




































Graham (2019) proof final


Educational Renaissance Vol. 8  (2019)

School-Based Ment or ing for  Middle Schoolers:  The 
Im pact  on Ment ees and Their  Pre-Service Teacher  
Ment ors
Tam m y Jeaneen Graham , EdD.  The Citadel

     email: grahamt1@citadel.edu

Renee N. Jef ferson, PhD.  The Citadel

     email: renee.jefferson@citadel.edu

Feature Article

Int roduct ion

While mentoring programs have been in existence 
for multiple years, program models vary greatly. 
Community-based mentoring programs that 
provide guidance for youth have been around 
since the early 1900s with the establishment of Big 
Brothers, now known as Big Brothers Big Sisters 
(Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, n.d.), and over 
the past several years, school-based mentoring 
programs have gained in popularity as a method 
of supporting academic performance of students 

(National Mentoring Resource Center, n.d.). While 
the number of studies focusing on school-based 
mentoring programs for middle school youth are 
limited in number, results support their 
effectiveness in assisting students with academics 
and behavioral skills (Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft, 
2006; Lampley & Johnson, 2010;McQuillin, Strait, 
Smith, & Ingram, 2015).

Converse and Lignugaris/Kraft (2009) studied an 
18-week school-based mentoring program?s 
impact on 16 junior high school students who 

Abst ract   

School-based mentoring programs are plentiful in number; however, studies measuring the impact of 
school-based mentoring for students with disabilit ies are limited. The purpose of this study was to 
examine the effects of mentoring on the academic and social emotional skills of middle school 
students with documented disabilit ies, as well as the impact of the mentor-mentee relationship on 
college-student mentors. The mentoring program paired four college education majors with four 
middle school males with documented disabilit ies who were identified by their teacher as needing 
assistance with academic and socio-emotional skills. A mixed-methods study was used to conduct an 
in-depth investigation of the impact of the mentor partnership. Data collection methods included (1) 
mentor and mentee surveys, (2) observations of mentor-mentee activities, (3) interviews with a 
science teacher and special education teacher, and (4) science grades. Results from the study support 
the positive impact that mentoring can have on both academic and social-emotional development of 
middle school students with documented disabilit ies.   

Keywords: mentoring, middle school, students with disabilit ies, pre-service teachers, science education, 
social-emotional skills

mailto:grahamt1@citadel.edu
mailto:renee.jefferson@citadel.edu


GRAHAM & JEFFERSON | SCHOOL BASED MENTORING FOR M IDDLE SCHOOLERS

were considered at-risk. Data included office 
disciplinary referrals, attendance, student survey 
responses, and mentor interview responses and 
log entries. Results indicated that participants had 
a statistically significant reduced number of office 
referrals, as well as a statistically significant 
improvement in their attitudes about 
schools(Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft, B, 2009). 
Lampley and Johnson (2010) conducted a study on 
the Linking Individual Students To Educational 
Needs (LISTEN) school-based mentor program. 
The LISTEN program was implemented after adult 
mentors were recruited and trained on mentoring. 
Mentors were then paired in a one-one 
relationship with 54 middle school students who 
were considered at-risk. The mentor-mentee pairs 
met an average of twice weekly during one school 
year. Grades, attendance levels, and discipline 
referrals were analyzed pre-intervention and 
post-intervention and showed that 49 of 54 
participants improved in all three areas, with 51 of 
the 54 participants showing improvement in their 
grades (Lampley & Johnson, 2010). In a study 
completed by McQuillin, Strait, Smith, and Ingram 
(2015), 74 middle school students were randomly 
assigned to a brief school-based mentoring 
program that incorporated evidence-based 

counseling and academic practices. After mentors 
were recruited and received training on the 
school-based mentoring protocol, one-on-one 
mentoring sessions lasting 45 minutes were held 
an average of 8 times over a two-and-a-half-month 
period.Analysis of outcome data indicated a 
statistically significant impact on the participants? 
math grades when compared to the 60 middle 
school students in the control group. Additionally, 
the participants had fewer discipline referrals and 
higher life satisfaction as compared to their 
counterparts (McQuillin, Strait, Smith, & Ingram, 
2015).

Despite the numerous school-based mentoring 
programs available, studies measuring the 
benefits of school-based mentoring for students 
with disabilit ies are difficult to find. Still, some 
studies suggest that the impact of mentoring for 

students with disabilit ies is promising and may 
benefit academics and psychosocial skills (Lindsay 
& Munson, 2018). For example, in an exploratory 
study of parent, peer, teacher, and mentor social 
relationships of 228 high school students with 
disabilit ies, Pham and Murray (2016) found 
that?students with greater mentor inspiration 
scores had greater life satisfaction? (p. 243). 
Additionally, a study completed by Leake, 
Burgstahler, and Izzo (2011) including 119 survey 
interviews, 12 focus groups, and 11 case studies 
across five states indicated that formal and 
informal mentor/mentee relationships were 
influential in helping culturally and linguistically 
diverse students with disabilit ies prepare for 
transitioning to either higher education or the 
workforce. Furthermore, online participant survey 
responses in Gregg, Galyardt, Wolfe, Moone, and 
Todd?s (2017) study of 189 secondary and 
postsecondary students with disabilit ies 
participating in a four-year virtual mentoring 
program showed participants? satisfaction with the 
mentoring program and their growth in 
perceptions of self-advocacy and 
self-determination.

In an effort to support the academic performance 
and social integration of middle school students 
with high incidence disabilit ies, professors at a 
college in the Southeast and faculty from an urban 
public charter middle school established a mentor 
partnership. The partnership pairs pre-service 
teachers, some of whom self-reported that they 
have high incidence disabilit ies, with middle school 
students with learning disabilit ies, AD/HD, or other 
similar learning differences.

The purpose of this study was to examine the 
impact of mentoring on middle school mentees? 
social-emotional skills and their academic 
performance in science, as well as the impact of 
the mentor-mentee relationship on college 
student mentors who were education majors. The 
academic area of science was chosen due to the 
school specializing in math and science and due to 
the mentors providing academic support in 
science. Permission to conduct the study was 

49



GRAHAM & JEFFERSON | SCHOOL BASED MENTORING FOR M IDDLE SCHOOLERS

obtained from the college?s Institutional Review 
Board Committee on October 24, 2016.

The research questions were as follows:

1. How does a mentoring program for 
students with disabilit ies impact middle 
school male students? social-emotional 
skills?

2. How does a school-based mentoring 
program for students with disabilit ies 
impact middle school male students? 
academic performance in science?

3. What impact, if any, did the mentor-mentee 
relationship have on college student 
mentors?

Met hods 

Participants

The participants of this study included four male 
middle school students from a public charter 
school in the Southeastern United States that uses 
a project-based learning model with hands-on 
curriculum in mathematics and science and four 
male pre-service teachers from a college in the 
Southeastern United States that strongly 
emphasizes both academics and leadership. Each 
of the middle school participants had a 
documented disability; had an Individual 
Education Plan (IEP) during the 2016/2017 and 
2017/2018 school years; required academic 
accommodations in their science, math, and 
English/Language Arts classes; attended inclusion 
science class where the science teacher and 
special education teaching co-taught lessons; 
received accommodations of small group testing, 
extra time on tests, and extra time on science lab 
experiments; and participated in the mentor 
partnership based on referrals from their special 
education teacher and their parents. Due to 
confidentiality, the middle school participants? 
disability categories were not shared with the 
researchers.  Three of the middle school 
participants (Student A, Student B, and Student C) 
were enrolled in 6th grade and had the same 
science teacher. The fourth student (Student D) 

was enrolled in 8th grade with a different science 
teacher than the 6th graders. The students were 
chosen to participate in the study based on 
recommendations from their special education 
teacher, who made the decision based on the 
following information: the participants were 
struggling academically and socially, lacked 
self-confidence and self-advocacy skills, and had 
no male role-model in their home.  Table 1 
describes the mentee?s demographics. 

Table 1 

Mentee Demographics

The four college students were chosen because 
they were completing a secondary teacher 
preparation program and were members of a 
student college club that advocates for K-12 and 
college students with learning disabilit ies, ADHD, 
and other similar learning differences. Two 
mentors were in the second year of their teacher 
preparation program, were in the process of 
completing their third education course, and had 
completed twenty hours of field experiences in 
local schools when the mentor partnership began. 
The remaining two mentors were in the third year 
of their teacher preparation program, were in the 
process of completing their fifth education course, 
and had completed 40 hours of field experiences 
in local schools. The mentors? demographics and 
their mentee partnerships are described in Table 
2.

Parents or legal guardians of the middle school 
participants signed a consent form allowing their 
children to participate in the study. The four 

50

Ment ee Age Grade Race/Et hnicit y

Student A 12 6 African American/Non-Hispanic

Student B 12 6 Caucasian/Non-Hispanic

Student C 12 6 Caucasian/Non-Hispanic

Student D 13 8 African American/Non-Hispanic



GRAHAM & JEFFERSON | SCHOOL BASED MENTORING FOR M IDDLE SCHOOLERS

middle school and four college student 
participants provided written assent. The consent 
and assent forms described the purpose of the 
mentoring program, anonymity and confidentiality 
of all data collected, and the right to withdraw 
from the program at any time.

Table 2
Mentor Demographics and Mentee Partnerships

Mentoring Sessions  

When establishing the mentor partnership, 
professors and the middle school special 
education teacher worked together to develop 
objectives for the program. The three main 
objectives for the program included the following: 
(1) help the mentees increase their social skills, (2) 
teach the mentees self-advocacy skills, and (3) 
assist mentees with improving their grades. The 
researchers held two training sessions at the 
college for the mentors. The trainings were based 
on several ideas from Elements of Effective 
Practice for Mentoring (Garringer, Kupersmidt, 
Rhodes, Stelter, & Tai, 2015).  Key elements that 
were implemented in training sessions included 
mentor responsibilit ies (e.g., showing up for each 
mentoring session on time), ideas for developing 
meaningful relationships with the mentees, ethical 
and safety topics, required reporting 
requirements, and ideas for effectively concluding 
the final mentor/mentee sessions (p. 35). 
Additional training was held at the school by the 

special education teacher and was based on the 
specific needs of each mentee. The special 
education teacher continued to brief the mentors 
before each mentoring session as needed, to 
inform them of any significant challenges the 
mentees were experiencing, and the researchers 
debriefed with the mentors on a monthly basis.  

Mentors met with mentees on a weekly basis 
during the 2017/2018 academic school year, with 
some sessions being cancelled due to inclement 
weather, illness, or other activities scheduled by 
the college or school.  Initial mentoring sessions 
followed the protocol of assigned school-based 
developmental mentoring (Anastasia, Skinner, & 
Mundhenk, 2012). All mentors and mentees met 
after school in one room to play board games and 
complete other activities to enhance 
social-emotional, self-advocacy, and 
self-determination goals. As the mentoring 
sessions progressed during the second semester, 
sessions were more prescriptive, with 
mentor/mentee pairs meeting individually in the 
mentee?s classroom or one-on-one in a conference 
room, always in the observable view of a school 
official. The mentors and mentees worked on 
specific goals in academics, self-advocacy, 
self-regulation, and other skills requested by the 
special education teacher (Anastasia, Skinner, & 
Mundhenk, 2012).  Individual mentoring goals 
were developed with each student in mind. Table 3 
describes the main goals for each student.  

Table 3

Individual Mentor Session Goals

51

Ment or Class Race 
Et hnicit y

Self -Repor t ed 
Disabil i t y

Ment ee 
Par t ner

A Sophomore Caucasian 
Non-Hispanic

N/A Student 
A

B Junior Caucasian 
Non-Hispanic

ADHD Student 
B

C Junior Caucasian 
Non-Hispanic

ADHD Student 
C

D Sophomore Caucasian 
Non-Hispanic

N/A Student 
D

Ment ee Object ive

Student A Make eye contact with adults when speaking.

Student B Develop self-regulation skills.

Student C Develop self-advocacy skills.

Student D Interact respectfully with peers and adults.



GRAHAM & JEFFERSON | SCHOOL BASED MENTORING FOR M IDDLE SCHOOLERS

Materials

The impact of the mentoring program on both 
mentors and mentees was tracked using student 
outcome measures and formative and summative 
assessment measures. Science grades were used 
to measure student outcomes. Formative and 
summative assessment measures included (1) 
Mentor Survey, (2) Mentee Survey, (3) Mentoring 
Semi-Structured Observation Form, (4) Science 
Teacher Semi-Structured Interview, and (5) Special 
Education Teacher Semi-Structured Interview. The 
Mentor Survey included nine questions, six 
open-ended and three closed-ended questions. 
Mentors were asked to (1) identify positive 
outcomes and difficulties or challenges, (2) rate the 
quality of the match between them and their 
mentees, and (3) reflect on their objectives, needs, 
and expectations. To assist students with 
completing the Mentee Survey, a definition of a 
mentor was provided with the instructions. 
Mentees were asked if they ever had a mentor, 
how they felt about having a mentor, and whether 
they have an older brother or sister.  They also 
were asked to respond to eight sentences about 
activities they could do with their mentors, circling 

a smiley face (   ) if they agreed with the sentence 
or a frowny face ( ) if they disagreed with the 
sentence.

The Mentoring Semi-Structured Observation Form 
included five categories: (1) rapport, (2) 
organization, (3) mentoring methods, (4) personal, 
and (5) sensitivity. The category definitions for 
mentors and mentees are provided in Table 4.  
Observers were required to familiarize themselves 
with the definitions, record observable behaviors 
during the mentor-mentee session, and include 
comments.

The Science Teacher Semi-Structured Interview 
and the Special Education Teacher Semi-Structured 
Interview included 10 short-answer questions 
about each mentee?s academic performance, 
social skills, motivation, and behavior during the 
first month of science class and again toward the 
end of the science class; instructional strategies, 
impact of mentoring program on mentee?s 

behavior in science class, and area(s) of focus for 
the following year?s program.  

Table 4

Observation Categories and Definitions for 
Mentors/Mentees

Procedures

The four mentees? science grades for each quarter 
and their final science course grades were 
collected to measure student outcomes. The 
charter school uses a 10-point grading scale that is 
mandated by the state?s Department of Education 
(i.e., A=90-100%; B=80-89%; C=70-79%; D=60-69%; 
and F=51-59%). The range and difference scores 
were used to examine variation among quarter 
grades.  

The mentor survey was administered to four 
mentors during a mentor club meeting during in 
April 2018. Instructions on how to complete the 
survey were read by the researchers who left the 
room to remove any anxiety that their presence 
might cause.  

52

Cat egory Ment or Ment ee

Rapport Is respectful, fair, and 
impartial. Provides 
feedback and encourages 
questions.

Shows enthusiasm 
and asks questions.

Organization Arrives at session at 
scheduled time. Is prepared 
with materials and activities 
for   the session.

Is prepared to 
participate in 
activities. Asks 
questions and 
shares ideas.

Mentoring 
Methods

Uses relevant methods, 
aids, materials, techniques, 
and technology.

Is responsive to 
materials presented 
and methods used.

Personal Displays evidence of 
self-confidence. Maintains 
professional comportment 
and   appearance.

N/A

Sensitivity Exhibits sensitivity to 
students? personal culture, 
gender differences, and   
disabilit ies.

N/A



GRAHAM & JEFFERSON | SCHOOL BASED MENTORING FOR M IDDLE SCHOOLERS

In April 2018, the mentee survey was administered 
to the four mentees by the researchers, along with 
the special education teacher. Working 
collaboratively, they distributed and discussed the 
contents of the consent form. Since testing 
accommodations were included in the four 
mentees IEPs, the special education teacher was 
asked to participate to make certain that the 
mentees received their required accommodations. 
Mentees were asked two demographic questions: 
if they have older brothers or sisters and if they 
have had someone be a mentor to them.

Researchers observed mentoring sessions an 
average of six times over the course of the school 
year. The first mentoring session of each semester 
was observed. Additional observation sessions 
were conducted in the middle of each semester 
and at the end of each semester. Observation 
categories are listed and defined in Table 4. 

Semi-structured interview sessions with the 
science and special education teachers occurred in 
April 2018. The Science Teacher Semi-Structured 
Interview and the Special-Education Teacher 
Semi-Structured Interview questions were sent to 
the science teacher and the special education 
teacher prior to their scheduled interview dates. 
After reviewing the interview questions, the 
science teacher and the special education teacher 
requested that their interviews be conducted 
together. The two of them worked as a team to 
help students and thought a joint interview 
session would provide a comprehensive view of 
the mentoring program?s impact on their students.      

Result s

Student Outcome Measures

Student outcomes were measured using science 
grades. The grades are presented in Table 5.  The 
final course grade is the mean of the four quarter 
grades.  Based on the state?s grading scale, each 
student received a passing science grade for the 
academic year. Student B?s science grades had the 
largest amount of variation (Range=20 points), 
followed closely by Student C?s grades (Range=19 
points). The least amount of variation occurred for 

Student A?s science grades (Range=5 points).

Table 5

Mentees Science Grades for 2017/2018 School Year

Table 6 presents the difference scores among the 
four quarter grades in science for each student. 
Difference scores were computed between Q1 and 
Q2, Q2 and Q3, and Q3 and Q4. The largest 
difference score occurred between Q3 and Q4 
(d=+18) for Student C, followed closely by Student 
B with difference scores that decreased between 
Q1 and Q2 (d=-16) and increased between Q3 and 
Q4 (d=+16). The smallest difference scores 
occurred for Student A with scores decreasing 
between Q1 and Q2 (d=-3) and increasing between 
Q3 and Q4 (d=+4).

Table 6 

Difference Scores for Mentees 2017/2018 Science 
Grades

53

Ment ee Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final Grade

Student A 82 79 80 84 81

Student B 88 72 76 92 82

Student C 76 70 71 89 77

Student D 67 74 78 66 72

Ment ee Q2-Q1 Q3-Q2 Q4-Q3

Student A -3 +1 +4

Student B -16 +4 +16

Student C +6 +1 +18

Student D +7 +4 -12



GRAHAM & JEFFERSON | SCHOOL BASED MENTORING FOR M IDDLE SCHOOLERS

Mentor/Mentee Surveys  

The results showed that 50% of the students 
reported having a mentor prior to entering college. 
Only one of the four college students reported 
that this was their first time being a mentor to 
someone. 

Fifty percent reported having an older brother or 
sister and 50% reported having had a mentor in 
the past. All four mentees reported that they liked 
playing games with their mentors. The majority of 
the mentees wanted their mentor to help with 
them with homework (75%), read with them (75%), 
and teach them how to play a sport (75%).  

The reasons why the college students wanted to 
become a mentor included (1) wanting to give kids 
something they did not have in middle school, (2) 
influencing and helping people to be the best they 
can be regardless of their situation, and (3) 
realizing how much having a mentor meant to 
them and wanting to return the favor and help 
kids.

Mentoring Session Observations

Six mentoring sessions were observed by the 
researchers over the course of one academic 
school year. During the initial mentoring session, 
all mentors arrived in a timely manner, introduced 
themselves, shook hands with the mentees, and 
asked the mentees questions about their hobbies 
in hopes of making them more comfortable. 
Students A, B, C, and D answered questions and 
seemed eager to participate. The mentors and 
mentees began playing a board game to better 
establish rapport and practice social skills. Each 
mentee participated in the game; however, 
Student D appeared to become agitated waiting 
for his turn. He kept interrupting other mentees as 
they were participating in the game, and he 
eventually stood on the table. To help diffuse the 
situation, one mentor coaxed Student D from the 
table and walked around the school campus with 
him while talking with him about his feelings and 
reminding him of appropriate social skills. The 
mentor-mentee pair eventually returned to the 
mentoring room, and Student D was able to 

participate in the remainder of the session.

In subsequent observations, the confidence level 
of the mentors appeared to significantly increase. 
They arrived at each session on time, had 
necessary materials for the sessions, shook hands 
with their mentees, and displayed a caring and 
comfortable yet professional demeanor with the 
mentees. Each mentee eagerly participated in the 
sessions and appeared to become more relaxed as 
the sessions progressed. Students A, B, and C 
always followed directions from their mentors and 
answered questions respectfully. While Student D 
required gentle reminders to utilize appropriate 
social skills, the reminders decreased as the year 
progressed.   

Teacher Interviews

During the April 2018 semi-structured interviews, 
the science teacher and special education teacher 
identified general behavioral descriptions for 
academic performance, social skills, and 
motivation to complete classwork. Table 7 
presents the behavioral descriptions for the three 
6th grade students prior to participating in the 
mentoring program (during the first month of the 
school year) and after participating in the 
mentoring program (toward the end of the school 
year), as described by the science teacher and 
special education teacher in the semi-structured 
interviews.

Changes in specific behaviors were reported for 
each student. The science teacher saw growth in 
academic performance for Students A and B from 
the first quarter to the second quarter.  Prior to 
participating in the mentoring program, Student A 
would cower in a corner during science class and 
told the teacher, ?I can?t do anything.? His mentor 
worked with him on how to greet adults; that is, 
saying hello, looking them in the eyes, and shaking 
their hands.  When the interviewer arrived to 
conduct the interview sessions with the science 
teacher and special education teacher, Student A 
demonstrated the greeting he learned from his 
mentor. Both remarked on the improvement of 

54



GRAHAM & JEFFERSON | SCHOOL BASED MENTORING FOR M IDDLE SCHOOLERS

Table 7

Mentee Behaviors Displayed at Beginning & End of 
School Year

Student A?s social skills. According to the science 
teacher, Student B grew the most socially, 
demonstrating a level of maturity that was not 
evident at the beginning of the school year. While 
Student C increased his self-advocacy skills, 
progress is still needed.  His mentor worked with 
him on recognizing when he needs help. By the 
end of the mentoring program, Student C would 
tell the science teacher that he needed help with 
classwork, but he could not identify the type of 
help needed. Both the science teacher and special 
education teacher considered this a major 
improvement.  

The science teacher reported that her school 
creates a comfortable environment for introducing 
middle school students to the wonders of science 
by embedding science into its mission and using a 
project-based learning model to provide hands-on 
curriculum. She shared that the instructional 
strategies that work best with her students are 
guided notes and self-notes.  For students with an 
IEP or 504 Plan, she found dividing the guided 
notes into small chunks of information and placing 
the students in small groups to engage in 
conversations facilitated comprehension of the 
material. These students also received one-on-one 
attention, frequent repetition of concepts, and 
were given instructional materials prior to the 
lesson.

The 8th grader, Student D, joined the mentoring 
program in September 2016 at the beginning of 
his 7th grade year and had a different science 
teacher than the 6th graders. The science teacher 
was unable to be interviewed due to scheduling 
conflicts. According to the special education 
teacher, Student D displayed similar behaviors as 
the three 6th graders for academic performance, 
social skills, and motivation to complete classwork. 
He displayed a lack of interest about the 
consequences for not completing classwork, 
instigated arguments with other students, and 
showed a lack of respect for adults. Student D had 
more than 30 disciplinary referrals at the end of 
his 6th grade year. During his first year in the 
mentoring program, his mentor worked on 

55

Cat egory St udent Beginning of  
School Year

End of  School Year

Academic A Floundering, Lost, 
Overwhelmed

Attentive, 
Succeeding

B Displayed lack of 
interest about 
consequences for 
not completing 
classwork

Made efforts to 
avoid consequences 
for not completing 
classwork

C Did not follow the 
time frame for 
completing 
assignments noted 
in IEP or 504 Plan

Began completing 
assignments within 
time frame noted in 
IEP or 504 Plan

D Relied heavily on 
accommodations

Demonstrated more 
independence and 
responsibility for 
class work

Social 
Skills

A Involved in minor 
arguments with 
other students

Decrease in number 
of minor arguments 
with other students

B Difficulty 
controlling 
emotions

Informs teacher 
when upset

C Had small   
number of friends

Made friends with 
other mentees

D Disrespectful to 
adults

Has become more 
respectful to adults

Motivation A Lacked motivation 
to complete 
classwork

Showed concern 
about completing 
classwork

B Lacked 
self-confidence

Appeared more 
self-confident

C Not motivated to 
interact with other 
students

Made statements 
about looking 
forward to spending 
time with mentor 
and mentees

D Reported being 
bullied

Reported bullying 
stopped



GRAHAM & JEFFERSON | SCHOOL BASED MENTORING FOR M IDDLE SCHOOLERS

building rapport and positive social skills to reduce 
the number of disciplinary referrals. At the end of 
7th grade, the number of disciplinary referrals was 
20, a reduction of approximately 33%. The number 
of disciplinary referrals at the end of 8th grade was 
three, a reduction of approximately 90% since 6th 
grade. The special education teacher reported that 
after two years in the mentoring program, Student 
D began asking questions about the courses he 
needed to take in high school to apply to college 
and different types of careers; topics for which he 
previously showed no interest. He even began 
helping other students with their classwork.  
Student D has thrived from the extra attention his 
mentor provides and eagerly anticipates each 
week?s mentoring session. 

Discussion

Analysis of participants? science grades revealed no 
clear pattern of gains; however, all three 6th grade 
participants increased their performance in 
science from the 3rd scoring quarter to the 4th 
quarter. While Student A?s science grades 
increased by 4 points, Student B?s grades increased 
by 16 points, and Student C?s grades increased by 
18 points. Additionally, Students A and B passed 
their general education science course with a final 
grade of B, and Student C passed the course with a 
final grade of C. Although the 8th grade 
participant?s grades decreased by 12 points from 
the 3rd to the 4th quarter, he passed his general 
education science course with a final grade of C.  

Komosa-Hawkins (2010) reports, ?Outcomes need 
to be examined in relation to various 
program-related factors such as intensity and 
fidelity of mentoring as well as other variables 
specific to the individual and match that might be 
contributing to the observed outcomes? (p. 135). 
While the use of statistical data analysis 
techniques is important when measuring 
outcomes of mentor programs, its use depends on 
the type of research design or methodology. The 
purpose of this study was to examine the effects 
of the mentoring program on science performance 
and social/emotional skills for middle school 
students individually, rather than collectively.  As a 

result, the impact of participating in the mentoring 
program from the perspectives of the mentees 
was assessed primarily by using anecdotal 
statements made during observations, as well as 
their responses to three sentences included in the 
Mentee Survey. The use of these assessments is 
based on the recommendations of the special 
education teacher. Due to the accommodations 
included in the mentees IEP and 504 Plans, she 
recommended using minimal formal assessments, 
especially during the mentees first year 
participating in the program as 6th graders.  Since 
the charter school begins with 6th grade, mentees 
faced many challenges such as acclimating to a 
new educational environment, being part of a new 
social structure, and learning how to manage their 
exceptionalities.  

Anecdotal information from the science teacher, 
special education teacher, mentors, and mentees 
indicate that the mentoring program had a 
positive impact on mentees? academic 
performance, social skills, and motivation to 
complete classwork. The science teacher reported 
that many positive outcomes resulting from the 
mentor/mentee relationship were demonstrated 
by the three 6th grade students in her science 
class. The most notable outcomes were (1) 
learning self-advocacy skills, (2) owning their own 
struggles, (3) accepting who they are, (4) 
communicating their needs, and (5) accepting that 
accommodations are not ?bad? but are needed to 
help them be successful. For the special education 
teacher, the most notable positive outcomes were 
related to social skills. The mentees displayed 
higher levels of self-confidence and informed her 
that they felt ?cool? because they were involved in 
the mentoring program. While the degree of 
impact may be contributed to other contextual 
variables (e.g., acclimating to the new school 
environment and becoming more mature), both 
the science teacher and special education teacher 
were adamant that the positive outcomes students 
demonstrated in academic performance, social 
skills, and motivation to complete classwork 
resulted from their participation in the mentoring 
program.  

56



GRAHAM & JEFFERSON | SCHOOL BASED MENTORING FOR M IDDLE SCHOOLERS

The mentors reported that the relationships they 
formed with the mentees and with the other 
mentors were the most positive outcomes from 
participating in the mentoring program. Mentor B 
stated, ?I was able to see kids the kids open up 
with us about their lives, and I was able to learn 
good techniques in how to mentor.? Additional 
positive outcomes included (1) gaining experience 
working with kids that will help them become a 
teacher, (2) participating in the program was a 
stress relief from college life, (4) learning how to be 
comfortable with starting and carrying on 
conversations with mentees to be able to 
understand their personalities, and what they 
enjoy doing in-school and out-of-school, and (5) 
developing genuine relationships and being a 
person the mentee trusts helps improve their 
self-confidence and their ability to leave their 
comfort zone by trying new things and being 
successful.  

Observations of mentoring sessions and analysis 
of mentor surveys suggest that the four mentors 
met the characteristics of ?highly attuned? mentors 
due to the mutual respect they shared with their 
mentees, their genuine interest in the well-being of 
their mentees, and their flexibility to change their 
plans based on the needs and moods of their 
mentees (Pryce, 2012).  Additionally, the mentors 
were observed to become advocates for the 
students. When Student D was demonstrating 
behavioral difficulties during some early 
mentoring sessions, the mentors advocated for 
him to remain in the program, admitting that 
although it could be difficult working with him in 
mentoring sessions at times, they felt the sessions 
were benefiting him.

The four mentees reported that they enjoyed 
having a mentor and spending time with their 
mentor. However, they reported that the best 
thing about the mentoring program is having 
someone who understands them. Student A was 
observed walking around the school grounds with 
his mentor and reported that he likes talking about 
video games and getting help with his homework 
and especially likes listening to his mentor 

describe what it is like being a college student. 
Student B was observed playing basketball with his 
mentor in the school gymnasium and reported 
that he likes when his mentor is able to have lunch 
with him, that it makes him feel really ?cool? having 
a college student eat lunch with him. Student C 
was observed playing a board game with his 
mentor. He reported that he really likes playing 
board games and loves it when he wins. According 
to Student C, beating his mentor in a board game 
makes him feel like he can win at anything.  

One unexpected outcome of the study was the 
improved behavior skills of Student D, as 
evidenced by a significant reduction in disciplinary 
referrals. Reduction of discipline referrals was also 
a prominent theme in other studies on 
school-based mentoring in middle grades 
(Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2006; Lampley & 
Johnson, 2010; McQuillin, Strait, Smith, & Ingram, 
2015). Student D participated in the mentoring 
program for two years and reported that the first 
year he really did not want to get to know his 
mentor because he knew his mentor would 
eventually leave. He was observed saying unkind 
things to his mentor and being disrespectful.  
When he was assigned the same mentor in the 
second year of the program, he reported being 
overjoyed. His mentor had told him that he would 
return the next school year; however, Student D 
reported that people always say ?things like that? 
and it is never true. When he saw that he had the 
same mentor as the previous year, he began 
displaying a positive attitude and acting respectful 
to his mentor and other adults. He described his 
mentor as ?genuine and kind-hearted.?  Student D 
reported that the major change in his life is not 
getting into trouble all of the time. He is very 
proud that he only received three disciplinary 
referrals in 8th grade, as compared to over 30 
referrals in 6th grade and 20 referrals in 7th grade, 
and he plans to reduce the number to zero when 
he gets to 9th grade.  

Lim it at ions

While anecdotal information indicates the 
mentoring partnerships yielded positive results, 

57



GRAHAM & JEFFERSON | SCHOOL BASED MENTORING FOR M IDDLE SCHOOLERS

limitations in this study must be addressed. The 
anecdotal information was limited due to the small 
number of mentor-mentee partnerships and 
focused only on the individual impact of the 
mentoring program. Increasing the number of 
mentor-mentee partnerships would increase the 
amount of anecdotal information and provide 
opportunities to use content analysis approaches 
such as conventional, directed, or summative. 
Another limitation was the use of quarterly grades 
as the only student outcome measure. There are 
approximately 9 weeks in each quarter, making it 
difficult to identify a relationship between 
participation in the mentoring program and 
science grades. Including grades on tests, quizzes, 
and homework would provide outcome measures 
that occur within closer time interval with the 
mentoring sessions.  

Recom m endat ions

There are several future recommendations to 
make the mentor program stronger. The special 
education teacher recommends scheduling a 
meeting at the beginning of the fall term to 
introduce mentors to their mentees and key 
personnel who work with the mentees, such as 
science teachers, middle school counselors, and 
school administrators. She also suggests that 
mentors create profiles about themselves to share 
with the mentees. Other recommendations 
include scheduling a meeting between parents, 
mentors, school personnel, and college professors 
to build rapport and to discuss individual goals for 
each mentees; allowing mentees to tour the 
college campus and visit a college classroom and 
lab to provide them the opportunity to see where 
their mentors attend school and to compare and 
contrast the college environment with their school; 
scheduling more opportunities for successes to be 
celebrated; and recruiting a more diverse pool of 
mentors. Additional studies including a larger 
number of participants also need to be completed 
to measure the success of the program.  

References

Anastasia, T.T., Skinner, R.L., & Mundhenk, S.E. 
(2012). Youth mentoring: Program and mentor 
best practices. Journal of Family and Consumer 
Sciences, 104 (2), 38-44.

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. (n.d.) 114 years 
of history. Retrieved from 
http://www.bbbs.org/history/

Converse, N., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2009). 
Evaluation of a school-based mentoring 
program for at-risk middle school youth. 
Remedial and Special Education, 3, 33-46.

Garringer, M., Kupersmidt, J., Rhodes, J., Stelter, R., 
& Tai, T. (2015). Elements of effective practice for 
mentoring (4th ed.). Boston, MA: MENTOR: The 
National Mentoring Partnership.  

Gregg, N., Galyardt, A., Wolfe, G., Moon, N., & Todd, 
R. (2017). Virtual mentoring and persistence in 
STEM for students with disabilit ies. Career 
Development and Transition for Exceptional 
Individuals, 40, 205-214. DOI 
10.1177/2165143416651717

Komosa-Hawkins, K. (2010). Best practices in 
school-based mentoring programs for 
adolescents. Child & Youth Services, 31, 121-137. 
DOI 10.1080/0145935X.2009.524477

Pryce, J. (2012). Mentor attunement: An approach 
to successful school-based mentoring 
relationships. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 
29, 285-305. DOI 10.1007/s10560-012-0260-6

Lampley, J.H, & Johnson, K.C. (2010). Mentoring 
at-risk youth: Improving academic achievement 
in middle school students. Nonpartisan 
Education Review, 6, 1-12.

Leake, D.W., Burgstahler, S, & Izzo, M.V. (2011). 
Promoting transition success for culturally and 
linguistically diverse students with disabilit ies: 
The value of mentoring. Creative Education, 2, 
121-129. DOI 10.4236/ce.2011.22017

Lindsay, S., and Munson, M. (2018). Mentoring for 
youth with disabilities. Boston, MA: National 
Mentoring Resource Center. Retrieved from 
http://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/im

58



GRAHAM & JEFFERSON | SCHOOL BASED MENTORING FOR M IDDLE SCHOOLERS

ages/PDF/Mentoring_for_Youth_with_Disabilit ie
s_Population_Review.pdf

McQuillin, S, Strait, S., Smith, B, & Ingram, A. (2015). 
Brief instrumental school-based mentoring for 
first- and second-year middle school students: 
A randomized evaluation. Journal of Community 
Psychology, 43, 885-899. DOI: 10.1002/jcop

National Mentoring Resource Center. (n.d.). School 
based mentoring. Retrieved from 
https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/in
dex.php/30-topic-areas/182-school-based-ment
oring.html

Pham, Y.K. & Murray, C. (2016). Social relationships 
among adolescents with disabilit ies: Unique 
and cumulative associations with adjustment. 
Exceptional Children, 82(2), 234 ?250. DOI: 
10.1177/0014402915585491

 

59


	Graham (2019) proof final
	Page 1
	Page 2
	Page 3
	Page 4
	Page 5
	Page 6
	Page 7
	Page 8
	Page 9
	Page 10
	Page 11
	Page 12


