Introducing Undergraduate Mentors (UMs) in Year 1 Courses

1. Introducing Undergraduate Mentors (UMs) in Year 1 Courses Rachel Ferris, Joy Moloney, Jim Anderson, Jim Andrews, Rachel Mills 26 June 2008

2. The Project Team – who we are Dr Rachel Ferris & Mrs Joy Moloney (LTCs), Faculty of Engineering, Science and Mathematics Dr Jim Anderson (DHoSE), School of Mathematics Dr Jim Andrews (Senior Tutor) & Dr Rachel Mills (DHoSE), School of Ocean & Earth Science (SOES) In 2006-07, awarded funding from the Learning & Teaching Enhancement Fund for implementing project in 2007-08

3. Introduction • Undergraduate mentoring is a work relationship where students with a proven set of knowledge and skills, help other students to fully understand and apply course content. • Our rationale for using undergraduates is: • There is a larger cohort of UGs (more assistance) • UMs will improve their own skills • It will incentivise UGs (only the best are UMs) • It will enhance UMs CVs (employability) • It will provide income for UGs • It may reduce staff workload

4. Aims & Outcomes • Aims: To ‘pilot’ employing trained UMs (3rd/4th year UGs) in some Maths & SOES first year courses • Outcomes of the study enabled UMs to: • describe their role and state the most important skills/qualities required to be an effective UM • reflect upon their development in the role • Outcomes included evaluation by UMs & participants • Broader Outcomes: to embed the model in other courses

5. Mentored Course Units

6. Project Timescales • May/June ‘07: Advertised & selected 3rd/4th year UM students & PGR trainers • September ‘07: Wrote UM Resources Booklet; Planned Training session • October ’07: Week 0, UMs trained by PGR trainers • October ’07 – June ’08: UMs employed • March ’08:Evaluation for School of Maths • September ’08: Completion

7. Mentor Selection • Advert: 300 words on ‘why they wanted to be a UM’, ‘the skills they could bring to the job’, ‘the challenges the job would bring’ & a ‘summary of grades’ & any ‘work experience in education’ • Prerequisite: Attend UM Training • Prerequisite: 1st/2i marks in relevant courses • UMs employed: 21 SOES, 15 MATHS • Payment: £12.70/hr

8. UM Training Programme

9. Evaluation • Selection of open (comparative analysis) and closed (Likert-scale) questions • Quantitative & qualitative evaluation of Training Day • Written feedback from UMs after each UM session; focus group – verbal comments • Written feedback via email questionnaire from UMs and mentees at the end of the pilot

10. Training Day Quantitative Evaluation Likert-Style: e.g. 5 (‘Very Good’) to 1(‘Very Poor’)

11. Training DaySnapshot of Comments • “Practical Sessions were really good” • “Was good learning about different learning skills” • “Would be very good to know exact modules we’ll be working with” • “Confidence in tackling difficult scenarios; liked the fact that the training was engaging and involved everyone”

12. Qualitative Evaluation(From MATHS UMs weekly sessions) a) In terms of a positive experience, most common remarks centred around help and communication: • “Students conversed amongst themselves to help each other” • “The students in my group are willing to ask questions” • “Explained/helped students to understand/solve Maths problems” • “I was able to answer questions e.g. proof, logic, eigen vectors” b) To improve upon the session, most common remarks: • “See tutorial sheets before the session” • “I should have prepared better” • “Better seating arrangements” • “Encourage group to work together”

13. Qualitative Evaluation Cont … c) What did UMs learn? Most common remarks centred around the approach to learning: • “Assume nothing, start from first principles”; “Good to think on my feet” • “Its hard to explain simple ideas – I never struggled understanding” • “Group discussion – students helped each other” • “Use different teaching styles” d) What did mentees learn? Most common remarks: a better understanding of subject/how to solve problems: • “Understanding basic vectors”; “Thinking outside the box” • “Increased confidence with their own abilities!”; • “A new way of solving partial fractions” • “Learnt to break down problems into smaller chunks” • “Improved communication skills with other members in the group” • “Different methods of learning i.e. parrot fashion/understanding”

14. Qualitative Evaluation Cont … e) Plans for the next peer meeting, most common remarks related to helping / explaining concepts • “Continuation of addressing student problems” • “Next week’s tutorial sheets” Early Shared Findings • ‘Timetable clashes’ & ‘location’ a problem (i.e. SOES mentors getting to Highfield) • Maths UMs wanted tutorial sheets / answers in advance; more space / movable seating in room • Good attendance by UMs & mentees keen: c. 1/3 of large 1st year cohort (c. 186) at Consolidation Classes

15. End of course: Views of Mentors on their role in MATH1046 (n=12)

16. End of MATH1046 Key Messages from UG Mentors • Positive benefits– “improving communications / skills / ways of solving problems” • Most challenging - “thinking on my feet / on top of first year material” • Changes needed – “provide solutions to UMs before session / advertise scheme widely” • Least useful– “if UM lacked subject knowledge” • Other – “Scheme should continue next year”

17. End of Course: Views of Mentees on MATH1046 UM sessions

18. End of MATH1046 Key Messages from UG Mentees • Attendance – “Many UGs attended more than 5 sessions” • Primary motivation - “to improve grades & confidence” • Most useful – “lots of help/discussions” • Least useful – “if UM lacked subject knowledge” • To improve – “UMs see problem sheets prior to session” (MATHS) • Most help – “linear algebra / pure maths” • Other – “very useful class, worth carrying on”

19. Statements with 100% Agreement From UG Mentees From UG Mentors

20. A Brief Look at Assessment

21. Any Coursework Trends? Average (±SD) marks for a Calculus course; DQ = diagnostic quiz; n - varied.

22. Our Learning, Teaching & Enhancement Strategy The model supports key themes: • Student Centredness: e.g. well-timed feedback • Employability: UMs developed skills • Development of the infrastructure to support education: UM role – extra educational layer

23. Conclusions & the Future • Major Successes/Learning: • First years & UMs value the model; assists staff where student numbers are high • Role reinforced UMs own learning and skills • Provided Mentees with a friendly environment to discuss concepts and to develop subject confidence and understanding • Changes: • In SOES, timetabling/location resolved for 2008-09 • At training, both Schools provide information on modules • Reconsider payment, as generous • The Future: • Both Schools are running schemes next year • Both Schools will train more mentors • Hope to expand the model in the University

24. References • http://www.southampton.ac.uk/lateu/individuals/2007projects.html Acknowledgements • The project team thanks the University of Southampton for the financial support, the module convenors who involved their units in this study, our UM trainers and all our mentors.

25. Any Questions?