.
Mentoring Programs
Key researchers have found that student difficulties with identifying and connecting with
faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors, and becoming involved in the social
cultures and subcultures can lead to poor academic performance and withdrawal (Salinitri, 2005).
Tinto (1975) theory of student attrition states that a students’ commitment to becoming involved
in their specific institution by cultivating relationships with faculty and peers greatly influences
their level of academic success (p. 96). To target and improve academic achievement,
persistence, and graduation rates for our nation’s growing population of FGC students, some
institutions across the nation are developing or modifying their intrusive intervention programs
by placing greater emphases on developmental course work, advising, counseling, or mentoring
programs (Tinto, 1993; Fuller & Wilson, 1995; Hicks, 2003). According to Colten et al. (1999),
6
the success of intrusive intervention programs requires us to look critically at the influence they
have on retention and the targeted student populace within an institution. The researchers also
highlighted the benefits of colleges and universities implementing mentoring programs as when
designed well can encourage positive faculty/staff-student interactions, employ a comprehensive
advisement component between the student and institutional agents, coordinate and implement
student-focused meetings/seminars, and provide extrinsic rewards (Salinitri, 2005, p. 858).
While there is no clear definition of the concept of mentoring within the context of
college students (Dickey, 1996; Miller, 2002; Rodriguez, 1995; Zimmerman & Danette, 2007);
some higher education literature refers to mentoring as the development of meaningful
relationships with others which leads to the fostering of mutual learning between the
participating parties (Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Harper, 2013; Salinitri, 2005; Wang, 2012).
Mentoring is seen as the development of meaningful relationships with others with a key focus
on mutual respect and a willingness to learn from one another (Salinitri, 2005). When utilized as
a retention method it differs from other intervention programs because the primary focus is on
participants desire to learn from the other (Salinitri, 2005). Usually, mentoring programs in
higher education institutions pair senior-level students or staff with first-year students. The
positive effects that mentoring programs have on student adjustment, academic performance and
persistence has been well documented in higher education literature (Carter, 2000, Fowler &
Muckert, 2004; Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Wang, 2012; Harper, 2013).
Mentoring has been linked with college success but the details of how and why such
programs work has been studied in fewer studies and requires further exploration. A study
showed that the memorable messages FGC students received from their mentors in their first
year helped to positively shape their college experience. Such messages included ways to juggle
7
academic and family obligations, tips on how to succeed in current and future classes, and
professional pathways to pursue post-graduation (Wang, 2012). Additionally, supportive
mentoring relationships greatly influenced FGC students’ academic and social integration (Tinto,
1975). Another study found that students who had mentors spoke positively about their
academic success, whereas students who did not have mentoring relationships discuss their
beliefs that such experiences would have helped them to navigate their collegiate landscape
(Wang, 2012, Harper, 2012)
Statement of the Problem
Prior research has argued the powerful influence of mentoring on college student
outcomes. Several higher education researchers (Astin, 1992; Bensimon, 2007; Harper, 2013;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Rendon Linares & Munoz, 2011) have provided evidence of the
significance institutional agents, also referred to as faculty, academic advisors, and peer mentors,
play in encouraging a sense of belonging, persistence, and degree completion rates for FGC
students. On the other hand, there is more to be learned regarding how a mentoring culture is
created to improve student success, particularly for the low-income and first-generation student
populace. Hurtado (1994) explains that words of encouragement and support from faculty lead
to a greater sense of belonging in- and out-of-the classroom. In conjunction, Perez and Ceja
(2010) found that affirming students as knowledgeable and valuable contributors to the class
curriculum lead to an increased sense of self-worth. These observations highlight the validation
and support a formal mentoring program would provide. The phrase student validation refers to
the intentional and proactive affirmation students receive from institutional agents. Research
asserts that student validation from institutional agents leads to increased self-efficacy and a
greater sense of belonging which motivates students to achieve academic success and persist
8
towards degree completion (Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011). Research shows that
undergraduate students who feel like they belong and are valued and respected by faculty and
staff are more likely persist and reach degree completion (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Strayhorn,
2012; Harper, 2013). In a study conducted in the early 1990’s by Rendon (1994), FGC students
stated that words of support and proactive follow-up from institutional agents were the elements
of academic and interpersonal validation that provided them with confidence and motivation to
persist (Rendon, 2011).
Purpose of the Study
This study looked at ways Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC) faculty and
staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors developed a mentoring culture amongst Buffett
Scholars in TSLC at the University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO). This collaborate educational
group is comprised of professional staff members who oversee program functions; faculty who
teach program related courses for Buffett Scholars and meet with the students in their classes
one-on-one each semester; and peer mentors who provide support to program scholars. The
TSLC Peer Mentors operate as teaching partners for program courses and provide support to
either first- or second-year scholars, or Peer Academic Leaders (PALs) and Bridge PALs to
provide academic support for TLC courses. The TSLC faculty, program staff, and peer mentors
receive monetary compensation to develop pedagogical strategies and offer academic support for
Buffett Scholars during their first two years in the program. In this relationship, both the
mentors and mentees (Buffett Scholars) benefit from their participation in this retention program.
Prior studies have documented the positive effects that mentoring from institutional agents has
on student success and retention (Harper, 2013). The purpose of this study aimed to examine the
influence that institutional agents (faculty and staff), campus stakeholders, and peer mentors had
9
on influencing a culture of mentoring and how that led to first-generation students feeling
validated and that they belonged within the learning community and at the Omaha campus. The
proposed question that guided my research was:
How do program faculty and staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors cultivate a
culture of mentoring for first-generation Buffett Scholars in the Thompson Scholars
Learning Community (TSLC) at University of Nebraska, Omaha?
Significance of the Study
While first-generation college students represent the fast-growing student matriculants in
U.S. colleges, a lower percentage of this student population persists to degree completion, in
comparison to their CGC peers whose parents have attended college (Redford &Mulvaney-
Hoyer, 2017; Stephens et al., 2012). Over the past few decades, colleges and universities have
implemented mentoring programs or have encouraged the cultivation of a mentoring culture
within their institution to improve retention rates and support their changing student landscape
(Colten et al., 1999; Hegrenes, 2013). A mentoring culture in higher education refers to the
fostering of beliefs and behaviors that encourage student’s success. This culture is both
displayed and endorsed by campus administrators and institutional agents within an educational
community through the campus mission statement, the promotion of campus events and
activities, promotion of academic momentum, retention services and student support (Alexander,
Palla & Holupka, 1987; Attewell, Hell, & Reisel, 2012; Hugo, 2004; McClafferty &
McDonough, 2002). Research stresses the need for scholars to continue to contribute to the
theoretical understanding of mentoring by examining the ways students (mentees) experience
and evolve through these intervention and retention programs (Wallace, 2000). Research also
suggests the need to understand how validation theory influences student development (Rendón
10
Linares & Muñoz, 2011). This study holds significance because the experiences of the first-year,
FGC scholars in the TSLC program at the University of Nebraska, Omaha (UNO) will add to the
gaps of knowledge in the literature and inform practitioners of best practices when developing or
improving mentoring programs for FGC students at their designated institutions. Additionally,
research hopes to provide higher education institutions with a greater understanding of how
building positive relationships with faculty and staff (Hurtado, 1994); and fostering student
perceptions of feeling satisfied and committed to an institution stems from the support and
encouragement of faculty, family, and friends (Rendon, & Muñoz 2011). Therefore, enhancing
student perceptions of feeling satisfied and committed to a college or university (Perez & Ceja,
2010); all of these methods serve as proxies in enhancing student validation and a greater sense
of belonging.
Conclusion
This study focused on ways Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC) faculty
and staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors developed a mentoring culture among students
in TSLC at the University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO). The academic and social engagement
that enriches the program scholar’s identity within these learning communities was also
investigated. Chapter two introduces the first-generation student experience, identifies barriers
that impact their persistence, highlights several higher education intervention programs that
combat attrition, and provides a review of current literature published regarding the impact
mentoring programs have on students’ sense of belonging and validation.
11
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter begins by first defining mentoring and the role of a mentor through six
perspectives: business, corporate, psychological, philosophical, comprehensive, and educational.
Reviewing mentoring through each lens is necessary to provide practitioners a better
understanding why this approach is important and how these disciplines have influenced an
understanding of this phenomenon in the field of higher education. Additionally, I discuss how a
mentoring culture is developed between institutional agents and students in higher education, and
talk about the various types of mentoring processes that emerge through mentoring interactions
and communication which helps faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors to become
aligned in their messages of encouraging students to feel empowered and validated in their
educational experiences. The theoretical frameworks covered in this literature review are
empowerment, and validation theory. These two concepts complement one another.
Empowerment theory is utilized to discuss how institutional agents serve as facilitators of
resources by providing undergraduate students or mentees, particularly low-income and FGC
student populations, with access to campus resources and extracurricular opportunities which
leads to the development of knowledge and skills they can use to improve their life and the lives
of others (Cole & Griffin, 2013; Gutierrez & Lewis, 1999; Hipolito-Delgado & Lee, 2007).
Validation theory is employed to show how behaviors such as institutional agents providing
students with words of encouragement or equipping them with knowledge or access to academic
resources leads to students feeling they are valuable contributors to the learning that takes places
in and out of the classroom (Nora, Urick & Cerecer, 2011), and have been associated with
12
improved student persistence, achievement, and degree completion rates (Rendon, 1994; Rendon
& Munoz, 2011).
This chapter discusses how various types of mentoring processes, such as formal and
informal mentoring programs like undergraduate research opportunities (Campbell & Campbell,
2007; Ishiyama, 2007) and embedded-faculty advising (Packard, Tuladhar & Lee, 2013), and the
nature of mentoring interactions between these institutional agents and mentees help students to
feel empowered and validated in their educational pursuits. As such outcomes can contribute to
cultivating a culture of mentoring within colleges and universities. As previously stated in
chapter 1, institutional agents, also referred to as faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer
mentors, are representatives at the university or college who hold positions of influence (Harper,
2013; Wang, 2012). They possess a high degree of human, cultural, and social capital (Stanton-
Salazar, 2011). Finally, this chapter concludes with a recap of how the theories, themes, and
processes that lead to enriching or fostering an effect mentoring culture leads to improved
student outcomes.
Defining Mentoring
So what is a mentor? More importantly, what does a mentoring relationship look like
between institutional agents and mentees in colleges or universities? To gain a better
understanding of the term, I referenced Webster’s Nine Collegiate Dictionary (1983) as it
informs us that the word mentor derives from Greek mythology. Son of Heracles and Asopis,
Mentor was a friend of Odysseus who entrusted him with the education of his son, Telemachus
while he was away fighting at the Trojan War. The dictionary also tells us that Mentor serves as
trusted counselor or coach. The first recorded modern usage of the term can be traced backed to
the book Les Aventures de Telemaque (1699), written by French writer Francois Fenelon, who
13
served as the Archbishop of Carnbrai, and tutor to Louis, Duke of Bergundy. The manuscript
discusses the educational travel of Telemachus, while he was accompanied by his tutor, Mentor.
Recent literature on mentoring defines the term through various professional lenses, it also
highlights the ambiguity surrounding a definition of mentoring in the college context (Bowman
& Bowman, 1990; Brown et. al. 1999; Campbell & Campbell, 2007; Freeman, 1999; Watson,
1999); however other researchers in the field have used concepts to define the term (e.g.,
Anderson & Shannon, 1988; Blackwell, 1989; Roberts, 2000). Table 1 below displays how
mentoring is defined from a business, corporate, psychosocial, philosophical, comprehensive and
educational lens.
Table 1. The Six Lenses of Mentoring
As you can see in Table 1 above, the common theme between all six perspectives of
mentoring is that they involve a more experienced individual providing guidance to a junior
individual within an organization or institution. While there is no definition that has been
exclusively created for the field of higher education (Dickey, 1996; Johnson, 1989; Miller, 2002;
Zimmerman, 2007); I prefer to see mentoring from Salinitri’s (2005) perspective, which
describes mentoring as the development of meaningful relationships between the mentor and
14
mentee. The key focus in this relationship involves mutual respect between the more
experienced individual and the mentee, a willingness to learn from each other, and the
employment of interpersonal skills. Now that we have discussed how mentoring is defined, let’s
examine the outcomes of mentoring on student success.
Outcomes of Mentoring to Student Success
Mentoring has been associated with a myriad of student success outcomes, which is the
reason it is the focus of this project. Research has demonstrated that formal and informal
mentoring relationships are believed to minimize feelings of self-doubt associated with imposter
syndrome (Laden, 1999; Stebleton & Soria, 2013). Additionally, such interactions between
institutional agents and mentees lead to improved sense of belonging and retention (Nora, Urick
& Cerecer, 2011; Wang, 2013), degree completion rates (Cole & Griffin, 2013), academic and
social integration (Salinitri, 2005), accruement of vocational skills (Anaya & Cole, 2001;
Bjorkland, Parenti & Sathianathan, 2004), and advancement into graduate programs for students
of color and FGC students (Cole & Griffin, 2013; Harper, 2013). Moreover, such programs help
to increase student confidence when interacting with peers from different racial and ethnic
backgrounds (Cole & Griffin, 2013; Harper & Hurtado, 2011).
Impact of mentoring on imposter syndrome. Institutional agents who share their
experiences of overcoming academic hurdles help to reduce anxiety and feelings of self-doubt
experienced by students. This is particularly true for low-income individuals, and FGC students
who can struggle with seeing college as a place where they can succeed. Studies conducted on
the impact of mentoring on student outcomes showed that hearing about the experiences of
faculty and staff of the same racial and cultural backgrounds improves student success (Anaya &
Cole, 2001; Campbell & Campbell, 2007). Studies have also shown that hearing about the
15
academic challenges and hurdles of peer mentors helped to improve students perception and their
ability to see themselves as active contributors to the learning process in and out of the classroom
(Cole & Griffin, 2013; Colton et al., 1999; Hembree, 1988; Laden, 1999; Stebleton & Soria,
2013; Wang, 2012).
Impact of mentoring on improved sense of belonging. Institutional agents that provide
students with academic guidance, words of support, and encouragement help them to feel that
they have a place at their academic institution. A study showed that academic guidance and
support provided by faculty, staff, administrators, or peer mentors can positively improve
students sense of belonging in their academic institutions (Harper, 2012). Another study focused
on the impact that positive messages from peer mentors had on student success showed that
words of encouragement from peer mentors, particularly mentors that identified as low-income
or FGC students, helped to improve mentees beliefs that they belonged at their respective
institutions. (Billson & Terry, 1982; Nora, Urick & Cerecer, 2011; Wang, 2012).
Impact of mentoring on degree completion rates and graduate work. Higher
education literature has discussed the positive impact that mentoring has on degree completion
and the pursuit of graduate school. In fact, studies show that students that engage in formal and
informal mentoring interactions during their first-two years of college graduate at higher rates
and pursue graduate studies (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Billson & Terry, 1982; Wang, 2013).
Improved persistence and the pursuit of masters’ or doctoral degrees s has been linked to
institutional agents sharing their experiences with students as a form or encouragement or
motivation to help them persist (Wang, 2012; Salantri, 2005).
Impact of mentoring on academic and social integration. Positive mentoring
interactions between institutional agents and mentees lead to improved academic and social
16
integration (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Cole & Griffin, 2013; Crisp & Cruz, 2008). This is
particularly true for students of color and FGC students, as individuals from these groups
struggle to develop a positive self-perception and feel they belong within an academic
environment where many of their faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors do not
resemble their racial or cultural background (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Harper, 2011; Hurtado &
Harper, 2011). Research demonstrates that institutional agents that operate through an equity-
enhanced lens when engaging in mentoring relationships with racial and ethnic diverse student
populations can positively help them to achieve academic success and integrate within an
academic community that may be contrary to their normal communal environment (Cole &
Griffin, 2013).
Impact of mentoring on accruement of vocational skills. Mentoring interactions,
particularly those that involve internships or undergraduate research opportunities, helps students
develop career skills they can add to their resume. Additionally, such opportunities may lead to
improved self-perception and clarity on potential academic or professional pathways students
may pursue upon completing their undergraduate degree (Bjorklund, Parente, & Sathianathan,
2004; Kuh & Huh, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004).
Impact of mentoring on interacting with diverse cultures. As discussed in chapter 1,
mentoring is the development of meaningful relationships with others and a key focus of this
form of interaction is to provide an opportunity for all parties to learn from one another (Salinitri,
2005). While engaging with individuals who are racially and ethnically different from one
another can seem a bit overwhelming for both the mentor and protégé(s); institutional agents can
help facilitate this meaningful process with students from countering backgrounds through
thoughtful encounters with each student (Packard, 2015) This has an affirming effect on all
17
parties involved in the mentoring dynamic, as it helps each to develop a greater understanding of
the other and gain confidence in developing relationships with people from racial and ethnic
diverse groups in and beyond their academic community (Harper & Hurtado, 2011). Now that
we have a better understanding of the impact that mentoring plays on student success, let us look
at the process involved in creating a mentoring culture at both the organizational and
interpersonal level.
The Process of Developing a Mentoring Culture
Prior to elaborating on the process involved in developing a mentoring culture, let us
revisit how a mentoring culture is defined. As noted in chapter 1, a mentoring culture in higher
education is created when stakeholders throughout the campus – administrators, faculty, staff,
and students – all value support for students and exhibit behaviors conducive to improving
student success. Work has already been done on how to create a mentoring culture at the
organizational level on the campus, which consists of examining how an institution’s mission
statement focuses on the organization’s expectations for its students; looking at ways higher
education institutions can improve retention services through collaboration between student
affairs and student services with faculty, staff, and peer mentors on effective ways to support at-
risk students; or the improvement of interdepartmental communication within higher education
organizations to better support students. I will build upon this research by looking at the
interpersonal dynamics that create a culture of mentoring between institutional agents and
students. Prior to looking at the how a mentoring culture is developed between institutional
agents and students on an interpersonal level, let us look at ways this culture is fostered at the
organizational level.
18
Campus mission statement. A university’s mission statement focuses on the
organization’s expectations for its students. Mission statements should clearly convey an
organization's purpose, include contributing input from university and community agents, and be
revisited on their effectiveness, annually (Corwin & Tierney, 2007). For example, a college or
university that desires to create or maintain a mentoring culture will welcome input from all the
racial and ethnic student groups they serve.
Retention services. The mission of retaining students is a collective effort that requires
active participation from all university and institutional agents. University agents are defined as
leaders and managers of the college or university, Student Affairs Department, and Student
Services Departments. Administrators can facilitate developing a mentoring culture on their
campus by cultivating an environment that requires representatives from student affairs and
student services to collaborate with faculty and staff on effective ways to support their student
populations, particularly at-risk students. In addition, administrators can require faculty, staff,
and even peer mentors to meet with students several times each semester to monitor their
progress, provide support, and validate their feelings of belonging on campus (Nora 2001; Nora,
Urick & Cerecer, 2011).
Interdepartmental collaboration to better support students. For a mentoring culture
to be successful, higher education institutions can take a systemic approach to supporting
students. This can involve the strengthening of interdepartmental collaboration and the
development and maintenance of partnerships with other colleges and employment
agencies. This may also involve institutional agents referring students who are looking to
change their major to the respective faculty or academic advisor; referring students that are
experiencing academic difficulty to an academic advisor or campus tutor; connecting students
19
requesting help to write a resume or cover letter with the career center; or coordinating
information sessions with graduate schools or recruitment events with local organizations to
support graduating seniors (Corwin & Tierney, 2007; Packard, 2015).
Mentoring culture developed at organizational and interpersonal level. The work on
organizational efforts to foster a mentoring culture highlight the role of key actors in this process.
This dissertation explores the role of institutional agents in building a mentoring culture in
greater detail than past studies, but I briefly review what the organizational literature identified in
terms of the role of institutional agents, as they play different, yet overlapping roles in
facilitating a culture of mentoring within their college or university. Students may turn to one
individual for information on financial aid, another for support with writing a resume or cover
letter, and another for information on undergraduate research opportunities. At the
organizational level, higher education administrators can help to foster this culture by clearly
conveying the institution’s goals, establishing relationships with other four-year colleges and
graduate schools, developing a plan to increase graduation rates, employing more diverse
institutional agents, and electing key individuals to implement the goals and set accountability
benchmarks (Cole & Griffin, 2013; Corwin & Tierney, 2007). At the interpersonal level, faculty
can contribute to developing a mentoring culture and motivate students by sharing their college
experiences. They can validate students by incorporating their racial and cultural experiences
into the course curriculum. Additionally, faculty can engage mentees in out-of-class discussions
about major-related classes, good grades, the pursuit of graduate studies, and encourage students
to engage in undergraduate research activities or find employment opportunities (Corwin &
Tierney, 2007; Hembree, 1988; Nora, Urick, & Cerecer, 2011; Packard, 2015; Tierney, Venegas,
Colyar, Corwin, & Olivérez, 2004). Staff, which consists of academic advisors and other
20
student-serving departments can contribute to facilitating a mentoring culture by ensuring the
students know these agents are invested in their success. Staff can also share their personal
academic experiences with students; assist them with major- and degree-related course selection
and create course plans which outline remaining degree requirements; and complete mid- and
end-of-semester check-ins to assess student progress. Peer mentors can contribute to creating a
culture of mentoring for more junior-level students by sharing their experiences of adjusting to
college-life; providing information about on-campus and cultural-based organizations and
activities; and offering best tips for achieving balance between competing responsibilities to
school and family (Corwin & Tierney, 2007; Nora, Urick, & Cerecer, 2011; Tierney, Venegas,
Colyar, Corwin, & Olivérez, 2004).
1
This study elaborates on the role that institutional agents play in developing a mentoring
culture by focusing on detailing interactions and communication. At the core of every successful
mentoring relationship lies interaction and communication between the mentor and mentee. As
discussed in chapter 1, mentoring interactions are only effective when institutional agents
employ thoughtfulness in their encounters with mentees and seek to establish relationships one
encounter at a time. Chapter 1 also discusses how mentoring communication helps institutional
agents and mentees to develop authentic connections by providing opportunities for both parties
to learn from one another. Institutional agents are given a chance to impart knowledge from
their experiences on to the mentee, and the student can share their knowledge and experiences
with the institutional agent. Thus, both parties feel that they are contributing to the mentoring
dynamic (Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011; Packard & Binker, 2016; Rendon, 2011; Wang, 2012).
1
Additionally, family and friends can serve as contributors to a mentoring culture by encouraging
students to persist in their studies; inquire about their area of study, and academic and social
involvements; provide quiet places conducive to their learning at home; and encourage them to take
summer classes, or find internship or employment opportunities.
21
Mentoring interactions and communication include various types of mentoring processes
that facilitate mentees developing new relationships with other institutional agents, feeling
empowered, and validated. Mentoring interactions include faculty members sharing personal
experiences of overcoming academic triumphs (Nora, Urick & Cerecer, 2011; Packard, Tuladhar
& Lee, 2013), while mentoring communication involves institutional agents sharing ‘pearls of
wisdom’ to encourage mentees to progress towards achieving their academic goals (Burton,
2012; Wang, 2012). Figure 1 on the next page displays how a mentoring culture is developed
via the organizational level which leads to institutional agents becoming aligned in their
messages to help students feel empowered and validated in their collegiate experiences at the
interpersonal level.
22
Figure 1. Process of Developing Mentoring Culture from Organizational and Interpersonal
Levels
23
Now that we have gained a better understanding of how a mentoring culture is created by
faculty, staff, and peer mentors in colleges and universities, let us look at various types of
mentoring programs that institutional agents can implement within their institutions to help
facilitate greater student success.
Types of Mentoring
Research refers to formal mentoring programs as being established by the institution and
often occurring in the classroom between faculty and mentees; whereas informal mentoring
programs are adopted into a college culture and are independently initiated between institutional
agents and the protégé, or vice versa (Campbell & Campbell, 2007; Jacobi, 1991; Salantri,
2005). Furthermore, studies also show that the foundation of creating an effective mentoring
culture lies in institutions fostering opportunities which lead to engaging in supportive
interactions and communication both in- and out-of-the-classroom with students. This practice
helps faculty to develop new relationships with different institutional agents in the college
community, become empowered, and feel validated in their academic experiences (Packard,
2015).
Formal Mentoring
Formal mentoring interactions can consist of faculty and students engaging in
undergraduate research opportunities, faculty sharing their personal experiences of overcoming
academic hurdles, and discussing future enrollment in major-related courses and career outcomes
with student during classroom time (Packard, Tuladhar & Lee, 2013). Such interactions between
faculty and students have positive effects on students critical thinking and communication skills
(Bjorkland, Parenti & Sathianathan, 2004). Additionally, these formal mentoring opportunities
encourage students, particularly low-income and FGC students, to devote more time to their
24
studies and educational activities, which has been known to have a positive impact on student
personal, academic, and professional development (Bjorkland, Parenti & Sathianathan, 2004;
Cole & Griffin, 2013; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004). Two types of formal
mentoring interactions we will discuss below are undergraduate research and embedded
advising.
Undergraduate research as a type of formal mentoring. Undergraduate research can
facilitate formal mentoring by faculty helping students learn how to interpret questions,
effectively communicate with their audience, work in a professional environment, gain
confidence, and develop resilience. Formal mentoring interactions via research opportunities
help students develop their ability to understand and synthesize information from various studies,
which allows them to become more informed and possibly gain a greater appreciation for the
research process (Gonzalez, 2001; Russel, Hancock & McCullough, 2007). Mentoring occurs
through undergraduate research activities when faculty help students to use their voice to
effectively connect with the listener (Ishiyama, 2007; Lopatto, 2003). Research opportunities
serve as a vehicle of formal mentoring interactions when faculty advisors provide students with
opportunities to work full-time on a single project, which leads to the acquisition of real world
experiences by working in a professional setting, developing analytical skills, and improving
critical approaches to conducting research (Hunter et al., 2006; Jones, Barlow & Villarejo, 2010;
Russel, Hancock & McCullough, 2007). Furthermore, formal mentoring through undergraduate
research improves student confidence, particularly low-income individuals, FGC students and
students seeking advanced degrees (Hunter et al., 2006; Jones, Barlow & Villarejo, 2010; Russel,
Hancock & McCullough, 2007). Finally, undergraduate research serves as a type of formal
mentoring by helping students understand that failure is a natural part of the learning process and
25
has resulted in an appreciation of success. Research studies have shown that due to the
mentorship in undergraduate research, students, particularly underrepresented students, were
more comfortable dealing with obstacles than they were prior to participating in research (Jones,
Barlow & Villarejo, 2010).
Embedded Advising. To properly support each student, some colleges have
implemented embedded advising into their courses, which provides faculty with greater
opportunities to interact with mentees through sharing their educational experiences, providing
information on both major and non-major course recommendations that students can enroll in,
and discussing graduate school or career pathways for students to consider after graduation
(Packard, Tuladhar, & Lee, 2013). Unlike traditional formal advising sessions, which may be
one-on-one sessions between the advisor and student; embedded advising takes place outside of
the classroom with a small or large group of students (usually 5 – 10) several times during the
semester (Packard, Tuladhar, & Lee, 2013). While these sessions may seem like an insufficient
amount of time to properly mentor and guide students, some higher education researchers argue
that advising, particularly formal advising, is synonymous with teaching as they both share
similar processes like supporting students ability to become more informed about themselves and
the world around them; enhance critical thinking skills to make healthy life-decisions; improve
students’ problem solving skills to aid them with becoming agents for their own learning and
development; encourage the integration of learning via improved connections between ideas and
systems; and broadening students perspectives on themselves, surroundings and world (Harrell,
2016; Packard, 2015; Packard, Tuladhar, & Lee, 2013). Informal and formal advising result in a
variety of processes that I will detail next.
26
Increase personal and world knowledge. Embedded advising is also instrumental in
facilitating formal mentoring by providing faculty with opportunities to engage in thoughtful
interaction with students to help them allowing faculty to help students gain a better
understanding of themselves and the world around them through thoughtful interactions. This
involves faculty learning each of the students they engage with in group advising sessions on an
individual level. Through in- and out-of-classroom interactions, faculty can gain a greater
understanding of how to best support the student’s success. Whether that is achieved through
words of encouragement, course recommendations on upcoming major-related courses,
information on undergraduate research (UR), summer internship opportunities, or information
and referrals to campus resources and cultural events (Nora, Urick, & Cerecer, 2011).
Improve problem-solving skills. Faculty can use embedded advising to teach mentees
to become better problem solvers and agents for their own learning and development. This is
achieved by faculty incorporating project-based, hands-on learning activities into their courses
and encouraging students to work together in developing innovation solutions for issues that
impact them or their community. Additionally, faculty and other institutional agents can teach
students to become critical consumers of information and learn to ask the appropriate questions
to garner the information need to problems that impact their academic and personal development.
The development of such skills can help students become resourceful and healthy thinkers that
positively contribute to their overall development long after graduation (Ishiyama, 2007; Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Nora, Urick & Cerecer, 2011; Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
Encouragement to integrate learning. Another outcome of formal mentoring via
embedded advising opportunities involves faculty challenging students to consider ways to apply
the knowledge they are learning in the classroom into their everyday lives. This can include
27
faculty promoting the attendance of on- and off-campus programs and events that appropriately
coincide with course content. This approach can make it easy for students to understand the
connections between ideas and systems and convey them others (Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Packard, 2015).
Broader perspective. Faculty can help students broaden their perspectives on
themselves, their surroundings, and the world during embedded advising sessions by
recommending readings for students to review and encouraging students to reflect on their
learning, self-evaluate their efforts, and connect past knowledge to new knowledge. Such
activities provide faculty with an opportunity to become observers of the learning process and
provide students with opportunities to become active participants in their own development
(Packard, 2015).
Embedded advising requires instructors to be thoughtful in their interactions with
students by being mindful that each student may require similar, but different advisement
solutions. Faculty members must remember to be sensitive to their diverse student populations
by respecting their points of view and looking for ways to best support each learner’s success.
When successful, embedded advising has proven to have positive effects on both the student and
faculty member. Embedded advising has positive long-term effects on students’ academic and
social development because it allows the learner to feel truly valued and cared for by their
professors. Thus, improving their confidence to develop relationships with other institutional
agents and students within their college community (Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Packard,
Tuladhar & Lee, 2013). Finally, research has also shown that this formal style of advising is
intrinsically rewarding for the faculty member as they receive satisfaction in knowing that they
28
served as an active participant in helping a student progress their educational experience
(Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Packard, Tuladhar, & Lee, 2013).
Informal Mentoring
Informal mentoring interactions, consists of faculty providing academic support and
guidance during outside of classroom, staff and peer sharing personal experiences of triumphing
academic hurdles during their student experiences (Kuh & Huh, 2001), institutional agents
sharing knowledge about on-campus organizations and cultural events (Harper, 2013), or
offering advice on effective ways mentees can achieve balance with juggling competing
obligations to school and family (Wang, 2012). Studies show such interactions are known to
help reduce student anxiety (Hembree, 1988), improve self-perception (Anaya & Cole, 2001;
Wang 2013), and sense of belonging (Campbell & Campbell, 2007). However, literature also
shows that informal mentoring connections are more commonly established between mentors
and mentees with similar values, cultural beliefs, and ethnic backgrounds (Cole & Griffin, 2013;
Ishiyama, 2007). Mentoring relationships that are rooted in homogeneity can limit both the
student’s and institutional agent’s intellectual and interpersonal development. Moreover, they
limit students’ ability and desire to develop social connections among individuals from other
racial groups after college and perpetuate bias and stereotypical beliefs (Cole & Griffin, 2013;
Harper & Hurtado, 2011; Ishiyama, 2007). Students’ perception of how much they are supported
by others impact their level of achievement. Stereotypes and bias can serve as hurdles to a
mentor or protégé’s academic progress. We will now elaborate on how out-of-classroom, or
external mentoring interactions with institutional agents serves as a type of informal mentoring
interaction.
29
A significant amount of a student’s academic and social development throughout their
college career is influenced by the out-of-classroom or external mentoring relationships
undergraduate students develop with institutional agents. Research shows that once in college,
faculty, staff, or peer mentors are the people that many students turn to instead of their parents,
particularly low-income and FGC students, as they do not always feel many of their family and
friends who did not attend college will understand the academic challenges they face (Anaya &
Cole, 2001; Harper, 2013; Wang, 2012). Out-of-classroom mentoring encounters can help
students remember that they are works in progress, to remain open to ideas and the influence of
others, find balance between personal, academic, and professional development, and to embrace
intergenerational friendships (Crips & Cruz, 2009; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wang, 2012).
Works in progress. Through external informal mentoring interactions with institutional
agents, mentees can learn that they do not have to be perfect, and to stop comparing their
academic, personal, and professional journey to someone’s experience (Burton, 2012). Out-of-
classroom informal mentors are great at showing us our areas of strength, reminding us not to be
so hard on ourselves, and helping us to clearly see that we may be making better progress on our
academic, personal, and professional journeys than we may realize. For example, through the
sharing of experiences, an external mentoring encounter with a faculty or faculty member may
be great at helping a protégé see how much progress they have made in a classroom or
throughout their academic journey at that college or university (Hembree, 1988; Packard, 2015).
A peer mentor may be great at helping a student see the balance they have made between making
time to devote to academic responsibilities and family obligations (Wang, 2012). Out-of-
classroom informal mentoring interactions with institutional agents help students to see that they
30
do not have to be perfect and reflect on ways that they have positively evolved throughout their
academic careers.
Being open to ideas and the influence of others. Informal encounters with institutional
agents help students become open to approaching an assignment or seeing a situation from a
different perspective. For example, during an out-of-classroom encounters with a faculty
member, students may gain a better understanding of how to complete a research assignment.
An interaction with staff member, preferably an academic advisor, can open a student’s eyes to
changing their major or pursuing a second major or minor program that is of interest to them.
Additionally, out-of-classroom encounters with peer mentors can expose mentees to information
about on-campus organizations and cultural events they may not have become aware of from
college faculty or staff members (Ishiyama, 2007; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Nora, Urick &
Cerecer, 2011).
Helping students find balance. External informal mentoring relationships with
institutional agents are very instrumental with helping mentees find balance between their
academic and personal lives. This can be achieved by institutional agents informing students of
on-campus events or activities to encourage the development of stronger connections with other
agents in the college community and the pursuit of balance within their academic and social
lives. Through such interactions, students are provided opportunities to apply the knowledge
acquired from faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peers to their daily scholastic, professional
and personal endeavors (Burton, 2012; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Embracing intergenerational mentoring relationships. Out-of-class mentoring
interactions provide students with opportunities to connect with institutional agents of all ages.
While the traditional perspectives on mentorship involve a more senior individual providing
31
guidance or support to a junior individual within an organization, intergenerational mentoring
connections remind us that age does not denote wisdom and great advice can come from the
most unlikely sources. Furthermore, intergenerational mentoring relationships between
institutional agents and mentees provide as an excellent opportunity for both parties to learn from
one another (Burton, 2012; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
As we have elaborated on how the employment of various types of formal and informal
mentoring interactions can positively contribute to students holistic development, let us look at
the processes in mentoring and how the nature of mentoring interaction and mentoring
communication attribute to students developing new relationships, feeling empowered, and
validated.
Processes of Mentoring
During formal and informal mentoring activities, various processes occur within
mentoring interactions and communication between institutional agents and mentees which can
lead to positive student outcomes. Below I will discuss various ways the nature of mentoring
interactions and communication lead to students feeling empowered and validated in their
academic experiences.
Nature of Mentoring Interactions
Sharing of academic experiences. Faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer
mentors sharing their experiences of overcoming academic hurdles are linked to improved
student confidence, motivation and decreased levels of anxiety (Hembree, 1988; Packard,
Tuladhar & Lee, 2013). Many students battle feelings of self-doubt and belonging, particularly
marginalized student groups. Hearing about the academic struggles and successes of faculty,
staff or peers mentors can help mentees to understand that their experiences of academic
32
difficulty are far from unique and they can overcome and reach a similar level of success in their
educational endeavors (Burton, 2013; Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Hembree, 1988; Nora, Urick &
Cerecer, 2011; Packard, Tuladhar & Lee, 2013; Wang, 2012).
Students feel cared for through external classroom engagement. Out-of-classroom
mentoring interactions between faculty and mentees lead to improved academic achievement and
students feeling cared for by their professors (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Campbell & Campbell,
2007; Nora, Urick & Cerecer, 2011). This is achieved by faculty initiating contact with students
outside of the classroom to inform them of undergraduate research activities, professional
development opportunities, and potential career pathways the students have expressed their
interest in pursuing after graduation. Such opportunities give students the chance to be heard by
professors and helps them to see that their academic and professional development is of concern
to their professors (Campbell & Campbell, 2007; Nora, Urick & Cerecer, 2011; Packard, 2015;
Packard, Tuladhar & Lee, 2013).
Matching students of similar racial and cultural backgrounds. Mentoring
connections developed between institutional agents and students of similar racial, cultural, and
gender-specific backgrounds, has shown to lead to improved academic and social adjustment.
Additionally, such mentoring relationships are linked to higher degree completion rates and
students entering graduate school (Campbell & Campbell, 2007). Conversely, when historically
marginalized students experience a lack of positive mentorship from institutional agents of
similar racial, cultural, and gender backgrounds; academic persistence, self-perception, and sense
of belonging decreases. Moreover, literature discusses the promotion of equity-driven practices
implemented by colleges and universities to develop policies that prioritizes the mentor-mentee
33
relationship from an intentional and inclusive lens (Campbell & Campbell, 2007; Cole & Griffin,
2013; Harper, 2013).
Nature of Mentoring Communication
Pearls of wisdom. Mentoring interactions offer an abundance of opportunities for
faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors to provide mentees with pearls of wisdom.
Pearls of wisdom may be offered to mentees as words that convey encouragement. Such
statements may even be humorous. But the intent is to help the student achieve a greater
understanding of a situation or help them gain clarity on a decision that needs to be made. This
may involve staff or peers giving mentees suggestions on ways to improve relationships with
classmates or roommates, or faculty attempting to steer a student in another academic or
professional direction that will better complement their skill set.
University agents working together to facilitate student success. Collaboration
between student affairs, academic affairs, faculty, and staff to facilitate the holistic development
and growth of students in- and out-of-the-classroom transpires when university agents view
student success as their own. This can be achieved when university agents come together in
administrative or department meetings to discuss effective ways that each department can
provide support to at-risk students. Such alliances help to strengthen interdepartmental
communication across the institution to achieve a common goal of supporting students (Nora,
2001; Nora, Urick, & Cerecer, 2011).
Development of soft skills. Mentoring interactions provide great opportunities for
mentors to teach students soft skills. Appropriate soft skills like time management, professional
appearance, professional communication, and critical thinking skills play a crucial role in helping
students successfully navigate the college experience because such skills can apply to an
34
academic and professional setting and even in a student’s personal life. For example, mentors
communicating appropriate times students should arrive to class fosters time management skills,
while addressing dress code expectations conveys professional appearance. Addressing how to
professionally draft an email to faculty about grades promotes professional communication.
Moreover, institutional agents can also help students improve their critical thinking and decision-
making skills during out-of-classroom advising sessions. This may involve faculty helping
students to understand the problem by encouraging them to define the end goal. They can also
ask questions and make suggestions to help students reflect on problem-solving strategies they
employ (Foshay & Kirkley, 1998). The aforementioned examples of soft skills development are
just a few ways students can learn through mentoring communication with institutional agents.
Based on the research I realize that the aforementioned types of formal and informal
mentoring programs and processes of interaction and communication support in fostering a
culture of mentoring comprised of one shared message from faculty, staff, campus stakeholders,
and peer mentors which leads to the promotion of student success (Corwin & Tierney, 2007 p.
11).
As I have discussed the process of mentoring and ways nature of mentoring interactions
and communication help to enhanced student outcomes, let us look at the theories in play that
represent how mentoring aids students to feel empowered and validated in their academic
experiences.
Theoretical Framework
This study employed empowerment theory and validation theory. In utilizing these
frameworks, this study sought to better understand how faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and
peer mentors worked to create a culture of mentoring that advanced student success and
35
equipped them with the knowledge and resources to feel empowered and validated in their
academic involvements.
Empowerment Theory
The empowerment theory, influenced from the works of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire,
is grounded in the pursuit of social justice, equality, and fairness, particularly for marginalized
groups. In the context of empowerment theory, communities come together to identify their
problems, assess the social and historical root of issues that serve as barriers to their progression,
and become active participants in developing solutions to improve their situation (Gutierrez &
Lewis, 1999). Hipolito-Delgado and Lee (2007) references Freire’s empowerment theory as
being instrumental in helping underrepresented and oppressed groups to become involved in
research that leads to the development of policies and decisions that impact their communities.
Flynn, Ray, and Ryder, (1994), identified five concepts that link community empowerment and
action research and led to groups, particularly those that are underrepresented, to feel empowered
and validated. The five concepts are: focus on community, citizen participation, information and
problem solving, sharing of power, and quality of life. Action research that focuses on
community provides community members with opportunities to discuss concerns about their
community, which leads to them feelings of being valued, heard, and included in the decision-
making process. Citizen participation views community members as active contributors of the
entire research process. This includes the community deciding whether or not to conduct
research, the selection of subjects and appropriate methods, and determining how to utilize
research results. Through information and problem-solving concept community participants are
provided access to information that helps them address problems and develop solutions to
barriers that have traditionally impeded their success (Flynn, Ray, & Rider, 1994).
36
Empowerment theory is used in this study because institutional agents that serve as
empowerment agents view their role through an equity-enhanced lens by providing mentees,
particularly underrepresented student populations, with access to campus resources and
opportunities that help them develop motivation to persist and feel like valuable contributors to
the college community. When students are given access to knowledge and are invited to
participate, they can communicate with their colleges and universities on improved ways to
support their academic or cultural communities. This knowledge can also be passed down to
junior peers to support their academic and personal development (Flynn, Ray, & Rider, 1994;
Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Now that we have an understanding of the importance of mentoring, we
can discuss the different types of programs that institutional agents can use to develop a
mentoring culture in their colleges and universities.
Validation Theory
Validation as a theoretical construct did not gain much attention in the field of higher
education prior to the work of Rendon (1994), where she conducted a study on the positive
impact that words and behaviors of support from institutional agents, family and friends plays on
student motivation and persistence. Prior research focused on the improvement of student
attrition and campus climate in colleges and universities through the employment of various
forms of support and encouragement garnered from the student’s academic and personal
community that serve as substitutes of validation. Such proxies came in the form of feeling
supported by friends and family members, receiving pearls of wisdom by a faculty member,
feeling cared for by a significant other, and feeling included by professors and university agents
to actively participant of the learning process (Bean, 1982; Hurtado, 1994; Nora, 1987; Nora &
Cabrera, 1993). Validation theory defines practices that improve student’s persistence,
37
achievement, and graduation rates college and universities. This theory contends that validation
takes place when institutional agents work to foster students’ social adjustment into the learning
community while viewing them as capable learners that contribute to the development of new
knowledge for the advancement of all students.
Validation is comprised of two forms: academic and interpersonal. Academic validation
occurs when institutional agents foster academic development, such as providing feedback,
encouraging classroom participation, and displaying appreciation for student contributions
(Hurtado, Ruiz Alvarado & Guillermo-Wann, 2015). Interpersonal validation involves behaviors
that foster students’ social adjustment within their academic community. Examples of
interpersonal validation include recognizing student achievement and encouraging involvement
in campus clubs and organizations (Hurtado, Ruiz Alvarado & Guillermo-Wann, 2015). Both
forms of validation can take place in- and out-of-the classroom (Rendon & Munoz, 2011).
Similar to empowerment theory, validation influences institutional agents to operate
through a social justice and equity-minded lens to create inclusive classroom environments, and
view students, particularly students of color and FGC student populations, as powerful learners
who are worthy of care, support and encouragement to overcome past experiences of invalidation
and oppression. This theory is viable to this study because it helps us understand how to create
or enhance a mentoring culture to increase student success, particularly those from
underrepresented populations. Additionally, the employment of this theory can also help to
understand student development in college and improve teaching and learning (Rendon &
Munoz, 2011, p 9).
Conclusion
38
In this chapter we discussed the process of mentoring and various types of formal and
informal mentoring interactions. We also elaborated on how the nature of mentoring interaction
and communication that stems from formal and informal mentoring relationships may lead to
improved student outcomes. Overall, this literature review suggested that university agents,
family, friends, and community members possess a limited understanding of how to cultivate a
mentoring culture to improve student success (Packard, 2016; Rendon & Munoz, 2011; Tierney,
Venegas, Colyar, Corwin & Olivérez, 2004; Wang, 2012).
This literature review also demonstrated that more research is needed to further the
understanding of how the development of a mentoring culture can attribute to students gaining an
improved sense of empowerment, and feeling validated in their educational experiences (Anaya
& Cole, 2001; Cole & Griffin, 2013; Nora, Urick & Cerecer, 2011; Zimmerman, 2007).
Furthermore, the literature review illustrated a gap in research on ways institutional agents can
effectively support their student’s holistic development, particularly those that identify as low-
income and FGC students. These gaps in the literature have challenged me to focus on the
processes involved in developing a mentoring culture, and how formal and informal types of
mentoring interactions and communication influences positive student outcomes, which has led
to the development of the previously outlined research questions. Chapter three discusses this
study’s methodology, sample, and methods of data collection and analysis.
39
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODS
This chapter presented an overview of the methodology and research design that was
used to understand the following question:
How do program faculty and staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors cultivate a
culture of mentoring for first-generation Buffett Scholars in the Thompson Scholars
Learning Community (TSLC) at University of Nebraska, Omaha?
This study sought to understand the experiences between TSLC faculty and staff, campus
stakeholders, and peer mentors with scholars that lead to the development of a mentoring culture.
Additionally, this study explored the program training and development of Peer Academic
Leaders (PALS) and Bridge PALs at the Omaha campus that contributed to positive student
outcomes. It is important to note that faculty in the TSLC program are also referred to as
instructors. As well, student mentors within the program are also referred to peer mentors. The
chapter outlined research design choices and concluded by identifying and providing the
positionality of the author that influenced the study.
2
Overall Design
Data was drawn from a broader research project that employed a longitudinal, mixed-
methods design that examined traditional academic short- and long-term outcomes, such as
retention and GPA, and explored a multitude of psychosocial outcomes (e.g., career self-
efficacy, belonging) using quantitative and qualitative data sources (Cole, Kitchen & Kezar,
2019). The larger mixed methods study included longitudinal surveys conducted with the two
2
Chapter 3 largely drew from the proposal and papers from the studies conducted by the TSLC
program
40
cohort of participants, student focus groups, and digital diary interviews with students, and case
study data collection (e.g., program observations and stakeholder interviews).
A qualitative, case study research design was used in this study to help explore the
specific ways a mentoring culture was developed between faculty, TSLC staff, and peer mentors
among students. Merriam (2009) states that “qualitative research is interested in how the
meaning is constructed, how people make sense of their lives and their worlds” (p.24). The value
in using a qualitative research method is that it allowed me to understand the conditions in which
the students experienced their college environment. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) states:
Qualitative research is a situated actively that locates the observer in the world.
Qualitative research consists of a set of interpretative, material practices that make the
world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of
representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings,
and memos to the self…qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people
bring to them (p.3)
This definition was helpful as it laid out my role as the researcher and how I needed to
approach my study. In addition to this definition, Creswell (2013) summarizes several common
characteristics of qualitative research including that it occurs in a natural setting, the researcher
serves as a key instrument, uses multiple methods, complex reasoning through inductive and
deductive logic, participants meanings, emergent design, reflexivity, and provide a holistic
account. These concepts also served as guidelines for my approach and as a researcher
conducting a qualitative study. I reviewed longitudinal digital diary entries from students. This
data helped me gain a better understanding of how the mentoring relationship they developed
41
with faculty, program staff, and peer mentors shaped their academic experiences in the TSLC
program at the Omaha campus. Additionally, I reviewed the TSLC staff and faculty interviews,
and student digital diaries to gain a better understanding of their stories and then see how those
stories shaped their individual experiences – faculty and staff discussing opportunities where
they served as mentors to program scholars, and students sharing how mentoring interactions and
relationships with faculty and program staff contributed to their development.
The nature of these mentoring interactions and the ways that I wanted to explore them did
not lend itself to a quantitative analysis, as this type of analysis focused more on the frequency of
interactions, as opposed to the types of interactions and communication that transpired between
institutional agents and program scholars that could be clearly understood through the
employment of a qualitative lens. Maxwell (1996) states that qualitative methodology is
preferred when conducting an exploratory study as it allows for the identification of anticipated
phenomena and influences. Furthermore, qualitative methodology allows the researcher to focus
on learning the meaning that the participants have about the issue and provides a holistic account
of the phenomena being studied (Creswell, 2009). Learning how a mentoring culture was
developed between institutional agents and program scholars was an important element in
understanding how faculty, TSLC staff, and peer mentors could positively shape student
outcomes, and identify and apply practices that led to students feeling empowered and validated
in their academic experience.
Case studies. In accordance with Merriam’s observations, I chose qualitative case study
research because I was interested in “insight, discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis
testing” (pp. 28-29). Case study research was instrumental in helping me to listen to the
individual voices of faculty, program staff, and student participants who represented a variety of
42
perspectives surrounding the mentoring interactions they engaged in with one another at the
Omaha campus (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). In this study, I sought to provide multiple
perspectives and determine from corroborating sources of data the similar or dissimilar elements
of each mentoring interaction and relationship. Finally, my intent was to allow the reader to
modify generalizations and determine the significance, triviality, or meaning of those
experiences for themselves.
I selected the descriptive case study as my methodology, as it was well suited to the
purpose of my study—to conduct an in-depth examination of a program that supported the
students’ transition to college and the cultivation of a mentoring culture with TSLC faculty and
staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors. Creswell (2007) writes "in a case study, a specific
case is examined, often with the intent of examining an issue with the case illuminating the
complexity of the issue" (Creswell, 2007, p. 93). Additionally, I selected the case study because
it provided a strong method for examining how communication practices and interactions lead to
the development of mentoring relationships which contribute to positive student outcomes in
colleges and universities.
A case study was appropriate for my research purpose, as I was working from a social
constructivist paradigm, which assumes that "individuals seek to make sense of the world in
which they live and work”, and that they "develop subjective meanings of their experience--
meanings directed toward certain objects or thing" (Creswell, 2009, p.8). As the social
constructivist approach relies heavily on the participants' views of the mentoring occurrences
being studied, a case study method, with its interviews and open-ended questions, was
appropriate. Furthermore, how individuals make meaning of their experience is varied and
multiple, and the case study method helped me to understand the complexity of views of all
43
participants. Below is an overview of the TSLC program followed by a discussion on why I
selected the case for study.
Overview of Program
The TSLC is a comprehensive college transition program that exists on the University of
Nebraska campuses (University of Nebraska, Omaha; University of Nebraska, Lincoln; and
University of Nebraska, Kierney). The program ranges in size from approximately 200-600
first- and second-year students each year. One program is situated within a metropolitan
university, and the students it serves are racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse. Another
institution is a situated in a rural community and serves primarily students from rural areas
within the state. The third institution is a large, research-oriented, land grant university that
draws students from across the state and nation.
Students in this program must be residents of the state from low-income households who
are expected to contribute less than $10,000 per year to the student’s education, which is
determined by the financial aid offices. The students apply for the scholarship while in high
school. If selected to attend one of the University of Nebraska campuses, students receive a five-
year scholarship that covers approximately the cost of tuition and participate in a two-year
support program that is composed of shared academic courses, college success seminars, peer
mentoring, individualized professional advising, and social, academic, and educational programs.
While being a first-generation college student is not required for participation, many of the
students do identify as first-generation. The open application process, with only one
requirement, as well as the relatively large financial resources available through the private
foundation to support the program, means that diverse groups of students are included in the
44
program. The program admits students with a wide array of academic abilities and achievement
levels.
The primary purpose of the TSLC program is to promote a successful college transition
and a pathway to degree completion for students. Over the course of the two-year program,
TSLC scholars participate in a range of academic, social, and career development activities.
Students also receive support from faculty and staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors (see
Figure 2). Furthermore, TSLC consists of several in- and out-of-classroom components that
attribute to positive student outcomes.
Figure 2. Diagram of Comprehensive College Transition Program Components
There are various reasons why this program was a strong site for the study of mentoring
interactions between faculty, program staff, peer mentors and students, particularly low-income
and FGC students. The TSLC program seeks to maintain high levels of mentoring interactions
45
between students and institutional agents. The development of such interactions provided me an
opportunity to analyze the establishment of mentoring relationships from the students’
perspective. Furthermore, TSLC faculty and staff receive professional development to work
with diverse student populations, particularly those from underrepresented and marginalized
backgrounds, as they make up a significant portion of the scholars within the program.
Site Selection
Creswell (2009) identifies that purposefully selecting sites or individuals is the first step
in a case study because these individuals will best help the researcher understand the phenomena
under analysis. The sampling strategy used in this study was purposeful sampling. “Information
rich cases” (Patton, 2002, p. 40) are specifically selected for the in-depth information that would
provide data towards answering the research questions in this study. According to Patton (2002),
“information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central
importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term purposeful sampling” (p. 46).
I have selected the Omaha campus because of the of the emphasis TSLC staff and faculty
place on the development of mentoring connections with Buffett Scholars. Further, the TSLC
program was selected for the study because the program’s staff, faculty, and peer mentor’s role
in helping students achieve greater academic outcomes. The program itself, as outlined in the
next section, is comprised of many low-income and FGC students, a population I feel can greatly
benefits from involvement in mentoring connections with faculty and program staff. Moreover,
peer mentors are specifically trained and developed in preparation to work with Buffett Scholars.
All of these elements made the program an ideal fit for this study.
Data Sources
46
A descriptive case study involves collecting data from multiple sources, including
interviews, observations, documents, and audiovisual material (Creswell, 2007) to arrive at a
detailed, rich, "thick description" of the case (Stake, 1995, p). My case study drew upon (a)
multiple observations of program activities conducted on-site at Omaha; (b) interviews with
faculty and staff, including program directors, program staff, and course instructors; and, (c)
longitudinal digital diary entries and interviews with students to understand the experiences of
individuals who participated in the TSLC program at the Omaha campus. Observations, student
digital diaries, and interviews were the primary sources of data for my analysis and provided
contextual understanding as a means of triangulation for my findings.
Observations. Observations were conducted each semester over a two-year period at the
Omaha campus. Observations of program-related activities initially occurred multiple times
each semester and then reduced after relationships were built with faculty and program staff. I
reviewed field notes of observations which documented events and discussions that pertained to
faculty training, program training of mentors, and other student success activities that aided with
understanding how TSLC staff, faculty and peer mentors operated in their capacities to support
program scholars at UNO.
Field notes on observations allowed me to explore how to personally witness and
experience mentoring relationships from the Omaha campus. Additionally, observations helped
identify areas that faculty, program staff, and students were not even be aware of given their
engagement. Events were intentionally observed, identifying events that had similar focuses on
the Omaha campus (e.g., orientation, shared academic courses). This strategy helped to provide
data that aided in the triangulation of other methods of data collection such as faculty and staff
47
interviews, and digital diaries entries that strengthened reliability and internal validity (Merriam,
2009).
Faculty and TSLC staff interviews. Over the course of the study of the program, semi-
structured interviews were conducted with all 10 TSLC-affiliated faculty participants, 13 TSLC-
affiliated staff participants, a subset of five campus stakeholders who focused more on advising
students, and a subset of four Buffett Scholars at the UNO campus. Additionally, interviews
with course instructors explored their backgrounds, approaches to course instruction, and their
perceptions of and mentoring interactions with scholars at the Omaha campus.
Interview data of all TSLC-affiliated staff, which consisted of professional staff members,
a faculty coordinator, and several part-time undergraduate assistants were analyzed.
Additionally, I reviewed interview data for a subset of affiliated staff who served as counselors,
and multicultural affairs professionals that served in an advising capacity for program scholars.
The interview data from program staff helped to make sense of the TSLC program components
and processes. Additionally, the data provided details of how the staff served as mentors for
scholars at the Omaha campus. Moreover, interview data on the subset of affiliated staff also
examined ways this group of participants served, advised and mentored program scholars.
Interviews were professionally transcribed.
Student digital diaries. Student participants from the 2015 cohort completed digital
diaries (i.e., video blogs) and longitudinal follow-up interviews over their first three-years of
college. Specifically, students recorded short digital diary entries (self-recorded videos) in
response to prompts provided to them twice a month during the academic year and participated
in 30-45-minute semi-structured interviews two or three times a semester. This further explored
the students experiences in the TSLC program with faculty, program staff, and peer mentors at
48
Omaha. The semi-structured interviews built upon information shared in the digital diaries such
as the students’ experiences with program components, like shared courses and their encounters
with academic challenges. Participants met with the same research team member whenever
possible to facilitate relationship building over the three years of data collection. As with faculty
and TSLC interviews, student interviews were also professionally transcribed.
Participants
The data sources that I drew from were all TSLC-affiliated faculty participants (10), all
TSLC-affiliated staff participants (13), a subset of five campus stakeholders who focused more
on advising students, and a subset of four Buffett Scholars at the UNO campus. As previously
stated, the Omaha campus was selected because it possessed a strong mentoring connection
between TSLC staff, faculty, and student mentors with Buffett Scholars.
UNO is located in a metropolitan area and serves a radically, ethnically, and linguistically
diverse student population. Many of these students are also commuter students. Commuter
students face their own set of unique challenges, as they are more likely to be from marginalized
and underrepresented backgrounds, low-income, FGC students, work part-time, or be mature
students (review Chapter 1 for definitions). Additionally, these students may not feel as
connected to the university or combat greater feelings of loneliness compared to their non-
commuter counterparts (Kuh, Gonyea & Palmer, 2001). Although many large, research-based
universities place a higher demand on faulty producing publications, and incentivizes the
awarding of tenure by encouraging instructors to prioritize the development of research over the
application of practical instructional approaches that lead to students feeling involved in the
learning process and that they matter to faculty and staff; the TSLC program at Omaha places
great emphasis on the fostering of mentoring connections between program faculty and staff,
49
campus stakeholders, and peer mentors among students. Particularly those who identify as low-
income and FGC students.
This study benefited through gaining a better understanding of how faculty, program staff
and peer mentors collaborated to foster mentoring relationships with students and the effect that
these approaches played on student outcomes. For example, through data collected from the
Omaha campus I learned that faculty maintained regular interactions with TSLC program staff,
and both parties engaged in collaborative advising approaches that aided student success,
specifically that of at-risk students. In addition to enhancing my perspective on ways that
mentoring connections between TSLC employees and scholars influenced academic outcomes, I
sought to learn more about the Buffett Scholars experiences of being mentored by TSLC staff,
faculty and peer mentors. Furthermore, I looked to learn more about their level of receptiveness
to such approaches. Knowledge of how a mentoring culture was developed between both parties
and an understanding of the unique experiences that each student possessed or shared with their
peers lent to my understanding of effective mentoring practices.
Program staff. Program staff was comprised of all 13 TSLC-affiliated program staff,
and the subset of five campus stakeholders who served in advising capacities to scholars on the
Omaha campus. All TSLC affiliated staff and campus stakeholders from the campus were
purposefully chosen. Program staff in the TSLC program at Omaha included a faculty
coordinator, several part-time undergraduate assistants, and a few professional staff members.
As previously indicated, the subset of affiliated staff participants that were selected for this study
consisted of counselors’ and multicultural affairs professionals who operate in an advising
capacity for scholars. I wanted to understand how each of the program affiliated staff members
played a role of serving as mentor and primary point of contact (POC) for students. Program
50
staff, also referred to as a POC, served as facilitators of information and provided students with
encouragement, academic and interpersonal support. In the TSLC program, staff members
received training that emphasized the building of relationships and provision of validating
experiences for students. A POC for each student allowed for a ready, consistent connection for
information, support, and encouragement. Staff were required to proactively reach out to
students, and initiate contact regularly to check on students. Students met regularly with their
POC, which facilitated the development of a relationship with the student over time.
Instructors. All one-time instructors (10), also referred to as faculty in the TSLC
program at the Omaha campus were selected as participants for my study. Each faculty member
mirrored the student demographics that are predominately served in the program. In the TSLC
program, students are enrolled in multiple shared courses and are taught by dedicated instructors
who value teaching and have an overall understanding of the diverse student demographics
served at the Omaha campus. The courses in the TSLC program are typically general education
courses required for the students to reach degree completion. The faculty coordinator at Omaha
works with their department to select instructors to teach shared academic courses within the
program. For many instructors, selection is viewed as an honor, comes with some monetary
incentive, and offers an opportunity to experiment in both content and pedagogy (e.g., co-
curricular activity funds). The faculty coordinator attempts to identify instructors who are
demographically diverse and representative of the students in the program, committed to the
success of low-income students, and have demonstrated high-quality teaching. The coordinator
builds relationships with instructors and share with them a common vision for program courses
and instructor expectations. Instructors are invited to meet as a group to collaborate on
experiences teaching students in the program to address common concerns among program
51
scholars, and to hear from the program staff and faculty coordinator information that can help
them best serve the needs of the student populations served by the program. Instructors are
encouraged to recognize the complexity of students’ outside-of-classroom lives as this influence
how students learn inside the classroom.
Students. A subset of four students were chosen at the Omaha campus. The students
were also selected purposefully on a nonrandom basis. This approach was taken to provide
information that was relevant to the focus of my study (Maxwell, 2013). While I only reviewed
data from a subset of scholars from the 2015 cohort at the Omaha campus, each student within
the program completed digital diaries during their time in the learning community. A summary
of all student interviews was assessed. These interviews focused on the positive, impartial, and
negative student experiences with faculty, program staff, and peer mentors at Omaha. As I
looked to better understand the student’s experiences and receptiveness to mentoring connections
developed with program staff, faculty and peer mentors at UNO, it was essential for me to gain a
better understanding of all three experiences.
Following the initial set of brief interviews with interested students, participants were
intentionally selected by researchers to be demographically diverse and span a range of majors
(e.g., biology, education), backgrounds (e.g., race/ethnicity, hometowns), life experiences (e.g.,
immigrant), and career interests (e.g., pathologist, nurse, teacher). Pseudonyms were assigned to
each participant. It was important to note that participants were selected through a required
TSLC first-year seminar at Omaha.
Below, table 2 below displays the participants and their role in the study from the Omaha
campus.
52
Campus Program Staff
Interviews
Faculty
Interviews
Campus
Stakeholders
Buffett
Scholar
Interviews
UNO 13 10 5 4 (60
interviews)
Table 2. Participants in the TSLC Study at the UNO Campus
Data Analysis
The primary focus of my analysis was student digital diaries entries and the longitudinal
faculty and staff interviews. A deductive and inductive thematic approach was employed in my
analysis of all data (Boyatzis, 1998). Deductive and inductive approaches specified where the
research journey commenced. Inductive approaches began with the collection of empirical data.
Based on these empirical observations we formed an assumption which was used to test for
additional data to develop a theory. Deductive approaches began with a theory-driven
hypothesis, which guided the data collection and analysis process.
As I worked with an existing data set, I analyzed the interviews with TSLC staff and
faculty, and the longitudinal digital diary entries and interviews from students. Additionally, I
penned notes (memos) to myself, and reflections from each interview session. This allowed me
to not only began to see some possible themes through the lens of my conceptual framework
across the multiple forms of data, but also ensured that I addressed any assumptions that I had
formed during analysis. Furthermore, this self-reflection allowed me to see the effectiveness of
the interview protocol. This is a critical piece to qualitative research in that it is emergent and
can change as one progresses through the research process (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Creswell (2013) provides several guidelines for data analysis for deductive and inductive
approaches that I utilized during the analyzation process. As I worked with an existing data set, I
referred to my coding list (Appendix 1) from chapter 2. This list detailed key findings from the
literature that helped me to refine my study by sorting stories and quotes from the data into an
53
order or grouping. Once this was accomplished, I merged the codes together to form an
overarching theme. For example, various quotes from student digital diaries were coded to
highlight ways students felt faculty and staff, and peer mentors empowered them by providing
information that contributed to them feeling motivated and as valued contributors to their
learning process at the Omaha campus. Additionally, passages of text and quotes of student
diary transcripts were coded to identify ways students received words of encouragement from a
faculty member, or an email from an advising staff member inquiring about a low mid-term test
score. Such gestures of support contributed to students feeling cared for by faculty and staff and
influenced their belief of being validated in their academic experiences.
I reviewed student digital diary entries and interviews, and all faculty and staff
interviews which helped me to organize the data into files. Next, took notes of the data I
reviewed to ensure things made sense. I followed up with my dissertation advisor and program
researchers when I encountered outstanding questions. Finally, I described the experiences of
the participants and placed them into order. This was accomplished by highlighting and labeling
sections of the data that related to my research question with a code word or code words from my
coding list in Appendix 1. Once I had comprised my list of codes that related to particular
segments within the data transcript, I examined ways to merge them together to form
overarching themes that related to ways faculty, TSLC staff, and peer mentors worked to create a
mentoring culture that contributed to the success of scholars at the Omaha campus. Creswell
(2013) refers to this process as “restorying” or “the process of reorganizing the stories into some
general type of framework” (p.74).
Observation notes were read and re-read to identify major trends in the approach and
content of program components. Interview data for each group of participants at the Omaha
54
campus was analyzed individually and then clustered based upon emerging themes. For
example, all the instructor data was analyzed collectively. Digital diary data was analyzed by
semester beginning with a summary for each student. In addition, cluster analysis was conducted
using demographic categories as well as other important characteristics (e.g., honors program or
Greek system affiliated), which meant that each student was included in multiple clusters.
I began analysis by deductively capturing the important aspects of the data. The
deductive aspects of my analysis utilized theoretical constructs that guided my analysis as well as
evaluated specific elements of mentoring interactions between TSLC faculty and staff, and
students at the Omaha campus. I focused on two aspects of deductive analysis. First, I analyzed
the student, faculty, and staff data to understand their experiences and recommendations for each
of the program elements (e.g., mentoring, first-year seminar, and shared academic classes).
Second, I explored the data through the lens of my theoretical constructs. I specifically
examined how TSLC faculty and staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors fostered a culture
of mentoring among Buffett Scholars; how the development of this mentoring culture aided
institutional agents to empower and validate students; and highlighted ways intentional practices
attributed to the fostering of a mentoring culture between TSLC faculty and staff, stakeholders,
and peer mentors among program scholars.
Trustworthiness and Role of the Researcher
Qualitative research can be challenging because there is no one way to test the
trustworthiness of a study. However, different tools that can be used when analyzing data to
ensure that as the researcher I am reporting my data in a reliable manner. Ensure reliability for
this study, I drew on data that was gathered over an extended period in field, which enhanced the
credibility of the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Second, the data from this study was member
55
checked for accuracy with interviewees. Third, the study employed multiple forms of data and
triangulates interviews, digital videos, observations, and documents.
Equally important to these tools was my personal connection to the study. I identify as a
first-generation student and wanted to provide a way in which the students’ voices can be heard.
As Creswell (2013) states, “researchers conduct qualitative research when they want to empower
individuals to share their stories, hear their voices, and minimize the power relationships that
often exist between a researcher and the participants in a study” (p.48). With this in mind, I was
intentional about receiving and retelling each participants’ story in an accurate and ethical
manner.
Limitations
This study had some limitations to note in order to fully understand our findings. First,
the TSLC underwent some changes over the course of the study, and their observations were
necessarily a snapshot of the program component at a point in time. Second, researchers relied
on instructor and student volunteers to participate in the data collection. Instructors who were
inclined to participate in the data collection processes were likely also to be more closely aligned
with the overall TSLC program and goals. Not all instructors who were interviewed in
classroom settings were observed, so for some instructors I cannot make distinctions between
espoused and enacted pedagogies. Students who volunteered for, and completed, the digital
diary portion of data collection had to commit to a longitudinal study; thus, not all student
perspectives were represented. Nevertheless, the multiple sources of data and longitudinal nature
of the study contributed to a rich, holistic analysis.
Conclusion
56
This chapter summarized the specific methodologies and pertinent components of my
research, such as the description of participants, data collection methods, and procedures for
analysis. Chapter four delves into pertinent data and findings of my research. Additionally,
Chapter five continues with a discussion of the findings and implications of the study for the
application and development of practitioners in the field. Finally, a discussion of
recommendations for future research to inform educators on more effective ways to cultivate a
mentoring culture between institutional faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors
among students (particularly disenfranchised student populations) is provided.
57
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA AND FINDINGS
The purpose of my study was to gain a better understanding of the experiences and
factors that supported the development of a mentoring culture between faculty, staff, and peer
mentors with students in Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC) at the Omaha
campus. This study examined how faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors
developed a mentoring culture amongst students through systems to supported mentorship
development; referrals to campus resources, and mandatory themed events. The research
question that guided this study is:
How do program faculty and staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors cultivate a
culture of mentoring for first-generation Buffett Scholars in the Thompson Scholars
Learning Community (TSLC) at the University of Nebraska, Omaha (UNO)?
The chapter presents findings from 88 interviews, which consisted of 10 TSLC-affiliated
faculty participants, 13 TSLC-affiliated staff participants, five campus stakeholders, and 60
student interviews that were provided by four student participants. Faculty affiliated with TSLC
were hired by the university and contracted through their major departments to teach courses to
scholars in TSLC. Staff affiliated with TSLC were hired for the program to advise students and
instruct first- and second-year experience classes. Serving in both roles, the TSLC staff
objective was to help students acclimate to college life and maintain academic success during the
two years the scholar’s participated in the learning community. The campus stakeholders served
in advising and leadership roles in various student-focused departments across the Omaha
campus. All five stakeholder participants served in mentoring and advising capacities. Lastly,
all four student participants were in their last year of study or required one more academic year
58
to satisfy all degree requirements. The student participants also served as peer mentors during
the collection of the data for this study.
In the interviews, faculty, staff, campus stakeholders and peer mentors shared their
personal narratives, experiences, and motivations of establishing a mentoring culture with
scholars. Through my analysis of the data, it became clear that a mentoring culture is comprised
of values and are supported through practices and policies. Geertz (1973) defined culture as the
identifying of “beliefs, norms, rituals, and customs and practices and impacts the behaviors of
individuals and groups and the meanings they give to events in their environment”. Kilmann et
al.’s (1985) definition of culture in higher education is very similar to Geertz’s (1973), viewing it
as the “mutually shaping patterns of norms, values, practices, and beliefs” that influences the
behavior of individuals and communities in colleges and universities. Additionally, culture in
the higher education context provides important and unifying rituals that are passed down from
one generation of students to the next to help students integrate academically and socially into
their collegiate community.
Through analyzing the data from TSLC, I saw that a mentoring culture was achieved
through several student support practices initiated by the learning community: 1. Faculty, staff,
stakeholders, and Peer Academic Leaders (PALs) and Bridge PALs established systems to
support the development of mentorship; 2. Development of norms that influenced the referral to
campus resources; and, 3. The implementing and participating in mandatory themed events or
traditions to help support students’ academic, social, and professional development (Bergman et
al., 2015; Drake, 2011; Miller, 2012; Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011; Packard & Binker, 2016;
Smith & Allen, 2016; Thomas & Minton, 2004).
59
First, TSLC faculty and staff worked to create systems that supported the development of
mentorship with program scholars through monthly meetings, discussions and trainings with
PALs and Bridge PALs to contribute to Buffett scholar’s success. Additionally, TSLC faculty
and staff collaborated with the larger campus community to improve student awareness of
campus resources, and faculty sought was to support students even after they had progressed into
other classes. Second, program faculty and staff, university stakeholders, and peer mentors
engaged in the development of norms to provide scholars with access to on-campus resources.
Third, the scholars were required to participate in mandatory themed rituals and events during
their two years in the program.
Systems to Support Development of Mentorship
The primary goal of my study was to discuss the practices that led to the creation of a
mentoring culture between program faculty and staff, and peer mentors with students in TSLC at
UNO and highlight the values represented in these practices. In this section, I will elaborate on
the systems carried out by faculty and staff, campus stakeholders, and PALs and Bridge PALs
that supported the development of a mentoring culture. I will also highlight ways that PALs and
Bridge PALs supported their first- and second-year peers. Furthermore, I will look at ways that
TSLC faculty and staff, and campus stakeholders collaborated with each other and used
designated “markers” within the university student database to support student success. Finally,
I will discuss the motivation behind faculty as academic and professional resources to students
once they have progressed beyond the instructor’s classroom.
The first practice that attributed to creating a mentoring culture was that faculty, staff,
campus stakeholders, and PALs collaborated with one another to establish systems that
supported the development of mentorship amongst program scholars. This was achieved through
60
monthly meetings that took place between TSLC faculty and staff to discuss ways to improve
student retention and success, particularly for at-risk students. Second, faculty and staff
supported PALs and Bridge PALs in efforts to enhance the success and retention of first- and
second-year scholars. The scholar’s academic success and persistence was impacted by PALs
and Bridge PALs teaching scholars effective ways they completed course assignments, showing
PALs and Bridge PALs how to development lesson plans and engage in one-on-one meetings
with students. The third practice that attributed to creating a mentoring culture that will be
discussed in this section is the cross-group collaboration that transpired between TSLC and
campus stakeholders to impact the scholar’s success. The final practice that I will elaborate on
which attributes to systems that supports the creation of mentorship is how faculty serve as
academic and professional resources to students once they have progressed on to other classes. It
is important to mention that campus stakeholders are individuals employed by the Omaha
campus who serve in various advising capacities at the Omaha campus. Such roles occupied by
the stakeholders were academic advisors for major departments, advisors in the Office of
Financial Aid, the writing center, and the Office of Multicultural Affairs.
Faculty and staff monthly meetings offer opportunities to discuss ways to improve
student success. This section highlights the benefits of “monthly meetings” between TSLC
faculty and staff and how they attributed to more meaningful discussions on ways to improve
student success. I will examine how the collaborative discussions that occurred within these
meetings provided faculty and staff opportunities to share best methods of outreach for students,
engage in joint problem solving to support student development, and build supportive
relationships with students (Drake, 2011; Miller, 2012; Nora, 2001; Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011;
Packard & Binker, 2016; Smith & Allen, 2016; Thomas & Minton, 2004).
61
Through data analysis, several TSLC-affiliated instructors and staff participants
highlighted how they come together during “monthly meetings” to discuss ways to support
scholars. During the meetings, faculty and staff converse on the accomplishments and
challenges they have experienced with their students. These meeting also provide faculty and
staff opportunities to share tips on effective ways to connect with scholars and encourage them to
come in for a one-on-on with their course instructor, Peer Academic Leaders (PALs) or Bridge
PALs. One TSLC administrator shared details on how program faculty and staff deliberate on
ways to engage in outreach to students that may present concern:
What happens, usually we've always got advisors there, and so they immediately – because
they're amazing the way they keep track of so many students, and their personal pressures.
So, they'll immediately say they're in my 1020 class or who's their advisor, we'll get them
in touch, get them in the office for a meeting. Or yes, they've been dodging me. I've been
trying to set up a meeting, and so you immediately get this triangulation, and it's all hands-
on deck.
The value of this collaborative effort is that it allows TSLC faculty and staff an opportunity to
work together in their approach to support students (Campbell & Campbell, 1997, 2007; Nora,
2001; Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011). Where one faculty or staff member was unable to connect
with a scholar, their combined knowledge and teamwork would allow them to tailor their
approach to best connect with and support the student. These monthly meetings also helped to
reinforce TSLC faculty and staff’s goal to remain a unified front against low student attrition and
academic performance, as they all became aware of other colleagues’ at-risk student populations.
One faculty member discussed how the monthly meetings provided opportunities for him and his
colleagues to proactively discuss ways to motivate their students:
62
During the monthly meetings it is mind blowing to share information or observations
even more so about a student who is either doing really well or is struggling, and to have
that wrap around experience like yeah, these young people really have potential, and they
matter, and they're great. Especially if they're not doing well, what pieces can we do to
support them? This is not the same as enabling. This is not the same as pushing them
through when they're not ready or capable. But it is the same as let's see if I can give you
a little Vygotsky leg up here so you don’t wind up stumbling backwards.
As highlighted in the aforementioned quote, an added value of the collaborations that occurred in
monthly meetings was that they led to faculty and staff developing a greater understanding of the
student’s experiences. This knowledge helped them to more easily see their student’s potential,
and motivated faculty and staff to want to support students in their pursuit of academic
excellence. This approach coincides with higher education literature, which shows that
collaborations between university officials, like faculty and staff, led to positive student
outcomes (Nora, 2001; Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011).
A second benefit of faculty and staff coming together for monthly meetings was their
desire to engage in joint problem solving to support student academic and personal growth
(Nora, 2001; Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011). During the monthly collaborations, TSLC officials
brainstormed on ways to proactively addresses student needs. The joint problem solving was
displayed through deliberations between the two parties on their concern for any academic and
personal pressures impacting scholars’ lives. One faculty member discussed how the monthly
meetings allowed her and other colleagues the privilege to discuss effective ways to support
students in the learning community:
63
We have regular faculty meetings, which I think you’ve sat in on, where they say, “Okay.
What are we doing?” And I think at that point, it’s really important that they don’t say,
“We don’t coddle. Let’s see who’s having problems. We’ll figure out what their
problems are if their problems are outside of education, we’ll help them deal with it and
let you know about it”.
Finally, monthly staff meetings helped staff and faculty support each other in efforts to foster
relationships with students. During the meetings, faculty and staff would occasionally take
opportunities to remind themselves of the reasons they joined the TSLC program and continue to
serve the learning community. One staff member discussed how she was asked this question in
one of the monthly meetings, and she allows the inquiry to guide her behavior to connect with
students and help them develop a clearer understanding of who they are becoming and what they
would like to achieve:
We had a staff meeting yesterday and someone asked me why are you here? What
brought you here? What guides your work? I guess at that contextual level, or that more
what drives me or how I view what I do is that. I try to bring out that within students, to
look at what are you doing here? Again, that purpose. I think that is a huge role that we
have is being meaning makers for students, to help them make meaning out of what
they're experiencing.
The value of faculty and staff using monthly meetings to collectively reflect on the reasons they
joined TSLC and continue to serve as an educator is that it challenges them to remain intentional
in their support to scholars. Research shows that intentional interactions attribute to student
success (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Laden, 1999; Packard, 2015). Additionally, research has shown
this approach is particularly beneficial when connecting with low-income and first-generation
64
college students, as many students within these communities are the least likely to develop
relationships with faculty and staff due to the lack of representation within academic systems
(Anaya & Cole, 2001; Harper, 2013; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Laden, 1999; Smith & Allen,
2016).
This section examined how “monthly meetings” between TSLC faculty and staff led to
more meaningful discussions on ways to enhance student success. Additionally, the meetings
provided faculty and staff opportunities to share best methods of outreach for students, engage in
joint problem solving to enhance student outcomes, and led to the development of supportive
relationships. Now let us now look at how faculty and staff engage in discussions with PALs to
improve student success.
Faculty and staff collaborate with (PALs) and Bridge PALs to improve student
success. This section will discuss how PALs and Bridge PALs served as support to program
scholars and how they served as cornerstones to faculty. In TSLC, PALs were high achieving
students that served as support to instructors in the classroom. Additionally, Bridge PALs were
viewed as PALs in-training that could transition from serving in a peer mentoring role to
assisting faculty inside the classroom. Through data analysis, PALs and Bridge PALs, were
viewed as mechanisms of support between faculty and Buffett Scholars, as students were
observed as seeming “more comfortable” reaching out to their peers or a mentor for support over
requesting assistance from faculty (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Harper, 2013). The data also showed
that PALs and Bridge PALs were viewed somewhat as role models and spokesmen for students,
as they shared their experiences with faculty on more effective ways to expand learning and
student outcomes.
65
PALs and Bridge PALs served as support to faculty as they were trusted to lead the
classroom. Faculty allowed PALs and Bridge PALs to develop lesson plans, grade student
assignments, and meet with scholars one-on-one. Furthermore, PALs and Bridge PALs were
charged with organizing study groups and moderating course discussions during regularly
scheduled classroom times or via Blackboard.
PALs and Bridge PALs served as support to faculty was a standard practice between
second-year faculty and their PALs and Bridge PALs. My analysis showed that faculty provided
opportunities for PALs to communicate any concerns they had with the workload or if they
required support to complete certain tasks. A TSLC staff member discussed how PALs were
able to assist them in the classroom by providing support to students experiencing academic
difficulty:
We get some of the brightest students at UNO. So I think we just have a wider range.
We have more students that are ill-prepared, but definitely some people that are just razor
sharp all thrown into a class together. So it just seems like kind of a waste not to use our
internal resources since our students make friends with each other, they trust each other,
they're more likely to go to another student and fess up that they're struggling than they
are to a faculty or even an advisor. And the peer mentor program was working so well.
We just get so many talented students that wanted to serve in those ways. So we thought
that even though our faculty are probably more accessible personally to our students than
a lot of faculty, there's still quite a divide. So we thought if there's a student in there,
something that might be a bridge between the student having trouble and the faculty, and
if it's not a bridge at least there's some help right there.
66
The value of PALs and Bridge PALs assisting TSLC faculty and staff helped them to gain a
better understanding of how to support the scholar’s academic success. Assistance from PALs
and Bridge PALs also contributed to the development of a culture of support between themselves
and the scholars in the classroom. Additionally, guidance on classroom assignments, the
development of lesson plans, and one-on-one advisement with mentors helps PALs and Bridge
PALs to foster an environment that encourages students to reach out to the PALs, Bridge PALs,
and classmates for support. One faculty member spoke of how his PAL, who was also a peer
mentor, served as a resource to students in his class by sharing ways he achieved success in the
course:
I had wanted a pal last year; this one particular student who had done very well in the
class, but he was already a mentor, a TLC mentor. So he couldn't be a pal so he actually
approached me this year saying, "Hey, are you still interested?" And I would say it's
been good. It hasn't been great just because I think timewise with my mentor, or my pal
this semester has been a little difficult. He's another resource for my students. He did
really well in the class and I know I had – 4 of my 25 went to a review session right
before the first exam and he did well. So he can mentor with, "Here's how I did it".
The value of faculty having upper classmen or high performing students serve as PALs or Bridge
PALs in their class was that this approach helped scholars feel more comfort reaching out to their
peers for support. Also, classroom support from PALs and Bridge PALs helped students to feel
more comfortable receiving reassurance and guidance from someone who was closer to their age
group.
Prior higher education literature discusses the benefits of students serving in TA roles, as
such partnerships can lead to students feeling validated in their academic experience, as they
67
transition from being seen as “mere receptacles” to partners in the educational process (Harper,
2013; Smith & Allen, 2016). This section discussed PALs and Bridge PALs served as branches
of support for program scholars and faculty by assisting students with class assignments, aiding
with lesson plan development, assignment grading, and meeting with scholars one-on-one. Now
that we have a better understanding of how faculty and staff incorporate the input and expertise
of PALs and Bridge PALs to craft a more student-centered approach to their pedagogical
practices, let us examine how TSLC faculty, and staff have developed alliances with other
campus departments to improve student outcomes. It is important to mention that while the data
highlighted several forms of support, I am going to discuss how TSLC faculty and staff and the
broader campus community worked together to achieve a common goal of referring students to
campus resources. As knowledge and access to campus resources was particularly important to
the scholar’s development after they completed their first two years as a student in the learning
community.
TSLC faculty, staff, and university stakeholders develop an alliance to support
student success. This section discusses how cross-group collaborations between TSLC faculty
and staff with campus stakeholders, or the broader university community impacts student
outcomes. I will examine how these collaborations were supported using campus and academic
program specific “markers” that were designated in the university advising database. I will also
elaborate on how these system-designated markers provided university officials with information
on student interest. Finally, I will highlight how the cross-group collaborations between TSLC
faculty and staff with campus stakeholders served as an instrument to support program scholars
and connect them to campus resources.
68
Through my analysis, I noticed that several TSLC instructors, staff, campus stakeholders,
and the university steering committee, which is comprised of representatives from various
campus departments, discussed ways they collaborated with each other at the Omaha campus.
These efforts included face-to-face communication, email correspondence, support for each other
by attending department and student program events, and referring students to campus resources
and opportunities. The goal of these campus officials working together was twofold. First, to
enhance their own understanding of campus resources so that they could share that information
with students, and second, to share information about on-campus resources. TSLC faculty and
staff, and campus stakeholders hoped they could motivate students to utilize these resources and
attend more campus-wide events. This system of collaboration between TSLC faculty and staff,
university stakeholders, and the steering committee attributed to establishing a stronger network
of support for Buffett Scholars. Additionally, the support system that transpired from these
collaborations aided students to successfully integrate into the UNO campus culture after the
completion of their initial two years in the Learning Community. One TSLC staff member
shared his thoughts on the importance of such collaborations between Buffett Scholars and the
campus resources:
A big part of what we do to make sure our students aren't just excelling within our
academic community but are also being pushed out of their boundaries to get into the
larger university. As architects, we're doing a lot of collaboration across the campus. We
know that we don't want to recreate wheels a lot with our programming, so we're doing a
lot to make sure that our students understand what else is happening on campus, possibly
get more collaboration, so that our programming board is getting experience working
with other offices on campus.
69
The value of the collaboration that occurred between TSLC faculty and staff and the broader
university community is that it helped scholars to become more resourceful (Gonzalez, 2001;
Ishiyama, 2007; Lopatto, 2003; Russel, Hancock & McCullough, 2007). Through connecting
students with campus resources that specifically support their needs, faculty and staff were
helping them to become more skilled at solving their own problems and independently finding
resources that promoted their growth. This practice of connecting students to campus resources
was critical to the scholar’s development, particularly after the scholars exited the program at the
end of their sophomore year.
The second benefit noticed was that cross-group collaborations between TSLC and the
broader campus community were supported using designated “markers” within the university
student database to identify academic programs, campus resources, and TSLC students. The
markers made it easier for campus staff to identify academic majors, minor, and campus
programs that students possessed interest in. Additionally, these markers made it easier for
TSLC and campus officials to refer students’ academic major and minor advisors, and various
campus resources. One stakeholder on the Omaha campus discussed how such designations
helped her department prepare for student advising appointments with Buffett Scholars:
Basically, we have something on the system that lets us know that they are in the TLC
program. That way, when we start prepping our appointments, we can prep accurately
and make sure, especially if they're in that first or second year, that they get those
required courses and that we have an idea of what to recommend.
The value of employing program and major specific markers helps campus-wide officials more
easily distinguish student populations to provide appropriate institutional services. Furthermore,
this system of support established between TSLC officials and campus departments lends to
70
clearly defined duties, as all campus partners display a mutual respect for each other’s roles by
ensuring they are not duplicating guidance and referrals that have been previously provided, and
working to share access to campus resources that lie in their areas of service. One TSLC staff
member highlighted the admiration campus advisors have for them because TSLC officials do
not try to do their jobs, yet Buffett Scholars go to major and minor advising session
knowledgeable of what they should be registering for in upcoming sessions:
Our academic advisors across campus absolutely love us because we won't do their job.
We won't tell students that you have to take classes. We'll work in concert with them.
But that – students can come to us and we can kinda give 'em some coaching before they
go into their academic advising meeting. And the academic advisor then isn't doing that
with 180 students. They're doing it with 110 students 'cause our 70 are coming really
well prepared and they're coming early.
Finally, collaboration between TSLC officials and university stakeholders attributed to scholars
feeling supported on the Omaha campus. This was particularly true for scholars who identified
as LGBTQIA. My analysis showed that cross-group communication between TSLC and other
campus departments helped to support scholars academic, social, and personal development.
One stakeholder in Multicultural Affairs discussed how they worked together with TSLC on
everything, as they shared the same students:
Multicultural Affairs works with a lot of underrepresented students, first-year college
students or whatever, and so we work with TLC students, we work with Goodrich style
scholars, with Project Achieve. So, we run the gamut, we call them – that's the East
campus, we're the West campus. When they're on this side they work over there, when
they're over here. But we work closely together with all our students. I am also on the
71
advisor committee for TLC also. So, we work closely together on just about everything
we do. They include us with – because we have the same students, some of the same
students. So, campus programs have a home for their students, so it makes a big
difference in recruitment, and it also makes a difference in persistence, and also
graduation. That retention piece is big for them, so we work with some of the same
students trying to do those kinds of things.
The value of cross-group collaborations between TSLC and broader campus community
departments to foster student support made it easy for them to work toward common goals of
enhancing student outcomes and supporting their development. This practice is supported by
prior research, as higher education literature discusses the benefits of having collaborative
meetings between academic and campus departments to discuss student performance, academic
and institutional policies, and improvements to campus services (Nora 2001; Nora, Urick &
Cerecer, 2011).
This section discussed ways collaboration between TSLC faculty and staff with
university stakeholders impact student outcomes. These cross-group collaborations were
supported by the selection of campus and academic program specific “markers” that could be
designated in the university student database to identify academic resources to support student
development. Lastly, the communication between TSLC and other campus departments helped
to foster a system of support for program scholars throughout the university. Now that we have a
greater understanding of the ways cross-group collaboration between TSLC faculty and staff
with the broader university community impact student outcomes, let us look at the motivation
behind faculty serving as academic and professional resources to program scholars.
72
Faculty serving as an academic and professional resource to students. The final
section of systems that support the development of mentorship looks at how faculty saw
themselves as a resource for students. You may recall in the beginning of this section where I
discuss how faculty and staff used monthly meetings to brainstorm effective ways to engage in
outreach to students and improve retention and success. Another way that faculty worked to
continue these efforts was by serving as a resource for scholars even after they had completed the
instructor’s class and transitioned out of the TSLC program at the conclusion of their sophomore
year. Through my analysis, I learned that all instructors spoke of themselves as a long-term
resource for students. One faculty member explained how they implore students to come to them
for support, whether it was regarding questions about class writing assignments or letters of
recommendation. They wanted scholars to know that their support was not limited to the
conclusion of their semester of instruction:
I let my students know throughout the semesters when I meet with them, but especially at
the very end of the semester, I’m here for them, I’m a resource. So even though our class
is ending, it ends at the end of the semester, they can come back to ask questions about
other writing assignments they have for other classes. If it’s like in their major I may not
know a lot of the details, but I will be a second set of eyes to look at that paper to offer
them advice from an outsider. Or if they’re not making sense. And a lot of students take
advantage of that. I get a lot of students that come back. I also tell them that I can be a
reference for them, or I can write a letter of recommendation. So, letting them know that
I’m willing to do that extra stuff for them really makes a big difference. And I also, as
we meet with the students, as I meet with the students, I stress to them that there will be
other instructors like me, but there will be other instructors out there that are not like us,
73
that you have to take the initiative to ask questions if you don’t know what’s going on, to
ask for that extra help. Or if they’re struggling with an assignment and they need more
time, ask.
Through this student-focused mindset, we see that instructors were invested in the academic,
personal, and professional success of Buffett Scholars. Faculty continued to speak of their desire
for students to know that they could come to them for anything. Some additional examples of
support that were mentioned by faculty that will be further discussed in the upcoming section
involved ways that they discussed potential career paths and made referrals to campus support
services (i.e. math tutoring, writing and speech support) that were in support of the student’s
overall development. Through analysis, it was clear that some faculty were invested in serving
as the resource to students that they did not have during their college experience. This desire to
support students’ academic, professional, and personal growth led to the performing of practices
which led to the development of a mentoring culture between program faculty with students.
Research in higher education informs us of the positive impact of faculty referring students to
campus resources has on student retention. Furthermore, as discussed in chapter two, faculty
extending support to students motivates them to allocate more time to their studies, which
positively impacts their personal, academic, and professional development (Bjorkland, Parenti &
Sathianathan, 2004; Cole & Griffin, 2013; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004).
In this section, I discussed the systems carried out by faculty, staff, campus stakeholders,
and PALs and Bridge PALs that supported the development of mentoring culture. I also
discussed ways that PALs and Bridge PALs supported their first- and second-year peers.
Furthermore, I examined ways that TSLC faculty and staff, and campus stakeholders
collaborated with each other and used designated “markers” within the university student
74
database to support student success. Finally, I discussed the motivation behind faculty as
academic and professional resources to students once they had progressed beyond the
instructor’s classroom. Now, we have a deeper understanding of how TSLC and the greater
campus community collaborate to create systems that support the development of a mentoring
culture. Let us now examine the development of norms that influenced TSLC faculty and staff,
university stakeholders, and peer mentors to refer scholars to campus resources.
Norms that Influenced Referrals to Campus Resources
Interviewees described several norms that encouraged them to refer Buffett Scholars to
the appropriate resource. The underlying norm that was shared was a commitment to student
success. They described how the norm about student success was communicated among all
groups on campus – peer mentors, faculty, staff and campus stakeholders. While these
“facilitators of resources” shared a common goal of wanting to support student success, each
group was also influenced to support students by different motivations. What I learned was that
in addition to a common norm around student success, other norms were developed that were
specific to certain groups and that can help individuals working to develop a mentoring culture to
think about additional values and beliefs that can draw campus stakeholders into the mentoring
culture. For example, faculty believed that knowledge of campus resources should be accessible
to all students, staff believed that all scholars should have a positive academic experience, and
campus stakeholders valued a shared responsibility with TSLC faculty and staff to support
scholars with information on various campus resources. Peer mentors echoed these beliefs by
encouraging scholars to refer to TSLC staff for knowledge of campus resources and academic
support.
75
Faculty inform students of campus resources. Two themes emerged regarding the
norm of faculty referring students to campus support services: faculty shared knowledge of
support services with students, and many faculty members performed multiple responsibilities by
instructing TSCL scholars, non-TSLC students and serving in positions of support in campus
resources departments.
The first theme that emerged was faculty’s desire to share knowledge of campus
resources with students. While several faculty members acknowledged their limited familiarity
of campus support resources, they spoke of the importance of sharing such knowledge with
students to help them explore their academic and professional options. One thing that continued
to come up with faculty was their desire to make students aware of the various services available
on campus, as access to these resources could expose the scholars to new academic and
professional areas of interest. One faculty member reflected on the undergraduate student
experience and how he encourages Buffett Scholars to take advantage of campus resources:
I think a lot of them, this is all new to them, so they don’t know what to expect. They’re
in college obviously because they wanted to be in college, or they were told all right,
once you graduate you have to go to college. They don’t know what to do once they are
here. I think getting them involved with these activities. That we’ll say all right, this is
what you can do after UNO. You can do this with your life. All right, to do this with
your life, you need to get more schooling. You need to go to graduate school. Or you
need to make those connections, those business networking people, to get your foot in the
door. So just having them be aware of the stuff that’s on campus that’s there for
resources.
76
The value of faculty providing access to campus resources and sharing advice that supported
students’ academic and professional development attributes to improved sense of belonging,
persistence, motivation, and degree completion. Particularly for students of color, and those who
identify as low income or first-generation (Astin, 1992; Bensimon, 2007; Harper, 2013;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Rendon Linares & Munoz, 2011). Additionally, this knowledge
lends to creating a mentoring culture because faculty are able to share knowledge from their
experiences with students and influence students to take advantage of campus resources to gain a
clearer understanding of their areas of interest (Billson & Terry, 1982; Colton et al., 1999;
Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Terenzini et al., 1994).
The second theme that emerged from the data was that TSLC instructors served in
multiple roles of support. Many of the faculty in the learning community also instructed non-
TSLC students. Additionally, some of the faculty served as points of contact in various campus
resource departments. One TLSC faculty spoke about the dual role she holds as both a TSLC-
affiliated faculty member and campus resource department official as “half of her time was spent
teaching and the other half was spent serving as a resource in a student support department.”
The benefit of faculty serving dual responsibility helped them to provide greater support to the
scholars, as they were more knowledgeable of campus services. Furthermore, there access to
campus resources provided them greater opportunities to refer scholars when necessary. Now
that we have discussed the themes and motivations that influenced faculty to refer scholars to
campus resources, and the value of such practices, let’s look at staff norms and their motivations
for referring students to campus resources activities.
Staff sharing knowledge of campus resources with students. As previously stated,
many TSLC staff serve as advisors and first-year and second-year instructors for Buffett
77
Scholars. By serving in multiple roles, TSLC staff were ideal in providing scholars with
knowledge of on-campus resources to support their growth within the learning community and
on the Omaha campus. Staff emphasized their motivation of establishing a mentoring culture,
which seemed important to developing of such an environment. This section discusses three
motives that led to the norm of staff referring students to campus resources which were to pay
the kindness they received during their college experience forward to their students, display
professional competence, and help students thrive.
The first motive behind staff referring students to campus support services was to provide
students with a positive experience that mirrored the support they received during their
educational career. On the contrary, several staff discussed the lack of guidance they received
from institutional agents or mentors during their collegiate career and how such an experience
motivated them to become an educator and help others avoid the pitfalls they encountered. The
common thread that was noticed in the data between staff participants that discussed being
enveloped with support by institutional agents and mentors, and those that felt they were
insufficiently supported is that both experiences led all staff to be able to empathize with their
students. Staff’s desire to place themselves in student’s shoes helped them to not only refer
students to campus support, but also to thoroughly explain resources and walk students through
the process of meeting with an advisor or support agent within that specific department. One
staff member spoke from the perspective of a first-year college student and discussed the
approach he would take when providing recommendations of campus support services to
students:
And at the age of 19 is where usually realization and awareness and consciousness
become like enlightened. You’re just like holy crap, things that I’ve looked at my whole
78
life I’ve never noticed until now. And you know, you’re just like what is this, and what
is that? At 19 all this other stuff starts rushing in. And now you’re in academia, and
you’re taking all this other information, I don’t understand and image and identity and all
these things. That’s how I see the mission of TLC, is helping the student like, I know this
is overwhelming. Let’s find ways to categorize this and put this over here. This isn’t a
priority right now. We’ll get there. Take your time. But right now, these are the
priorities, and here’s the proper steps to get there. You know, and of course they want,
it’s not how it works. But that’s how I view TLC is helping these students understanding
hey, whatever your situation is, its all right. How can I help you in this situation? How
can I help you understand? We may have been through the same situations. Maybe we
can both figure out a way to help you navigate through this. Here are these resources
available to help you get there.
The value of staff placing themselves in scholar’s “shoes” and using that perspective to guide
their style of support helped them to be truly engaged in the advisement process. As mentioned
in the statement above, helping scholars reminded staff of their academic experiences. Referring
back to these experiences influenced how they assisted students and the extent to which they
would offer support and the extent of support they would provide. Some staff mentioned how
they would help students locate appropriate campus services when they themselves were unable
to directly address the students concern.
Another reason that staff liked referring students to campus resources was that it provided
an opportunity for them to display their professional competence. During one-on-ones and
advisement sessions with students, TSLC staff spoke of how they were able to go beyond
prescriptive advising, which is limited to advisors assisting students with course scheduling for
79
the current or upcoming semester, to supporting the whole student. In educational advisement,
this is also referred to as holistic advising. Holistic advisement seeks to support all aspects of
student’s development in college, encompassing their academic, social, professional, and
personal success. Additionally, this practice of advisement involves access to campus and
community-based support services (Helmer, 2013). In an effort to ensure that Buffett Scholars
were knowledgeable of campus-related resources, TSLC staff provided students with a book list
of services they could access when needed. One staff member provided examples of various
campus services they shared with their students during advisement sessions and one-on-ones:
There’s the speech center, there’s the writing center, there’s all these different resources
that ultimately what we can do is do a checkmark or a book list, and give that to the
students, right, and say, hey, here are all of your opportunities. TLC doesn’t provide it,
but what we are doing is providing you where you can go on campus.
The value of TSLC staff practicing holistic advisement was to build relationships with students
and to validate their experiences and concerns. Holistic advisement helps students to know that
there concerns matter and that someone is concerned with their overall success. Studies have
shown that such a realization attributes to students feeling more connected to their college which
positively impacts their academic and personal success (Bergman et al., 2015; Drake, 2011;
Miller, 2012; Thomas & Minton, 2004)
The reason that staff referred students to campus resources was connected to their
intrinsic motivation to support the scholars. Staff’s “desire to help students” continued to
emerge from the data. Knowing that they were able to be a liaison between the student and an
institutional resource felt good. Whether staff were looking to pass on their positive advising
experiences, or be a better academic advisor to students, investing time and providing access to
80
campus resources motivated staff and seemed to mutually benefit them and the student. A desire
to serve students and ensure that scholars were aware that someone cared for them were two
reasons staff mentioned they enjoyed working in the learning community. One staff member
spoke of her hopes that students knew they were valued and supported by TSLC staff and
faculty. She shared her desire for every scholar to know that they could lean on the staff
whenever they needed guidance. Whether it be for academic, personal, or professional concerns:
I hope that we make everybody feel welcome and appreciated. That they know that they
can count on us and come to us for any situation, academically, or personally, or
whatever. And know that they'll be taken care of or at least that we would help them find
the resources that they need.
Another staff member stressed the importance of her students knowing that she was invested in
their success. She also stressed the importance of scholars know that she would be available to
help them find solutions to their concerns:
We have this open-door policy of whatever it is and whenever, within reason, we will get
you that answer, or help you find that answer rather. We’re not gonna do it for your, but
we will help you find the answer and you will leave here, our of this office, feeling like
somebody cares, or you feel like your need has been met. I think that’s seen in our
schedules. I think its seen in the impromptu conversations we have with students is just
this sense of, I will ben over backwards for you to make sure you feel like you’re getting
what you need. Not to enable them, but just to be that true level of support.
The value of staff ensuring that all students felt part of their academic community, and were
involved in helping them find answers to their problems was because they were internally
motivated to develop supportive relationships with students and serve an active role in the
81
student’s development at the Omaha campus. This approach attributes to a positive advising
experience for students, as it leads to students believing that their concerns matter, and their
advisor is invested in their academic and personal success (Drake et. al., 2013; Habley et al.,
2012).
I have looked at three reasons staff engaged in the practice of referring students to
campus resources, discussed the value of such intentions, and how they led to the development
of a mentoring culture. Now, I will examine some ways university stakeholders share
knowledge of institutional services with program scholars.
Stakeholders sharing knowledge of campus resources with students. The analysis
revealed that university stakeholders also provided students with access to knowledge of campus
support services. Campus stakeholders were committed to the scholar’s success within the
program and the greater campus community. The norm that guided campus stakeholders’ values
was the belief in a shared responsibility between TSLC faculty, staff, and the greater campus
community to inform scholars about campus resources. The stakeholders had a genuine desire to
support the success of the program. They also wanted to improve the success of Buffett Scholars
during their two years in the program and beyond. My analysis revealed that TSLC officials and
university stakeholders mutually agreed that an awareness of campus resources would aid
students in ascertaining the institutional support necessary to maintain academic success after the
conclusion of their first two years in the program.
Campus stakeholders mentioned a desire to engage in shared responsibility with the
learning community by ensuring that students were aware of campus resources, like the Office of
Multicultural Affairs, the writing center, speech center, and tutoring services. One university
stakeholder highlights the benefits of the scholar’s ability to differentiate between major
82
academic advisors and TSLC advisors, the importance of possessing a familiarity of campus
services, and how it helps them seek the support necessary to achieve academic success:
Sometimes it's just knowing that the advising offices here and the TLC advisors are there
to make sure they have those resources at their fingertips, so the counseling service or if
they're struggling in a specific class and need some proofreading on papers, they know to
go to the Writing Center to use those services.
Higher education literature highlights the benefits of shared responsibility with institutional
agents in providing referrals to campus resources, particularly for lower division (e.g. first-year
and second-year) students, and those who identify as low-income and first-generation (Smith &
Allen, 2016).
Colleges and universities can improve their promotion of referrals to campus services
through shared responsibility by fostering a culture of interdepartmental communication. This
can be achieved by encouraging departments to collaborate with each other to reach their
common goal of supporting student success. Such ways to increase communication between
departments is through encouraging student-facing departments like academic advising,
academic support, tutoring services, and disability services, and financial aid to input notes of
interactions with students in the college’s advisement database. Additionally, campus support
services contribute to improving interdepartmental communication by following-up via email to
referrals sent on students’ behalf by the academic advisors. The value of such practices can
enhance communication between departments because each department becomes aware of the
support provided student students by their colleagues. This knowledge can help to ensure that
repeat referrals are not sent on students’ behalf to the same department. Moreover, documented
83
accounts of prior referrals may also help institutional agents to know future steps to take to
provide continual support for students (Nora 2001; Nora, Urick & Cerecer, 2011).
We have discussed several student success norms that attributed to the development of a
mentoring culture. Such norms included faculty beliefs in access to campus resources being
available to all students, staff beliefs that all scholars should have a positive academic
experience, and campus stakeholders value of demonstrating a shared responsibility with
program faculty and staff to support scholars through various campus resources. Now let’s
discuss how peer mentors echoed these values around student success by encouraging scholars to
consult with program staff and faculty about information on campus resources and academic
support.
Peer mentors referring students to campus resources. Peer mentors serve as
facilitators of support to Buffett Scholars, helping them to successfully acclimate into the
academic and social community at the Omaha Campus. Two ways Peer Mentors were active
participants in the norm of referring scholars to campus resources was through reinforcing the
support provided by TSLC faculty and advisors and discussing the impact that positive
interactions with their mentors played on their decision to become Peer Mentors. The first way
that Peer Mentors supported the referral process was by encouraging students to reach out to
their TSLC faculty and advisors regarding access to academic related resources like the writing
center, the speech center, and tutoring services. Their mission was to bridge the academic
cultural gap that exist between campus officials with students and help foster an understanding
that faculty, staff, and university stakeholders were available to support students’ academic,
personal, and professional development. Peer mentors promoted this awareness by reminding
students of how knowledgeable TSLC faculty and advisors were of campus services and
84
informing them of faculty and advisors desire to provide necessary support. One peer mentor
described how he shares his experience with scholars of receiving support from faculty and staff
by stating, “if there’s any material I have trouble with I’ll – like there’s so many resources, not
only like my teachers by my advisors as well that are really helpful”. Another student discussed
how he would encourage scholars to reach out to their advisors for support when they encounter
barriers that hinder their progress:
I would tell them that they definitely need to use their resources. The advisors are there
for a reason. They're not there to just, like, occupy space, advertise their
building...they’re professionals that know all the resources that exist on campus, and then
some outside of UNO. It's about asking others for help and knowing you can depend on
someone else if you're, like, having a tough time, like, while in school or out of school.
The value of this type of reinforcement by mentors is to support the academic and retention
efforts established by the learning community and to help students understand that support is
right at their fingertips.
The second referral norm displayed by peer mentors was their discussion with mentees
regarding the impact that positive interactions with their mentors played on their decision to
become a Peer Mentor. Like faculty reasons for wanting to become an educator and being
attracted to working within TSLC, Peer Mentors highlighted their positive experience with their
mentor as a determining factor in wanting to serve as a mentor themselves. Peer Mentors
discussed how their mentors were knowledgeable of campus resources and organizations,
particularly services that supported low-income, FGC student, and an individual of color.
Additionally, Peer Mentors discussed how relatable their mentors were for them, possessing an
understanding of the academic, personal, social, and cultural issues that impacted them. Such
85
issues that were brought-up were peer mentor who identified as a low income, FGC student, and
an individual of color being paired with a mentor from similar backgrounds. One peer mentor
shared how her favorable experience with her mentor helped her to clearly envision herself
serving as a mentor for other students. “Mentors are…I think, an essential – they are the ones
that really relate to the students and I know my great experience with my first-year mentor made
me want to be a mentor”.
Another student shared how speaking with her peer mentor about academic and
non-academic experiences put her at ease. Particularly during moments when she
considered dropping classes, or wanted to discuss an effective way to approach her
instructor about class assignments:
Yeah, so I felt about how like when I was having doubts I would talk to Natalie or Toni.
For my like Foundations of Public Health class the first like two classes I was like really
like hesitant about like whether I should drop it or not just because we went in there and
he kinda explained that okay we’re gonna do like ten assignments and we’re gonna have
two tests and then there’s gonna be a presentation at the end. But I tried asking him if like
the presentation was graded because he had said it was but then I had people that said that
it wasn’t gonna be so I just kinda wanted some clarification and then I asked him and he
looked at me and he’s like look at the syllabus and I was like oh, like I’m not used to
teachers like acting like this to me. So I was just kinda like oh okay, like this is real. This
is college and like not all professors are gonna like hold your hand every step of the way.
And when I told Natalie she was just kinda like maybe just like wait it out. Wait just a
couple weeks and then ask him again and see what he says and I did and he told me he’s
like oh the presentation is just something like extra for you to kinda like apply everything
86
you’ve learned and teach it to the class and I was like oh okay. But I mean other than her
it’s not like I could go to my mom and be like – like the professor’s like scolding me, like
what is she supposed to do?
The value of such experiences, particularly when positive, influenced first-year and second-year
scholars to want to provide entering college students with a similar academic experience.
Mentees becoming mentors to new first-year scholars would allow them to share their
knowledge and learned experiences with other lower-classman who are searching for the
validation, support, and guidance essential to thrive in their college community. Such support
was necessary for scholars, particularly for those who identified as first-generation, as they felt
more comfort conversing with their peer mentors over their parents about any academic issues
and concerns. These practices are supported by the research which discusses the positive effects
that mentoring programs have on student performance, adjustment and retention (Carter, 2000;
Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Fowler & Muckert, 2004; Harper, 2013; Wang, 2012). In this section
various referral norms employed by program faculty and staff, university stakeholders, and peer
mentors were discussed. Further, several reasons that each group of participants engaged in such
practices were explored. Next, I will now examine three mandatory themed programs
implemented by TSLC administrators that foster academic, personal, and professional success.
Additionally, I will look at how these activities led to the development of a mentoring culture.
Mandatory Themed Rituals and Events
TSLC developed themed rituals and events, also referred to as “traditions”, for both first-
year and second-year scholars. These traditions were designed to facilitate student academic,
social and professional development. It is important to mention that student attendance at these
traditions is compulsory to remain program eligible. The TSLC traditions that will be discussed
87
in this section are Welcome Breakfast and Monthly Mentor/Mentee Dinners for first-year
students, and the Sophomore Dinners.
Welcome Breakfast. This tradition provided new scholars with an opportunity to
connect with other incoming peers, meet their First-Year Peer Mentor, and interact TSLC faculty
and staff. During the breakfast, students learned about program requirements, roles and
expectations. They also had an opportunity to take a tour of the campus and purchase their books
for class. All incoming first-year (FYE) scholars are required to attend the Welcome Breakfast,
as it served as the first day of class for their required course in the learning community. One
staff member spoke of how they informed students of the importance of attending the Welcome
Breakfast, and how it counted toward fulfilling their first day of attendance in the US 1020 class:
We’re also telling them [the students] that the Welcome Breakfast is their first US 1020
class. So it counts towards their absence for 1020. If they miss more than two 1020s,
they [the student] must take it again, and that’s not meeting requirements for the learning
community.
During the Welcome Breakfast, faculty and staff engaged with students in activities like speed
meets, where they would go around to different tables to converse with learning community
instructors, mentors and other students. Breakfast attendees also engaged in small group
introductions, provided faculty, staff, and peer mentors an opportunity to share their background,
professional experiences, and the reasons they enjoy supporting scholars within the learning
community. Activities like these attributed to creating a mentoring culture between first-year
students with peer mentors, faculty, and staff; as they helped to establish connections and reduce
new student anxiety. That data showed that this seemed to be particularly true for first-year
88
students, as one student reflected on the benefit of attending the Welcome Breakfast and how the
opportunity helped her meet new peers prior to the start of classes:
Welcome breakfast for first-year students, I think that’s really, really important,
because I know everyone was super nervous about it, and then getting to go and
meet some people that were gonna be in your first semester seminar was really nice.
Just so before school starts, you knew a couple of faces before coming to campus.
Another student recalled how beneficial the Welcome Breakfast was in helping to overcome of
being a new first-year student. “I think I like it, but I think – I don’t – I think if we didn’t have it,
I’d be very nervous, I think, just coming to school, because I don’t know what to expect. I don’t
know where to go. I don’t – especially freshman year – I don’t know anything, because a lot of
TLC students are first-year”.
This tradition serves as a great activity that helps incoming students overcome the anxiety
that accompanies the transition made from high school to college. Attending social events at the
beginning of the academic year offers great opportunities for students to develop relationships
with faculty, staff, and peer mentors. Additionally, scholars gain a familiarity of their campus
environment. Research has highlighted the challenge experienced by many incoming students to
venture out of their comfort zone and initiate developing relationships with classmates and
campus officials (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Perez & Ceja, 2010).
Monthly Mentor/Mentee Dinners for First-Year Students. Like the Welcome
Breakfast tradition, all incoming first-year students are required to attend Monthly
Mentor/Mentee Dinners. The monthly dinners provide an opportunity for first-year students and
their mentors to dine and converse with one another. Peer mentors get to meet their mentors and
mentor colleagues as well. First-year monthly dinners consist of themes and include a fun
89
student activity that inspires engagement and relationship building between first-year students
and First-Year Peer Mentors.
Similar to the Welcome Breakfast, many student participants discussed the benefit of
first-year themed dinners helping them to develop comradery and relationships with other
incoming classmates and their mentors. One student discussed how such first-year traditions
helped them to develop a sense of community with other first-year students. “I think just being a
freshman and not really knowing anybody and not really knowing what you’re doing, and just
having a space to go – like my FYE group is pretty tight, which was really nice”. Another
student reminisced of how the monthly dinners helped her develop relationships with her mentor
and other mentees and discussed how such traditions may be useful in helping all college
students feel that they have a place to belong:
The best part of being in TLC was the TLC dinners. Seeing your mentor and your
mentor group and kind of catch up and it was great to just kind of know that you had that
connection every month that you could kind of go back to. It became kind of like a
constant. This is what I do. It was nice to have that stable relationship with TLC with
my mentor- with the other mentees. It was kind of great. I became so used to it I almost
took it for granted. And now it’s over. Which I mean, it’s not 100% over. It’s just – it’s
gonna be different. I really enjoyed it. I definitely wish that other students could have –
non-TLC students could have an understanding or appreciation of like a similar
experience. Because it’s such a great experience. It’s such a feeling of like really you
have a family _____ that really you have a connection that I hope other people have.
Monthly mentor/mentee dinners for first-year students helped to foster a mentoring culture
because mentees took part in a tradition that required them to connect with their peers, mentors,
90
faculty and program staff. Similar to household family meal nights, the monthly mentor/mentee
dinners provided students with a tradition that they grew to depend on. Through these monthly
gatherings’ scholars, faculty, and staff were afforded a chance to come together to share food,
laughs, and experiences. These traditions also provided faculty, staff, and peer mentors
opportunities to support the scholars. Faculty, staff, and peer mentors were not always
successful in their attempts to connect with scholars for one-on-ones. So, the monthly dinners
served as an obligatory social activity that brought support to students. Lastly, as highlighted in
the aforementioned quote, monthly dinners also connected peer mentors with their mentors and
mentoring groups, and faculty and staff with colleagues. As such, faculty, staff, and peer
mentors were provided with opportunities to assist one another outside of the classroom and
monthly meetings.
Sophomore Dinners. To foster a professional mindset, TSLC developed professional
themed dinners for second-year scholars. Sophomores were required to attend two dinners in the
fall semester and two dinners in the spring semester. Scholars were required to dress in
professional attire for all dinners. Each of the dinners were comprised of a professional theme
and provided second-year students with opportunities to link with potential employers and
develop networking skills in low stress environments. One of the dinners, consisted of mock
interviews, where students were urged to dress professionally, and bring copies of their resume
and business cards to participate in a 5-minute interview with employers. Additionally, the
professional dinners provided students time to reconnect with classmates, mentors, and TSLC
staff. A point that was mentioned by some student participants was their preference of attending
the Sophomore Dinners, in comparison to Monthly Mentor/Mentee Dinners for first-year
students, as they are more professionally focused. One student discussed his experience of
91
meeting with potential employers, participating in mock interviews, and receiving feedback from
potential employers on ways to avoid common mistakes committed by job applicants:
I feel like my favorite one would have been the interview dinner. Just some people to
interview, _____ new people, _____, and then they give us feedback. I don't know, it's
nice to hear that kind of feedback, because when you go to an actual interview, they're
not gonna drop everything and be like, okay, well, that was good, but, like, make sure
next time that you – you know, you're making eye contact, you're not playing with your
hands, stuff like that. They just kind of thank you for coming and then you're on your
way. So, having that feedback was nice. And then also, I like doing, like, the resume
building, and actually _____ class, because I think I have a resume for a while. And for
me, I feel like I'm more focused on making sure, like, that all the dates are right and
focusing on the information that I'm not clear on the format. So, like, little
inconsistencies that might be on the resume, like, maybe sometimes then putting, like, the
number, the May of 2015, I guess I'm also putting, like, 5/2015. So just, like, little stuff
like that I feel like I can miss, so having someone to look over my resume was nice,
because they're catching things that I didn't.
While some students enjoyed the feedback they received from employers on their appearance,
resume and cover letter; other students pointed out that Sophomore Dinners were too structured,
sharing their desire for the dinners to have a more relaxed feel that is present in first-year
dinners. One student discussed how the constant professional theme attached to all Sophomore
Dinners had begun to seem overwhelming on second-year students:
SYE dinner are nice, but they are very professional based. And that’s cool but I’d rather
just have the fun dinners I guess, it’s a little bit less serious. The second-year students –
92
they understand that they have to go. But at the dinner I saw a lot of people that were
like, “Do we really have to do this”.
Another student also mentioned the lack of fun that was present in Sophomore Dinners by
highlighting their high professional nature. However, he also shared how helpful it was to
engage with employers and have his resume critiqued during these semester gatherings:
The second year, I don't know, it's different. It's very different from the first year for
obvious reasons, just because the focus is on different things the first year, like getting to
know campus, knowing your resources. Second year is like, okay, well, you've got
_____ what's going on, you know what you're doing. Let's focus on the professional side
of college. Do you know how to write a resume? Do you know how to write _____? Do
you know how to interact with professionals, stuff like that. So, it's not as fun, I would
say, second year, but the information that you're learning I feel like is more valuable.
The value of highlighting both student perspectives is that they help to develop a better
understanding of how to improve the professional and social activities that are incorporated into
the dinners. While some students felt that the dinners were too structured, they highlighted the
benefit of receiving professional advice from employers that would help them to present a more
polished application when they started applying for employment.
Research in higher education has shown that social traditions like the ones previously
mentioned offer great opportunities for students to foster supportive connections with classmates
and develop mentoring relationships with faculty, staff, and peer mentors (Nygaard, Brand,
Bartholomew, & Millard, 2013; Thomas, 2013; Thomas & Minton, 2004). This section
examined the impact that mandatory themed events had on first- and second-year academic and
social development. Additionally, the professional knowledge and skills that second-year
93
students acquired during Sophomore Dinners, such as resume critiques and the improvement of
interviewing techniques was also discussed.
Conclusion
This chapter presented the findings of 88 interviews, which consisted of 10 TSLC-
affiliated faculty participants, 13 TSLC-affiliated staff participants, five university stakeholders,
and 60 student interviews that were provided by four students. Each participant shared their
experience of ways they contributed to the fostering of a mentoring culture in the TSLC program
on the Omaha campus. Through analyzing the data, I looked at three ways a mentoring culture is
developed. First, I discussed how TSLC faculty and staff worked to create systems that
supported the development of mentorship with program scholars. I elaborated on how this was
achieved through faculty and staff monthly meetings and discussions with PALs and Bridge
PALs. Additionally, I shared how TSLC faculty and staff collaborated with the larger campus
community to improve student awareness of campus resources. I also highlighted how faculty
sought to support scholars even after they had advanced on to other classes. Second, I delved
into the motivations behind faculty, staff, university stakeholders, and peer mentors providing
scholars with knowledge of on-campus resources. Third, I discussed the mandatory themed
rituals and events that first- and second-year scholars participated in, and how these activities
and traditions led to the development of a mentoring culture. In chapter five, I examine the data
through empowerment theory and validation theory. Lastly, chapter five provides readers with
recommendations for best practices and ways to conduct future research.
94
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The goal of this study was to advance knowledge on ways Thompson Scholars Learning
Community (TSLC) faculty and staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors develop a
mentoring culture amongst students in TSLC at the University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO). My
research looked to understand the various intentional approaches that institutional agents
(faculty, staff, and campus stakeholders) and peer mentors could apply to enhance student
outcomes. Such approaches that were mentioned were faculty and staff encouragement to
students to engage in undergraduate research opportunities (Campbell & Campbell, 2007;
Ishiyama, 2007); the monthly convening of institutional agents joining together to discuss and
strategize appropriate ways to improve student outcomes (Nora, 2001; Nora, Urick, & Cerecer,
2011); faculty incorporating external classroom advising sessions with students to support
student’s academic, social, professional, and personal development (Anaya & Cole, 2001;
Campbell & Campbell, 2007; Nora, Urick & Cerecer, 2011); and the implementation of peer
mentorship programs that pair students with mentors of similar academic, racial, or cultural
backgrounds (Campbell & Campbell, 2007; Cole & Griffin, 2013; Harper, 2013). The analysis
of the data given in chapter four examined the norms which attributed to TSLC faculty and staff,
campus stakeholders, and peer mentors developing a mentoring culture amongst students. I
discussed various student support practices that TSLC faculty and staff, stakeholders, and peer
mentors facilitated such as systems to support mentorship development, the development of
norms that influenced referrals to campus resources, and mandatory themed events. These
student support practices supported the creation of a mentoring culture. Incorporating the
students, or program scholars’ experiences is important because they provide a greater
95
understanding of how effective students viewed these practices to their academic, professional,
social, and personal development. Highlighting the scholars’ voice in chapter four provides
TSLC with an understanding of how to further improve its program. Additionally, students’
voices can give higher education institutions insight on how to create or improve their student
retention programs. This study utilized a qualitative method to lend a deeper understanding of
how a mentoring culture between TSLC faculty and staff, stakeholders, and peer mentors with
students was created and was associated with greater student outcomes. Data was analyzed on
program activity observations; interviews with faculty and staff, and campus stakeholders; and
student digital diaries and longitudinal follow-up interviews that were collected over three years.
Chapter five provides a discussion of the data from chapter four, a summary of the
findings, and examines data through empowerment theory and validation theory. TSLC faculty
and staff, campus stakeholders’ established norms to support program scholar’s success were
influenced by their desire to provide scholars with a positive and supportive academic experience
during their two years in TSLC. Peer mentors, who also identified as program scholars during
the time of data collection, shared how the support provided by TSLC faculty and staff, campus
stakeholders, and their peer mentors allowed them to feel that they mattered and someone at the
institution was cheering on their success. Additionally, this chapter includes recommendations
for practice on how colleges and universities can better support student success. Finally, I will
recommend further research necessary to support the development of a mentoring culture,
particularly for students who identify as low income and first-generation.
Discussion of the Data
This section presents a summary and discussion of the findings from 88 in-depth
interviews, which consisted of 10 TSLC-affiliated faculty participants, 13 TSLC-affiliated staff
96
participants, 5 campus stakeholders, and 60 student interviews that were given by 4 student
participants. Faculty teaching in the program were hired by the university and contracted
through their major departments to teach courses to program scholars. All staff affiliated with
TSLC were specifically hired by the learning community. Many of them served as student
advisors and instructors for the first-year and second-year experiences classes. They also
supported all scholar’s acclimation to college life during their two years as participants within
the learning community. The university stakeholders served in various student-focused
departments across UNO. All five stakeholders helped mentoring and advising roles capacities.
Lastly, all four student participants were in their last year of study or required one more
academic year to complete all degree requirements. The student participants also served as peer
mentors during the collection of the data for this study. In each interview, faculty, staff, campus
stakeholders and students (peer mentors) shared their narratives, experiences, and practices they
applied to facilitate the creation of a mentoring culture amongst program scholars. Peer mentors
also discussed how the practices carried out by TSLC faculty and staff, and campus stakeholders
supported the fostering of mentoring. The mentors also highlighted how mandatory themed
events positively impacted their educational success during their first two years as a scholar.
Through analysis, I learned that a mentoring culture was achieved through the following
student support practices that were initiated by the learning community: 1. Faculty, staff,
stakeholders, and Peer Academic Leaders (PALs) and Bridge PALs established systems to
support the development of mentorship; 2. Faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer
mentor’s developed norms that guided them to refer students to campus resources; and 3.
Implementing and participating in mandatory themed events or traditions to help support
students’ academic, professional, and social development (Bergman et al., 2015; Drake, 2011;
97
Miller, 2012; Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011; Packard & Binker, 2016; Smith & Allen, 2016;
Thomas & Minton, 2004). TSLC faculty and staff worked to create systems that facilitated the
development of mentoring amongst scholars through monthly meetings. Faculty and staff also
provided PALs and Bridge PALs with opportunities to develop lessons and engage in one-on-
ones with peers in the classroom and invited PALs and Bridge PALs to share effective ways to
improve student comprehension and engagement during instruction. Additionally, TSLC faculty
and staff collaborated with campus stakeholders or the larger campus community to improve
student access to campus resources. Second, faculty, staff, university stakeholders, and peer
mentors developed norms to provide scholars with knowledge of on-campus resources. Third,
all scholars were required to participate in mandatory themed rituals and events during their two
years in the program. The collective efforts by all faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer
mentors led to the development of mentorship amongst Buffett Scholars.
Since the interviews, several of the TSLC faculty and staff continue to support scholars in
the program, and many of the campus stakeholders are still employed at the Omaha Campus. All
student participants have transitioned out of the TSLC program, as they served their two years as
program scholars during the time that data was collected.
Data Analysis through Empowerment Theory
In the section, I discuss my findings through empowerment theory and validation theory.
I examine how both theoretical concepts were noticed in TSLC faculty and staff working to
create systems that supported the development of mentorship among program scholars. Further,
I look at how the empowerment theory and validation theory were noted through faculty and
staff, university stakeholders, and peer mentors’ practice of the norm to share information of on-
98
campus resources with scholars. Lastly, I highlight how the two theories were supported through
mandatory themed rituals and events that all first- and second-year scholars attended.
The empowerment theory was influenced by the works of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire
and is grounded in the pursuit of social justice, equality, and fairness, particularly for
marginalized groups. In the context of empowerment theory, communities come together to
identify their problems, assess the social and historical root of issues that serve as barriers to
their progression, and become active participants in developing solutions to improve their
situation (Gutierrez & Lewis, 1999). Hipolito-Delgado and Lee (2007) reference Freire’s
empowerment theory as being instrumental in helping underrepresented and oppressed groups to
become involved in research that leads to the development of policies and decisions that impact
their communities.
Empowerment theory was used in my study to suggest that faculty, staff, campus
stakeholders and peer mentors, also referred to as empowerment agents, ought to operate with an
equity-enhanced mentality by providing mentees with the knowledge to improve their overall
success. Empowerment agents should also equip the student with access to campus resources
that aid in their development and retention and help them see themselves as valuable contributors
to the college community. When students are given access to knowledge and are invited to
participate, they can communicate with their academic institutions on effective ways to further
support their educational or cultural communities. Students can share the knowledge they
acquire with other classmates and junior peers to support their academic and personal
development (Flynn, Ray, & Rider, 1994; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). I have defined empowerment
theory and highlighted how it is used to support student development in higher education
99
environments. Now, let us examine ways this theory was seen through systems that supported
the development of mentorship.
Chapter 4 demonstrated how empowerment theory was observed through three systems
that supported the development of mentorship with program scholars: faculty and staff monthly
meetings offer opportunities to discuss ways to improve student success; faculty and staff
collaborate with Peer Academic Leaders (PALs) and Bridge PALs to improve student success;
TSLC faculty and staff, and university stakeholders developing alliances to support student
success. Second, empowerment theory was noticed through the following three ways that
program faculty, staff, stakeholders, and peer mentors referred students to campus resources:
faculty serving as an academic and professional resource to students; TSLC faculty and staff
informed students of campus resources; campus stakeholders shared knowledge of campus
resources with students, and peer mentors referring students to campus resources. Third,
empowerment theory was demonstrated through the support of students during the Sophomore
Dinners.
Faculty and staff monthly meetings offer opportunities to discuss ways to improve
student success. Each month TSLC faculty and staff met together to share best methods of
outreach for students, engage in joint problem solving to support student development, and
discuss ways build supportive relationships with students (Drake, 2011; Miller, 2012; Nora,
2001; Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011; Packard & Binker, 2016; Smith & Allen, 2016; Thomas &
Minton, 2004). During the meetings, faculty and staff conversed on any accomplishments or
challenges they had experienced with their students. The monthly meetings also provided
faculty and staff with opportunities to share tips on effective ways to connect with scholars and
encourage them to attend their scheduled one-on-ones with course instructors, PALs or Bridge
100
PALs. Empowerment theory is present in monthly staff meetings between TSLC faculty and
staff because both parties were able to collaborate on ways to reach out to students and
encourage them to attend their monthly meetings or improve their class attendance. The data
also showed that the proactive outreach performed by faculty and staff was particularly
beneficial in improving retention and success for many of the scholars who identified as low
income, first-generation, and students of color (Campbell & Campbell, 1997, 2007; Nora, 2001;
Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011).
Faculty and staff collaborate with Peer Academic Leaders (PALs) and Bridge PALs
to improve student success. TSLC faculty and staff viewed PALs and Bridge PALs as
mechanisms of support between themselves and program scholars, as students were observed as
being more comfortable approaching the peer leaders for academic guidance. For this reason,
faculty and staff allowed PALs and Bridge PALs to develop lesson plans, grade student
assignments, and meet with scholars for one-on-one advising. Additionally, PALs and Bridge
PALs were tasked with organizing study groups and facilitating course discussions during
regularly scheduled classroom times or via Blackboard. TLSC faculty and staff collaborations
with PALs and Bridge PALs helped them to gain a better understanding of how to support
Buffett Scholar’s academic success. Empowerment theory is reflected in the collaborations
between both parties because they aided the development of a culture of support between TSLC
faculty and staff, and PALs and Bridge PALs with the scholars within the classroom (Harper,
2013; Smith & Allen, 2016).
TSLC faculty and staff, and university stakeholders develop an alliance to support
student success. Empowerment Theory was observed through cross-group collaborations
between all TSCL faculty and staff, and campus stakeholders and their use of academic program-
101
specific “markers” that were designated in the university advising data. The system-designated
markers allowed university officials to see the academic programs, such as majors and minors,
that students were pursuing or interested to pursue. The system-designated markers also served
as a tool to support scholars and refer them to appropriate campus resources. Lastly, the
empowerment theory was observed through collaborations between program faculty and staff
with campus stakeholders as this partnership between all parties was beneficial in connecting
students, particularly those who identify as low-income, first-generation, students of color, to
campus resources (Gonzalez, 2001; Ishiyama, 2007; Lopatto, 2003; Russel, Hancock &
McCullough, 2007).
Faculty serving as an academic and professional resource to students. The final way
the empowerment theory was noticed through systems that supported the development of
mentoring was through TSLC faculty desire to serve as both an academic and professional
resource for scholars even after they had reached the end of the semester of instruction. One
faculty member shared how he encouraged students to reach out to him for support, whether it be
regarding questions on class assignments or requesting a letter of recommendation for academic
and professional purposes. To TSLC faculty, it was important that scholars knew that they were
accessible and available for support beyond the semester of instruction. This practice suggested
the use of the empowerment theory because it demonstrates TSLC faculty’s commitment to the
scholars persistence and their academic, professional, and personal development. Now that I
have discussed the observation of the empowerment theory in systems that support the
development of mentorship, let’s look at how empowerment was supported by the establishment
of norms that influenced referrals to campus resources (Bjorkland, Parenti & Sathianathan,
2004; Cole & Griffin, 2013; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004).
102
Empowerment theory was also observed through TSLC faculty and staff, campus
stakeholders, and peer mentor motives for sharing knowledge and referring scholars to support
services on the Omaha campus.
TSLC Faculty and Staff informing students of campus resources. Empowerment
theory was supported when program faculty and staff shared knowledge of campus resources
with students. Empowerment was also observed through TSLC faculty supporting students
through the multiple roles of support they occupied at UNO. Serving as an instructor and a
representative within a student services department provided TSLC faculty a greater familiarity
with campus resources, which led to more opportunities to refer students to support services that
were specific to their needs. Additionally, dual occupancy in the' role of support gave program
faculty more confidence in their abilities to refer students to appropriate campus support
services. The empowerment theory is noticed in faculty and staff referrals to campus resources
because their efforts work to enhance the scholars’ sense of belonging, persistence, motivation,
and degree completion. Additionally, the referrals provided to students display TSLC faculty
and staff professional competency (Astin, 1992; Bensimon, 2007; Harper, 2013; Helmer, 2013;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Rendon Linares & Munoz, 2011).
Stakeholders sharing knowledge of campus resources with students. University or
campus stakeholders also shared information on campus resources with students. The data
showed that the stakeholders were committed to the Buffett Scholar’s success and overall
adjustment on the Omaha campus. The data showed that campus stakeholders established norms
to provide students with access to campus resources which were influenced by the following: 1.
A desire to maintain connections with TSLC and 2. Support the learning community by ensuring
that scholars were aware of services outside of the program. Campus stakeholders and TSLC
103
officials shared a common goal to equip students with knowledge about on-campus resources, as
both parties wanted to ensure that the scholars were able to achieve and maintain academic,
professional, personal, and social success after completing their two years in TLSC. This goal
suggests the employment of the empowerment theory, as both parties demonstrated a shared
responsibility to equip scholars with information on-campus resources. Literature in higher
education speaks to the benefits of shared responsibility between institutional agents in referring
students to campus support services, particularly first- and second-year students, and those who
identify as low-income, first-generation, or as individuals or color (Harper, 2013; Nora, 2001;
Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011; Smith & Allen, 2016). In the final section, I will discuss how
empowerment was observed through peer mentors referring students to campus support services.
Peer mentors referring students to campus resources. The last way that they
empowerment theory was supported through referrals to campus resources was through the
practices of Peer Mentors. Two ways that Peer Mentors engaged in the referral process with
scholars were: 1. Encouraging students to reach out to their TSLC faculty and advisors for
information on-campus support services such as the writing center, the speech center, and
tutoring services; and 2. Sharing their positive experience as a mentee with their groups. First,
Peer Mentors encouraged program scholars to reach out to TSLC faculty and advisors for
information on-campus support services. The goal of Peer Mentors urging students to reach out
to faculty for support was to bridge the academic cultural gap that existed between campus
officials with students. Additionally, Peer Mentors also worked to cultivate an understanding
that TSLC faculty and staff and the larger campus community were united in their efforts to
support students’ academic, personal, and professional development. Peer Mentors worked to
promote the referral process by informing students how knowledgeable TSLC faculty and
104
advisors were of campus services and informing scholars of faculty and advisor’s desire to help.
Second, Peer Mentors further aided the referral process by discussing the impact that positive
interactions with their mentors played on their decision to become a Peer Mentor. Like faculty,
Peer Mentors mentioned the positive experience they had with their mentors as a determining
factor in their decision to become a mentor. The Peer Mentors also mentioned their desire to
share some of the knowledge they acquired during their first year as a Buffett Scholar and their
interest to facilitate a positive experience for other new first- and second-year students.
Additionally, Peer Mentors discussed how relatable their mentors were for them, possessing a
personal understanding of the experiences of low-income and first-generation college (FGC)
student populations. Mentors also shared that their mentors demonstrated a grasp of many of the
academic, personal, social, and cultural issues that impacted mentees’ experience on the Omaha
campus. The empowerment theory was noted through the above referral practices, as they
supported the academic and retention efforts instituted by TSLC. Additionally, Peer Mentor
referral practices allowed them to serve as a teacher to their junior peers – disseminating
knowledge to help improve the academic, professional, social, and personal experiences of other
new students (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Nora, Urick & Cerecer, 2011; Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
I have shed light on how the empowerment theory was observed through systems that
supported the development of mentorship, such as faculty and staff collaborations with PALs and
Bridge PALs to improve student success; TSLC faculty, staff, and university stakeholders
development of alliances to support student success; and faculty serving as academic and
professional resources to students. Now let’s look at how empowerment was noted through
Sophomore Dinners.
105
Sophomore Dinners. Scholars were required to attend Sophomore Dinners during their
second year in the program. To promote a career-related mindset amongst scholars during their
second year, TSLC developed professional themed dinners. Second-year scholars were required
to attend two dinners in the fall semester and two dinners during the spring semester. Scholars
were expected to dress in professional attire for all dinners. Each of the dinners was comprised
of a professional theme and provided second-year students with opportunities to link with
potential employers and develop networking skills in low-stress environments. One of the
dinners consisted of mock interviews, where students were urged to bring copies of their resume
and business cards to participate in a 5-minute interview with employers. Additionally, the
dinners gave students time to reconnect with classmates, mentors, and TSLC staff. Higher
education literature suggests the organization and facilitation of social affairs like student
dinners, or professional development events to foster supportive connections between
classmates. Additionally, research highlights how social traditions and events contribute to the
development and maintenance of mentorship between faculty, staff, and peer mentors among
students (Nygaard, Brand, Bartholomew, & Millard, 2013; Thomas, 2013; Thomas & Minton,
2004). Now that we have a better understanding of how empowerment was observed through
Sophomore Dinners, let us examine validation theory and how it was observed through systems
that supported the development of mentorship and several of the mandatory themed events.
Data Analysis through Validation Theory
Validation theory defines practices that improve student’s persistence, achievement, and
graduation rates in college and universities. In the context of higher education and my study,
validation occurs when institutional agents (TSLC faculty and staff, and campus stakeholders),
and Peer Mentors work to ease students’ social adjustment into the learning community while
106
viewing them as capable learners that contribute to the development of new knowledge for the
advancement of all students.
Validation theory is essential to my study as it assists in the demonstrated understanding
of effective ways to create or enhance a mentoring culture between TSLC faculty and staff,
campus stakeholders, and peer mentors amongst students.
The data showed that validation theory was demonstrated through faculty serving as
academic and professional resources to students; and during the mandatory themed breakfasts
and dinners, such as the Welcome Breakfast, Monthly Mentor/Mentee Dinners for First-year
students and the Sophomore Dinners. In the following section, I will address how validation was
demonstrated through these practices. Faculty serving as academic and professional
resources to students. TSLC Faculty served as academic and professional resources for
scholars during and beyond the completion of their two years in the program. Faculty
encouraged students to come to them for guidance on completing class assignments from other
courses, discuss potential career paths, request letters of recommendation, and make referrals to
campus support services like math tutoring, writing, and speech support. The data showed that
TSLC faculty worked to aid students’ academic, professional, and personal development during
and beyond their two years in the program. This demonstration of support by TSCL faculty
helped scholars to recognize the impact that their presence made in the faculty’s professional
life. Additionally, faculty’s request to serve as academic and professional resources validated
the scholar’s desire to feel cared for by an institutional agent (Bjorkland, Parenti & Sathianathan,
2004; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004).
Mandatory Themed Breakfasts and Dinners. Validation was observed through the
Welcome Breakfast, Monthly Mentor/Mentee Dinners for first-year students and the Sophomore
107
Dinners, as these events provided TSLC faculty and staff, and Peer Mentors with opportunities to
interact with Buffett Scholars. During these interactions, TSLC officials were encouraged to
share knowledge of on-campus resources, and bolster student confidence. The Welcome
Breakfast and Monthly Mentor/Mentee Dinners for First-year Students were more social-based
and provided scholars with opportunities to interact with program faculty, staff, and peer mentors
to gain information about campus resources, discuss class assignments, and benefit from
motivational pep talks that served as their impetus to persist and succeed in TSLC. The
Sophomore Dinners were more professionally based and consisted of exercises that encouraged
second-year students to dress professionally for interviews, present polished resumes and
business cards to employers for review and provided scholars with training to successfully
answer job interview questions. While the Sophomore Dinners provided scholars with
opportunities to interact with faculty, staff, and peer mentors; they also allowed the student to
engage in the learning process and acquire the affirmation needed to confidently venture into the
workforce and pursue employment. During the scholar’s resume critique and mock interviews,
employers were mindful to provide students with feedback that initially focused on their
strengths as an applicant, followed by critiques to improve their interview responses, resume, and
professional appearance. The supportive takeaways that employers provided to students gave
them the confidence needed to persist in their job search. The Welcome Breakfast, Monthly
Mentor/Mentee Dinners, and Sophomore Dinners deemed to be worthwhile in validating Buffett
Scholars and acknowledging their desires to be supported, heard, and included in the learning
and professional development processes.
It is important to mention that both the empowerment theory and validation theory
operated simultaneously and the same activities that attributed to the development of mentorship
108
could foster both theories. TSLC faculty served as resources to students. This practice proved to
empower because the instructors desired to continue providing guidance and support to scholars
beyond their two years as Buffett Scholars. The faculty’s behavior demonstrated validation
because it led to scholars feeling cared for and supported by TSLC faculty.
During the Sophomore Dinners, empowerment theory was observed through the feedback
and critiques scholars received from employers on their mock interviews, resumes, and
professional attire. The second-year dinners offered scholars an opportunity to gain professional
advice that could benefit them throughout their lifetime. Additionally, validation theory was
demonstrated during Sophomore Dinners because employers were mindful to provide scholars
feedback that initially focused on their strengths as an applicant and followed with
recommendations to improve their resume, professional appearance, and interview responses.
This section examined my findings through empowerment theory and validation theory.
I discussed how both theoretical constructs were noticed in the ways TSLC faculty and staff
worked to create systems that supported the development of mentorship with program scholars.
I also shared how empowerment and validation were noted through faculty and staff, campus
stakeholders, and peer mentors’ development of norms to provide scholars with access to campus
resources. Lastly, I examined how the two theories were noticed through mandatory themed
breakfasts and dinners attended by first- and second-year scholars. While prior research has
highlighted the benefits that mentorship has on student success, retention, and degree
completion, my findings shed light on the processes and practices necessary to develop a
mentoring culture. Additionally, my findings have added to the research on the impact of
validation and empowerment on such structures, and how they lead to the development of a
culture of mentoring in higher education institutions. Now that we have a better understanding
109
of how my analysis was supported through empowerment theory and validation theory, let us
look at recommendations practice and discuss what this means for practitioners who read this
study.
Implications for Policy and Practice
My data suggest that it is important that institutional agents (faculty, staff, and campus
stakeholders) and peer mentors discuss ways that they can intentionally interact with students
and develop a mentoring culture. This study examined ways a mentoring culture was developed
through the Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC), a comprehensive college
transition program at the University of Nebraska (UNO) campus. However, not every higher
education institution has an established student retention program to improve student outcomes.
This section highlights ways that institutional agents and peer mentors can create a culture of
mentorship among students while impacting retention and enhancing academic success.
1. The following recommendations for practice are offered to faculty, staff, campus
stakeholders, and peer mentors to create systems that support the development of a
mentorship culture.
- To enhance student success and retention, colleges and universities can encourage
collaboration between faculty, staff, and campus stakeholders by holding professional
retreats for all student services and student affairs professionals at the beginning of
the academic year. These professional gatherings can take place to discuss campus-
wide policies, initiatives, or concerns, and help institutional employees gain
professional development. The retreats can also be organized as a major department
gathering where a particular academic unit can arrange for all department staff and
faculty to come together on campus or spend some time away from campus to discuss
110
a united mission, set goals for the upcoming year, and build bonds between team
members. The primary goal of these meetings can focus on effective ways that each
department can assist each other in supporting at-risk students. Research shows that
such cross-group partnerships aid in improving interdepartmental communication
across college campuses (Nora 2001; Nora, Urick, & Cerecer, 2011).
- Faculty and staff can improve student success and retention by encouraging their
high-performing learners or more senior-level students that have completed their class
to serve as teaching assistants (TAs) and offer support to their peers or classmates.
Faculty and staff can lighten their professional load by showing TAs how to grade
assignments, develop lesson plans, meet with students for one-on-ones or tutoring
opportunities outside of class. Such opportunities are beneficial for all parties, as
classroom students tend to feel more comfortable approaching a more senior peer
serving as a TA for support. TAs can communicate student concerns to faculty and
share invaluable feedback on ways to enhance their instructional practice.
Additionally, such opportunities are beneficial for students serving in a TA capacity
as they are provided with opportunities to serve in a mentoring capacity to the peers
and acquire experience that they can add to their resume. Higher education literature
discusses the benefits of students engaging in supplemental instruction opportunities
and serving in TA roles. Such partnerships lead to students feeling validated in their
academic experience, as they transition from simply being seen as “receivers” of
knowledge to partners in the educational process (Smith & Allen, 2016; Harper,
2013).
111
2. The following recommendations for practice are offered to faculty, staff, campus
stakeholders, and peer mentors to provide referrals to campus services:
- A few ways that faculty at colleges and universities can refer students to resources
is by discussing concerns and areas of need with students and encouraging them
to contact the campus service. Additionally, instructors can offer to call the
campus resource in the presence of students and give them the phone so they can
schedule an appointment. This may help students to follow through with using
the institutional resources as they are serving as active participants in the referral
process. Lastly, faculty can accompany the student to the campus service, as an
introduction to the staff may alleviate some of the anxiety students may have
about utilizing particular campus resources such as counseling, tutoring services,
and disability services (Heisserer & Parette, 2002).
- Higher education institutions can enhance their practices of referrals to campus
services through a shared responsibility to foster greater interdepartmental
communication. This can be achieved by encouraging departments to work with
each other to reach their common goal of supporting student success. Such ways
to increase cross-group collaboration between departments is by encouraging
student-facing sectors like academic advising, academic support, tutoring
services, and disability services, and financial aid to input notes of interactions
with students in the college’s advisement database. Additionally, campus support
services can contribute to impacting interdepartmental communication by
following-up via email to referrals sent on students’ behalf by the academic
advisors. The value of such practices can enhance communication between
112
departments because each department becomes knowledgeable about the support
that is given to students by their colleagues. This information can help to limit the
duplication of support or referrals provided to students. Moreover, documented
accounts of prior referrals shared by institutional agents will aid in expediting
follow-up services and lead to a greater understanding of any future steps
necessary to assist students (Nora 2001; Nora, Urick & Cerecer, 2011). This
tactical approach to improving interdepartmental communication aids in the
development of a mentoring culture because it helps campus departments to
support one another during their efforts to boost student success.
- Peer Mentors can be trained to refer students to campus support services.
Receiving training to effectively refer students to campus services benefits the
Peer Mentor and program scholars. Peer Mentors improve their knowledge of on-
campus resources and can reach out to these services for personal support.
Additionally, knowledge of campus resources helps Peer Mentors to confidently
share information on-campus services with their classmates or mentees. Research
shows that students are more likely to turn to their peer mentors for support or
advice about on-campus resources and student organizations, as they value the
opinion of individuals who are within their age group that possess similar racial,
cultural, educational, or social experiences (Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Fowler &
Muckert, 2004; Harper, 2013 Wang, 2012).
3. The following recommendation for practice is offered to faculty, staff, campus
stakeholders, and peer mentors to facilitate retention and development through student-
focused events:
113
- Colleges and universities can task their Office of Orientation Programs and pre-
professional departments, such as pre-graduate advising, career pathways, pre-
health, or pre-law advising to organize new student registration activities,
information sessions, socials, or professional panels. New student registration
activities may consist of breakfast for new freshman and transfer students, campus
tours, campus department information sessions, introductions to major department
academic advisors, and assistance with course registration for the upcoming
semester. Events organized by pre-professional departments like pre-graduate
advising, career pathways, pre-health, or pre-law advising can involve organizing
and facilitating information sessions that connect students with representatives of
admissions offices in their graduate school of choice. Pre-professional
departments can also arrange student-focused social gatherings or events that
encourage students to connect with classmates, mentors, faculty, or staff who are
associated with their designated program. For example, pre-law advising can
organize social events that encourage further development of current pre-law
students or alum. These social gatherings can include activities that connect pre-
law students with program alum or representatives who work in the legal field.
Coordinating such events lend to pre-law advisors facilitating opportunities that
lead to the development of a culture of mentoring between pre-law students and
the legal community. Finally, pre-professional departments can support student
growth by organizing professional panels. These panels should consist of
individuals that work in a field who come together to share their journeys and
professional expertise with current students and alum that possess an interest in
114
following a similar path. For example, pre-health can put together a panel of
program alum that are now employed in the medical field. During the
professional panel event, the medical professionals will share the academic and
professional path they journeyed to reach their goals. Although many colleges
and universities have developed new student registration processes and pre-
professional departments that aid with further student adjustment and contributing
to learners’ academic, professional, and social growth; more needs to be done to
improve the effectiveness of each program.
In this section, we have discussed how institutional agents and peer mentors can create
mentorships among students, impact retention, and enhance academic success. In the following
section, I will provide recommendations for further research.
Recommendations for Future Research
The purpose of my research was to better understand the ways that Thompson Scholars
Learning Community (TSLC) faculty and staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors created a
mentoring culture amongst students in the TSLC at the University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO).
Particularly, my study examined intentional ways that a culture of mentorship was developed
among students through the empowerment theory and validation theory. Although my study
examined various structures that led to the development of a mentoring culture, future
comparative studies will help shed light on how a culture of mentorship can be developed among
students from different backgrounds, within different institutional types, and at different campus
types. Additionally, future research can examine ways a mentoring culture can be developed
through the development of e-portfolios for students that can be shared with various student-
facing departments. Finally, future work may look at other variations of how a mentoring
115
culture is developed within the TSLC program. Such as whether incorporating a social event in
the second year enhances the develop of a mentoring culture.
First, as I only reviewed interview data for four Buffett Scholars, my analysis revealed
complexities and diverse experiences for each student depending on their sexual orientation,
racial, or cultural background. For this reason, further research is required to help higher
education institutions develop more effective pedagogical practices and student support services
to address the needs of their diverse student communities. Colleges and universities must be
mindful that the needs of each student who identifies as a person of color, low income, or first-
generation will differ. And while sometimes similar, each student will require access to campus
services that are unique to their experience. For this reason, institutions may benefit from
operating with intention by connecting students with faculty and staff, campus stakeholders, or
peer mentors of similar racial, cultural, and gender-specific backgrounds. Research shows that
mentoring connections developed between institutional agents and students with similar
experiences lead to improved academic and social adjustment (Campbell & Campbell, 2007;
Cole & Griffin, 2013; Harper, 2013).
Second, even though my study only focused on ways to create a mentoring culture within
a university, it would greatly benefit the field of higher education should campus leaders invest
in developing a mentoring culture that is unique to their institutional type and various student
populations. For example, research has shown the impact that formal mentorships between
faculty with students in many different campus contexts and dynamics have on student
recruitment, retention, and success. But more research can be done to shed light on how a
culture of mentoring at research-based campuses, rural campuses, or liberal arts colleges
influences students’ journey as first-generation college learners, enhances academic preparation,
116
and guides their balance of competing obligations to school and family (Fleming, 1984; Hughes,
1987; Woolbright, 1989; Lavant, Anderson, & Tiggs, 1997). Additionally, studies speak to the
impact that cultural similarities have on the success of mentoring relationships between faculty
and staff, campus stakeholders, and the peer mentors amongst undergraduate students. However,
more research is necessary to gain a better understanding of how a culture of mentoring can be
developed among institutional agents and students who share similar cultural language,
experiences, and interests (Athey et al. 2000; Okawa, 2002; Lechuga, 2011).
Third, as this study focused on ways a mentoring culture was developed at one campus,
future comparative studies should shed light on ways to develop a culture of mentorship among
students within different institutional types such as distance learning institutions, vocational
schools, and community colleges. For example, enrollment in distance learning institutions
(online colleges and universities) continues to rise each year, particularly among non-traditional
students and working professionals (Callaway, 2012; Estelami, 2012; Kranzow, 2013).
Developing a study that demonstrates how to develop a culture of support for the diverse student
populations within e-learning settings will impact student enrollment, retention and degree
completion rates. Future work, which identifies structures and practices that attribute to the
development of a mentoring culture within online settings and highlights ways that faculty, staff,
campus administrators, and peer mentors can connect students campus and community resources
may lead to improved sense of belonging and student confidence in the college’s ability to help
them achieve their academic ambitions. Additionally, new studies are necessary to see how a
culture of mentoring among students in vocational and community college is developed. Similar
to distance learning institutions, vocational and community colleges serve a higher percentage of
non-traditional students, particularly those who identify as low-income, FGC students, and
117
individuals of color (Crisp, 2010; Grimes, 2007; Nora, Cabrera, Hegedorn & Pascarella, 1996;
Schmid & Abell, 2003).
Fourth, higher education institutions can work to develop a mentoring culture by having
various campus resource departments and programs work with students to develop e-portfolios.
Campus departments like the Office of Multicultural Affairs or the Office of Overseas Studies
and have students to complete questionnaires during their initial meeting. The information on
these questions can consist of students sharing their academic and professional interest, desired
study abroad destinations, and identifying additional campus services they would like to learn
more about. The students e-portfolio can serve as a working document that continues to grow
with each advising session between the department representative and the student. This
information can support cross-group collaboration, as it can be shared with the students’
academic advisor to be uploaded into the university’s advising database. Additionally, advisors
can refer to this information prior to meeting with students to help them make any academic or
resource-related recommendations.
Finally, a future comparative study may look at other ways a mentoring culture is
developed through the TSLC program at the Omaha campus or other University of Nebraska
campuses. For example, new research may examine whether incorporating social dinners in the
second year adds to improving the development of a mentoring culture. Additionally, future
work can look at how incorporating social dinners contributes to fostering mentoring among
students, if at all. Conducting comparative research that shows institutional faculty and staff,
campus stakeholders, and peer mentors’ ways of fostering a culture of mentoring among students
will greatly benefit student success, retention, completion, and or transfer into four-year
institutions.
118
Conclusion
Higher education literature has discussed the positive impact that mentoring has on
student outcomes (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Bjorkland, Parenti & Sathianathan, 2004; Cole &
Griffin, 2013; Harper & Hurtado, 2011). However, additional research is necessary to ascertain
ways a mentoring culture can be developed between faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer
mentors among students in higher education institutions. To discover the answer to this
question, my study aimed to explore how program faculty and staff, campus stakeholders, and
peer mentors cultivated a mentoring culture amongst Buffett Scholars in Thompson Scholars
Learning Community (TSLC) at the University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO).
The results of my study are significant because I have provided tangible practices that
various types of higher education institutions can implement to aid in the development of
mentorship on their campuses. The best advice that I can share with a university or program
attempting to create a culture or component of mentorship would be to work with their faculty,
staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors to 1. Establish systems and programs that support
mentorship; 2. Maintain knowledge of and connections to campus resources and refer students
appropriately and, 3. Implement and participate in mandatory themed events or traditions to help
support students’ academic, social, and professional development (Bergman et al., 2015; Drake,
2011; Miller, 2012; Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011; Packard & Binker, 2016; Smith & Allen, 2016;
Thomas & Minton, 2004).
Colleges and university leaders can facilitate the development of a mentoring culture
between institutional agents among students on their campus by encouraging faculty and staff to
collaborate on ways to improve student success in monthly meetings. Additionally, institutions
can also create Teaching Assistance (TA) programs that allow more advanced students, or more
119
senior-level students to support their classmates. Such systems and programs aid in creating a
mentoring culture by improving retention and success (Campbell & Campbell, 1997, 2007; Nora,
2001; Nora, Urick, Cerecer, 2011), helping to connect students with classmates and peers that
possess similar academic, social, and culture experiences, and aiding in the development of
culture of support between faculty and staff with class TA’s among students (Harper, 2013;
Smith & Allen, 2016). Second, campuses can foster a culture that encourages faculty, staff, and
the larger campus community to collectively work to share knowledge about on-campus
resources with students, as studies speak to the benefit of this shared responsibility to help
learners become well-informed on-campus support services (Harper, 2013; Nora, 2001; Nora,
Urick, Cerecer, 2011; Smith & Allen, 2016). Third, institutions can develop and facilitate
student-focused events, like socials, professional panels, and dinners for students to attend.
Campuses or programs can make attendance at these events compulsory to receive a course
grade, as incorporating social traditions and events contribute to the development and
maintenance of mentorship between faculty, staff, and peer mentors among students (Nygaard,
Brand, Bartholomew, & Millard, 2013; Thomas, 2013; Thomas & Minton, 2004). These three
practices coupled with building a team of people who are committed to supporting students’
development, ensuring they receive a favorable educational experience, and know that they are
cared for are the primary ingredients necessary to cultivate a culture of mentoring in institutions
of higher education.
120
References
Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence of
student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of college student
development, 42(1), 3-14.
Anderson, E. M., & Shannon, A. L. (1988). Toward a conceptualization of mentoring. Journal of
Teacher education, 39(1), 38-42.
Astin, W. R. (1992). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Athey, S., Avery, C., & Zemsky, P. (2000). Mentoring and diversity. The American Economic
Review, 90(4), 765–786.
Attewell, P., Heil, S., & Reisel, L. (2012). What is academic momentum? And does it matter?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(1), 27-44.
doi:10.3102/0162373711421958
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative case studies: An Innovative Approach. Nordic
Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 1(1).
https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.1929
Beah, J. (1982). Student attrition, intentions and confidence: Interaction effects in a path model.
Research in Higher Education, 14, 425-429.
Benismon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship on student success. Review of Higher Education, 30, 441-469.
Bergman, M. J., Rose, K. J., & Shuck, M. J. (2015). Adult degree programs: Factors impacting
student persistence. In J. K. Holtz, S. B. Springer, & C. J. BodenMcGill (Eds.), Building
sustainable futures for adult learners (pp. 27-50). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
121
Publishing.
Billson, J. M., & Terry, M. B. (1982). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among
first-generation students. Revised.
Bjorklund, S. A., Parente, J. M., & Sathianathan, D. (2004). Effects of faculty interaction and
feedback on gains in student skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(2), 153-160.
Blackwell, J. E. (1989). Mentoring: An action strategy for increasing minority
faculty. Academe, 75(5), 8-14.
Bowman, R. L., Bowman, V. E., & DeLucia, J. L. (1990). Mentoring in a graduate counseling
program: Students helping students. Counselor education and supervision.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Brown, H. N. (1999). Mentoring new faculty. Nurse Educator, 24(1), 48-51.
Bui, V. T. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background
characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year experiences. College
Student Journal, 36(1).
Burton, V. (2012). Successful women think differently: 9 habits to make you happier, healthier,
and more resilient. Harvest House Publishers.
Callaway, S.K. (2012). Implications of online learning: Measuring student satisfaction and
learning for online and traditional students. Insights to a Changing World Journal,
2, www.franklinpublishing.net
Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (2007). Outcomes of mentoring at‐risk college students:
Gender and ethnic matching effects. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(2), 135-148.
Carter, J. A. (2000). Empowerment groups: A creative transition and retention strategy.
122
In Selective papers from the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and
Learning (pp. 43-50).
Chang, M. J., Milem, J. F., & Antonio, A. L. (2011). Campus climate and diversity. In J. H.
Schuh, S. R. Jones, & S. R. Harper (Eds), Student services: A handbook for the
professional (5
th
ed., pp. 43-58). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chen, X., & Carroll, C. D. (2005). First-Generation Students in Postsecondary Education: A
Look at Their College Transcripts. Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis
Report. NCES 2005-171. National Center for Education Statistics.
Chen, X. (2016). Remedial course taking at U.S. public 2-and 4-year institutions: Scope,
experience, and outcomes (NCES 2016-405). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Cole, D., & Griffin, K. A. (2013). Advancing the study of student-faculty interaction: A focus on
diverse students and faculty. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research(pp.
561-611). Springer, Dordrecht.
Cole, D., Kitchen, J. A. & Kezar, A. (2019). Examining a comprehensive college transition
program: An account of iterative mixed methods longitudinal survey design. Research in
Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9515-1.
Colton, G. M., Connor Jr, U. J., Shultz, E. L., & Easter, L. M. (1999). Fighting attrition: One
freshman year program that targets academic progress and retention for at-risk
students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 1(2), 147-
162.
Cominole, M., Siegel, P., Dudley, K., Roe, D., & Gilligan, T. (2004). national postsecondary
student aid study (NPSAS: 04) full scale methodology report (NCES 2006-180). National
123
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of
Education. Washington, DC.
Corwin, Z. B., & Tierney, W. G. (2007). Getting There--And Beyond: Building a Culture of
College-Going in High Schools. Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, University
of Southern California.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five
Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Crisp, G. (2010). The impact of mentoring on the success of community college students. The
Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 39-60.
Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature
between 1990 and 2007. Research in higher education, 50(6), 525-545.
Davidson, J. V. T. (2016). Paths of academic resilience: The educational stories of first-
generation, low-income students and the processes that led to their experiences of
success in the first year of college. Available from ERIC. (1968427526; ED575751).
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
DeRosa, E., & Dolby, N. (2014). “I don’t think the university knows me.”: Institutional culture
and lower-income, first-generation college students. InterActions: UCLA Journal of
124
Education and Information Studies, 10(2). Retrieved from
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0kj6m6r8
Dickey, C. (1996). Mentoring women of color at the University of Minnesota: Challenges for
organizational transformation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED399838).
Drake, J. K. (2011). The role of academic advising in student retention and persistence. About
Campus, 16(3), 8-12. doi:10.1002/abc.20062
Drake, J., Jordan. P., & Miller, M. (2013). Academic advising approaches: Strategies
that teach students to make the most of college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Estelami, H. (2012). An exploratory study of the drivers of student satisfaction and learning
experience in hybrid-online and purely online marketing courses. Marketing Education
Review, 22(2), 143-155. doi: 10.2753/MER1052-8008220204.
Evanoski, P.O. (1988). The role of mentoring in higher education. Community Review, 8, 22-27.
Fenelon, D. (1793). Les aventures de Télémaque.
First Year Experience (n.d.). The University of Nebraska site. Retrieved October 9, 2012, from
https://www.unomaha.edu/thompson-learning-community/students/first-year.php
Fleming, J. (1985). Blacks in College. A Comparative Study of Students' Success in Black and in
White Institutions. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 433 California Street, San Francisco, CA
94194.
Flynn, B. C., Ray, D. W., & Rider, M. S. (1994). Empowering communities: action research
through healthy cities. Health education quarterly, 21(3), 395-405.
Foshay, R., & Kirkley, J. (1998). Principles for Teaching Problem Solving. Technical Paper.
Fowler, J., & Muckert, T. (2004, February). Tiered mentoring: Benefits for first-year students,
125
upper level students, and professionals. In A paper presented at HERDS Conference.
Freeman, K. (1999). No services needed? The case for mentoring high-achieving African
American students. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 15-26.
Gonzalez, C. (2001). Undergraduate research, graduate mentoring, and the university's
mission. Science, 293(5535), 1624-1626.
Grimes, S. K. (1997). Underprepared community college students: Characteristics, persistence,
and academic success. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21(1), 47-
56.
Gutiérrez, L. M., & Lewis, E. A. (1999). Empowering women of color. Columbia University
Press.
Habley, W., Bloom, J., & Robbins, S. (2012). Increasing persistence: Research-based strategies
for college student success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harper, S. R. & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. In S. R. Harperr & L. D. Patton (Eds.), Responding to
realities of race on campus (pp. 7-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harper, S. R. (2013). Am I my brother’s teacher? Black undergraduates, racial socialization, and
peer pedagogies in predominantly white postsecondary contexts. Review of Research in
Education, 37(1), 183-211.
Helmer, M. (2013). Helping adult learners navigate community college and the labor market.
Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/pubs/update_cte_ma
rch2013.pdf
Hegrenes, S. A. (2013). Pathways to success in higher education: Understanding the influence of
126
mentoring programs on first-generation students Available from ERIC. (1773219961;
ED561676). Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1773219961?accountid=14749
Heisserer, D. L., & Parette, P. (2002). Advising at-risk students in college and university
settings. College student journal, 36(1), 69-84.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects and treatment of tes t anxiety. Review of
Educational Psychology, 58(1), 47-77
Hicks, T. (2005). Assessing the Academic, Personal and Social Experiences of Pre-College
Students. Journal of College Admission.
Hipolito-Delgado, C. P., & Lee, C. C. (2007). Empowerment theory for the professional school
counselor: A manifesto for what really matters. Professional School Counseling, 10(4),
2156759X0701000401.
Hughes, M. S. (1987). Black students' participation in higher education. Journal of College
Student Personnel.Hurtado, S. (1994). The institutional climate for talented Latino students.
Research in Higher
Education, 35(3), 539-569.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324-
345.
Hurtado, S., Alvarado, A. R., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2015). Thinking about race: The salience
of racial identity at two-and four-year colleges and the climate for diversity. The Journal
of Higher Education, 86(1), 127-155.
Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation
127
college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861-885.
Ishiyama, J. (2007). Expectations and perceptions of undergraduate research mentoring:
comparing first generation, low-income white/Caucasian and African American students.
College Student Journal, 41(3), 540-549.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review
of educational research, 61(4), 505-532.
Johnson, C. S. (1989). Mentoring programs. In M. L. Upcraft & J. Gardner (Eds.), The freshman
year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college (pp. 118-128). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jonassen, D.H. & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-Based reasoning and instructional design:
Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(2), 65-77. Retrieved April 25, 2019 from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/165615/.
Jones, M. T., Barlow, A. E., & Villarejo, M. (2010). Importance of undergraduate research for
minority persistence and achievement in biology. The Journal of Higher
Education, 81(1), 82-115.
Kranzow, J. (2013). Faculty leadership in online education: Structuring courses to impact student
satisfaction and persistence. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(1),
131-139.
Kuh, G. D., Gonyea, R. M., & Palmer, M. (2001). The disengaged commuter student: Fact or
fiction? Commuter Perspectives, 27, 2–5.
Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The review
of higher education, 24(3), 309-332.
128
Laden, B. V. (1999). Socializing and mentoring college students of color: The Puente Project as
an exemplary celebratory socialization model. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 55-
74.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge university press.
Lechuga, V. M. (2011). Faculty-graduate student mentoring relationships: Mentors’ perceived
roles and responsibilities. Higher Education, 62(6), 757-771.
Lee, C. C., & Hipolito-Delgado, C. (2007). Counselors as agents of social justice. Counseling for
social justice, 13-38.
Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction
as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College
Student Development, 45(5), 549-565.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Applied social research methods series, Vol. 41. Qualitative research
design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
McClafferty, K. A., McDonough, P. M., & Nunez, A. M. (2002). What Is a College Culture?
Facilitating College Preparation through Organizational Change.
McCormick, R. P. (1990). Black student protest movement at Rutgers. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
McMillan, J.J., & Schumacher, S. (2001) Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th
ed). New York: Longman.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
129
Merriam-Webster, Inc. (1983). Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary. Merriam-Webster.
Miller, A. (2002). Mentoring students & young people: A handbook of effective practice.
London: Kogan Page.
Miller, M. A. (2012). Structuring the conversation: Shifting to four dimensional advising models.
In A. Carlstrom (Ed.), 2011 National Survey of Academic Advising (Monograph No. 25).
Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association. Retrieved from
https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/ViewArticles/Structuring-Our-
Conversations-Shifting-to-Four-Dimensional-AdvisingModels.aspx
Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicago college students: A structural model.
Research in Higher Education, 26, 31-59.
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. (1993). The construct validity of instructional commitment: A
confirmatory factor analysis. Research in Higher Education, 34(2), 243-262.
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the
adjustment of minority students to college. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 119–
148.
Nora, A., & Rendon, L. I. (1990). Determinants of predisposition to transfer among community
college students: A structural model. Research in higher education, 31(3), 235-255.
Nora, A., Cabrera, A. Hagedorn, L. S., & Pascarella, E. (1996). Differential impacts on academic
and social experiences on college-related behavioral outcomes across different ethnic and
gender groups at four-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 37, 427–451.
Nora, A., Urick, A., & Cerecer, P. D. Q. (2011). Validating students: A conceptualization and
overview of its impact on student experiences and outcomes. Enrollment Management
Journal, 5(2), 34-52.
130
Nunez, A., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose
Parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Nygaard, C., Brand, S., Bartholomew, P., & Millard, L. (2013). Student engagement: Identity,
motivation and community. Libri Publishing.
Okawa, G. Y. (2002). Diving for pearls: Mentoring as cultural and activist practice among
academics of color. College Composition and Communication, 53(3), 507–532.
Packard, B. W. L., Tuladhar, C., & Lee, J. S. (2013). Advising in the classroom: How
community college STEM faculty support transfer-bound students. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 42(4), 14-20.
Packard, B. W. L. (2015). Successful STEM mentoring initiatives for underrepresented students:
A research-based guide for faculty and administrators. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
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. (1977). Patterns of student-faculty informal interaction
beyond the classroom and voluntary freshman attrition. The Journal of Higher
Education, 48(5), 540-552.
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., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. Volume 2: A third
decade of research, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
131
Patitu, C. L. (1999). Helping African American men succeed in college. Journal of College
Student Development, 40(4), 432.
Patton, M. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Patton, L. D. (2006). The voice of reason: A qualitative examination of Black student
perceptions of Black culture centers. Journal of College Student Development, 4, 628-
646.
Perez, P. A., & Ceja, M. (2010). Building a Latina/o student transfer culture: Best practices and
outcomes in transfer to universities. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9(1), 6-21.
Plummer, K. (1983). Documents of Life: An Introduction to the Problems and Literature of a
Humanistic Method. London: Unwin Hyman.
Redford, J., & Mulvaney-Hoyer, K. (2017). First Generation and Continuing-Generation College
Students: A Comparison of High School and Postsecondary Experiences.
Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative higher education, 19(1), 33-51.
Rendón Linares, L. I., & Muñoz, S. M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical
foundations, applications, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal, 5(2), 12 –
33.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA, US:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Roberts, A. (2000). Mentoring revisited: A phenomenological reading of the
literature. Mentoring and Tutoring, 8(2), 145-170.
Rodriguez, Y. E. (1995). Mentoring to diversity: A multicultural approach. New Directions for
132
Adult and Continuing Education, 66, 69-77.
Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research
experiences. Science, 316(5824), 548-549.
Saenz, V. B. (2007). First in my family: A profile of first-generation college students at four-year
institutions since 1971. Higher Education Research Institute.
Salinitri, G. (2005). The effects of formal mentoring on the retention rates for first-year, low-
achieving students. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(4), 853-873.
Second Year Experience (n.d.). The University of Nebraska site. Retrieved October 9, 2012,
from https://www.unomaha.edu/thompson-learning-community/students/second-year.php
Schmid, C., & Abell, P. (2003). Demographic risk factors, study patterns, and campus
involvement as related to student success among Guilford Technical Community College
Students. Community College Review, 31(1), 1–16.
Smith, C. L., & Allen, J. M. (2006). Essential functions of academic advising: What students
want and get. Nacada Journal, 26(1), 56-66.
Spradley, J.P (2016) The Ethnographic interview. Waveland Press. Long Grove, IL.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth &
Society, 43(3), 1066-1109.
Stebleton, M., & Soria, K. (2013). Breaking down barriers: Academic obstacles of first-
generation students at research universities.
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012).
Unseen disadvantage: how American universities' focus on independence undermines the
133
academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 102(6), 1178.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2008) Fittin’ in: Do diverse interactions with peers affect sense of belonging for
Black men at predominantly White institutions? Journal of Student Affairs Research &
Practice, 45, 501-527.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tatum, D. (2007). Can we talk about race? And other conversations in an era of school
resegregation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Terenzini, P.T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E.T., & Nora, A. (1996). First generation
college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in
Higher Education, 37(1), 1-22.
Thomas, C., & Minton, J. (2004). Intrusive advisement: A model for success at John A. Logan
College. Update on Research and Leadership, 15(2), 10-12. Retrieved from
http://occrl.illinois.edu/articles/intrusive-advisement-a-model-for-success-atjohn-a-logan-
college/
Thomas, L. (2013). Student engagement to improve belonging, retention and success.
In Aspirations, access and attainment (pp. 129-142). Routledge.
Tierney, W. G., Venegas, K. M., Colyar, J. E., Corwin, Z. B., & Olivérez, P. M. (2004). Creating
helping environments for college-going: The CHEPA chec-list for counselors. Center for
Higher Education Policy Analysis.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125. Retrieved from
134
http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/45/1/89
Tino, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student retention. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Wallace, D., Abel, R., & Roperrs-Huilman, B.R. (2000). Clearning a path for success:
Docontructing boarders through undergraduate mentoring. The Review of Higher
Education, 24(1), 87-102.
Wang, T. R. (2012). Understanding the memorable messages first-generation college students
receive from on-campus mentors. Communication Education, 61(4), 335-357.
Warburton, E. C., Bugarin, R., & Nunez, A. M. (2001). Bridging the Gap: Academic Preparation
and Postsecondary Success of First-Generation Students. Statistical Analysis Report.
Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports.
Watson, N. A. (1999). Mentoring today—the students’ views. An investigative case study of pre‐
registration nursing students’ experiences and perceptions of mentoring in one
theory/practice module of the Common Foundation Programme on a Project 2000
course. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(1), 254-262.
Wild, L., & Ebbers, L. (2002. Rethinking student retention in community colleges. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(6), 503-519.
Yin, R. K. (2009) Case study research: Design and Methods. Fourth edition. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks CA
Zimmerman, B. B., & Danette, P. (2007). Technical communication teachers as mentors in the
classroom: Extending an invitation to students. Technical Communications
Quarterly,16(2), 175–200.
135
APPENDIX A
FACULTY, STAFF, AND STAKHOLDER INFORMED CONSENT FORM
136
137
APPENDIX B
TSLC BUFFETT SCHOLAR DIGITAL DIARY INFORMED CONSENT FORM
138
139
140
APPENDIX C
FACULTY, STAFF, AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Intro:
• Review informed consent document
• Highlight nature of confidentiality in the research process
• Confirm end time of interview
Questions:
• Tell me about what brought you to your position?
o What drew you to working at TLC and at UNO?
o What prior experiences influenced your desire to work with low-income, first-
generation college students? Students of color? ESL students?
• Tell me about your position
o What are your primary responsibilities?
o What do you find most rewarding?
o What do you find most challenging?
• How would you characterize the culture of the program?
o How do you see this enacted?
o What are the core values of TLC? How were these conveyed to you?
• How have you seen TLC change over time?
o What do you think prompted those changes?
o How have those changed affected students? Staff? Faculty?
• What do you think are the strengths of the program?
o What led you to identify these areas?
o What effect do these programs/initiatives/relationships have on students?
• In what areas do you think the program can continue to develop?
o What led you to identify these concerns?
o What needs to happen to address these areas?
• What do you think TLC does that is unique from other programs that serve similar
students?
o At UNO?
o In the Nebraska system?
o Nationally?
• How has working in TLC affected or influenced you?
o How has this informed your career aspirations?
o How has this work informed your practice?
141
Is there anything you think it’s critical for people to know about TLC and your work within it?
142
APPENDIX D
TSLC BUFFETT SCHOLAR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Can you tell me how college is going so far?
2. What has been stressful?
3. Can you tell me about your day yesterday? What was that like?
4. So can you tell me why you decided to apply to college?
5. Did anyone help you apply?
6. What was your experience like applying for the Buffett Scholarship?
7. How did you find out about the application?
8. Did you decline any other scholarships to accept this one?
9. If you hadn't received the Buffett Scholarship, what were your financial aid plans?
10. What kinds of activities you participated in so far?
11. What kinds of interactions have you had with the program staff?
12. Think about that week and tell me about that week. What was that week like?
13. Thinking about that first week again, can you identify a success that you had?
14. Did you have any challenge that week?
15. How do you think that Thompson Scholars are perceived on campus?
16. Can you tell me about any new friends that you've made so far?
17. What about within the learning community? Have you made any connections?
18. Why are you interested in the digital diary project?
19. Have you ever made videos about yourself?
20. If you were to do your first video today for us, what would you talk about?
21. Are there any questions that I didn't ask you or anything about the program that you think
I should know that I didn't ask?
22. Do you have any questions for me?
143
APPENDIX E
TSLC BUFFETT SCHOLAR DIGITAL DIARY QUESTIONS
Semi-structured interview protocol—Digital Diary Students
Introductory script. Thank you for taking time to meet with me today. The goal of this interview
is to learn more about you and your experiences with the Thompson Scholars program, and your
thoughts about being part of the digital diary project.
• Have you read the Informed Consent form?
• It has information about the purpose of the study,
o For this interview and the DD, you will be asked about you and your experiences
in TLC at UNO. The findings will be used to inform future decisions made about
the program
o Everything is confidential and information shared outside of the research project
will not identify you in any way
• A small group of students will be selected to participate in the DD. This is a 3-year
commitment of uploading two, 1-3-minute videos of your experience in TLC. Students
will complete one monthly 20-30 min video check-in every six weeks.
o Compensation 150, 200, 150
If I ask you a question that you don’t understand, please be sure to let me know so that we can
have a shared understanding of the question.
Demographic & Academic Information Sheet:
Name:
Age:
Race/ethnicity:
Gender:
Marital Status:
Parental Status:
Country of birth:
Languages spoken:
Primary language:
Work:
Do you work?
If so, how many jobs do you have?
How many hours do you work?
How many hours per week?
Name of High school:
During high school:
Who did you live with?
Did you work?
What courses are you taking?
What is your intended major?
144
Background Information
1. How is college going so far?
Experience in the program
2. Please tell me about your first week of school.
1. Ask student to identify a success
2. Ask student to identify a challenge
3. Tell me about any new friends that you might have made, [Interviewer Prompt: If the
scholar knows other incoming scholars, ask about that.]
4. Why are you interested in the digital diary project?
Are there things about the program that you wanted to make sure to share that I have not yet
asked about? If so, what are they?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Mentoring is seen as the development of meaningful relationships with others. The key focus of these interactions is placed on mutual respect and a willingness to learn from one another (Salinitri, 2005). When utilized as a retention method it differs from other intervention programs because the primary emphasis is on a participant’s desire to learn from the other (Salinitri, 2005). Usually, mentoring programs in higher education institutions pair senior-level students or staff with first-year students. Higher education literature has discussed the positive impact that mentoring has on student outcomes (Anaya & Cole, 2001
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The use of students funds of knowledge to increase college success among low-income and first-generation students
PDF
Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students
PDF
Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students
PDF
An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...
PDF
The mentoring experience: a case study of a mentoring program for first-generation students transitioning to a postsecondary institution
PDF
A critical worldview: understanding identity and sense of belonging of underrepresented students' participation in study abroad
PDF
Exploring the satisfaction, experiences, institutional support of student veterans in transition to higher education: a case study
PDF
A phenomenological look into the effect that structured near-peer mentoring programs could have on first-generation college students continuing past freshman year at 4-year universities
PDF
Building mentoring relationships: the experiences of first-generation Latinx scholars
PDF
The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college
PDF
And still we rise: examining the strengths of first-generation college students
PDF
Latinx commuter students who have persisted and their sense of belonging
PDF
Program customization in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income students
PDF
Developing effective mentoring programs for non-tenure track faculty
PDF
Increasing student persistence at a community college from a faculty perspective
PDF
The relationship between academic capitalism and student culture at two four-year higher education institutions
PDF
An after thought: support services for distance learners at a post-secondary institution
PDF
Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring
PDF
(In)visiblity in numbers: Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander college students and their perspectives on Asian American Pacific Islander culture centers
PDF
Creating opportunities for engagement and building community utilizing geek culture in a residential education department
Asset Metadata
Creator
Greer, Eric Jon
(author)
Core Title
The role that mentoring interactions between faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors among students play in cultivating a culture of mentoring in higher education institutions
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
05/11/2020
Defense Date
01/30/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
continuing-education college students,empowerment,first-generation college students,institutional agents,mentoring,OAI-PMH Harvest,sense of belonging,validation
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Kezar, Adrianna J. (
committee chair
), Hinga, Briana M. (
committee member
), Kitchen, Joseph A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
eric.j.greer@gmail.com,ericgree@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-301902
Unique identifier
UC11664205
Identifier
etd-GreerEricJ-8485.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-301902 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-GreerEricJ-8485.pdf
Dmrecord
301902
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Greer, Eric Jon
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
Tags
continuing-education college students
empowerment
first-generation college students
institutional agents
mentoring
sense of belonging
validation