Search for: All records

Peer mentoring programs can provide instructional support for graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) (Rogers & Yee, 2018; Yee & Rogers, 2017) through more specialized and detailed discussions than just working with faculty (Speer et al., 2015; Yee & Rogers, 2016). Lanius et al. (2022) explored how mentees and mentors participating in a comprehensive multi-component GTA pedagogical training program, Promoting Success in Undergraduate Mathematics Through Graduate Teacher Training (Harrell-Williams et al., 2020), at three universities at the start of an academic year conceptualized the role of an effective mentor. In this poster, we explore whether this conceptualization of the mentor role changed over the course of the academic year after participation in components of the training program: a GTA Teaching Seminar, Critical Issues Seminar, and peer mentoring (including mentor training). 

This Complete Evidence-Based Paper presents research about a layered peer mentorship program for undergraduate engineering students at a public urban research university and ways that students have made meaning from their mentorship experiences. This mentorship program began in Fall 2019 and has grown to include the following layers: (a) first-year students who receive mentorship, (b) sophomore- and junior-level students who serve as mentors (all of whom received mentorship during their first year), (c) junior- and senior-level students who serve as lead mentors who design the program for that academic year (including content, group meetings, service projects, meeting schedules, etc.), (d) a graduate student who mentors and supervises the lead mentors, and (e) a faculty member who oversees the overall program, provides general guidance, and advises all the students. We will describe ways in which the participating students have made meaning of their experience in the program, highlighting three key areas: (1) the web of relationships formed, which cohere into a community; (2) students’ transitions from receiving mentorship as first-year students to mentoring others in their sophomore and junior years; and (3) the feedback and iteration process by which the program has continuously developed, which forefronts student voice and agency. The paper will provide specific examples in each of the three key areas described, with a special focus on students’ own descriptions of the meaning they have made through their participation in the mentorship program. Recommendations will also be shared for those interested in implementing similar programs on their campuses.