Introduction
Peer education takes many forms.  Resident assistants, orientation leaders, tutors, and other student leaders all serve in the role of mentors to their peers.  Although peer mentorship models have existed for decades, what are the true benefits of peer education?  What do the peer mentors and mentees learn from this relationship?

At Rutgers College, the oldest and largest liberal arts college at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, peer mentorship takes many forms.   One example of peer education exists in our First-Year Interest Group Seminar (FIGS) program.  At Rutgers College, FIGS are taught solely by peer instructors.  These upper-level undergraduate students are trained and supervised to teach their own one-credit FIGS course, on a topic of their choosing, to first-year students.  This course is directed by the Assistant Dean for New Student Programs and staff.

Research Questions
Although the FIGS model has proven successful over the past five years, and course evaluations show that students learn a great deal in FIGS classes, we were unsure what the peer mentors learned from the experience of teaching their own class.  We wanted to know:  1) What do peer mentors gain from the experience?, 2) What are the challenges of peer mentorship?, and 3) What can we, as supervisors, do to better train our peer mentors?

Method
In considering an assessment plan, we decided upon a qualitative method in order to glean as much open-ended data as possible.  As such, several sources of data were collected.  Since every peer instructor participates in a three-credit course on teaching, several of the semester’s assignments were collected as data.  These consisted of 1) weekly journals, 2) a reaction paper on challenges/triumphs during the peer mentorship experience and, 3) a final videotaped presentation on the topic of “What I learned by teaching a FIG”.

Results
The results of our assessment of the peer mentorship experience included uncovering the challenges that mentors’ face regarding asserting authority, time management, and organization.  One of the triumphs mentioned was that of increased personal confidence gained through the experience.  Interestingly, after a few weeks of mentorship, many of the challenges identified became triumphs.  For example, once the mentors identified troubles relating to time management, many of them learned new ways to turn this challenge into a strength.

Some of the most interesting findings uncovered what the peer mentors gained through the experience of mentorship.  Peer mentors overwhelmingly noted that to their surprise, they learned from their mentees as well as themselves.  Several acknowledged that the experiential learning that occurred through the mentorship process was unattainable through other sources of education.  All of the results allowed us, the advisors, insight that informed the construction of better training and support programs.  This outcome from our assessment efforts has proven vital to the growth of our program.

Application to Other Programs

Unfortunately, many peer education programs do not have the benefit of easily accessible data, such as class assignments, ripe for the taking.  However, there are still ways to assess peer education programs utilizing both qualitative and quantitative methods.  Regardless of your program’s structure, there are ways to collect the thoughts of your students and study them in such a way that meaningful results will arise.

One of the most valuable qualitative methods would be to have your students write weekly journals about their experience.  These journals can be paper, e-mail, or even web-based blogs (web logs).  If you choose to have your student mentors write blogs, you may also choose to give them the ability to comment on each other’s entries.  This way, not only will you gain a deeper understanding of the student leader experience, but you will allow other peer leaders the benefit as well. 

Another way to understand the student mentorship experience through assessment is the use of focus groups.  Depending on the size of your mentor population, you may wish to break your students into small groups of four-six students.  In each group, a facilitator will ask a number of guiding, open-ended questions such as, “Tell me about the peer mentor experience.”, or “What is the challenge of being a resident assistant?” or, “What do you get out of the experience of being an orientation leader?”  For consistency sake, it is important to ask each group the same questions, however it should be recognized, and condoned, that the conversation may take many different directions.  This will allow you, as the researcher, more latitude in data collection and will most certainly glean a wealth of thick data and rich description. 

To collect the findings of the focus group, you may wish to take notes yourself, have a note taker present during the meeting, or audio/videotape the session for transcription at a later time.  If the time is available, you may wish to take a random sample of your peer mentor population and conduct one-on-one interviews.  While transcribing allows for the most accurate recollection of data and frees researcher from the distraction of note taking, it is also the most time-consuming method of recording data from an interview or focus group. 

If quantitative methods are better suited to your program, you may wish to create a survey.  One of the benefits of surveys is that they can be anonymous.  Some peer mentors may be more honest under the condition of anonymity.  You can design a survey that asks both closed and open-ended questions specific to your unique program.  If you choose to conduct a survey, it should be as brief as possible; otherwise, students may not feel that they have the time to give it full attention.  A two-page survey is most likely sufficient.

Waivers
Regarding the protection of human subjects, it is important to have each student complete an appropriate waiver of voluntary consent.  Your college or university may also require you to complete a Human Subjects Certification Program.   Having respondents complete waivers are important to the validity of your study so that your subjects do not feel forced to respond, or feel that there will be negative consequences regarding their choice of whether or not to participate in your study. 

Limitations and Triangulation of Data
In order to give your study the validity necessary for the results to be treated seriously, it is important that you consider the limitations of your study.  For example, in a focus group, your respondents may answer your questions based on what they think their peers want them to say.  In a survey, respondents may rush through and not pay a great deal of attention to the questions.  One of the best ways to account for limitations like these, and enhance the validity of your study, is to triangulate your data – comparing multiple data sources with each other in order to gain a greater depth of responses and meanings.  Employing multiple methods (e.g., combining journals and focus groups) will enhance your understanding of the data and boost the usability and credibility of the results.

*********

The author retains all rights to this essay.  However, FYA-List subscribers may distribute the essay for non-commercial purposes.