Recent Evidence on Prevalence and Outcomes of Undergraduate Peer Leaders Working with First-Year Students Dallin George Young, Assistant Director Jessica.

Recent Evidence on Prevalence and Outcomes of Undergraduate Peer Leaders Working with First-Year Students Dallin George Young, Assistant Director Jessica Hopp, Graduate Assistant Research, Grants, and Assessment National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition

Overview of Presentation
Background of First-Year Seminars and the National Survey of First-Year Seminars Overview of the National Survey of First-Year Seminars Background on Undergraduate Peer Leaders in First-Year Seminars Results from NSFYS on use of Undergraduate Peer Leaders in First-Year Seminar Overview of the 2013 National Survey of Peer Leaders Results from the NSPL on Peer Leaders in FYE Discussion

Background on FYS The first-year seminar (FYS) is “a course intended to enhance the academic and/or social integration of first-year students” (Barefoot, 1992, p. 49). These courses contribute to outcomes including: Persistence to the second year Grade point average Satisfaction with faculty, peers, and the institution Use of campus services Interaction with faculty Development of academic, interpersonal, and communication skills (As summarized in Greenfield, Keup, & Gardner, 2013)

Overview of National Survey of First-Year Seminars
Since 1988, the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition has triennially conducted a national survey of the features of first-year seminars Has provided the most comprehensive national picture of the practice related to curricular interventions to support students in the first college year

Overview of 2012-13 National Survey of First-Year Seminars
Ninth triennial administration of the NSFYS Asks institutions to provide information about first-year seminar Sections include: general institutional characteristics, types of first-year seminars offered, seminar features, student characteristics, instructor characteristics, administration, and assessment of the seminar New to administration is a section focusing on High-Impact Practices in the FYS

Methodology NSFYS 3,753 institutions were invited to participate in the survey. 4 waves (CAO, CEO, CSAO, 2009 participants) Administered from 11/2012 – 1/2013 896 campuses participated, a response rate of 23.9%. 804 (89.7%) indicated that they offered one or more first-year seminars.

Seminar Types Extended orientation seminars. Often times called freshman orientation, college survival, college transition, or student success course, these courses include an introduction to campuses resources, time management, academic and career planning, learning strategies, and an introduction to student development concerns. Academic seminars with generally uniform academic content across sections. This type may be an interdisciplinary or theme-oriented course and sometimes is part of a general education requirement. The primary focus is an academic theme or discipline but will often include academic skills components such as critical thinking and expository writing. Academic seminars on various topics. This seminar’s content is similar to the previously mentioned academic seminar except that specific topics vary from section to section.

Seminar Types Pre-professional seminars or discipline-linked seminar. These seminars are designed to prepare students for the demands of the major/ discipline and the profession and are often times taught within specific disciplines, professional schools, or majors. Basic study skills seminars. Generally offered to academically underprepared students, the focus of these seminars is on basic academic skills such as grammar, note taking, test-taking strategies, and critical reading techniques. Hybrid seminars. Combinations of the types described above.

Which is your Institution’s Primary Seminar Type?
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO " ?> <poll url="      <title>Which seminar type has the highest student enrollment on your campus?</title> </poll>

Background on Peer Leaders in First-Year Seminars
Peers have a significant and profound impact on the undergraduate experience: Intellectual development Academic Engagement Moral Development Clarification of Political and Social Values Determination of Academic and Social Self-Concept Interpersonal Skills (As summarized in Greenfield, Keup, & Gardner, 2013; Skipper, 2005)

Historically, Peer Leaders were situated in co-curricular roles in orientation or residence life Recently, the use of Peer Leaders in the classroom and academic realm has become more widespread Roles: tutors, Supplemental Instruction leaders, and peer advisors Courses: English composition, introductory mathematics, gateway courses, and first-year seminars

The use of Peer Leaders in FYS provides benefits to: Programs Improved student outcomes Share the workload with instructors Greater connection between instructor and students as Peer Leader forms the bridge Students Increased attention More opportunities for student interventions Peer Leaders Training and ongoing support Engagement with faculty and staff Challenging duties and responsibilities Reflection and self-appraisal All qualities of what AAC&U defines as a “High-Impact Practice” (Kuh, 2008)

Undergraduates Instructing the First-Year Seminar
National Survey of First-Year Seminars asked two questions about the use of undergraduates in the first-year seminar: Who teaches the first-year seminar? (Faculty, Student Affairs Professional, Other Campus Professional, Graduate Student, Undergraduate)

National Survey of First-Year Seminars asked two questions about the use of undergraduates in the first-year seminar: Who teaches the first-year seminar? If undergraduates assist in the seminar, what is their primary role?

Undergraduates Playing a Role in the First-Year Seminar
Changes to Administration of NSFYS Before, institutions could only answer questions about the role of undergraduates in the FYS if they selected undergraduates as instructor Thus, neither question provided a good estimate of the overall prevalence of the use of undergraduates in the FYS

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO " ?> <poll url="      <title>What is the primary role that undergraduates play if they assist in the first-year seminar on your campus?</title> </poll>

“Peer Mentors” by and large the biggest group in the “Other” category. Peer Mentors provide guidance that extends beyond the classroom into other domains, such as social support and connecting the students to campus. (Cuseo, 2010)

EO = Extended Orientation A-UC = Academic Seminar with Uniform Content A-VT = Academic Seminar on Various Topics PP-D = Pre-professional or Discipline-linked BSS = Basic Study Skills HY = Hybrid

Undergraduates in FYS – Discussion
What do you see? What are potential causes? What would you recommend based on these results?

Two-year colleges more likely not to use undergraduates at all in FYS Possibly due to lower number of students outside of the first year Public institutions more likely not to use undergraduates at all in FYS Two-year and public institutions places of real opportunity to involve undergraduates as peer leaders in first-year seminars Majority of participating institutions (53.7%) reported no use of undergraduate students in the first-year seminar Many institutions missing the benefits to the program and to their students

Extended orientation, pre-professional, and hybrid seminars more likely to use undergraduates to team teach than other primary seminar types Basic study skills seminars are more likely not to use undergraduates in the FYS Adjunct faculty were most frequently identified professional role of instructor by basic study skills institutions Are there challenges for using undergraduate peer leaders and mentors for adjunct faculty?

Overview of 2013 National Survey of Peer Leaders
Second administration of the NSPL Asked Students to Provide Information about Characteristics and Outcomes of Peer Leader Experiences Characteristics Outcomes

Methodology - 2013 NSPL 49 institutions participated in the survey.
Administered from 3/26/2013 – 6/1/2013 4,932 student peer leaders participated, a response rate of 28.6%. 28.6% of the peer leaders reported having a peer leadership role in the first-year experience (FYE).

Characteristics of Peer Leaders in First-Year Experiences
Demographics of the 2013 NSPL Overall FYE % Race or Ethnicity American Indian or Alaska Native 1.8 Asian or Asian American 8.4 5.7 Black or African American 11.1 12.3 Hispanic, Chicano/a, or Latino/a 7.0 8.0 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1.1 1.4 White 72.1 74.1 Other 2.1 2.3 Prefer not to say 4.0 3.7 Gender Man 28.7 26.0 Transgender 0.0 0.1 Woman 70.9 73.7 Class Standing First-year student 6.7 5.2 Second-year student 24.1 26.9 Third-year student 31.4 32.8 Fourth-year student 27.0 Fifth-year student 6.8 4.8 Non degree-seeking student 3.2 3.4

Peer Leader Experiences from the 2013 NSPL Overall FYE Mean (SD) Current number of PLE 2.07 (1.13) 2.35 (1.23) Total number of PLE 3.70 (2.42) 4.22 (2.66) Peer Leader Experiences from the 2013 NSPL Overall FYE % Trained for Peer Leadership positions Yes 85.6 95.3 No 13.5 4.2 I don't know 0.8 0.5

Peer Leader Experiences from the 2013 NSPL Overall FYE % Duration of Training (check all that apply) Half a day or less 22.8 18.3 1 day 18.6 23.2 2 days 17.5 19.2 3 days 10.8 14.6 4 days 5.8 7.1 1 week 17.3 20.0 2 weeks 21.0 22.3 3 weeks 7.3 7.7 Initial training mandated enrollment in class 19.4 23.9 Other (i.e., months, semester long, one year, retreats, spring or summer training, etc.) 6.9

Peer Leader Experiences from the 2013 NSPL Overall FYE % Hours per week performing PL responsibilities 5 or less hours 19.0 17.2 6-10 hours 27.8 26.7 11-15 hours 20.5 20.7 16-20 hours 15.5 15.9 21-25 hours 7.3 7.0 26-30 hours 4.3 5.8 31-35 hours 1.5 1.6 36-40 hours 1.4 2.2 More than 40 hours 2.7 2.8

Outcomes of Peer Leaders in First-Year Experiences
Self-Reported Outcomes Increase or Decrease in 4 Domains: Skills Institutional Connection Outcomes Employability Outcomes Academic Outcomes

Compared students identifying a PLE in FYE with all other students who did not identify a PLE in FYE Independent samples t-tests Comparing means of self-reported ratings on each outcome Outcomes on 7-point scale from greatly decreased (1) to greatly increased (7)

Outcomes from the 2013 NSPL FYE Mean Non-FYE Mean T-Test P-Value Skill Outcomes Academic 5.01 (1.25) 5.00 (1.29) 0.29 .769 Critical thinking 5.88 (1.04) 5.81 (1.01) 1.82 .069 Time management 6.10 (1.11) 6.01 (1.09) 2.18 .029 Organizational 6.03 (1.06) 5.94 (1.06) 2.19 Project management 6.08 (1.02) 5.95 (1.04) 3.53 <.001 Leadership 6.52 (0.80) 6.39 (0.87) 4.41 Teamwork 6.17 (1.00) 6.09 (1.00) 1.99 .047 Interpersonal communication 6.31 (0.89) 6.24 (0.93) 2.23 .026 Written communication 5.60 (1.15) 5.51 (1.14) 2.30 .021 Presentation 5.96 (1.07) 5.86 (1.09) 2.73 .006

Outcomes from the 2013 NSPL FYE Mean Non-FYE Mean T-Test P-Value Skill Outcomes Academic 5.01 (1.25) 5.00 (1.29) 0.29 .769 Critical thinking 5.88 (1.04) 5.81 (1.01) 1.82 .069 Time management 6.10 (1.11) 6.01 (1.09) 2.18 .029 Organizational 6.03 (1.06) 5.94 (1.06) 2.19 Project management 6.08 (1.02) 5.95 (1.04) 3.53 <.001 Leadership 6.52 (0.80) 6.39 (0.87) 4.41 Teamwork 6.17 (1.00) 6.09 (1.00) 1.99 .047 Interpersonal communication 6.31 (0.89) 6.24 (0.93) 2.23 .026 Written communication 5.60 (1.15) 5.51 (1.14) 2.30 .021 Presentation 5.96 (1.07) 5.86 (1.09) 2.73 .006 Significant Outcomes Legend p<.01 p<.001

Outcomes from the 2013 NSPL FYE Mean Non-FYE Mean T-Test P-Value Institutional Connection Outcomes Meaning interaction with faculty 6.19 (0.95) 5.97 (1.05) 5.86 < .001 Meaning interaction with staff members 6.25 (0.91) 6.02 (1.02) 6.63 Meaning interaction with peers 6.27 (0.91) 6.17 (0.94) 2.86 .004 Meaning interaction with people with backgrounds different than your own 6.19 (0.98) 6.08 (1.01) 3.05 .002 Your understanding with people with backgrounds different than your own 6.00 (1.05) 5.51 Your knowledge of campus resources 6.52 (0.82) 6.30 (0.92) 7.18 Your feeling that you belong and are welcome at your institution 6.29 (0.99) 6.06 (1.11) 6.17 Your desire to stay at your institution and graduate 6.07 (1.19) 5.86 (1.26) 4.99 Your desire to engage in continuous learning 6.12 (1.07) 5.95 (1.13) 4.23

Outcomes from the 2013 NSPL FYE Mean Non-FYE Mean T-Test P-Value Institutional Connection Outcomes Meaning interaction with faculty 6.19 (0.95) 5.97 (1.05) 5.86 < .001 Meaning interaction with staff members 6.25 (0.91) 6.02 (1.02) 6.63 Meaning interaction with peers 6.27 (0.91) 6.17 (0.94) 2.86 .004 Meaning interaction with people with backgrounds different than your own 6.19 (0.98) 6.08 (1.01) 3.05 .002 Your understanding with people with backgrounds different than your own 6.00 (1.05) 5.51 Your knowledge of campus resources 6.52 (0.82) 6.30 (0.92) 7.18 Your feeling that you belong and are welcome at your institution 6.29 (0.99) 6.06 (1.11) 6.17 Your desire to stay at your institution and graduate 6.07 (1.19) 5.86 (1.26) 4.99 Your desire to engage in continuous learning 6.12 (1.07) 5.95 (1.13) 4.23 Significant Outcomes Legend p<.01 p<.001

Outcomes from the 2013 NSPL FYE Mean Non-FYE Mean T-Test P-Value Employability Outcomes Analyzing a problem from new prespectives 5.88 (0.96) 5.80 (0.98) 2.35 .019 Creating innovative approaches to complete a task 5.91 (0.95) 5.81 (0.98) 2.99 .003 Providing direction through interpersonal persuasion 5.94 (0.95) 5.83 (0.98) 3.20 .001 Sharing ideas with others in writing 5.41 (1.09) 5.34 (1.12) 1.76 .079 Building relationships with people with whom you work 6.25 (0.89) 6.11 (0.94) 4.16 < .001 Engaging in ethical decision-making 5.93 (1.03) 5.74 (1.11) 4.98 Bringing together information learned from different places 6.06 (0.95) 5.96 (0.96) 2.91 .004 Applying knowledge to a real-world setting through hands-on experiences 6.16 (0.96) 6.00 (1.00) 4.72 Succeeding in a full-time job after graduation 5.95 (1.10) 5.79 (1.15) 3.42 Employability outcomes based on work of Phil Gardner from Michigan State University.

Outcomes from the 2013 NSPL FYE Mean Non-FYE Mean T-Test P-Value Employability Outcomes Analyzing a problem from new prespectives 5.88 (0.96) 5.80 (0.98) 2.35 .019 Creating innovative approaches to complete a task 5.91 (0.95) 5.81 (0.98) 2.99 .003 Providing direction through interpersonal persuasion 5.94 (0.95) 5.83 (0.98) 3.20 .001 Sharing ideas with others in writing 5.41 (1.09) 5.34 (1.12) 1.76 .079 Building relationships with people with whom you work 6.25 (0.89) 6.11 (0.94) 4.16 < .001 Engaging in ethical decision-making 5.93 (1.03) 5.74 (1.11) 4.98 Bringing together information learned from different places 6.06 (0.95) 5.96 (0.96) 2.91 .004 Applying knowledge to a real-world setting through hands-on experiences 6.16 (0.96) 6.00 (1.00) 4.72 Succeeding in a full-time job after graduation 5.95 (1.10) 5.79 (1.15) 3.42 Significant Outcomes Legend p<.01 p<.001

Outcomes from the 2013 NSPL FYE Mean Non-FYE Mean T-Test P-Value Academic Outcomes GPA 4.43 (1.18) 4.35 (1.16) 1.88 .060 Number of credit hours 4.37 (1.06) 4.30 (0.98) 1.66 .097 Time to your expected graduation 4.21 (0.85) 4.17 (0.77) 1.48 .139 Overall academic performance 4.71 (1.20) 4.59 (1.16) 2.89 .004

Outcomes from the 2013 NSPL FYE Mean Non-FYE Mean T-Test P-Value Academic Outcomes GPA 4.43 (1.18) 4.35 (1.16) 1.88 .060 Number of credit hours 4.37 (1.06) 4.30 (0.98) 1.66 .097 Time to your expected graduation 4.21 (0.85) 4.17 (0.77) 1.48 .139 Overall academic performance 4.71 (1.20) 4.59 (1.16) 2.89 .004 Significant Outcomes Legend p<.01 p<.001

Groups of Significant Outcomes Skills Project Management Leadership Presentation Institutional Connection All outcomes Employability Nearly all outcomes Academic Overall academic performance

Peer Leaders in First-Year Experience
Conclusions/Patterns Benefits of using Peer Leaders in FYE/FYS Training and ongoing support Peer Leaders in FYE report more and longer training experiences Engagement with faculty and staff Peer Leaders in FYE report more increases in institutional connection Challenging duties and responsibilities Reflection and self-appraisal Peer Leaders employability outcomes include decision-making, application of knowledge, and ethical decision-making All qualities of what AAC&U defines as a “High-Impact Practice” (Kuh, 2008)

Thank You Questions/Comments?

Recent Evidence on Prevalence and Outcomes of Undergraduate Peer Leaders Working with First-Year Students Dallin George Young, Assistant Director Jessica.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Recent Evidence on Prevalence and Outcomes of Undergraduate Peer Leaders Working with First-Year Students Dallin George Young, Assistant Director Jessica."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Recent Evidence on Prevalence and Outcomes of Undergraduate Peer Leaders Working with First-Year Students Dallin George Young, Assistant Director Jessica.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Recent Evidence on Prevalence and Outcomes of Undergraduate Peer Leaders Working with First-Year Students Dallin George Young, Assistant Director Jessica."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback