STUDY OF MENTORING IN THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (SMILE)

 

 

OVERVIEW

 

The Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment (SMILE) is a large-scale, randomized study of school-based adult mentoring for students 10-18 years of age. By the end of the school year, students in the treatment group had received an average of 8 meetings and an average match length of about 3 months. Small, but positive, main effects of mentoring were found on self-reported connectedness to peers, self-esteem, and social support from friends. There were no impacts on other areas, including grades and social skills. Analyses of subgroups found those who received the added mentoring component had significant positive impacts among elementary school boys (connectedness to school, connectedness to culturally different peers, empathy, cooperation, and hopefulness) and high school girls (connectedness to culturally different peers, global self-esteem, and self-in-the-present, and support from friends).

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

 

Target population: Elementary, middle, and high school-age children (10-18 years).

 

The Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment (SMILE) is a large-scale, randomized study of school-based adult mentoring for students 10-18 years of age. Students received a mentor and support services through Communities in Schools of San Antonio (CIS-SA). Support services for children include educational enhancement activities, supportive guidance, enrichment activities, and/or tutoring. Mentor-mentee meetings took place one hour per week either during or after school; meetings outside school were prohibited. Mentors received a one-hour orientation prior to mentee assignment. Mentoring was unstructured and occurred wherever space permitted such as the library, cafeteria, or CIS-SA school office. Mentors completed activity logs after each meeting to document frequency and activity type.

 

 

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

 

Karcher MJ (2008). The Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment (SMILE): A Randomized Evaluation of the Effectiveness of School-based Mentoring. Prevention Science, 9(2), 99-113.

 

Evaluated population: 516 elementary, middle, and high school students from 19 schools in the San Antonio area participated in the study. The study population was predominately Latino, with twice as many girls as boys, and the majority of students came from families with an annual family income of less than $20,000.

 

Approach: Students were parent-, teacher-, or self-referred to participate in a program of social and academic enrichment support services provided by Communities in Schools of San Antonio (CIS-SA). CIS-SA housed a case manager in each of the 19 participating schools and was responsible for providing a range of support services to CIS-SA-enrolled students. After completing pre-test assessments, youth were randomly assigned to receive either a school-based mentor in addition to CIS-SA support services (n=252) or CIS-SA support services only (n=264). In September, students completed a battery of self-report questionnaires measuring 21 outcomes, including: Connectedness (to school, teachers, peers, culturally different peers); Self-esteem (global self-esteem, self-in-the-present, self-in-the-future, peer, school, family, physical); Social Skills (empathy, assertiveness, cooperation, self-control); Social Support (friends, family); and Hope and Mattering (hope, mattering). Students were then administered a post-test in late April. Additionally, students’ math and reading grades were also collected.

 

Among mentors, more than one-half were Latino (54%), more than one-third were white (35%), 5% were black, and 6% were of another race. Nearly three-quarters of the mentors (73%) were female, and 43% spoke Spanish. Additionally, 70% were college students, 13% were military personnel, 15% were full-time employed adults, and 2% identified as other. Mentors were recruited by CIS agency staff at military bases, local business, colleges, and within local organizations, with a large majority being college students. Mentors were not provided incentives for participation.

 

Results: By eight months after the start of the study, youth receiving the additional mentoring services had met with their mentor, on average, eight times—spanning, approximately, three months. At post-test, mentored youth had higher end-of-year scores in all outcomes compared with youth receiving support services only. However, only four statistically significant main effects of mentoring were found: connectedness to peers (p<.01), global self-esteem (p<.05), self-in-the-present (p<.01), and perceived support from friends (p<.05). Main effects were not significant for the remaining 17 outcomes. Computed effect sizes were small for connectedness to peers (d=.25), global self-esteem (d=.16), self-in-the-present (d=.25), and perceived support from friends (d=.18). Among all 21 outcomes, averaged effect size was further reduced (d=.10). Despite these significant impacts on self-esteem and peer relations, the author recommends caution, as some research suggests peer-referenced self-esteem and peer relations can be predictive of increased behavior problems, risk-taking, and school disengagement.

 

Findings from a three-way cross-level interaction analysis of gender-by-school level on treatment condition, indicate greater benefits on several outcomes among elementary school boys and high school girls. Elementary school boys receiving the added mentoring component reported higher connectedness to school (d=.86), connectedness to culturally different peers (d=.58), social skills (empathy [d=.77] and cooperation [d=.71]), and hopefulness (d=.73) compared with those receiving standard support services only. Among high school girls, those receiving the added mentoring component reported higher connectedness to culturally different peers (d=.34), self-esteem (global [d=.27], self-in-the-present [d=.34]), and support from friends (d=.39) than those receiving standard support services only.

 

Additionally, a few adverse effects were found of mentoring for older boys and younger girls. More than one-half of the treatment coefficients for high school boys receiving mentoring were negative (for example, connectedness to school, self-in-the-future, cooperation), however, only connectedness to teachers was significantly lower among high school boys receiving mentoring services compared with their peers receiving support services alone. One significant adverse effect, lower self-control, was found among middle school girls receiving mentoring services compared with middle school girls receiving support services only.

 

 

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

 

For more information about the Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment (SMILE), please visit: http://www.utsasmile.org/.

 

For more information about Communities in Schools of San Antonio, please visit: http://www.cissa.org/.

 

For more information about the Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness survey and scoring, please visit: http://www.schoolbasedmentoring.com/.

 

 

References

Karcher MJ (2008). The Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment (SMILE): A Randomized Evaluation of the Effectiveness of School-based Mentoring. Prevention Science, 9(2), 99-113.

 

 

SUMMARY & CATEGORIZATION

 

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant ages: 10-18 / Program age ranges in the guide: 6-11, 12-14, 15-21

Program components: school-based; mentoring/tutoring

Measured outcomes: education and cognitive development; social and emotional health and development.

 

KEYWORDS: Children (3-11), Adolescents (12-17), Youth (16+), Elementary, Middle School, High School, Co-ed, Hispanic/Latino, School-based, Mentoring, Tutoring, After School Program, Case Management, Social Skills, Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy, Reading, Mathematics, Academic Achievement.

 

Program information last updated on July 8, 2009.

 

 

		© Child Trends 2003