A Mentor Training Programme: Evaluation of Effectiveness.

Maree ONeill

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology, The University of Auckland, 2005.

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Project K mentor training programme. Participants were training-mentors and their trainers; as well as current-mentors and their students. Data was collected through questionnaires: Training-mentors knowledge of components in the programme was measured before and after they completed the training, while their trainers rated the mentors on their mentoring knowledge and skills at the completion of the training. The mentoring knowledge of current-mentors was measured using the same questionnaire as the training-mentors. Students rated their mentors skills and the whole mentoring experience. At the completion of the training programme the training-mentors knew approximately 78% of the information covered in the training. The mentors performed best on; knowledge around what a mentor is, policies and procedures of Project K, confidentiality and family involvement, while men also scored higher on reflection and feedback than on other topics. Training-mentors were most confident in their skills to help a young person access resources at the completion of the training. Differences were found between how the training-mentors performed on the posttraining questionnaire and how they were rated by their trainers, as well as between current mentor scores and how they were rated by their students. Emotions the students felt when with their mentor were investigated; students were happy, interested and inspired the most. There were no differences for the scores on the knowledge components between the training-mentors at the completion of training and the current-mentors. Training-mentors were however more confident in their skills to help a young person access resources than the current -mentors were. Several differences were found between participants from Auckland compared to

II

those from other regions. Explanations for the research findings and recommendations for Project K mentor training, as well as limitations of the study and future research are discussed.

III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank all of the Project K mentors, students and trainers who participated in this study. Also, I would like to thank the participating Project K programme directors and co-ordinators.

I would like to thank Project K for making this research possible and the time and help they gave me, especially Jenny Hylton and Blair Gilbert. I would like to make a special thank you to Niki Harr of Auckland University for her support and feedback and generosity with her time and knowledge.

My family, friends and colleagues are gratefully acknowledged for their support and encouragement during this study.

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND GRAPHS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
INFORMAL MENTORING PROGRAMMES FORMAL MENTORING PROGRAMMES IS MENTORING EFFECTIVE? IS MENTORING IN NEW ZEALAND EFFECTIVE? MENTOR/MENTEE RELATIONSHIP MENTORING BEST PRACTICE PROJECT K APPLYING BEST PRACTICE TO PROJECT K CURRENT STUDY MENTOR TRAINING IMPORTANT COMPONENTS FOR MENTOR TRAINING PROJECT K TRAINING APPLYING IMPORTANT COMPONENTS FOR MENTOR TRAINING TO PROJECT K OTHER IMPORTANT COMPONENTS IN PROJECT K MENTOR TRAINING THE PRESENT STUDY

II IV V VIII 1
2 4 6 10 13 21 23 26 28 28 29 31 33 35 36

CHAPTER II: METHOD

PARTICIPANTS MEASURES

39
39 42 42 44 48 52

Mentor questionnaire Student questionnaire Trainer questionnaire

PROCEDURE

CHAPTER III: RESULTS

DATA SCREENING ANALYSIS OVERVIEW OF SECTION MENTOR MODULE SCORES PRE AND POST TRAINING PROGRAMME MENTOR SKILL-CONFIDENCE BEFORE AND AFTER TRAINING PROGRAMME MENTOR SELF-REPORTED OVERALL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO BE AN EFFECTIVE MENTOR, BEFORE AND AFTER THE TRAINING PROGRAMME MODULE SCORES FROM MENTORS AT THE COMPLETION OF TRAINING PROGRAMME (POST) AND FROM THE TRAINER OVERALL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO BECOME AN EFFECTIVE MENTOR FROM MENTORS POST TRAINING AND FROM TRAINERS

58
58 59 59 59 63 69 70 71

TRAINER REPORTED MENTOR INTERACTION WITH OTHERS AND MENTOR INTERACTION WITH YOUNG PEOPLE TRAINER REPORTED MENTOR COMMITMENT MODULE SCORES FROM CURRENT-MENTORS AND STUDENTS STUDENT EMOTIONS STUDENTS OVERALL RATING OF MENTORS MODULE SCORES FROM MENTORS POST TRAINING AND CURRENTMENTORS SKILL-CONFIDENCE ITEMS FROM MENTORS POST TRAINING AND CURRENT-MENTORS KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL QUESTIONS FROM MENTORS POST TRAINING AND CURRENT-MENTORS

72 73 73 75 77 77 78 79

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER TOPICS THAT REQUIRE GREATER EMPHASIS IN TRAINING TRAINING TO INCREASE MENTOR KNOWLEDGE DEFICITS TRAINING TO INCREASE MENTOR KNOWLEDGE AND SUBSEQUENT SKILL THE SKILLS MENTORS GAIN CONFIDENCE IN THROUGH TRAINING EFFECTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES MENTOR OVERALL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL STUDENT EMOTIONS EXPLANATIONS FOR DIFFERENCES FOUND IN THIS RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECT K MENTOR TRAINING LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY FUTURE RESEARCH CONCLUSION

81
81 84 84 88 92 95 97 99 101 102 103 105 106 107

APPENDIX A:
MENTOR QUESTIONNAIRE WITH MARK ALLOCATIONS

108

APPENDIX B:
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

115

APPENDIX C:
TRAINER QUESTIONNAIRE

119

APPENDIX D:
PROGRAMME DIRECTOR INFORMATION SHEET PROGRAMME DIRECTOR CONSENT FORM

122
122 124

APPENDIX E:
TRAINING-MENTOR INFORMATION SHEET TRAINING-MENTOR CONSENT FORM

125
125 127

APPENDIX F:
CURRENT MENTOR INFORMATION SHEET

128
128

VI

CURRENT MENTOR CONSENT FORM

130

APPENDIX G:
STUDENT INFORMATION SHEET STUDENT CONSENT FORM

131
131 133

APPENDIX H:
TRAINER INFORMATION SHEET TRAINER CONSENT FORM

134
134 136

APPENDIX I:
STUDENTS PARENT INFORMATION SHEET STUDENTS PARENT CONSENT FORM

137
137 139

APPENDIX J:
TRAINING GROUP INSTRUCTIONS

140

APPENDIX K:
STUDENT COVER SHEET MENTOR COVER SHEET

141
141 142

REFERENCE LIST:

143

VII

LIST OF TABLES AND GRAPHS TABLES Page: TABLE 1:

COMPOSITION OF PARTICIPANT RESPONSES FROM THE TRAINING GROUPS.

39

TABLE 2:
COMPOSITION OF PARTICIPANT RESPONSES FROM CURRENT-MENTOR STUDENT GROUPS.

40

TABLE 3:
COMPOSITION OF QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN RATES FROM CURRENT-MENTORS AND STUDENTS.

56

TABLE 4:
MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MODULES (PRE AND POST SCORES COMBINED) FOR THE TRAINING-MENTORS.

60

TABLE 5:
MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR THE SIX MODULES, AT PRE AND POST TRAINING MEASURES.

61

TABLE 6:
MEAN STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES ON MODULES FOR FEMALE AND MALE PARTICIPANTS.

62

TABLE 7:
MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ITEMS OF TRAINING-MENTOR SKILL-CONFIDENCE.

63

TABLE 8:
MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES OF SKILL-CONFIDENCE FOR MALES AT PRE AND POST TRAINING MEASURES.

66

TABLE 9:
MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES OF SKILL-CONFIDENCE ITEMS FOR FEMALES AT PRE AND POST MEASURES.

67

TABLE 10:
MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR MALES AND FEMALES ON SIGNIFICANT SKILL-CONFIDENCE ITEMS AT PRE TRAINING MEASURES.

68

TABLE 11:
MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR MALES AND FEMALES ON SIGNIFICANT SKILL-CONFIDENCE ITEMS AT POST TRAINING MEASURES.

68

TABLE 12:
MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR THE SIX MODULES FROM TRAINING-MENTORS POST TRAINING AND TRAINER MEASURES.

71

VIII

TABLE 13:
MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES OF OVERALL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL QUESTIONS ACROSS REGIONAL CATEGORIES.

72

TABLE 14:
MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES OF CURRENT MENTOR AND STUDENT MEASURES FROM THE SIX MODULE TOTALS.

74

GRAPHS GRAPH 1:
PRE AND POST TRAINING-MENTOR AND TRAINER MEAN SCORES FOR THE SIX MODULES.

61

GRAPH 2:
CURRENT-MENTOR AND STUDENT MEAN SCORES FOR THE SIX MODULES.

75

IX

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

In adolescence, youth move towards a social environment that is dominated by their peers, has less involvement with caring adults and involves greater demands on their time, with part time work, romantic relationships and greater expectations at school (Darling, 2005). Mentoring is one tool that the community has employed to help youth cope with these changes, and is commonly defined as a one-to-one relationship between a caring adult and a student who needs support to achieve academic, career, social or personal goals (McPartland & Nettles, 1991, p.568). The mentoring relationship can occur naturally (informal mentoring) or can be contrived in a mentoring programme (formal mentoring), however, many youth may not have an adult in their life to mentor them, thus, programmes are established (formal mentoring) to capture the benefits of mentoring for those youth who need it.

A variety of research has been conducted on the effectiveness of various mentoring programmes both for the mentee/youth and for the mentor (de Anda, 2001; McPartland & Nettles, 1991; Portwood et. al., 2005; Schmidt, Marks & Derrico, 2004; McLean, 2004; Hartley, 2004). Mentoring has been found to be effective across youth varying in demographic background characteristics including; age, gender, race/ethnicity and family structure (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine & Cooper, 2002). General benefits for the mentee/youth include; exposure to a positive role model, help in focusing on their future and setting academic, social and career goals, exposure to new experiences and people from diverse backgrounds, an attentive and concerned friend, as well as encouragement in emotional and social growth and

fostering increased confidence and self-esteem (Pardini, n.d.; Barrett-Hayes, 1999). The benefits for the mentors include; gaining personal and professional satisfaction in helping a student, gaining recognition from their peers, improving interpersonal skills, increasing awareness of those outside themselves and promoting a deeper understanding of youth and societal problems (Pardini, n.d.). Mentoring has also broadened in application from one-on-one mentoring to include group (McLean, 2004) and peer mentoring (Visser, 2004), and takes place in a variety of settings including universities (Cameron-Jones & OHara, 1995) and workplaces (Hegstad & Wentling, 2004) as well as schools (Slicker and Palmer, 1993).

To help create positive results from mentoring it is important to ensure that the mentor has the knowledge and skills to help the mentee/youth and to promote a healthy positive mentoring relationship (Liang, Tracy, Taylor & Williams, 2002). Mentor training is therefore essential to provide the knowledge and skills to ensure the best possible benefits for both the mentors and mentees/youth in mentoring relationships (Parra, DuBois, Neville & Pugh-Lilly, 2002; Sipe, 2002; Ganser, 1999; Jekielek, Moore, Hair & Scarupa, 2002).

Informal mentoring programmes The majority of research on mentoring focuses on formal mentoring programmes as opposed to natural or informal mentoring. Natural mentoring frequently occurs in workplace settings, with mentors helping mentees with career-related decisions (Chao, Walz & Gardner, 1992; Packard, Walsh & Seidenberg, 2004; Bouquillon, Sosik & Lee, 2005; Liang et. al., 2002; Darling, Hamilton, Toyokawa & Matsuda, 2002; Cronan-Hillix, Gensheimer, Cronan-Hillix & Davidson, 1986; Hollingsworth &

Fassinger, 2002). However, some natural mentoring does occur in young p eoples lives (Zimmerman, Bingenheimer & Notaro, 2002; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005; Philip & Hendry, 2000), through the support they receive from parents, teachers and others, and in the normal course of their lives as they interact with, seek out, learn from and are guided by older people and quite often by peers with more experience (Hartley, 2004, p.10).

One study (Chao et. al., 1992) looked at the psychosocial versus career related functions of formal and informal mentoring of graduate classes at an American University and found that those mentees who received informal mentoring reported more career related support from mentors than did those in formal mentorships. When looking at organisational socialisation, satisfaction and salary, there were significant positive outcomes for mentees in informal mentoring compared to non-mentored individuals, and the scores for mentees in formal mentoring fell between those of informal and non-mentored individuals.

Research on informal mentoring for youth has been reported to have positive results for those involved. One study by Zimmerman et. al. (2002) examined the effects that natural mentors have on the lives of urban adolescents; youth with a natural mentor reported lower levels of marijuana use and non-violent delinquency than adolescents without natural mentors. The youth also reported higher levels of school attachment and school efficacy and a belief in the importance of doing well in school. These youth were also less severely affected by the negative school attitudes or behaviours of their peers. The natural mentors helped the youth reduce problem behaviours and avoid peers who provided negative influences.

Using a national longitudinal study of adolescent health in America, DuBois and Silverthorn (2005) examined the effects of natural mentors on students in grades 7-12. Those mentors in non-familial or professional roles (outside the family) were more likely to be associated with favourable outcomes in the domains of education and physical health, than familial adult mentors. Closeness with the mentor was associated with positive outcomes in psychological well-being involving; greater selfesteem, life satisfaction, fewer depressive symptoms and reports of suicidal ideas.

Formal mentoring programmes However, the level of informal support available to young people in western countries has declined over the past couple of decades (Hartley, 2004) and thus, there has been an emergence of formal mentoring programmes to provide support for youth (Rhodes, Grossman & Resch, 2000; LoSciuto, Rajala, Townsend & Taylor, 1996; Lyones & Oppler, 2004; Lee & Cramond, 1999; Rhodes, Reddy, Roffman & Grossman, 2005; Dennison, 2000). The aim of formal mentoring programmes are to provide young people with support and guidance through planned relationships which are purposeful in that they focus on young peoples social and learning development (Hartley, p 10.). These mentoring programmes have become increasingly popular as a preventative intervention strategy for youth (DuBois & Neville, 1997).

One formal mentoring programme that resulted in benefits for youth was Across Ages in America. Across Ages involved older adult volunteers (defined as 55 years +) who mentored one or two high risk youth twice a week for the school year. The mentors spent a minimum of four hours a week with their mentees on variety of activities; helping with homework, attending sporting or cultural events and community service

(LoSciuto et. al., 1996). LoSciuto et. al. examined the effectiveness of three groups; those receiving the Positive Youth Development Curriculum (PYDC), community service for the elderly, a workshop during school involving problem solving skills, self-esteem and health information, a substance abuse prevention programme and a parental workshop to strengthen the bonds between parents and children (referred to as no mentoring group). The second group involved students who received the same programmes as the previous group but also received mentoring from an adult (referred to as mentoring group). There was also a control group that received no intervention.

The researchers found that the mentoring group compared to the no mentoring group performed better on attitudes towards school and future, attitudes towards older people and frequency of substance abuse. In addition the mentoring group scored higher compared to the control group on all of the items mentioned as well as a well-being scale, knowledge about older people, reactions to situations involving drug use and community service. The mentoring group also had fewer absentees than the other two groups; no mentoring and control. The students perceived by staff as being highly involved with their mentors (defined as exceptional mentoring) were also absent less often than those whose mentors were involved at an average or marginal level. Those with exceptional mentoring also had better attitudes towards school, future and elders, attitudes towards older people, reactions to situations involving drug use and knowledge about substance abuse. Thus, higher levels of mentoring positively affect outcome measures.

Another formal mentoring programme that had positive results for youth is the Norwood Schools mentorship programme in America (da Costa, Klak & Schinke, 2000). Mentors were recruited from the community and mentored one-on-one a socio-economically or educationally disadvantaged student, in school time, for 30 minutes once per week, minimum. In an evaluation the students had improved literacy, writing ability and their reading ability increased a little. The social growth of the students was also noted by their teachers in an interview (da Costa et. al.).

Is mentoring effective? Mentoring programmes have been found to be effective in a variety of countries, with most research originating in the USA. First this section will look at research that has positive effects for mentored youth followed by a study that is less optimistic about the benefits of youth mentoring. This section will also examine studies that have emphasised the benefits of mentoring for the mentors themselves.

Effective mentoring for youth The Big Brothers Big Sisters of America programme (BB/BS) has widespread use, not only in the USA but branch programmes around the world. The BB/BS programme involves youth aged five to eighteen, who generally have no more than one parent actively engaged in their lives. The youth and their adult mentors typically engage in a variety of leisure and career related discussions and activities, with a general goal of promoting the youths positive development (Rhodes et. al., 2000). Rhodes et. al. evaluated a sample group from this programme compared to a control group. They found those who received mentoring improved in scholastic competence, school attendance and improved perceptions of and actual parental

relationships; the researchers indicated that the support from another adult helped improved the quality of the parent-child relationship. Those who received mentoring also made improvements in pro-social values, had less truancy and improved their grades.

Research has also been conducted on the Big Brothers Big Sisters programme comparing the effects of cross-race versus same-race mentor student matches. Both cross-race and same-race matches appear to have positive and negative aspects, especially for minority groups. In BB/BS research by Rhodes, Reddy, Grossman and Lee (2002) adolescents in same race matches were more likely to report the initiation of alcohol use than were adolescents in cross-race matches. The researchers also examined the effects on minority adolescents and noted that minority boys in crossrace matches experienced a greater decrement in perceived scholastic competence and self-worth than did minority boys in same-race matches. Also minority girls in crossrace matches experienced a larger decrement in their value of academic success and self-worth than did minority girls in same-race matches. However, parents and guardians held more positive impressions of cross-race relationships and noted improvements in their childrens peer relationships, mentioning how the mentors built on their childs strengths and how the mentors provided recreational and social opportunities for their child.

A branch of the Big Brothers Big Sisters programme involves big buddies (older students) mentoring little buddies (younger students). Research involving these younger students has found that the overall objective of reducing drop outs was not achieved but that other positive aspects were noted (Dennison, 2000). The big

buddies meet with the younger at risk students twice a week for 45 minutes for a year and the time they spent together focused on relationship building and any academicdeficit areas of the little buddies (Dennison). In her research Dennison found some positive aspects, although no decrease in drop out rates. Most students did demonstrate a more positive school attitude which was measured by, an increase in classroom cooperative behaviour, as well as whether the little buddies appeared to enjoy school more and whether they were less needy. Also the majority of little buddies improved one grade level in the academic subject that they primarily received tutoring in from their big buddies.

Other programmes with positive outcomes include Each One-Reach One in America (Hon & Shorr, 1998). Mentors from the community met with their mentee for a minimum of four hours per month during academic year, they also talked on the phone in between, planned activities and established personal goals. Hon and Shorr found that the majority of mentors and students wanted to continue with the programme. The most successful mentors, according to the students, were the mentors who showed up consistently with the intent of having fun and making friends. Students showed improvements in their grade point averages, attendance, work habits and cooperation grades for those who had developed special relationships, which was defined as a mentor who showed extra care and spent a lot of extra time with the student on weekends participating in fun activities.

The REACH (rendering educational assistance through caring hands) programme (Blum & Jones, 1993) also had success with its mentoring. REACH involved school personnel voluntarily meeting a small group of students, who were identified as

potential drop outs every day and helped them fulfil their academic responsibilities and to go to extracurricular activities with them. The programme resulted in improved promptness and preparation for class, the quality and quantity of daily assignments completed, the participation in class, classroom behaviour, positive interaction with peers and more positive report card grades.

Ineffective mentoring for youth One American mentoring programme that did not have such positive results is The Brothers Project (Royse, 1998) involving student mentees. Mentees were AfricanAmerican teenagers between the ages of 14 and 16 who lived in a female-headed household that was below the poverty line and who had less than grade equivalency in reading, maths and science. Mentors were African-American college graduate male volunteers. The programme resulted in no difference between the control and treatment groups on self-esteem, attitudes about drugs, grade point averages, school absences and disciplinary infractions.

Benefits for mentors Research has also promoted the benefits of mentoring for the mentor, emphasising that it is not only youth who benefit from mentoring relationships but that mentors also find it very rewarding. Such mentors report on how beneficial mentoring was for them and how much they had learnt from their mentee (Schmidt et. al., 2004). In the learning connection mentoring programme (TLC) in America (Schmidt et. al.), college student volunteer mentors reported their reasons for mentoring at risk fourth graders (9year olds). They mentored because they wanted to make a difference in a

childs life and also to supplement their own classroom learnin g experiences in psychology or education.

A peer group mentoring programme in South Africa (McLean, 2004) resulted in mentors commenting on the most rewarding part of mentoring being the relationships that had developed, being able to help mentees adjust to life at medical school, and their own personal development in skill acquisition and maturity. They also noted improvements in their interpersonal and communication skills.

Scottish research (Cameron-Jones & OHara, 1995) on teachers mentoring students resulted in students feeling the benefits of the time the mentors had spent on them and on the co-ordination of their experiences in school. Analysis showed that mentors concentrated on supporting their students in a positive way, being a professional example and giving feedback to their students. The mentors were highly positive about the mentoring scheme and that it should continue in the future.

Is Mentoring in New Zealand effective? Several mentoring programmes have operated in N Z, many of them based on the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America programme. The Big Buddy Auckland Programme operated under Man Alive and Edendale School to help at risk young boys who have no father consistently in their life. Adult male mentors met with their mentees for a minimum of two hours per week for at least one year to help the boys nurture a relationship with a significant male role model.

10

The Just-Us Youth Buddy Programme aimed to provide emotional support and an attentive positive role model for children who had significant behavioural and social needs due to parental incarceration.

Kaikoura Mentoring for Children/Youth At Risk Project, aimed to provide culturally appropriate educational, employment and social assistance to the people of Kaikoura. The youth were at risk; having poor school performance, behavioural problems, poor social skills and a family history of substance abuse or domestic violence. Mentors from the community mentored the youth a few hours a week for a year. Activities included ordinary day to day activities, cultural experiences, outings, fun activities and the involvement in the mentors family life.

The Presbyterian Support Services North Otago Buddy Programme provided a friend for children between the ages of four and twelve who were in need of additional adult support. The children were at risk with low self-esteem, poor school performance, poor social skills, behaviour problems, lack of positive role models, parental disability, history of abuse or the family had no other community support.

Tararua Big Brother/Big Sisters: Tukana/Taina Mentoring Programme targeted eight to fifteen year olds who had potential to become at risk for offending. The mentors and mentees met one to two hours per week for a minimum of one year (Ave et. al., 1999).

These programmes all appear promising in helping young people, however, there are no published evaluations of the effectiveness of these mentoring programmes. The following will look at two New Zealand mentoring programmes that have published

11

their results; of which one programme demonstrates the positive outcomes of youth mentoring while the other, which lacked the main goal achievement did result in other benefits for the participating youth.

The Mentoring for Children/Youth At Risk Demonstration Project (Ave et. al., 1999) resulted in positive benefits for mentees. The programme aimed to develop positive interests, skills and pro-social behavioural patterns among youth at risk. It also aimed to enhance school attendance and academic performance of at risk youth. From short term evaluations, they reported that the mentoring relationships were described in very positive terms; the little buddies enjoyed spending time with their mentors. The little buddies gained access to new experiences, developed new skills, were being introduced to new interests and also enjoyed having the attention of an adult. Most teachers also reported improvements in the performance of the little buddies at school.

Another New Zealand programme (Irving, Moore & Hamilton, 2003) that has evaluated its mentoring involved teachers mentoring top students who were not fulfilling their academic potential. The mentoring did not involve academic tutoring but was focused on encouraging students to develop additional skills and remove some barriers to their success. The activities involved goal setting, time management and problem solving skills. The structure was relatively informal and the mentors and students met according to their own timetable, with most meeting weekly or fortnightly. However, mentoring did not have a beneficial impact on the academic results of the mentored students. Some other benefits were found though, increased confidence, an enhanced ability to tackle an academic examination and an empowerment of the students with tools they could use for future study.

12

Mentor/Mentee relationship Target populations Mentees: The majority of mentoring programmes especially those in the United States, such as the widely used Big Brothers/Big Sisters programme select students by identifying those who could benefit from the presence of an additional caring adult in their life and are at risk for dropping out of school (Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, 2004).

The term at-risk has been used to describe a variety of behaviours which have been suggested to sit on an at -risk continuum. One such at -risk continuum is that proposed by McWhirter et. al. (1995). On this continuum, youth from a minority group coined at-risk (Holland, 1996) would be considered remote risk (second level), with demographic characteristics of low socioeconomic status and ethnicity being associated with dropping out, drug use and teen pregnancy. The youth involved in research using the Big Brothers/Big Sisters programme (Thompson & KellyVance, 2001) would be classified as high-risk (in the middle of the continuum), with family, school and social interaction stressors as well as deficits in social skills and coping behaviours. Some studies however, involve youth who would be considered at imminent risk (Jackson, 2002), (fourth of five levels) with delinquent behaviour; drug use and self-destructive behaviours.

Mentor programmes offer the greatest potential benefits to youth who can be considered at-risk, but not those based solely on individual level characteristics, according to DuBois et. al. (2002). Rather than just academic failure, mentoring works best for those youth who have low socio-economic status, environmental risk

13

and damage (DuBois, et. al.). McPartland and Nettles (1991) also note that the effects are better for at -risk students who have less severe initial educational disadvantages. Jekielek et al (2002) writes similarly, that those quite disadvantaged or at -risk seem to benefit most from mentoring, but they still had to have motivation to want to do well.

For youth considered remote risk on the McWhirter et. al. (1995) scale, one American mentoring programme, Project 2000 (Holland, 1996) found promising results for minority youth. Project 2000 aimed to provide opportunities for young black boys to work with adult males in a school setting, especially during primary grade years. This was to provide positive adult male role models, particularly African American men in the daily school life of African American boys. Students in Project 2000 had significantly higher GPA and test scores than did the students in the control group (comparable elementary school in same section of the city with after school tutors and other extracurricular activities, but no mentoring). There was no significant difference between the academic achievement of girls and the boys in the programme, but girls scored higher than boys in the control group. The boys in Project 2000 had significantly higher GPA and test scores than did the boys in the control group in almost every subject area. Also 85% of Project 2000 boys were at or above grade level in almost every subject under examination while 85% of the boys in the control group were below grade level in these areas.

The majority of youth in mentoring programmes fall in the high-risk category, with the youth displaying some social and academic deficits. Studies involving minority

14

and non-minority students in this category have noted improvements in GPA scores and school subjects, these will be discussed more in detail below.

One American mentoring programme (Diversi & Mecham, 2005), that has positive outcomes for high-risk students, aimed to empower students to find academic success and to foster a more bicultural identity. Students in the programme were failing classes or had behavioural problems, and were immigrants or had immigrant parents with little or no fluency in English. Mentoring occurred after school, twice a week for one and a half hours for the eighth to ninth graders. Mentors were mainly female Caucasian college students, and mentoring took place in a group format with four to five mentors and 20-25 students. The groups worked on homework, tests, school projects and acculturation issues, with an aim t o increase students awareness of biculturalism. They also participated in informal activities outside of school. Diversi and Mecham found that mentoring helped the students understand and complete homework, have a fun time with the mentors and that the mentors were seen as role models, people who had their lives together. The students also had major increases in GPA scores, and a decrease in problem behaviour; involving disturbing class, intimidating or fighting with other students and being disrespectful to school personnel. The youth who left the programme experienced a decline in grades.

Research on the Big Brothers/Big Sisters programme (Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001) for high-risk youth found that mentoring had a positive impact on the academic achievement of the participants. Mentees were boys from single parent homes with an additional risk factor, such as truancy or drug use. The volunteers and mentees met one-on-one weekly for two to four hours, for one year or more. The

15

purpose of mentoring was to establish a friendship, and the activities involved socialising events. Thompson and Kelly-Vance found that boys in the programme performed significantly better than those in the control (boys waiting to be assigned a mentor) on a test of educational achievement. The treatment group also performed better in reading and maths than the control group, with no difference for spelling.

Mentoring programmes do not all have positive outcomes for high-risk youth. One American mentoring programme (Slicker & Palmer, 1993) that did not find improvements, found no reduction in the dropout rate of the mentored students compared to those that were not mentored. Students were 10th graders who were identified as at risk for leaving school before graduation, which was measured by two of; failure of courses, retention in a grade, not enough credits or low scores in reading, maths or both. Mentors were school personnel and mentoring took place in school hours, three times a week for six months. Slicker and Palmer found that relative to a control group, the high risk mentored high school students showed no improvement in drop out rates or grades. However, the authors then divided the students into those who had been effectively mentored and those who had not (based on the students evaluations of their mentoring experiences), and found a significant improvement in achievement and return-to-school rates for those in the effective mentoring group.

Reduced school infractions, and decreases in parent-reported internalising and externalising behaviour were found for young adolescence at imminent risk for delinquent behaviour in an America study (Jackson, 2002). The programme was designed to give alternative, pro-social role models for youth with a history of

16

problem behaviour. Students spent an average of 15-20 hours a week with their mentee socialising. Teacher-report scores however, indicated no significant changes on the Behavior Assessment system for Children (BASC), but the author notes that the teachers may have been biased with those students labelled trouble-makers and thus, the teachers may have failed to notice any significant gains.

Other programmes targeting at -risk youth have been successful, with improving classroom behaviour and activities of potential school drop outs (REACH, Blum & Jones, 1993), helping learning disabled children with school adjustment, resulting in higher self-esteem, skills and increases in responsible behaviours (CAMP, Noll, 1997), as well as better school connectedness (CAMP, Karcher & Lindwall, 2003).

Mentor recruitment Many formal mentoring programmes utilize members of the community to help youth, with some like Each one-reach one (da Costa et. al., 2000) involving people who express their interest in the programme, (Dubois et. al., 2002; Portwood et. al., 2005; Hon & Shorr, 1998; BB/BS, Parra et. al., 2002; Rhodes et. al., 2000). Other programmes target specific members of the community; Project Rescue used firefighters as mentors (de Anda, 2001), the Windermere Boulevard School mentoring programme recruited members of the Rotary Club (Terry, 1999), PROJECT 2000 specifically recruited African American adult males to mentor African American boys (Holland, 1996), and the Across Ages programme recruited older adult volunteers all 55 years and over (LoSciuto et. al., 1996).

17

Some programmes recruit mentors from within the mentees organisation, such as school personnel (Irving et. al., 2003; Cameron-Jones & OHara, 1995; Slicker & Palmer, 1993; REACH, Blum & Jones, 1993, veteran teachers mentors for new teachers, Ganser, 1999), or mentors from another education facility; university students mentoring high school students (Schatz, 2000), high school students mentoring pre-school children (Brown, 2005), while peer mentoring programmes recruit mentors from older students at the school (Karcher, Nakkula & Harris, 2005; Visser, 2004; CAMP programme, Noll, 1997; Karcher & Lindwall, 2003; Big Buddies/Little Buddies, Dennison, 2000). Word of mouth is the most common strategy used by organisations to recruit new mentors (Sipe & Roder, 1999, as cited in Stukas & Tanti, 2005), while public service announcements, print advertisements and organised presentations are also used (Roaf, Tierney & Hunte, 1994, as cited in Stukas & Tanti, 2005).

The commonality between the mentors who are recruited in a variety of ways, is that they are all willing to participate in a mentoring programme and to help a young person. A great commitment is required from the mentors thus, it is important that they understand exactly what is involved in mentoring and have carefully weighed up the pros and cons of the activity for themselves (Stukas & Tanti, 2005).

It is also very important to establish an adequate mentor screening process to ensure the safety of the mentees (Sipe, 2002). Screening should involve a written application, personal interview, employment history, police check and character references (Weinberger, 2005).

18

Matching mentors and mentees Several mentoring programmes match mentors and students on gender, attributes and similar interests (Slicker & Palmer, 1993; Hon & Shorr, 1998, match on career goals and personal hobbies; BB/BS: de Costa et. al., 2002; Rhodes et. al., 2000; Rhodes et. al., 2005, Ave et. al., 1999) and this matching technique is supported by research that matching on these grounds as well as race/ethnicity are factors that help develop effective mentoring relationships (DuBois et. al., 2002). Research to the contrary found that matches made between similar personalities were less effective as it was suggested they allow less personal development opportunities (Cox, 2005). However, Cox also states that changes in the mentors and mentees experience that could make the match ineffective can be overcome with appropriate training of the mentor on how to build an empathic yet empowering relationship (p.413).

Research that supports the idea of matching mentors and mentees with the same gender found that same gender matching increased mentees interpersonal comfort compared to cross-gender relationships (Allen, Day & Lentz, 2005). It has been proposed that gender similarity influences mentoring behaviours indirectly through the ease with which protgs are able to relate to their mentors (Allen et. al., p.165). Also college students in both America and Japan ascribed mentoring characteristics to same gender rather than other gender associates (Darling et. al., 2002), that is they perceive potential mentors to be of the same gender as themselves. Hendry, Roberts, Glendinning & Coleman (1992) also found that young people were more likely to choose same sex parents as a significant relative and a same sex friend as their most significant non-related individual.

19

Frequency of contact The main goal of mentoring programmes is to foster a strong positive mentor/student relationship (Project K, 2005; Jekielek et. al., 2002). The best relationships develop from frequent and quality contact (DuBois et. al., 2002; Para et. al., 2002; DuBois & Neville, 1997; Project K et. al., 2003), as the heart of effective mentoring is the time that mentors and their protgs [students] spend together (Ganser, 1999, p.11). Many programmes involve mentors and mentees meeting at least once a fortnight and mentors having regular contact with the mentee (da Costa et. al., 2000; Hon & Shorr, 1998; LoSciuto et. al., 1996; Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001) and even the mentees family (Project K, 2005; Schmidt et. al., 2004). Jekielek et. al. (2002) found that youth were more likely to benefit if the mentor maintained frequent contact with them and knew their family. Limited contact may even result in harm, with Jekielek et. al. finding students who rarely saw or spoke to their mentors showing lower self-esteem, compared to non-participants. Many programmes involve fun social activities as part of their mentoring (Project K, 2005; Karcher et. al., 2005; Blum & Jones, 1993; Schmidt et. al., 2004; Diversi & Mecham, 2005). Such social activities have been found to result in youth rating the relationship higher in closeness (Parra et. al., 2002), which has been found to result in positive relationship outcomes for students in psychological well-being including greater self-esteem, life satisfaction, fewer depressive symptoms and fewer reports of suicidal ideas (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005).

Length of relationship An evaluation of mentoring programmes came to the conclusion that the mentor mentee relationship should last over a significant period of time (DuBois et. al.,

20

2002), however, what constitutes a significant period of time is less clear. Grossman and Rhodes (2002) investigated the effects of various termination times on the mentoring relationship. A termination within the first three months resulted in significant declines in the mentees global self-worth and their perceived scholastic competence. A mentor student match that was longer than 12 months resulted in significant increases in self-worth, perceived social acceptance, perceived scholastic competence, parental relationship quality, school value and a decrease in both drugs and alcohol usage. There were some improvements in a termination between 6-12 months, but not as significant as those matches that lasted longer than one year. Significant improvements in students aspirations came only fr om those who were mentored for more than one year compared to those on the waiting list in another study (Lee & Cramond, 1999). Jekielek et. al. (2002) found that the longer the mentoring relationship, 12 months or more, the better the outcomes. However, Jekielek et. al. also noted that the length of the relationship was less important than the quality of the relationship, as the best results were found when young people perceived their relationship with their mentor to be of high quality, that is having the most positive perceptions of the relationship. Mentor knowledge and skills are required for high quality relationships to develop and be effective for the mentee (Cox, 2005), thus mentor training is necessary.

Mentoring best practice At risk youth

Overall, it appears that mentoring is needed most for youth at some risk and has been highly beneficial for this group. Mentoring for at risk youth has resulted in significantly academic improvements (Holland, 1996; Diversi & Mecham, 2005;

21

Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001; Slicker & Palmer, 1993), decreases in problem behaviours (Diversi & Mecham, 2005; Jackson, 2002) and reduced drop out rates (Slicker & Palmer, 1993).

Willing, screened mentors

Few programmes manage to recruit sufficient volunteers (Roaf et. al., 1994, cited in Stukas & Tanti, 2005), therefore, recruitment via several forms and through a variety of organisations would allow for the greatest number of recruits. The willingness of mentors to commit themselves to the time required to mentor a young person and understanding exactly what is involved is the most important factor (Stukas & Tanti, 2005). Adequate screening of the mentors is required to ensure the safety of the mentees (Sipe, 2002).

Match on gender, attributes, similar interests and race ethnicity

Gender matching has been found to increase the comfort mentees feel when with their mentor (Allen et. al., 2005), which would help foster a positive mentoring relationship. Matching on similar interests (Slicker & Palmer, 1993) allows for commonalities in discussion and an identification of the mentee with their mentor, which in turn encourages a friendship and a positive relationship. Potentially race and ethnicity matching would be beneficial (DuBois et. al., 2002) in some regions, however, a lack of same race mentors may limit the number of mentees who receive the benefits of mentoring.

22

Regular quality contact between mentors and mentees

Regular contact is essential for developing a strong, high quality mentor mentee relationship and limited contact can result in harm to the mentees (Jekielek et. al., 2002). Mentoring should involve fun social activities because they are rated by youth as resulting in closeness with their mentor (Parra et. al., 2002) which in turn results in positive psychological outcomes for youth (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005).

Mentoring should last twelve months or more

The longer the mentoring relationship (12 months +) the greater the outcomes for the mentee (Jekielek et. al., 2002). However, shorter relationships may even be more beneficial if the mentee perceives the relationship to be of high quality (Jekielek et. al.). Developing high quality relationships was mentioned in the previous point.

Project K One New Zealand programme that aims to inspire 13-15 year old youth to reach their full potential is Project K (Project K, 2005). Project K aims to help build selfconfidence and self-efficacy, promote good health and positive education and teach life skills such as goal setting and teamwork. The programme for year 10 students comprised a wilderness adventure, where for three weeks the wilderness provides the backdrop for students to learn goal setting, teamwork, perseverance, self-reliance and self-knowledge (Project K, 2005, module 1 p.6). Along with camp-based learning students undertake a wilderness journey that includes activities like kayaking, tramping and camping. The second component to the programme is a community

23

challenge, whereby the students adapt the lessons they learnt in the wilderness to their community by exploring their local resources, opportunities and support and also by undertaking a project to give something back to the community. The final component to the programme is mentoring. Screened and trained mentors from the community are matched with a student for twelve months to help support and encourage them to achieve their goals. These mentors are encouraged to be a friend who listens and encourages and helps strengthen the positive changes the student made in the first two components of the programme (Project K, 2005).

Project K mentoring runs in participating schools across New Zealand and is delivered through the Project K regional license trusts. The year 10 students who are selected to participate in the programme are those students who would most benefit from the programme. They are identified through a self-efficacy questionnaire, completed by all students in year 10, and also by teacher report on the extent to which they feel the student is doing as well as s/he can socially, academically and in relating to adults. Teachers, parents and students are also asked about any ongoing problems considered to be beyond the scope of Project K, such as drug use. Students with these problems are not eligible for selection. Students are ranked from those with the most scores below the school average from the student and teacher data to those with the fewest below average scores. The top 40-60 ranked students and their families are invited to a meeting. Those students who want to take part in Project K after the meeting and who have parental permission are then randomly allocated into Project K, or control or reserve. Control students complete the same primary evaluation measures as Project K students.

24

Project K outcomes Student reported gains from the Project K programme (evaluations 2003 and 2004) overall included a strong notion of confidence, the majority of students mentioned how through the programme they had gained more confidence in themselves and also in the tasks they pursued. Learning new skills, including goal setting, leadership skills and time management, were other factors the students mentioned. Other important gains from the programme involved increases in self-esteem including overcoming shyness, having a positive outlook, respect for themselves and the realisation that they have abilities and things to offer, as well as increases in a healthier lifestyle and perseverance.

Common themes for the mentoring component specifically were; friendship, many students emphasised that making a friend in their mentor and also meeting new people were major benefits of mentoring. Having fun was another common idea, that spending time with their mentor was enjoyable. These relationship building characteristics are especially important as a close bond or friendship results in positive relationship outcomes (Parra et. al., 2002) in psychological well-being including greater self-esteem, life satisfaction, fewer depressive symptoms and fewer reports of suicidal ideas (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005), as mentioned previously. Mentees from another programme also reported that the most successful mentors were those who showed up consistently with the intent of having fun and making friends (Hon & Shorr, 1998). Also, according to Project K mentoring best practice findings, having fun and sharing activities assists in a positive mentor partnership (Project K, Smith & Blowers, 2003 cited in Project K, 2005).

25

Applying best practice to Project K At risk youth

Inclusion into the Project K programme is based on a lower than average level of social, academic and adult relational competence, thus, the child is at risk for failure in these areas (Project K, 2005).

Willing mentors

The mentors in the Project K programme are members of the community who have volunteered to mentor a student for a year. Screening of mentors in Project K involves an interview; including assessment that the mentor has a realistic perception of mentoring and understands what is involved. Character references, a criminal record free from offences against young people and a police and doctor check to ensure there is nothing that would make them unsuitable for mentoring a young person (Project K, 2004).

Match on gender, attributes, similar interests and race ethnicity

The match of students with mentors in the Project K programme involves matching gender, attributes and similar interests (Project K, 2005).

Project K does not match on the grounds of race/ethnicity, as mentioned by DuBois et. al. (2002) previously. Project K mentor training involves a component on understanding cultural differences, and for New Zealand specifically, Maori culture and customs (Project K, 2005). The practical aspects of race/ethnicity matching would limit the number of students who could possibly benefit from mentoring as the majority of mentors are Caucasian, and the students involved,

26

and New Zealand in general, are highly multi-cultural. Also, research discussed earlier on cross-race versus same race matches (Rhodes et. al., 2002) found both positive and negative outcomes for youth in cross-race and same-race matches. The racial composition of the mentoring match did not influence the mentees satisfaction with the relationship or the programme in a formal federal agencys mentoring programme in America (Lyons & Oppler, 2004). Therefore, it would seem that other factors, possibly those such as relationship building, may play a more important role in the effectiveness of mentoring than race/ethnicity matching.

Regular quality contact between mentor and mentee

Project K mentors meet with their students at least once a fortnight, and are encouraged to have regular contact with their student and their student s family. Project K also has monthly meetings, many of which involve fun activities for mentors and students to interact and develop their relationship (Project K, 2005). As mentioned these fun activities aid in the development of a close relationship between the mentor and mentee and result in positive outcomes for the mentee (Parra et. al., 2003).

Mentoring should last twelve months or more

The mentoring relationship in Project K is designed to last at least 12 months (Project K, 2004).

27

Current study This study is looking at mentor training specifically, with an aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Project K mentor training programme. There has been very limited research indeed on mentor training, suggesting that the current evaluation is much needed to help our understanding of this critical part of mentoring programmes. The following sections involve research on mentor training, important components for mentor training and an outline of the Project K mentor training programme.

Mentor Training The training of mentors is an essential component to mentoring (Ave et. al., 1999; Evans & Ave, 2000; Sipe, 2002; Irving et. al., 2003; Schatz, 2000; Liang et. al., 2002; Parra et. al., 2002; Ganser, 1999), because with appropriate training, it should be possible for a mentor to acquire skills and knowledge and combine these with interpersonal qualities and existing expertise such that he or she could support any mentee (Cox, 2005,p. 408).

Jekielek et. al. (2002) in an analysis of ten youth mentoring programmes noted that training for the mentors both before and after they are matched with the student appears to be key to successful mentoring relationships. Jekielek et. al. found that the mentors who received the most hours of training had the longest lasting matches, which has been found to be an important factor in successful mentoring relationships.

A training programme for mentors is the most consistent way of ensuring that the mentor student relationship and the whole mentoring experience is beneficial for the student. The training is to provide the mentor with the necessary knowledge and

28

skills to be an effective mentor (DuBois & Neville, 1997; Jekielek et. al., 2002; Lyons & Oppler, 2004). The development of confidence is also an essential part of mentor training, as this combined with the development of knowledge and skills, helps increase mentor self-efficacy. High levels of mentor self-efficacy are important with respect to establishing a positive relationship with a young person, which in turn facilitates desired outcomes in the mentor/student relationship (Parra et al., 2002).

Training is highly beneficial for mentors as a good mentoring program makes sure they [mentors] have the time and training to reflect on their practice (Moir, 2003, p.7), to ensure they help develop a positive, rewarding relationship. Although mentor training is seen by many to be of high importance, and that training is crucial to provide mentors with knowledge, skills and opportunities for questions and discussion about mentoring issues (Hon & Shorr, 1998), the many programmes that have mentor training and evaluate their own outcomes have not published their evaluations. Thus, mentor training is an area that needs to be researched to evaluate if such programmes aimed at providing skills for mentors to help mentees are actually beneficial and worthwhile.

Important components for mentor training While no research has been published on the effectiveness of mentor training programmes researchers have commented on what training programmes should include, these are: Communication skills (Mentor training, n.d.) Crisis management and problem solving skills ( Mentor training)

29

How to deal with any emotional issues young people may have (Mentor training)

How to handle difficult situations (Mentor training) How to say goodbye when mentoring relationship ends (Mentor training) Ethics/codes of conduct (Ave et. al., 1999) Safety issues for mentors (Ave et. al.) Roles and responsibilities (Dusseldorp Skills Forum, 2000) How to work with mentees family (Ave et. al.) Cultural issues (Ave et. al.) Self-esteem issues (Ave et. al.) Dissemination of information regarding policies and procedures (Ave et. al.)

Effective training programmes should also include role playing to help prospective mentors (Mentor training, n.d.), to respond to hypothetical scenarios involving a young person and explore ways of dealing with difficult situations safely and effectively (Ave et. al., 1999).

One American study also discusses the importance of having relational qualities in training for men and women specifically, such as empathy building to help foster effective relationships (Liang at el., 2002).

On-going training and supervision (Hon & Shorr, 1998) is recommended to assist mentors with any issues they encounter and to allow mentors to discuss their experience. Mentors are most successful when they receive thorough training before they are matched with young people and receive coaching and

30

support throughout their involvement Mentor training, n.d., p.1). On-going support is especially important as many issues arise, that did not come up in theory, because they arise out of practice (Ganser, 1999). Suggested on-going topics include; clarifying issues, solving problems, learning counselling skills, understanding youth and learning leadership skills (Mentor training).

Positive outcomes were found for a programme, Across Ages, that involved mentor training and on-going support, that has been mentioned previously (LoSciuto et. al., 1996). Mentors were recruited, screened, trained and then matched with high-risk youth. They had on-going supervision and support from project staff. LoSciuto et. al found that the mentored students had better attitudes towards school, future and elders and less substance abuse. Research, also mentioned previously, involving the BB/BS programme included agency based training and on-going case management for mentors (Rhodes et. al., 2000). The training covered agency policies, communication and relationship building, as well as issues of particular relevance to the participating youth (grieving or sexual abuse). The mentors and students participated in a variety of activities including leisure and career-related discussions. Mentoring improved grades, school attendance, pro-social values and parental relationships.

Project K Training Project K requires members of the community who have expressed an interest in being a mentor, have met with the mentor co-ordinator and wish to take part in the mentor training programme, to commit to an initial 20 hour Project K mentor training course. This initial training is consistent with several other programmes which employ mentor training, as mentioned previously. The course is divided into six

31

modules approximately three and a half hours each, each module has an aim, with three to five learning outcomes (Project K, 2004). Each of the learning outcomes has a key message for the training-mentors. The first module comprises of becoming a mentor; with the history of Project K, providing a safe learning environment for the mentor and student, defining mentoring and concepts of best practice and the Project K model of mentoring. The second module looks at contemporary youth issues; the understanding of resiliency, self-efficacy, self-esteem and self-concept, and how a mentor can build a students resiliency and self-efficacy and also some reflection on common issues that young people face. Module three is designed around positive mentor partnerships; a selfassessment of personal values, identifying the core Project K values, demonstrating effective communication skills, cultural differences and different ways of seeing the world. The fourth module involves maximising youth potential; focusing on goal setting, demonstration and understanding of, as well as different cultural and gender understandings of goal setting, and also the boundaries and limits of the mentoring relationship. The fifth module is the mentor journey; issues of confidentiality, working with the students family and understanding the mentor journey process. The final sixth module is celebrating achievements; self-evaluation, reflection and giving and receiving feedback (Project K, 2004).

32

Applying important components for mentor training to Project K The training modules cover cultural issues (Ave et. al., 1999) with several readings relating to ways of seeing the world, questions around noticing aspects of your own culture and recognition of cultural world views including holism (Project K, 2004).

Communication skills (Mentor training, n.d.) are included with worksheets on how young people would react to different communication styles, discussions of effective communication techniques and exercises on listening skills (Project K, 2004).

Project K training also covers how to end the mentoring relationship (Mentor training, n.d.), with discussion and tips for effective goodbyes (Project K, 2004).

Ethical codes of conduct and safety issues for mentors (Ave et. al., 1999) are dealt with, as well as the policies and procedures (Ave et. al.) of Project K with a comprehensive mentoring policies and procedures outline, including procedures for various scenarios involving both the mentor and the student (Project K, 2004).

The roles and responsibilities of the mentor (Dusseldorp Skills Forum, 2000) are covered in the training with worksheets on mentoring definitions, personal mentoring experiences, mentoring best practices and a discussion of what a mentor is and is not (Project K, 2004).

33

The training covers issues around working with the student s family (Ave et. al., 1999), including worksheets on what the mentor sees as the familys role in the mentoring relationship and identifying strategies that they could use to deal with any issues with the family including confidentiality, as well as role plays of initial meetings with the students family, following several diverse scenarios and developing a list of possible activities which the mentor, student and students family could do together (Project K, 2004).

Issues around building students self-esteem (Ave et. al., 1999) are also included in the training with worksheets on the mentors understanding of selfesteem, as well as self-efficacy and resiliency and ways to help a student increase these (Project K, 2004).

The training involves several role plays (Mentor training, n.d.), activities and discussions, which covers a broad range of training methods to ensure effective learning.

The training also involves some development of empathy for the students (Liang et. al., 2002) with a strong coverage of understanding contemporary youth issues, including a worksheet for the mentor to remember what it was like being a teenager, learning about The Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa 2002 and worksheets on youth culture today (Project K, 2004).

34

Other important components in Project K mentor training The Project K mentor training programme also involves goal setting as Project K considers this very important for students especially as goal setting helps students take control of their lives, encourages individuals to realise their potential and abilities and promotes the achievement of aspirations (Project K, 2004). Goal setting is universally considered important as generally it allows you to choose where you want to go in life (Goal setting, n.d.). Goal setting gives students long-term vision and short term motivation and results in students being able to take pride in the achievement of their goals. By setting goals students want to achieve they can achieve more, improve their self-confidence, increase their motivation to achieve, improve their performance, increase their satisfaction in their achievements and eliminate any attitudes that are holding them back from achieving happiness ( Goal setting).

The training also involves a section on the giving and receiving of feedback. Project K considers feedback an important part of mentor training as feedback reinforces positive behaviours, corrects negative behaviours and helps students identify commonalities with their mentor. Also, feedback is seen as a way of offering constructive assistance (Project K, 2004). Other guides to mentoring also mention that feedback is important to mentoring relationships, to correct problems and reinforce positive aspects of the relationship (Career Services, 2004).

Self-evaluation and reflection are important for mentors to understand how far they have come and what they still need to learn, to acknowledge all that they have gained to allow for more learning and progress and to understand ways of helping their student undertake reflection to encourage their growth (Project K, 2004). The

35

leadership and service programmes at the Ohio Union also place importance on reflection because it adds meaning and depth to experiences and allows for personal growth by looking within and processing the knowledge and skills acquired through the experience. Also, those who engage in reflection are more likely to continue with mentoring because they can recognise the positive personal and relational benefits (The Ohio State University, n.d.).

Once training is complete the potential mentor meets with the mentor co-ordinator, and eventually the mentor is matched with a student. The mentor must commit to a minimum contact of once a fortnight in person, attending at least eight of the twelve monthly meetings and an interview at 6-8 weeks as a performance review. The mentoring relationship is carried out for twelve months (Project K, 2005). On-going training and support is provided for mentors if required (Project K, 2005), which is consistent with the important components in mentor training outlined previously (Hon & Shorr, 1998).

The present study The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Project K mentor training programme. Mentors in the Project K mentor training programme completed a questionnaire on their mentoring knowledge and confidence in mentoring skills before and at the completion of the training (referred to as training-mentors). The trainers of the programme completed a questionnaire on the training-mentors knowledge and skills for mentoring a student. Mentors who were paired with a student (referred to as current-mentors) completed the same questionnaire as the training-mentors. Students of the current-mentors completed a questionnaire about

36

their mentors skills and the whole mentoring experience. The research questions investigating this are below:

Term definitions: Skill-knowledge knowledge of the skills necessary to mentor a student Skill-confidence confidence in skills necessary to mentor a student Skill-application students perceptions of mentors skills

Training-Mentors A) In what ways do the mentors increase their skill-knowledge through training? B) In what ways do the mentors increase their skill-confidence through training?

Trainers A) What relationship is t here between the mentors skill-knowledge and the trainers perception of the mentors skills? B) What relationship is there between the confidence of the mentors in interacting with others (young people) and the perceived competence of the mentor by his/her trainer? C) How committed to mentoring a student do the trainers perceive the mentors to be?

Students A) What relationship is there between the mentors skill-knowledge and skillapplication? B) What emotions do the students feel when with their mentors?

37

Training and current-mentors A) What differences are there between the training and current mentors skillknowledge? B) What differences are there between the training and current mentors skillconfidence?

All measures A) What differences are there between men and women on mentor and student measures? B) What differences are there between regional groups (Auckland, Outside Auckland) for mentor, trainer and student measures? C) What age group (defined as: up to 35 years, 36 years and over) differences are there for mentor measures?

38

CHAPTER II METHOD Participants: Training-mentors Participants in this study were 49 potential mentors taking part in the Project K mentor training programme (they will be referred to as training-mentors). Each of these participants had at least some of the three questionnaires completed (pretraining, post- training and trainer-assessment). Within the Auckland area (four regions combined), 25 training-mentors had all three questionnaires completed. Three training-mentors from the participating regions outside of Auckland (two regions) had all three questionnaires completed. The composition of the responses is shown in table 1. This resulted in responses from 28 training-mentors being used in the analysis, and two regional categories; Auckland and Outside Auckland.

Table 1: Composition of participant responses from the training groups.

Training Groups Region Attendance at training session 1 North Shore North Shore Waitakere Manukau Corporate Lower Hutt Otago 6 5 12 9 9 5 10 Number of completed 1st questionnaires 5 5 6 9 8 3 4 Number of completed 2nd questionnaires 6 8 (3 joined) 6 (2 out 2 in) 4 9 1 2 Number of completed Trainer questionnaires 6 8 7 7 9 3 4 Total number of completed questionnaires (3) 5 5 3 4 8 1 2

Current-mentors The second group of participants in this study were 30 mentors who were currently mentoring a Project K student (from now on referred to as current -mentors). There were 16 current-mentors from the Auckland area (three regions combined) and 14 current-mentors from the Outside Auckland area (four regions combined).

39

Students Students of current-mentors also took part in this study with 34 participating. From within the Auckland area (three regions combined) there were 18 participating students, and 16 students that took part were from the Outside Auckland area (four regions combined). The composition of responses from current-mentors and students from their mentoring group are shown in table 2: Thus, responses from 30 currentmentors and 34 students were used in the analysis, with the same two regional categories as training-mentors; Auckland and Outside Auckland.

Table 2: Composition of participant responses from current-mentor student groups. Region Number of Number of Number of Number of mentors in the participating students in the participating group mentors group students North Shore 9 9 11 10 Waitakere 9 3 9 5 Manukau 20 4 20 3 Lower Hutt 9 0 9 0 Otago 10 4 10 8 Christchurch 11 4 11 3 Hawkes Bay 8 3 8 1 Manawatu 11 3 12 4

Training-mentors The training-mentors (the 28 used in the analysis) ranged in ages from 20 to 58 years with a mean age of 37.85 years (SD = 12.05), with one participant not revealing her age. To allow for data analysis the mentors were divided into two age group categories, these were; up to 35 years and 36 years and above. The sample consisted of 12 (43%) male and 16 (57%) female participants. The participants also provided information about their ethnic group with an open-ended question. Thirteen training-mentors identified themselves as NZ/NZ European/Pakeha, seven trainingmentors considered themselves to be European, four identified as Pacific Island, while

40

Asian and Maori ethnicities had one identifying participant each. Two trainingmentor participants did not identify their ethnicity.

Trainers The six trainers were all female and ranged in ages from 26 to 51 years (mean age = 39.2, SD = 11.97). The trainers all identified themselves as either European/Pakeha or Indian/Pakeha.

Current-mentors The current-mentors ranged in age from 24 to 71, with a mean age of 41.83 (SD= 12.69). There were 16 (53%) male and 14 (47%) female current mentor participants. The same two age group categories as training-mentors were used in analysis; up to 35 years, and 36 years and above. The distribution of ethnic groups was NZ/NZ European/Pakeha (15), European (12), and other ethnic groups (American, Asian) (2).

Students The students ranged in age from 14 to 16 with a mean age of 15.12 (SD = .54). There were 12 (35%) male and 22 (65%) female student participants. The ethnic distribution of students was 17 participants who considered themselves NZ/NZ European/Pakeha, Pacific Island (4), Maori (4), and other ethnic groups (African, Polish/Australian, Asian, European) (8). One student did not identify his/her ethnicity.

41

Measures: The mentor, student and trainer questionnaires used in the study are included in Appendices A, B and C respectively.

Demographic Information: The questionnaires gathered information on participants age, gender and ethnicity.

Mentor Questionnaire: The same questionnaire was used for the two collections of data from trainingmentors in the first and final training sessions, as well as the data collected from the current-mentors. The mentors were asked to provide their answers in the spaces provided, to not write their name on the questionnaire, to not use external aides, such as notes or manuals from training to answer the questions and were informed that no one other than the researchers would see their answers. The participants were informed that each questionnaire had a piece of paper attached for the participant to put their name on. The author had a list of names of participants with a code number. The piece of paper was removed and a code number written on the questionnaire. The list was destroyed after data collection was complete.

The author designed the knowledge section of the questionnaire (questions 1-28) from the Project K Mentor Training Manual; trainer (Project K, 2004) and mentor portfolios (Project K, 2005). The aims of each module and the learning objectives were taken into account when the questions were designed, so as to cover the most important aspects of the training programme. The self report skills section was

42

modelled on information provided by The JPO service centre (JPO service centre, n.d.) about mentor competencies.

The mentor questionnaire contained 28 items that tested the training-mentor/currentmentors knowledge in the areas that the Project K Mentor Training Manual covers. The training manual covers six modules on areas to help a potential mentor prepare to become an effective mentor for a student. Module one: Knowledge on what a mentor should/should not be and do, and policies and procedures of Project K. The first three questions deal with this module. Module one was graded out of 12, with four marks per question. Module two: Understanding youth development and culture, issues surrounding resiliency, self-esteem and self-efficacy. Questions four to eleven were related to this module. A correct score for module two would be 30, with three, four or five marks per question. Module three: Project K values, different types of communication styles, role modelling and holism. This module was represented by questions 12-17 and was graded out of 20, with two to five marks per question. Module four: Goal setting within the Project K programme, absolute positive regard, acknowledging achievements and interactions that require boundary definitions. Questions 18-24 refer to this module, and it was graded out of 30 with two to eight marks per question. Module five: Confidentiality and family involvement. This module related to two questions, 25 and 26. The module was graded out of 10 with five marks per question.

43

Module six: Reflection and feedback. This module involved questions 27 and 28, with both questions out of five, and a total module score of 10.

A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix A. The marks allocated to each question are on the questionnaire (the original questionnaire did not have the mark allocations).

Questions 29-38 examined the mentors skill-confidence on several items. These were How would you rate your confidence in your ability to with the following ; empathise with young people, listen to young people, be patient with young people, be approachable to young people, show respect towards young people, resolve conflict with young people, help a young person access resources, provide a young person with support, monitor and manage your expectations of mentoring and interact with young people. Each o f the questions was rated from 0 poor to 6 excellent, with 3 labelled good.

Question 39 asked the mentor to rate their mentoring knowledge; Overall, I think I have the knowledge to be an effective mentor on a scale of 0 not at all true to 6 very true, with 3 labelled somewhat true. Question 40 asked about the mentors skills, Overall, I think I have the skills to be an effective mentor, on the same scale as question 39. Questions 41-43 involved demographic information, as mentioned previously.

Student Questionnaire: Some of the module related questions were worded negatively, for example, My mentor focuses on my mistakes, and My mentor makes fun of me in ways I dont

44

like. This was to ensure that students were actually reading the questions and responding appropriately. The responses to these questions (q: 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 18) were inverted when conducting data analysis. The author designed most of these questions based on the Project K mentor training programme; mentor and trainer portfolios (Project K, 2004, 2005). A few of the questions were based on a Youth-Mentor Relationship Questionnaire used by Rhodes et. al. (2005) in an evaluation using a Big Brothers/Big Sisters sample in America. Their research was designed to develop and validate a youth mentoring relationship quality inventory that could be administered to adolescents who have been assigned mentors in order to assess the quality of the relationship as it is forming. The questions that were modelled on this research are those with an asterisk below.

The student questionnaire contained 26 questions corresponding to the six Project K modules. The questions involved students rating their mentor on their interaction together when they met, the relationship they had and on the whole mentoring experience. Each of these 26 questions were rated by the students on a scale from 0 not at all true to 6 very true, with 3 labelled somewhat true. The students were asked to circle one number per question. They were requested to not write their name on the questionnaire, and that no one other than the researchers would see their answers. Module one: o Ideas on what a good mentor should be (My mentor is my friend, My mentor motivates me to do well and I hardly ever see my mentor). Questions one to three related to this module.

45

Module two: o An understanding of youth development (My mentor seems to understand what I am going through as a teenager) . o Building resiliency (My mentor doesnt seem to want me to talk about my concerns, My mentor has lots of good ideas about how to solve a problem*, Sometimes my mentor gives me money to buy things) . o Improving the student s self-efficacy (My mentor says that I have many strengths, My mentor focuses on my mistakes, My mentor makes fun of me in ways I dont like*).

Questions four to ten related to this module.

Module three: o Communication styles (When something is bugging me, my mentor listens while I get it off my chest*, Sometimes my mentor says I must do something, rather than letting me decide) . o Values (My mentor is fair to me, I feel I cant trust my mentor with secrets because s/he would tell my parent/guardian*, My mentor says nasty things to me when I do something wrong) . o Cultural understanding (I wish my mentor understood more about my culture, My mentor and I discuss lots of things like our families, friends, sports activities and things in the news) . o Role modelling (My mentor is a good role model for me) .

Questions 11 to 18 related to this module.

Module four:

46

o Goal setting (My mentor has helped me set my four goals: school goal, health/fitness goal and two other goals, My mentor and I have discussed why it is important to set goals). o Boundaries (My mentor and I have discussed boundaries (limits) for things like the contact we have, the language we use and the types of activities we do together). o Rewarding a good effort (My mentor gives me honest praise when I have done well). Questions 19 to 22 were associated with this module.

Module five: o Issues of confidentiality, (My mentor has discussed with me the issue of confidentiality. I know this means that they may have to tell someone if I am in danger of harm or if they need to for my best interests). o Involvement of the student s family in the mentoring relationship (My mentor has discussed with me and my family how my family can be involved in our mentoring partnership).

Questions 23 and 24 related to this module.

Module six: o Process of reflection (My mentor has encouraged me to reflect on (or go over) things that I have been through). o Giving and receiving feedback (My mentor gives me feedback on my progress, for example with my goals). This module related to questions 25 and 26.

47

The emotion related questions were based on the positive and negative affect scale (PANAS) (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988) with some modifications. The emotions considered most appropriate for the mentoring experience and for New Zealand young people were included. Questions 27 to 36 involved the students rating whether when spending time with their mentor they experienced a set of various emotions. The students were asked to circle on a scale When I am with my mentor I usually feel, from 0 not at all, 1 a little bit, 2 sometimes, 3 quite a lot, and 4 a lot, for each emotion. These ten emotions were both positive and negative in relation to the time a student spent with their mentor. The positive emotions were; happy, excited, interested, and inspired, and the negative emotions were; nervous, annoyed, bored, lonely, ashamed, and frustrated. Data analysis involved comparing the positive emotions and negative emotions as two groups. A reliability analysis was conducted to ensure the reliability of these groupings. The reliability of the emotional groupings was good. Cronbachs alphas for the positive emotions were = .88, and the negative emotions = .76.

Question 37 involved a general rating question about the student s mentor, Overall, how would you rate your mentor?, with a scale from 0 poor to 6 excellent with 3 labelled good. Questions 38-40 comprised of demographic information, mentioned previously. A copy of the student questionnaire is in appendix B.

Trainer Questionnaire: The questions in the trainer questionnaire were designed by the author based on the modules in the Project K Mentor Training Manual; mentor and trainer portfolios (Project K, 2004, 2005).

48

The trainer questionnaire consisted of 17 questions that also related to the six Project K mentor training modules. The trainers of the mentor training programme completed a questionnaire on each of the participating training-mentors. The trainers were told to not write their name on the questionnaire and that no one other than the researchers would see their answers. They were asked to rate the training-mentor on each item on a scale from 0 not at all true to 6 very true, with point 3 labelled somewhat true. Module one: o Ideas about what a mentor should be (The mentor is supportive of others, The mentor has fun during activities, The mentor has an attitude of helping young people). Questions one to three related to this module. Module two: o Understanding youth (The mentor participates in discussions about youth issues). o Building resiliency and self-efficacy in the student (The mentor is empathetic towards others, The mentor is respectful of others). Questions four to six related to this module. Module three: o Effective communication skills (The mentor communicates in an encouraging manner, The mentor uses active listening skills). o Cultural understanding (The mentor is respectful of other cultures/cultural beliefs).

49

o Role modelling (In my opinion the mentor is a good role model for young people). Questions seven to ten related to this module. Module four: o Goal setting (The mentor shows an understanding of how to help their student set the goals required by Project K, The mentor displayed effective skills in the goal setting role play scenarios). o Boundary definitions (T he mentor shows understanding of the issues surrounding boundaries). Questions 11 to 13 related to this module. Module five: o Confidentiality issues (The mentor displays an understanding of the confidentiality issues surrounding the mentoring partnership). o Family involvement (The mentor displayed effective skills in the meeting the family role play scenarios). Questions 14 and 15 related to this module. Module six: o Reflection (T he mentor undertook reflection about their preparedness in becoming a mentor for a young person). o Feedback (The mentor has good ideas about feedback for young people). Questions 16 and 17 related to this module.

The corporate training session did not use the meeting the family role play and therefore the trainer answered question 15 The mentor displayed effective skills in

50

the meeting the family role play scenarios as a discussion of the skills required when meeting the students family.

Question 18; The mentor interacts well with others, was a skill item that the author considered important, but did not fit precisely into one of the six modules. This item was similar to question 38 How would you rate your confidence in your ability to interact with young people in the mentor questionnaire, based on mentor competencies (JPO service centre, n.d.). Interacting well with others is an important skill that mentors should master, especially when dealing with youth.

Question 19 assessed the trainers perception of the commitment of the mentor; Overall, how would you rate the commitment of the mentor to mentoring a young person? The perceived commitment of the mentor was considered an important question to include as a lot of time and money goes into training-mentors, and Project K wants to be sure that the mentor is committed to mentoring the student for the year, as research has shown that early termination has detrimental effects on the student (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002).

Question 20 and 21 assessed perceived knowledge and skills; Overall, how would you rate the mentoring knowledge of the mentor? and the latter; Overall, how would you rate the mentoring skills of the mentor ? These three questions were rated on a scale from 0 poor to 6 excellent, with 3 labelled good. Questions 22 to 24 related to demographic information mentioned previously. A copy of the trainer questionnaire can be found in appendix C.

51

Procedure: Permission was sought from each Project K licensee, a separate local trust that runs the programmes in each region, to invite training-mentors, trainers, current-mentors and students to participate in this study. The director of each region was provided with an information sheet outlining the study and a consent form to sign on behalf of the licensee. A copy of the directors infor mation sheet and consent form are included in Appendix D.

Region selection: The training groups that participated were selected because they were running during the time available for data collection (end of May 2005 to the end of August 2005).

The current-mentor and student groups selected were those regions that had also participated in the training group data collection (North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau, Otago, Lower Hutt). The corporate group participated with the training group but did not have a current mentor/student group as they had just started with Project K. A few additional areas were approached for participation by Project K Support Office to obtain more participants, and three areas (Manawatu, Hawkes Bay and Christchurch) agreed to participate.

Current mentor groups were eligible if they had been paired for at least four months, and the mentors had been trained on the new mentor training programme (implemented since July 2004).

52

Training-mentors were required to sign a consent form and consent was also obtained from the trainer of the group. Current-mentors and students were also required to sign a consent form as well as the students parents (most students were under 16 years of age). All participants were provided with an information sheet and were informed of the voluntary nature of the study, and that they could withdraw their data up until all the data collection was completed on the 31st August 2005. They were informed that the questionnaires would be kept confidential and that no one at Project K, their mentor, student or parents would be able to access the questionnaires.

A copy of each of the consent forms and information sheets are included in the appendices. Training-mentors: appendix E. Current-mentors: appendix F. Students: appendix G. Trainers: appendix H. Students parents: appendix I.

Training Groups: The questionnaires were administered to the training-mentors in the first session of the Project K mentor training programme. Some training-mentors were given time in the session to complete the questionnaire (one of the North Shore groups, Corporate, Manukau and Lower Hutt). In the other groups (one North Shore, Waitakere and Otago) training-mentors took the questionnaire home and returned it at the next training session (they were reminded by the trainer to return it). This was because the trainer or director of the programme did not feel that there was enough time in the first session for the mentors to complete the questionnaire. The second trainingmentor questionnaire was completed in the last training session in both of the North Shore groups, Corporate, Waitakere and Lower Hutt. In the other areas (Manukau and Otago) training-mentors took the questionnaire home and were asked to return it

53

in the freepost envelope provided. The 30 minutes required to complete the questionnaire was the reason these areas took their questionnaire home. The trainer questionnaires were given to the trainer at the final session and they were provided a freepost envelope to return them. In the case of the training-mentor questionnaires being completed within the session, those who did not wish to participate were told that there were magazines they could read or they could read over their training manual. This was also the case when some participants finished completing their questionnaire earlier than others. An email sheet was provided for each group where participants could write down their email address if they wanted a copy of the authors final report via email. The trainer returned this sheet with their questionnaires.

The introduction of the study and the administering of the questionnaires were conducted by the author in the North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau and Corporate regions. In the other regions (Lower Hutt and Otago) the trainer or the programme co-ordinator presented the study and administered the questionnaires. They were provided by the author with instructions and information to tell the participants (this was the same information that the author gave the other groups) (included in Appendix J). This was because the author lived in Auckland and it was more feasible for the trainer or co-ordinator to administer the questionnaires.

The training-mentor questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete, while the trainer questionnaire took approximately five minutes to complete. Trainingmentors who did not return their questionnaire were contacted via email and/or

54

through their trainer and were asked to return their questionnaire. Up to three attempts were made to get questionnaires returned.

Current Mentors and Students: Questionnaires were administered to the North Shore region during a six monthly meeting with the mentors, students and students parents. Questionnaires were distributed to the Hawkes Bay current-mentors and students during a monthly meeting, with a freepost envelope for the questionnaires to be returned. The author posted questionnaire packs to the Manukau and Lower Hutt regions and the director or programme co-ordinator posted out to each mentor and student. The author posted out individually to the Otago, Waitakere, Christchurch and the Manawatu regions.

Each questionnaire pack consisted of a cover sheet, outlining briefly the study and instructions of what the mentors and students were to do. This is included in Appendix K. An information sheet detailing the study and providing contact details, a consent form (student packs also had a parent/guardian consent form), an email note, if the participant wanted a copy of the author s final report via email, a questionnaire and a freepost envelope.

The current-mentor questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete (same questionnaire as training-mentors), and the student questionnaire took approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. Current-mentors and students who did not return their questionnaire were contacted via email and/or through their regional director/coordinator and were asked to return their questionnaire. Up to three attempts were made to get questionnaires returned.

55

Data Collection return rates: The questionnaire return rates for current-mentors and students were 34% and 38% respectively. The Auckland regional category (52%) had a better return rate than the outside Auckland regional category (29%). To composition of regional return rates can be seen in table 3.

Table 3: Composition of questionnaire return rates from current-mentors and students. Region: Return rate for currentmentors and students North Shore 95% Waitakere 44% Manukau 17.5% Total Auckland regional Category 52% Lower Hutt 0% Otago 60% Christchurch 32% Hawkes Bay 25% Manawatu 30% Total Outside Auckland regional category 29%

The All of the regional directors were contacted about their current-mentor and student return rates. They were asked if they had any suggestions as to why only some of their current-mentors and students returned questionnaires. The reasons given were that the questionnaire was in addition to the numerous questionnaires and feedback forms that Project K participants are asked to complete and they may not have wanted to give any more time to completing these. Along with this reason was a suggestion that the mentor questionnaire was quite long and took 30 minutes to complete. Some mentors requested an electronic questionnaire form and this was provided to the programme co-ordinator to pass on. Some areas mentioned that their region does not usually get a very good response rate. Providing some kind of incentive may have helped increase return rates. Some areas were forced to cancel their monthly meetings due to poor turn-out. Some were not having a meeting within 56

the data collection time frame where it was feasible to hand out questionnaires, therefore they were posted out.

Questionnaire response rates were low and the problems mentioned confounded data collection. The regional directors were contacted again at the end of August 2005 (which was the initial date for the end of data collection) to ask them to again encourage their current-mentors and students to return their questionnaires. I extended the period of data collection until the end of September 2005 to allow for any extra questionnaires to be returned.

57

CHAPTER III RESULTS

Data Screening Several analyses were used to test the research questions; split-plot repeated measures, multivariate analysis of variance, one-way analysis of variance and t-tests. The assumptions for these analyses were tested for. Some minor violations were present in the data, however minor violations of normality and homogeneity are of little concern when the cell size is around 30 or more (Coakes & Steed, 2001) and the F test is quite robust with respect to violation of the normality assumption (Kirk, 1982, p. 75.) as well as moderate violations of the homogeneity of variance assumption, provided the number of observations in the sample is equal (Kirk).

The F test is relatively robust against moderate violations of the sphericity pattern (Edwards, 1985, p.338.) and a Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used on the data as this corrects for sphericity violations and produces a valid F-ratio (Field & Hole, 2003). The effects from a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) analysis were evaluated using a Bonferroni-type adjustment to decrease the chance of a type one error due to the number of tests conducted; this correction was also used for all post hoc tests. The adjustment formula used for the new alpha level was: the desired level of alpha (=.05)/number of tests (Coakes & Steed, 2001). Also, a Pillais Trace criterion was used to interpret group differences as it is considered to hav e acceptable power and to be the most robust statistic against violations of assumptions (Coakes and Steed, p.193). Therefore, with the appropriate corrections made confidence can be observed in the results.

58

Analysis Where appropriate gender, age group and regional group differences were investigated. The age group category refers to the mentors; t he categories were up to 35 years and 36 years and over. The regional group categories were groups within Auckland and Outside Auckland for mentors, students and trainer measures. Module total scores were used to compare between mentor, student and trainer measures. Each module was made up of individual questions that were different in each of the questionnaires; mentor, student and trainer. The module total score was the score on the individual questions in a module combined as a percentage of the total possible module score (score/possible score as a percentage).

Overview of chapter This results chapter will look at the research questions relating to the training-mentors first, then the trainers, followed by the students and finally the training and current mentors together. The relevant age, gender and regional group differences are mentioned for each section.

Mentor module scores pre and post training programme The research question relating to this section was: In what ways do the mentors increase their skill-knowledge through training? The scores for the questions involved in each module (six Project K training modules for learning) were collated and a total module score was calculated for each of the six modules within the pre and post measures, (score/possible score as a percentage). A split-plot repeated measures analysis was used to test for time differences (pre and post training), module

59

differences (between the six modules) and any gender, age group or regional group differences.

Module differences Overall significance was found for differences between the six modules (pre and post scores combined) (F (5, 135) = 95.32, p<.001). Training-mentor scores on modules one, five and six were the highest. Module four was scored the lowest by the trainingmentors (see table 4).

Table 4: Mean and standard error scores for significant differences between the modules (pre and post scores combined) for the training-mentors Modules Mean (%) Standard Error Significant difference at p<.05 1 79.4 2.7 abc * 2 59.3 2.4 adgjk 3 71.1 1.7 behj 4 35.6 1.7 cfijk 5 85.5 2.0 def * 6 80.7 3.3 ghi * The same letter indicates a significant difference between the modules. * Indicates higher module scores - Indicates lower module scores

Differences between pre and post measures Overall significance was found for differences between training-mentor scores at pre and post training (F (1, 27) = 80.24, p<.001). The training-mentors scored better after they had completed the training (M=78.1, SE=1.5), compared to before the training programme (M=59.1, SE=2.2).

Module differences at pre and post measures There was a significant interaction effect between the six modules scores on the pre and post measures (F (5, 135) = 20.69, p<.001). Post Hoc tests, using a Bonferroni adjustment showed that all modules except module six were significantly different 60

between the pre and post measures. Modules one to five all scored higher on the measures at the completion of the training programme, compared to the pre training programme measures (p<.001). The means and standard errors are shown in table 5. A visual representation of the mean module scores for mentors prior to and after the training programme can be seen in graph 1.

Table 5: Mean and standard error scores for the six modules, at pre and post training measures. Before the training programme At completion of training programme Modules Mean (%) SE Mean (%) SE 1 69.6 3.5 89.1 2.3 * 2 51.4 3.2 67.1 2.3 * 3 64.6 2.8 77.5 1.6 * 4 13.8 2.4 57.5 3.2 * 5 77.1 3.7 93.9 1.5 * 6 78.2 4.0 83.2 3.0 * indicates a significant difference at p<.001 Bold indicates the higher scores

Graph 1: Pre and post training-mentor and trainer mean scores for the six modules
Mean scores (percentage)

100 80 60
(percentage)

40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Modules

pre mentor post mentor trainer

61

Gender differences for scoring the six modules There was a different pattern of scores for males than females on their module scoring (F (5, 130) = 2.81, p<.05). Post Hoc tests, with a Bonferroni adjustment, showed that female participants differed on their scoring between modules, as did the male participants.

The female participants scored highest on modules one and five and lowest on module four (see table 6). While the male participants scored highest on modules one and five like the females, but also module six. The male participants also scored lowest on module four (see table 6).

Table 6: Mean standard error scores for significant differences on modules for female and male participants. Female Participants Male Participants Modules Mean (%) Standard Significant Mean (%) Standard Significant error difference error difference at p<.05 at p<.05 1 82.9 3.4 abc * 74.7 4.0 ab * 2 59.0 3.2 adgij 59.6 3.7 acegh 3 71.1 2.3 begh 71.0 2.7 hijk 4 36.2 2.3 cfhik 34.9 2.7 bdfgi 5 84.7 2.7 def * 86.7 3.1 cdj * 6 75.9 4.2 jk 87.1 4.8 efk * The same letter indicates a significant difference between the modules. * Indicates the higher scores - Indicates the lower scores

Age group and region group differences There were no age group or regional group differences for the six modules at pre and post measures.

62

Mentor skill-confidence before and after training programme This section related to the following research question: In what ways do the mentors increase their skill-confidence through training? A split-plot repeated measures analysis was conducted to test for differences in the skill-confidence items (q29-38) between the pre and post measures, any differences between the items and any gender, regional group or age group differences. Training-mentors rated their confidence in each skill from 0-6.

Differences between skill-confidence questions Overall there was a significant difference between the training-mentors scoring on the skill-confidence questions (F (9, 234) = 10.76, p<.001). The training-mentors scored higher on six of the skill items (see the asterisk in table 7) and the lowest in empathising with and resolving conflict with young people (see table 7).

Table 7: Mean and standard error scores for significant differences between items of training-mentor skill-confidence. Skill items Mean (%) Standard error Significant difference at p<.05 Listen to young people 4.57 .17 ab * Be approachable to 4.65 .17 cd * young people Show respect towards 4.89 .14 ef * young people Help a young person 4.91 .13 ghm * access resources Provide a young person 4.71 .13 ij * with support Interact with young 4.66 .16 kl * people Empathise with young 4.16 .16 acegik people Resolve conflict with 3.91 .19 bdfhjl young people Monitor and manage your 4.27 .18 m expectations of mentoring The same letter indicates a significant difference between the skill items. * Indicates the higher scores - Indicates the lower scores 63

Differences in skill- confidence items between pre and post measures Overall there was a significant difference between the pre and post measures for the skill-confidence items (F (1, 26) = 8.53, p=.007). As was expected, the scores for the skill-confidence items (combined) were significantly higher at the completion of the training (M= 4.72, SE= .12), compared to before the training (M= 4.31, SE= .18).

Gender differences in skill-confidence items between pre and post measures Gender was not a significant factor for the skill-confidence items or the pre and post measures individually, however, there was a three-way interaction between gender, pre and post measures and the skill-confidence items (F (9, 234) = 2.61, p=.022). Gender alone was also significant (F (1, 26) = 6.61, p=.016), however, because of its interaction with the skill-confidence items and the pre and post measures it was only analysed in relation to this interaction.

Post Hoc tests, with Bonferroni adjustment showed that males scored significantly differently on several skill-confidence items at pre and post measures. MALES: Empathise with young people: Males scored higher on this item post training (M= 4.08, SE= .23), compared to before training (M= 3.25, SE= .32) (p=.011). Listen to young people: Males again scored significantly higher after the training (M= 4.58, SE= .25), compared to before (M= 4.08, SE= .31) (p=.036). Be patient with young people: Males scored significantly higher post training (M= 4.25, SE= .25), compared to before (M= 3.67, SE= .32) (p=.005).

64

Resolve conflict with young people: Males scored significantly higher after the training (M= 3.75, SE= .27) compared to before training (M= 3.25, SE= .35) (p=.035).

Post Hoc tests, with Bonferroni adjustment also showed that females scored significantly differently on several different skill-confidence items at the pre and post measures. FEMALES: Resolve conflict with young people: Females also scored significantly higher at post training measures (M= 4.56, SE= .23) compared to before the training (M= 4.09, SE= .30) (p=.023). Help a young person access resources: Females scored significantly higher post training (M= 5.56, SE= .15) compared to before (M= 4.59, SE= .28) (p=.003). Provide a young person with support: Females again scored significantly higher after the training (M= 5.31, SE= .19) compared to before the training (M= 4.59, SE= .25) (p=.014).

Differences between skill-confidence items for males and females at pre and post measures There was a different pattern of scores for males than females on the skill-confidence items. Male participants: Males scored significantly higher on five of the skill items at pre training measures (see the asterisk in table 8). Empathising with young people was the skill item scored the lowest by the male participants at pre training measures. At post training measures

65

the male participants were most confident in the skills to help a young person access resources and least confident in resolving conflict with young people (see table 8).

Table 8: Mean and standard error scores of skill-confidence for males at pre and post training measures. Male pre training measures Male post training measures Skill Items Mean Standard Significant Mean Standard Significant error difference error difference at p<.05 at p<.05 Empathise with 3.25 .32 a b c d e - 4.08 .23 a young people Listen to young 4.08 .31 a * 4.58 .25 c people Be patient with 3.67 .32 4.25 .25 young people Be 4.08 .33 4.42 .27 approachable to young people Show respect 4.33 .30 b * 4.75 .19 towards young people Resolve conflict 3.25 .35 fg 3.75 .27 bc with young people Help a young 4.58 .32 cf * 4.92 .17 ab * person access resources Provide a young 4.42 .29 dg * 4.50 .22 person with support Monitor and 3.75 .35 4.25 .28 manage your expectations of mentoring Interact with 4.08 .32 e * 4.50 .23 young people The letters indicate a significant difference between the skill items. * Indicates the higher scores - Indicates the lower scores

Female participants: The female participants scored highest in showing respect towards young people at pre training measures, and lowest in the confidence in skills for resolving conflict with young people. After completing the training programmes females were most 66

confident in their ability to help a young person access resources and least confident in resolving conflict with and empathising with young people (see table 9).

Table 9: Mean and standard error scores of skill-confidence items for females at pre and post measures. Female pre training measures Female post training measures Skill item Mean Standard Significant Mean Standard Significant error difference at error difference p<.05 at p<.05 Empathise with 4.56 .28 4.75 .20 a young people Listen to young 4.66 .27 4.97 .22 people Be patient with 4.72 .28 4.94 .22 young people Be 4.97 .29 5.13 .23 approachable to young people Show respect 5.22 .26 ab * 5.25 .16 towards young people Resolve 4.09 .30 ac 4.56 .23 b conflict with young people Help a young 4.59 .28 5.56 .15 ab * person access resources Provide a 4.59 .25 b 5.31 .19 young person with support Monitor and 4.28 .30 4.81 .24 mange your expectations of mentoring Interact with 5.00 .28 c 5.06 .20 young people The letters indicate a significant difference between the skill items. * Indicates the higher scores - Indicates the lower scores

67

Differences between males and females on the skill-confidence items at pre and post measures Before mentor training At the pre training measures males and females differed significantly in their scoring on four of the skill-confidence items, with the female participants scoring higher on all of these items. This can be seen in table 10. Table 10: Mean and standard error scores for males and females on significant skillconfidence items at pre training measures. Pre training: Females Males Skill-confidence items. Mean SE Mean SE Empathise with young people 3.25 .32 * 4.56 .28 Be patient with young people 3.67 .32 * 4.72 .28 Show respect towards young people 4.33 .30 * 5.22 .26 Interact with young people 4.08 .32 * 5.00 .28 * Indicates significance at p<.05 Bold indicates higher scores

After mentor training At post training measures females again scored significantly higher than the male participants on five of the skill-confidence items. This can be seen in table 11.

Table 11: Mean and standard error scores for males and females on significant skillconfidence items at post training measures. Post training: Females Males Skill-confidence items. Mean SE Mean SE Empathise with young people 4.08 .23 * 4.75 .20 Be patient with young people 4.25 .25 * 4.94 .22 Resolve conflict with young people 3.75 .27 * 4.56 .23 Help a young person access resources 4.92 .17 * 5.56 .15 Provide a young person with support 4.50 .22 * 5.31 .19 * Indicates significance at p<.05 Bold indicates higher scores

Age group and region group differences There were no significant age group or regional group differences for the participants on the 10 skill-confidence items.

68

Mentor self-reported overall knowledge and skills to be an effective mentor, before and after the training programme This section related to both of the training-mentor research questions: In what ways do the mentors increase their skill-knowledge through training? In what ways do the mentors increase their skill-confidence through training? This section involved questions 39 (Overall I think I have the knowledge to be an effective mentor) and question 40 (Overall I think I have the skills to be an effective mentor) from the mentor questionnaire. The mentors rated themselves on a scale from 0-6.

A split-plot repeated measures analysis was conducted on these knowledge and skill questions to test for differences between the questions across the pre and post measures, also any gender, regional group or age group differences.

Overall significance was found for differences on the two questions across the pre and post measures (F (2, 26) =14.78, p<.001). Training-mentors scored themselves higher on having the knowledge to be an effective mentor at the completion of the mentor training programme (M= 4.93, SE= .13), compared to the measures at pre training (M= 3.98, SE= .24). Training-mentors also scored themselves higher on having the skills to be an effective mentor at the completion of the training (M= 4.79, SE= .17) than before the training (M= 3.95, SE= .21)

Gender, age group and region group differences There were no significant age group, gender or regional group differences on the knowledge and skill items (p>.05).

69

Module scores from training-mentors at the completion of training programme and from the trainer This section related to the following research question: What relationship is there between the mentors skill-knowledge and the trainers perception of the mentors skills? The scores for the questions involved in each module were collated and a total module score (total for the module, comprising of different individual questions) was calculated for each of the six modules for the post mentor and for the trainer measures (score/possible score as a percentage).

A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was performed on the data to test for overall differences between module scores for training-mentors post training and their trainers. Any regional differences were also investigated. Following the Bonferroni-type adjustment mentioned in the data screening section (desired alpha [.05] /number of tests) the alpha level used in this analysis was 0.008, as six tests were conducted.

Module scores for mentors after training and the trainers Overall, there was a significant difference between the module scores from the training-mentors post training and the trainers module scores (F ( 6, 49) = 26.91, p<.001). Modules two, three and four were significantly different between the training-mentors post training and the trainers. These modules were scored higher by the trainers, compared to the training-mentors after training. The means and standard error scores are shown in table 12. A visual representation of the training-mentors post training and trainer mean module scores can be seen in graph 1.

70

Table 12: Mean and standard error scores for the six modules from training-mentors post training and trainer measures. Mentor post training Trainer Modules Mean (%) SE Mean (%) SE 1 89.1 2.0 88.7 2.0 2 67.1 2.0 89.1 2.0 * 3 77.5 1.7 88.5 1.7 * 4 57.5 2.6 85.2 2.6 * 5 93.9 1.7 88.9 1.7 6 83.2 2.6 85.1 2.6 * indicates a significant difference at p<.001 Bold indicates the higher scores

Region group differences There were no regional group differences on the modules at the 0.008 alpha level.

Overall knowledge and skills to become an effective mentor from mentors post training and from trainers This section also related to the first trainer research question: What relationship is there between the mentors skill-knowledge and the trainers perception of these skills? This involved questions 39 (Overall I think I have to knowledge to be an effective mentor) and 40 (Overall I think I have the skills to be an effective mentor) from the mentor questionnaire and questions 20 (Overall, how would you rate the mentoring knowledge of the mentor?), and 21 (Overall, how would you rate the mentoring skills of the mentor?) from the trainer questionnaire. These items were rated on a scale from 0-6.

A MANOVA was conducted on this data for differences between the two groups on these questions and any regional group differences. In this analysis an alpha level of 0.025 was used, as two tests were conducted.

71

There were no overall significant differences for the two questions between the training-mentors post training and the trainers.

Regional differences The data was divided into two regional categories; Auckland and outside Auckland (all other regions). Overall there was a significant differences between the two regions (F (2, 51) = 3.40, p<.05). On both the knowledge and skill questions the participants in the regional category of outside of Auckland scored significantly higher compared to those within the Auckland region. This can be seen in table 13.

Table 13: Mean and standard error scores of overall knowledge and skill questions across regional categories. Auckland Outside Auckland Question Mean SE Mean SE Knowledge 4.96 .10 5.40 .14 * Skill 4.79 .13 5.33 .18 * * Indicates a significant result at p<.025 Bold indicates higher scores

Trainer reported mentor interaction with others and mentor interaction with young people This section related to the following research question: What relationship is there between the confidence of the mentors in interacting with others (young people) and the perceived competence of the mentor by his/her trainer? This section involved questions 18 (the mentor interacts well with others) from the trainer questionnaire and question 38, mentors confidence in their ability to Interact with young people from the mentor questionnaire. Interaction was tested for individually because the items did not fit into one of the modules or the skill-confidence items.

72

A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test for differences between the scores from the training-mentors and trainers and any regional differences.

Overall significance was found for differences on the interaction questions between the training-mentors and the trainers (F (1, 52) = 8.87, p=.004). The trainers scored the training-mentors higher on interaction with others (M= 5.46, SE= .15) than the training-mentors scored themselves on interacting with young people (M= 4.82, SE= .15). There were no regional group differences for the interaction questions (p>.05).

Trainer reported mentor commitment The research question for this section was: How committed to mentoring a student do the trainers perceive the mentors to be? This section involves question 19 (overall, how would you rate the commitment of the mentor to mentoring a young person?) from the trainer questionnaire. Commitment was tested for individually as it did not fit into one of the modules.

A t-test was conducted to test for regional differences on trainer reported mentor commitment. There were no significant differences between the two regional groups (Auckland, outside Auckland) on the trainer reported mentor commitment to mentoring a young person. The trainers mean score for the question was 5.32 (SD= .86).

Module scores from current-mentors and students The related research question was: What relationship is there between the mentors skill-knowledge and skill-application? The scores for the questions involved in each module were collated and a total module score was calculated (each module is made

73

up of different individual questions) for each of the six modules within the current mentor measures and within the student measures (score/possible score as a percentage).

A multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was performed on the data to test for differences between the modules, module differences between the current-mentors and students, gender and regional group differences. In this analysis an alpha level of 0.008 was used, as six tests were conducted.

Module differences for current-mentors and students Overall, there was a significant difference between the module scores of the currentmentors and students (F (6, 57) = 27.53, p<.001). Modules two, four, five and six were significantly different between the current-mentor and student measures, with modules two and four scoring higher from the students and modules five and six higher from the current-mentors. The means and standard errors can be seen in table 14. A visual representation of the current-mentor and student mean module scores can be seen in graph 2.

Table 14: Mean and standard error scores of current-mentor and student measures from the six module totals. Mentor measures Student measures Modules Mean (%) SE Mean (%) SE 1 81.3 2.7 77.2 2.6 2 63.0 1.9 76.3 1.8 * 3 74.0 2.5 81.4 2.4 4 50.1 3.2 72.2 3.0 * 5 57.6 3.6 * 90.0 3.9 6 69.7 3.0 * 86.0 3.2 * indicates a significant difference at p<.001 Bold indicates the higher score

74

Regional and gender differences There were no overall differences between the module scores from participants within Auckland compared to those from outside of Auckland, or for females compared to males.

Graph 2: Current-mentor and student mean scores for the six modules

100
Mean scores (percentage)

80 60 40 20 0

(percentage)

mentor student

Modules

Student emotions The research question for this section was: What emotions do the students feel when with their mentor? The scores from the negative emotions (annoyed, bored, lonely, ashamed, frustrated and nervous) were combined as were the positive emotions (happy, excited, interested and inspired) into total negative emotions and total positive emotions scores. The reliability analysis for these groupings is detailed in the methods section. A paired samples t test was conducted on the data to test for differences between the two groups.

There was a significant difference between the emotions that the students reported, (t(135) = 14.08, p<.001, r = .275) with the positive emotions (M= 2.61, SE= .10) scoring significantly higher than the negative emotions (M =.64, SE=.08).

75

Because of this significant difference between the emotion groupings with positive emotions out-scoring the negatives a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted on the positive emotions, to investigate what emotions were felt the strongest by the students when with their mentor. The emotions were rated from 0 not at all, 1 a little bit, 2 sometimes, 3 quite a lot and 4 a lot.

Positive emotions Overall there was a significant difference between the scores of the positive emotions (F (3, 96) = 7.46, p=.001), however, there was an interaction effect with positive emotions and regional group (F (3, 96) = 3.71, p=.023), therefore the positive emotions were only investigated with relation to this interaction. Post Hoc tests, with

Bonferroni adjustment showed students from Auckland were more happy (M= 2.78, SE= .23) and interested (M=2.56, SE= .23) than excited (M= 1.61, SE= .25) when with their mentor (p<.001). There were no significant differences between the positive emotions in the outside of Auckland regional condition.

Differences for positive emotions between regional groups

Excited The excited emotion was significantly different between the two regions, with the students in the outside Auckland region condition (M=2.81, SE= .27) scoring significantly higher than the students within Auckland (M=1.61, SE= .25) (p=.003).

76

Inspired The inspired emotion was also significantly different, with students in the outside of Auckland region condition (M=3.06, SE= .30) scoring higher than those in the Auckland region (M= 2.22, SE= .28) (p=.050).

Gender differences for positive emotions There were no differences between male and female students on their scoring of the positive emotions.

Students overall rating of mentors This section involved question 37 (overall, how would you rate your mentor?) from the student questionnaire. T-tests were conducted to test for any regional group or gender differences of students in scoring their mentor.

There was no significant gender or regional group differences on students scoring of their overall mentor rating. Students mean score for overall how they rated their mentor was 5.16 (SD= 1.21).

Module scores from training-mentors post training and current-mentors The related research question was: What differences are there between the training and current-mentors skill-knowledge? The scores for the questions involved in each module were collated and a total module score was calculated (individual questions were the same for both training and current-mentors) for each of the six modules within the training-mentor post training and within the current-mentor measures (score/possible score as a percentage). A multivariate Analysis of Variance

77

(MANOVA) was performed on the data to test for differences between the modules from the training-mentors post training and current-mentors, age, gender and regional group differences. In this analysis an alpha level of 0.008 was used, as six tests were conducted.

There were no significant differences between the module scores from the trainingmentors post training and the current-mentors (who were paired with a student). There were also no regional group, age or gender differences.

Skill-confidence items from training-mentors post training and current-mentors The related research question for this section was: What differences are there for training and current mentors skill-confidence? A multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was performed on the data to test for differences between the skillconfidence items (q29-38) for the training-mentors after training and current-mentors, and any age, gender or regional group differences. In this analysis an alpha level of 0.005 was used, as ten tests were conducted.

Overall there was a significant difference between the training-mentors post training and the current-mentors on the skill-confidence items (F (10, 47) = 2.33, p=.025). Using the adjusted alpha level, the item How would you rate your confidence in your ability to: Help a young person access resources was significantly different between the training-mentors post training and the current-mentors. The training-mentors post training (M=5.29, SE= .15) considered themselves better equipped to help a young person access resources than the current-mentors did (M= 4.50, SE=.15) (p=.001).

78

Age group, gender and regional group differences There were no age group, regional or gender differences on the skill items.

Knowledge and skill questions from training-mentors post training and currentmentors The two research questions relating to this section were: What differences are there between training and current-mentors skill-knowledge? What differences are there between training and current-mentors skill-confidence? The items in this section are questions 39 (Overall I think I have the knowledge to be an effective mentor) and 40 (Overall I think I have the skills to be an effective mentor) from the mentor questionnaires. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was performed on the data to test for differences between the two questions from the training-mentors post training and current-mentors, and any age, gender or regional group differences. In this analysis an alpha level of 0.025 was used, as two tests were conducted.

When comparing the effects of training-mentors post training and current-mentors with regional groups there was a significant difference between the training-mentors post training and the current-mentors on the knowledge and skill questions (F (2, 53) = 4.41, p=.017). Question 39 knowledge, was significantly different between the training-mentors post training and the current-mentors. Mentors post training (M= 5.25, SE= .22) scored themselves higher on having the knowledge to be an effective mentor compared to those mentors who were paired with a student (four months+) (M= 4.60, SE= .13) (p=.013).

79

Regional differences Overall there was a significant difference between the participants in the two regional categories (Auckland and outside Auckland) on the knowledge and skill items (F (2, 53) = 5.47, p=.007). The knowledge item (q39) was significantly different between the Auckland and outside Auckland regions. The mentors in the outside Auckland regional category (M= 5.28, SE= .23) scored themselves significantly higher on having the knowledge to become an effective mentor than the mentors in the Auckland region did (M= 4.58, SE= .11) (p=.007).

Age and gender differences There were no significant age group or gender differences on the knowledge and skill items.

80

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION

This study looked at the effectiveness of the Project K mentor training programme which has the aim of teaching potential mentors the knowledge and skills they require to mentor a student.

Summary of results At the completion of the training-mentors knew approximately 78% of the information covered in the programme. From before to after the training, mentors made great improvements in their understanding of the knowledge involved in the majority of the training components. The mentors knowledge surrounding the concepts of reflection and feedback did not greatly improve, but mentors already scored highly on these concepts before training. At the completion of the training mentors performed best on knowledge around what a mentor is and policies and procedures of Project K, as well as confidentiality and family involvement, while men also scored higher on the concepts of reflection and feedback than they did on other training concepts, which may indicate that men have a good understanding of the process of reflection and issues of feedback. There were no age group (defined as up to 35 and 36 and over) or regional group (defined as Auckland and outside Auckland) differences for mentors knowledge or their skill-confidence.

Mentors scored higher on their confidence in skills for mentoring a student at the completion of the training than at the beginning. Men improved greatly on their confidence to empathise with, listen to, be patient with and resolve conflict with

81

young people. After the training, men felt the most confident to help a young person access resources. Women also improved greatly on their confidence to resolve conflict with, help access resources, and provide support for young people. After training women also indicated they were most confident to help a young person access resources. Accessing resources for students is a highly beneficial skill and will therefore be discussed later. Overall, mentors considered themselves to have greater knowledge and skills to be effective mentors after the training compared to before the training.

The trainers considered the mentors to be more competent in several areas than was reflected in the mentors scores at the completion of the training. The areas were: Understanding youth development and culture, issues surrounding resiliency, selfesteem and self-efficacy, as well as values, communication, role modeling and culture. Also, goal setting within the Project K programme, absolute positive regard, acknowledging achievements and interactions that require boundary definitions. Differences found between the trainers ratings of the mentors and the mentors actual scores are interesting and will be discussed in detail later. Trainers also scored the mentors higher on their interaction with others than the mentors did of themselves.

Mentors displayed to their students the skills relating to several training areas better than they scored on the knowledge of these concepts in their questionnaire. These training concepts were: Understanding youth development and culture, issues surrounding resiliency, self-esteem and self-efficacy, goal setting within the Project K programme, absolute positive regard, acknowledging achievements and interactions that require boundary definitions. Mentors demonstrated the knowledge of

82

confidentiality, family involvement, reflection and feedback better than how they applied these skills with their students, which was measured by student ratings of mentor skills. These concepts that differed on mentor knowledge and skill will be discussed later. When rating how they felt when with their mentor students were far more positive than negative. Of the positive emotions investigated, students were happy, interested and inspired the most when with their mentor.

Mentors at the completion of the training and the current-mentors (current-mentors and students were paired for at least four months) did not differ on their mentoring knowledge. However, the mentors at the completion of the training programme considered themselves better equipped to 'help a young person access resources' than the currently paired mentors did. Reasons for t he difference in mentors skillconfidence will be discussed later. Mentors at the completion of training also considered themselves to have the overall knowledge to be an effective mentor more so than the currently paired mentors did. This is an interesting finding that needs to be understood in the context of challenges faced by mentors as will be discussed later.

Several regional differences (defined as Auckland and Outside Auckland) were found. Trainers and training-mentors from outside of Auckland rated higher on having the overall knowledge and skills to be effective mentors compared to those mentors from within Auckland.

Mentors, post training and current, outside of Auckland also considered themselves to have the overall knowledge to become effective mentors more than the mentors in Auckland did.

83

For the emotions felt when with their mentor, students from outside of Auckland were more excited and inspired when spending time with their mentor compared to students from groups within Auckland. Mentoring outside of Auckland being more exciting and inspiring will be discussed later, with possible explanations for these differences.

Overview of chapter This chapter will examine the results found in this study including training topics that were scored well by the mentors and the areas that require improvements. This chapter will also cover effective learning strategies for mentor training, as well as possible explanations for some of the different findings. This will be followed by recommendations for Project K training, the limitations of this study and future research ideas. Note that I was unable to find any published research on mentor training effectiveness therefore these results cannot be directly compared to previous studies on this topic.

Topics that require greater emphasis in training Mentors knowledge and the related skills identified by students, differed for several of the training concepts. Mentors scored low in their knowledge of understanding youth development and culture, resiliency, self-esteem and self-efficacy as well as goal setting, absolute positive regard, achievements and boundary definitions but were actually scored high by the students in these skills (measured by the student ratings of mentors). Mentors scored high in their knowledge of confidentiality and family involvement but were scored low by the students in these skills. Men also scored high in reflection and feedback but mentors overall were scored low by the students in

84

these skills. These differences highlight the need for training to enhance mentor knowledge of training concepts as well as the development of mentors skills.

Project K mentoring is based on promoting the well-being of young people and their ability to maximise their potential (Project K, 2005, module 1, p.25). With the focus on young people it is important that mentors gain the appropriate skills for mentoring a student as well as knowledge of mentoring concepts. Thus, training should focus on the skill and knowledge deficit areas of the mentors. The concepts that students scored mentors lowest for skill, and so are in need of extra training, are confidentiality, family involvement, reflection and feedback.

To improve the skill deficits of the mentors, training should involve ways the mentors could discuss confidentiality with their student and ensure they understand situations in which the mentor will tell someone something the student told them in confidence. Discussing confidentiality and setting ground rules is very important, because issues of confidentiality are one of the biggest factors limiting mentoring relationships (Cranwell-Ward, Bossons & Gover, 2004). According to Cranwell-Ward et. al. confidentiality must be discussed at the start of the relationship as concerns over confidentiality can hinder both the mentor and student from sharing more sensitive information, which will therefore impact on the establishment of a connection and trust.

Project K mentor training involves some role playing of meeting the students family scenarios, however, mentors need to discuss with their students and their students family what type of role the family would have in the partnership, and have their

85

involvement clearly stated. Although this question relates to discussing family involvement, actually involving the family in the mentoring process is also important as a meta-analysis of mentoring programmes for youth emphasised that mentoring should involve provisions for the support and involvement of parents (DuBois et. al., 2002). Also, a summary of mentoring programmes (Sipe, 2002) found that effective mentors tend to be better acquainted with the students family, and mentors found it helpful to meet and interact with the students family. Family involvement in Big Brothers Big Sisters research found that greater parental contact with the programme increased its success, as 85% of parents with frequent contact reported success with their child (Freknall & Luks, 1992). A family not being involved in mentoring can have negative effects as non-supportive parents can sabotage relationships and overinvolved parents can be detrimental to the mentors relationship with the student (Sipe, 2002). Also, in the BB/BS research only 65% of the parents who had infrequent contact reported success with their child (Freknall & Luks, 1992). Project K encourages the involvement of the student s family, therefore, discussing the familys role and ways to involve the family in activities are skills mentors need to accomplish in training.

Mentors, especially men have the knowledge of reflection and feedback, but may not consistently apply this when with their students, as shown by students scoring their mentors low on these skills. To improve mentors skill in this area, training should focus on ways mentors can apply this knowledge. Project K training involves some personal reflection on each modules aim, key learning objectives and personal insights (Project K, 2004). The mentors skills could be increased with training involving how to reflect and its importance so mentors can encourage their students to

86

reflect on their own experiences. Reflection is important as it encourages higher order level thinking such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation of experiences (Rooney & Allard, n.d.).

Training should also involve greater learning of skills in providing feedback for students, as this is a concept in which students scored their mentors less highly than others. Feedback in goal setting is especially important as this is a key part of Project K mentoring. Feedback is necessary for goal setting to be effective as feedback allows people to know how far they are falling short of their goal and whether they need to adjust their level of effort (Latham, 1990). Importantly, in their review of best practice Cranwell-Ward and colleagues (2004) noted the importance of feedback in mentoring as it aids in building positive mentoring relationships. Another programme aimed at providing resources for mentors (Youth Empowerment Seminars, 2005) emphasised that feedback is especially important for young people as they are in the process of forming their self-images, and effective feedback facilitates change. Because of the delicate formation of a young persons self-image, mentors must learn to avoid ineffective feedback which could be damaging such as, lecturing the student, insulting, patronising, inducing feelings of guilt or trying to force the student to do something. Learning effective feedback skills in training is especially important; to avoid the issues involved with ineffective feedback strategies

Role play scenarios of how to give appropriate feedback to students could be implemented in training as role playing is an effective learning tool, in which participants can learn numerous life skills, and be introduced to difficult concepts that when experienced have meaning and are understandable (DeBord, 1989). Also,

87

problem-solving skills, self-motivation, and self-confidence are enhanced through simulation [role play] experiences (DeBord, usable ideas, 2). Project K uses role plays for meeting the family scenarios, but could make greater use of this valuable learning technique. Galbraith and Zelenak (1991) discuss the value of role playing as it brings to life situations, provides solutions to a problem and arouses interest. They also note that role play scenarios identify strengths, weaknesses and consequences of different behaviours, which can then be discussed and corrected. Role playing also brings novelty into adult learning and provides for active participation by the group members. Role playing allows for various feedback situations to be played out and for mentors to gain confidence in providing feedback, the importance of which was discussed previously.

Training to increase mentor knowledge deficits Students perceived mentors to have much greater knowledge and skills of several areas than the mentors demonstrated in the post training questionnaire. These areas were: Understanding youth development and culture, issues surrounding resiliency, self-esteem and self-efficacy, goal setting within the Project K programme, absolute positive regard, acknowledging achievements and interactions that require boundary definitions. Thus, mentors applied these skills better than they demonstrated the associated knowledge. Increasing mentors knowledge in these concepts should increase mentor confidence in applying these skills when with their student. Training should therefore still have an emphasis on the knowledge around the previously mentioned concepts to increase the skill base of mentors.

88

To increase mentor knowledge, training should encour age mentors understanding of youth development and culture, as it is important for them to understand what it is like being a teenager, what issues are involved and to develop empathy with young people. Because empathy with young people is also a skill deficit of mentors it is discussed later, however mentors having a greater understanding of their students and empathy for young people fosters a strong positive mentoring relationship (JPO Service Centre, n.d.). Mentors can develop their understanding of youth culture by asking their students questions and exploring the different facets that are important in their life (Velzquez & Garin-Jones, 2003).

Resiliency, the ability to spring back from and successfully adapt to adversity (Project K, 2004, module 2, p.6) is another area that mentors need to build their knowledge. Johnson, Howard, Dryden and McGuire (1998) discuss the importance of building a students resiliency because resilient children have autonomy, problem solving skills, social competence and a sense of purpose and future. They also note that mentors can contribute to a students resiliency by being caring and supportive, promoting high expectations and encouraging participation and strong involvement. Training needs to encourage the deve lopment of mentors knowledge around resiliency to aid their students development.

Self-esteem and self-efficacy are important for a mentor to build in their student because in general good self-esteem generates self-confidence and promotes success (Lau & Shaffer, 1999). As this area is one the mentors have less knowledge, training to learn how to promote a students self-esteem and self-efficacy. A site dedicated to mentoring (Mentor training, n.d.) included several ways a mentor can increase their

89

students self-esteem and self-efficacy. This can be through sharing interests and encouraging participation in cultural programmes and community service. Developing a students uniqueness also builds self -esteem by affirming their special characteristics and encouraging them to express their ideas, even if they are different from the mentors. Having power increases self-esteem, mentors can encourage personal responsibility, creating awareness of decision-making processes, help with setting goals and emphasising strengths not weaknesses. Having good role models enhances self-esteem, as does encouraging confidence and feelings of self-worth, focusing on their good points and accepting them for who they are, respecting them and communicating encouragingly. (Mentor training). Role models, absolute positive regard and communication are all important components in training and therefore will be discussed in detail later.

The knowledge around goal setting is another area that needs improvement for the mentors. Goal setting is an integral part of Project K mentoring, and goal setting has been found to be effective regardless of the age of the individual or their intelligence (Latham, 1990). It is important that mentors learn to help their students set specific goals that have relatively short term achievability but are not easy to achieve, as short term goals result in faster achievement and higher productivity than long term goals (Latham). Also, according to Latham specific goals result in better achievement than non-specific goals and harder goals result in better performance than easy goals. Training should teach mentors how to help their students set their goals, but also aid in the goal setting process of the mentors themselves.

90

The concept of absolute positive regard was scored low by the mentors, thus training should focus on improving this knowledge. Absolute positive regard is accepting and appreciating people even though you may not accept their behaviour, you provide unconditional love and care (Youth Empowerment Seminars, 2005). It is important in a mentoring relationship that the mentor shows regard for their students well-being, and accepts their students vulnerabilities and imperfections, just like the student must learn to accept the weaknesses and flaws of their mentor (United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), n.d.). Absolute or unconditional positive regard is growth-promoting regardless of the setting in that any person demonstrating unconditional positive regard for another will promote positive changes in that person (Wilkins, 2000, p. 28). Project K considers absolute positive regard to be important in developing a students self-efficacy and resiliency, both of which have been discussed previously (Project K, 2005). Training is necessary for mentors to develop the knowledge and skills to connect with the person behind the behaviour, to reduce the need to tolerate or judge the unacceptable behaviour (Wilkins).

Another important concept which was scored poorly on knowledge by the mentors is learning how to effectively acknowledge achievements. Project K considers the best way to acknowledge achievements is through honest praise (Project K, 2005). Another mentor programme (Fairfax Mentoring Partnership, n.d.) notes it is important that mentors learn not to use rewards or incentives all the time; they should only be for special occasions and there should only be minimal value attached to the reward or incentive. Incentives can be effective when they relate to a specific accomplishment, are consistent with the students lifestyle and involve a time frame. Such incentives could be a treat lunch, a personal Christmas present or a ticket to an event (Fairfax

91

Mentoring Partnership). Project K encourages the use of genuine praise as a reward for good effort, and considers buying rewards to be less powerful than acknowledgement and honest praise. However, using rewards such as lunch or an ice cream are acceptable if they are celebrating something special (Project K, 2004).

Boundaries are another component of mentors knowledge deficits. It is important in training that mentors learn what the boundaries are for their interaction with their students and then actually discusses those boundaries with their student. Discussing boundaries is to protect the student from situations they might not be able to deal with (Youth Empowerment Seminars, 2005). Training should emphasis what the boundaries for the mentor student relationship are and role play scenarios for discussing these boundaries. Areas that Project K consider might require boundaries are the mentors level of involvement in family, school, peers and relationships, physical contact, transport, language, finances and gift giving, time, places and the types of activities mentors and students share (Project K, 2005).

Training to increase mentor knowledge and subsequent skill The trainers considered the mentors to be more competent on several training concepts than the mentors scored on this knowledge in the post-training questionnaire. These concepts were: Understanding youth development and culture, issues surrounding resiliency, self-esteem and self-efficacy, as well as values, communication and culture. Also, goal setting within the Project K programme, absolute positive regard, acknowledging achievements and interactions that require boundary definitions. . The students also rated their mentors high on the skills relating to these concepts that they displayed during the course of their relationship,

92

most of which were discussed previously. Again, mentors had less knowledge about these concepts than the related skills they appeared to display during the course of the training programme and when spending time with their student. Thus, increasing this knowledge will encourage mentor confidence in the application of these skills with their student. Mentors competence in values, communication, role modeling and cultural understanding are important for mentors to be confident in when interacting with their students. The importance of the other knowledge deficit concepts have been discussed previously.

Greater knowledge in values, communication, role modeling and cultural understanding through training will increase mentors confidence in these components and better their mentoring skills. It is important that mentors learn through training to respect the values of their student and their students family. Sipe (2002) in a summary of mentoring programmes for adolescents made the point that mentors need to learn to expose their student to new ideas without undermining the students familys values, as this can be detrimental to the relationship and the students development. The mentor can express their own values to their student but should avoid trying to instill a set of values that is different or inconsistent with the values in the students home as this is an ineffective mentoring strategy. Sipe noted that adopting ineffective strategies more often leads to dissatisfaction with the match from both the youth and the mentor and results in premature termination.

Effective communication is another component that mentors need greater knowledge of, and to learn through training. Mentors need to be prepared to lead in keeping the lines of communication open, especially during times of conflict (Youth Empowerment Seminars, 2005, 12). Active listening is an important skill for

93

mentors to learn as listening is a major component of relationship building (CranwellWard, 2004). A good active listener will not only pick up what the person is saying they will also have insights into what the person is thinking and feeling (CranwellWard). Project K encourages mentors to use effective communication by not interrupting their student when they are talking, by focusing on what they are saying and not getting distracted and by showing they are listening through attentive body language (Project K, 2005). Teaching by example may be the mentors most effective developmental tool (Rhodes, 2002; DHHS, n.d.), and the knowledge surrounding this needs to be emphasised in training. Students learn by observing and comparing their own performance to that of their mentors, noting how their mentor interacts with others and handles situations, therefore, mentors need to be careful how they come across to their students (Rhodes; DHHS). Other mentoring programmes note that as a role model mentors should be an example of good values, ethics and practice (DHHS), and role model a caring and optimistic view of the future (Youth Empowerment Seminars, 2005). Because students can be influenced by others behaviour, mentors need to develop a healthy positive self-image which would promote a favourable self-image for their student to model (Youth Empowerment Seminars). Therefore, learning skills to be an effective role model are important in training.

Cultural understanding is a very important aspect for mentors to learn especially in such a multi-cultural country as New Zealand. Because mentors have less knowledge relating to this module than others, training should increase mentors awareness of and ability to interact with other social and cultural groups, especially Maori culture

94

in New Zealand, and to develop a better understanding of multi-cultural issues (Mentor training, n.d.).

The skills mentors gain confidence in through training The development of skills from pre training to post training measures of the mentors indicates the Project K training environment appears especially effective in assisting the development of empathy, listening skills, patience, conflict resolution, accessing resources, and support provision for the mentors. These are all important aspects to learn before being matched with a student and Project K training appears to be a good base for the development of mentoring skills, especially those mentioned. At the completion of the training the training-mentors scored lowest on having the confidence to empathise with young people and resolve conflict with young people. Therefore, training could provide greater opportunities for mentors to gain the skills necessary for empathy with and ways to resolve conflict with youth. Empathy is the ability to understand, at a very deep level, what another person is going through, despite not having had the same life experiences (Davis, 1996). The ability to empathise and the willingness to try to understand are very important in mentoring (Applied Research Ethics National Association (ARENA), 2005; Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia; Youth Empowerment Seminars, 2005). An empathic environment is one which is safe, supportive and fosters cooperation, unselfishness, tolerance and sensitivity to others needs (Acaster, 2000, p. 7). An effective mentor should promote an empathetic environment and be able and willing to reveal their own personality to their student without fear, as opening up to a student aids the development of empathy, in that you have been through and learnt from your experience. A mentor who empathises effectively tries to understand what a student is

95

going through, without being involved in the problem themselves (Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia). Students open up to empathetic mentors and share their concerns and issues of importance (JPO Service Centre, n.d.), which encourages a positive mentoring relationship.

Mentor confidence was also lower in skills for conflict resolution, and training should be encouraging the development of these skills. Conflict resolution skills are tools for building friendship and trust, as they develop when people learn we can work it out. Relationships that have overcome conflict can be more fulfilling and supportive (Conflict Resolution Network, n.d.) for both the mentor and student. Therefore, mentors need to have the ability to resolve conflict with their students and learn skills such as respectfully discussing as equals the situation with their student so they can understand their point of view and work on a solution together that is mutually beneficial (Mental Help Net, n.d.).

Training provided mentors not only with the skill development to help young people access resources, but resulted in the mentors being the most confident in this skill at the completion of the training. Improving students access to resources is a benefic ial skill to learn because it is one of the most valuable benefits a mentor can give to their student (Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 2005). In everyday contexts access to resources promotes empowerment of the individual (Nalia, 1999) and opens up job opportunities (Lin, Vaughn & Ensel, 1981). Mentors can help their students find people, opportunities and information that they might not have found on their own. Mentors help students open doors by taking their students to new places , introducing them to new people and helping them learn about the resources that will

96

help them reach their goals (Rhodes, 2002; Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 2005).

The mentors at the completion of the training programme considered themselves better equipped to help a young person access resources than the currently paired mentors did, but these two groups of mentors did not differ on their actual knowledge of training concepts. This may be that the mentors completing the training are overconfident in their abilities to help young people in this regard, and the mentors paired with students realise the practical difficulties involved. Time is a large demand on mentors and can limit the help they are able to provide their student (Wynne et. al., n.d.; The University of Queensland Australia, 2005). Mentors paired with students may realise that they do not have the connections to help their student or the knowledge on where to access information. Mentoring may be harder than they first anticipated and may require more effort than was initially thought. Therefore, ongoing training is important for Project K to consistently implement, helping currentmentors with such issues.

Effective learning strategies The understanding of new concepts can be increased through the use of different learning techniques (Galbraith & Zelenak, 1991). The training currently involves some use of role plays, worksheets, group discussions, readings and a learning journal. According to Galbraith and Zelenak these are all effective learning strategies for adults. Role playing as an effective learning strategy has been discussed previously. According to Galbraith and Zelenak group discussions are a particularly effective learning strategy in adult populations as it exposes learners to a variety of

97

different perspectives on an issue, encourages higher thinking and the generation of new ideas.

Learning journals provide important information about how the mentors experience learning (Brookfield, 1991). Keeping a journal encourages reflection of experiences, discovering what methods work well, areas mentors are confident in and areas they are not. However, if keeping the journal is seen as mandatory it runs the risk of turning into a task that needs to be completed rather than a helpful personal process (Brookfield, 1991). Project K may encounter this problem as the learning journal is a part of Project K mentoring and mentors discuss such journal entry issues with their mentor co-ordinator and share their journal entry insights with peers. Project K states this is because sharing will help the mentors sharpen their skills in self-reflection and to become more self-aware (Project K, 2005).

Reading is the most common method of learning new information (Brockett, 1991). Reading is a convenient and easy way to develop new knowledge, promote critical thinking and reaffirm prior knowledge (Brockett). Project K training involves a lot of reading and a mentor reading on training topics allows them to go at their own pace to ensure thorough comprehension.

Worksheets or writing down ideas are another strategy that promotes critical thinking (Brockett, 1991). Having thoughts and ideas on paper allows mentors to look back over their ideas and reflect on what they have leant (Brockett). Worksheets encourage expansion of thought and are a quick reference to key ideas. Project K makes

98

effective use of this learning strategy with several worksheets on each knowledge module, noting key ideas.

Mentor overall knowledge and skills Mentors at the completion of training considered themselves to have the knowledge to be an effective mentor more so than the currently paired mentors did. This was found through the question that asked mentors overall whether they think they have the knowledge to be an effective mentor. This may be like the differences found for skillconfidence between the training and current mentors. Newly trained mentors are somewhat over confident, while the paired mentors realise that they dont know everything and that they are learning just as much as the student in the mentoring relationship (Schmidt et. al., 2004; Rhodes, 2002). Mentor learning includes; improvement in their interpersonal skills, an increase in their awareness of others and the development of a deeper understanding of youth, as mentioned previously in the chapter I (Pardini, n.d.). Rhodes suggests that mentoring also provides mentors with an insight into their own childhood or children.

Regional differences were found for overall knowledge and skills of mentors with outside Auckland mentors and trainers rating higher compared to those from Auckland. This was measured by the two overall questions relating to knowledge and skill to be an effective mentor. However, there were no regional differences for mentors on their actual knowledge, found in the post-training questionnaire. Therefore, the mentors from outside Auckland may be overly confident in their mentoring knowledge and skills, while Auckland mentors may be more realistic. Another reason for the discrepancy may be that the trainers in outside Auckland

99

regions are more generous with their scoring of mentors than the Auckland trainers; this may be due to similar reasons mentioned later relating to mentoring in Auckland requiring greater mentoring knowledge and skill.

Mentors, training and current from outside of Auckland also considered themselves to have the knowledge to become an effective mentor more than the mentors in Auckland did. Again this question relates to overall knowledge to be an effective mentor. The outside of Auckland mentors may have thought they had greater mentoring knowledge but again there were no regional differences on mentors actual knowledge in the questionnaire. So again, this may be the effects of the newly trained mentors in areas outside of Auckland being overly confident in their mentoring knowledge, while mentors in Auckland having a more realistic perspective of what is really involved in mentoring a student. There is greater variety available in Auckland due to its larger capacity, and students have greater access to problem peers with several schools located in close proximity. Also, there are higher crime rates in Auckland than most other regions (Statistics New Zealand, 2005), many schools have a larger classroom capacity (Teaching New Zealand, n.d.) which means less one on one time with teachers (Preston, 2003), and Aucklanders have higher feelings of social isolation that other cities (Quality of Life Project, 2003). These issues associated with living in Auckland may result in the knowledge required for mentoring a student to be higher than that required to mentor a student outside of Auckland. Therefore, all these components may contribute to greater issues with Auckland students and be a greater mentoring challenge.

100

Student emotions Students were overwhelmingly positive when describing how they felt when with their mentor. Looking at the positive emotions investigated, students were happy, interested and inspired the most with the time in their mentors company. It is important that youth feel positive when with their mentor because youth who feel better and are more positive about being around their mentor are more likely to show improvement in their behaviours and attitudes than are youth who feel less positive being around their mentor (Public/Private Ventures, 2002). Also, Jekielek et. al. (2002) in a summary of mentoring programmes, mentioned previously, noted that youth who had the most positive perceptions of their mentoring relationship had the best outcomes with higher grades, were considered better students, were more likely to go to college and were less likely to start using drugs or alcohol.

Students from outside Auckland were more excited and inspired when spending time with their mentor than were the students from Auckland. Mentoring may be more inspirational for students outside Auckland because smaller cities and towns involve less opportunities and variety than larger cities. Auckland has the highest socioeconomic status in New Zealand, as well as the greatest cultural diversity while smaller cities have less exposure to cultural variety and are less involved in cultural experiences (Statistics New Zealand, 2005) and therefore, possibly have fewer opportunities to meet inspirational people. Mentoring being exciting for non Auckland students may be due to fewer activities to participate in, again because of the city size, as well as less money, whereas Aucklanders are exposed to greater variety and on average have more money to spend on exciting activities (Statistics New Zealand).

101

Explanations for differences found in this research The regional differences found could be related to differences in the questionnaire delivery. However, the instructions were very straight forward on the information sheet and the questionnaire itself. In areas where the author did not provide the questionnaire information herself, the trainer or mentor co-coordinator did so, using the same information the author used. Also, this information was only repetition of the information found in the information sheet and on the questionnaire. Posted questionnaires to regions in both Auckland and outside Auckland involved the same information and format. Therefore, it is unlikely that the regional differences found were confounds of the questionnaire delivery technique.

With mentors displaying differences between their knowledge and the skills they apply with their students it was thought that the mentors may actually have had greater knowledge than was found through the questionnaire, but the situation in which they completed the questionnaire inhibited this. The questionnaire involved a test like situation, involving instant recall, some specific detail and test-like conditions (no talking, no open book etc). Younger people have more recent experiences with test-like conditions from school or university therefore should have scored better as a result, however, this was not the case, there were no age group differences. The current-mentors who completed the questionnaire at home, in a relaxed environment and who had applied the knowledge in practice, also did not score differently from the mentors at the completion of the training programme, therefore, the test-like conditions were unlikely to have had any effect on the results.

102

Several mentoring programmes employ only older members of the community to mentor youth, such as Across Ages in America who use only adults aged 55 and over (LoSciuto et. al., 1996). Western society considers older people to be wise and have the knowledge and experience necessary to mentor that a younger person may not have, however, the older people in this study, aged 36 onwards, did not have more knowledge, measured by their scores on the questionnaire, than their younger mentor counterparts (up to 35 years). Many programmes have had success using younger mentors. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America research has used adult mentors aged 18 to 34 as well as older high school students mentoring younger students (Dennison, 2000). Older people may on average have more life experience but this does not translate into more mentoring knowledge, therefore mentor programmes should not be concerned about the age of their mentors.

Recommendations for Project K mentor training As was discussed in chapter I, the current components of the Project K mentor training programme are consistent with those of other training programmes and cover all necessary aspects for mentoring a student. However, the results of this study do suggest ways in which Project K could fine-tune its training. These are: The trainers should ensure thorough comprehension of all components but especially the training components of confidentiality, family involvement, reflection and feedback as the skills relating to these concepts were scored lowest by the students. Greater emphasis on the practical application of the knowledge of these concepts should result in greater skill-application when mentoring students.

103

The training should also encourage the development of knowledge surrounding understanding youth development and culture, resiliency, selfesteem and self-efficacy as well as goal setting, absolute positive regard, achievements and boundary definitions as these areas were the weakest for the mentors. Greater learning of these ideas in training should result in better application with students and greater mentor confidence.

The training concepts of what a mentor should not be and do, and policies and procedures of Project K, as well as values, communication, role modeling and cultural understanding should not be neglected in training as all of the components covered in the programme are important issues for mentors to learn, but the degree of emphasis placed on these concepts should not be as great as that required for the training concepts scored the lowest in mentor skill by the students.

Project K uses very effective adult learning strategies. Using a variety of learning techniques encourages greater comprehension and at least one avenue of effective learning for each mentor. The deficit areas in training could be emphasised by using the creative strategies, such as teaching effective feedback techniques and scenarios through role playing.

Because of the difference found in training and current mentors confidence in the skills necessary for helping a young person access resources Project K should encourage on-going training to develop these skills.

104

Project K should use these evaluation tools of mentor, trainer and student questionnaires on a regular basis to monitor the effectiveness of the training, and to identify any training issues that may arise in the future.

Limitations of the present study One of the limitations of this study was the use of two separate groups; trainingmentors and trainers; and current-mentors and students. Time restricted following training-mentors through their training process and into pairing with their student. This would have strengthened the link between the training programmes effectiveness and the skill-application of the mentors, however, no differences were found for actual knowledge between the training and current mentors and therefore it is unlikely that the students would score the training-mentors differently from that found for the current-mentors.

It is possible that the current-mentors who completed their questionnaire at their own leisure looked at the training manual or notes for answers. However, it was clearly indicated in the information sheet and on the questionnaire that manuals or notes were not to be used to answer the questionnaire. Because current-mentors completed the training some time ago they may not have considered the questionnaire to be directly related to the training programme and therefore had no issues with leaving a question unanswered.

Another limitation was that written consent was required from parents for students to take part in the study. Thirty-eight percent of the students who were contacted to participate returned questionnaires. It is unknown in what ways those students

105

differed from those who did not take part. This may be especially so for parents who were less positive about the benefits mentoring had for their child. They may have been less willing to want their child to complete the questionnaire with negative scoring, even though the questionnaire and information sheet clearly stated no one other than the researcher would see the answers, they may still have not wanted to complete a negative questionnaire in case that affected their childs involvement with Project K.

Future research

As there is very limited research into the effectiveness of mentor training programmes much more research in this area is needed. Continuation of this research could involve tracking the training-mentors and their relationship with their students. This research found no difference for mentor knowledge at the completion of training and paired with a student, future research could investigate how the students of the training-mentors rate them and whether this is similar to the ratings found for the current pairs. This would investigate the link between the mentor skill-knowledge and application further.

Research could track the mentors experience looking at the situations that cause them to drop the rating of their confidence in helping a young person access resources. Mentor training or on-going training could then focus on developing the mentors skills with helping access resources and overcoming the constraining situations (as mentioned in recommendations for Project K training).

106

Other research could involve qualitative data where mentors openly write about what they enjoyed in the training, what was effective and what they consider needs improving, as they have the greatest insight from experiencing it. Any re-shaping or modelling of the training would then have some indication along with this research on what parts of the training are being taught effectively and what needs greater emphasis.

Some interesting regional differences were found in this research. Future research could involve all Project K regional programmes to investigate these regional differences, especially any differences in the trainers delivery of the programme and the greater confidence of the mentors from the outside Auckland regions.

Conclusion I am not aware of any published research on the effectiveness of mentor training therefore this research represents a significant contribution to understand this popular and promising strategy for improving outcomes for youth at risk. This study also provided detailed information for Project K into what aspects of its training programme are working well. It allows for Project K to make adjustments to the way the training is delivered to ensure the mentors are fully prepared to mentor a student. Also, the questionnaires can be used as an evaluative tool for Project K to implement on a regular basis as ongoing monitoring of its mentor training. It is important that research into mentoring continues as mentoring is a useful tool for young people who need help in becoming confident contributing citizens in society.

107

APPENDIX A: Mentor questionnaire: Mentor Code:

Do not write your name on the questionnaire. Only the researchers will see the responses so please attempt all the questions. This questionnaire is to be completed without the use of external aides (such as notes or manuals from training). Please provide your answers in the spaces provided. If you wish to change your answer cross out X your incorrect response and write your new response. Date: / / .

1: Which of these statements are true? (please tick as many as appropriate) A mentor encourages a caring and supportive environment. A mentor aims to see ongoing improvement in school subjects. A mentor encourages a young person to do everything by themselves. A mentor encourages a young person to develop to her/his fullest potential. /4 2: Provide two examples of what a mentor should be, and two examples of what a mentor should not be. A MENTOR SHOULD BE A: 1) 2) A MENTOR SHOULD NOT BE A: 1) 2)
/4

3: Which of these are Project K policies and procedures? (please tick as many as appropriate) Mentors must have completed a Project K interview. Mentors are not legally responsible for their students when their parents are not around. All mentors must sign a contract before being matched with a student. The aim is for mentors to be matched with students of the same gender.
/4

108

4: Which of these statements are true? (please tick as many as appropriate) Young people want independence. Young people are going through physical and hormonal changes. Young people should be allowed to make all their own decisions. Young people are establishing their identity.
/4

5: Which of these are features of youth culture? (please tick as many as appropriate) Has its own language. Found throughout the world. Strongly influenced by the east (Asia). Has subcultures eg. Styles of music.
/4

6: Define resiliency.

/3

7: Write down four personal resiliency builders (individual qualities that facilitate resiliency). 1) 2) 3) 4)
/4

8: Write down two ways a mentor can increase the resiliency of their Project K student. 1)

2)
/4

109

9: Define self-esteem.

/3

10: Define self-efficacy.

/3

11: Increasing self-efficacy by mastering something can be made easier by: (please tick as many as appropriate)

Already having a strength in that area. Taking credit for success and someone else taking responsibility for failure. Allowing the student to choose it for themselves. Others knowing about the achievement and giving positive feedback. If the student does it by themselves with minimal help.
/5

12: Which of these are Project K values? (please tick as many as appropriate) A sense of adventure and a willingness to explore. Being passionate and enthusiastic. Protecting young people from failure. Open minded and open to alternatives
/4

13: Label these communication styles as either effective or as stumbling blocks (not effective). A= effective, or B= stumbling blocks (not effective) Reflecting Ordering/directing/commanding Discouraging Summarising Sarcasm Validating Name calling/ridiculing Clarifying Threatening/warning Encouraging
/5

110

14: Provide an example of ordering/directing/commanding communication style.

/2

15: Provide an example of encouraging communication style.

/2

16: Define role modelling.

/3

17: Holism is? (please tick as many as appropriate) The recognition of the whole person in all aspects. The recognition that a person is part of a wider family. The recognition that a person is separate from their environment. A perspective that does not look at the individual aspects of a person but recognises that a person has many aspects and talents.
/4

18: What is the Project K acronym for goals and what does each letter stand for?

/8

19: What two goals are compulsory for a mentor to help a Project K student set, according to Project K? 1: 2:
/4

111

20: Why is it important to set goals?

/3

21: What are two factors to consider when supporting a Project K student to set goals? 1:

2:

/4

22: Define Absolute Positive Regard?

/3

23: What is the best way to acknowledge achievements?

/2

24: List three areas of interaction between a mentor and a Project K student that will require boundary definitions. 1: 2: 3:
/6

25: Which of these are true? (please tick as many as appropriate) Confidentiality between the mentor and the Project K student must be kept at all times. Complete confidentiality cannot be offered. Confidentiality only applies to the mentor.

112

Confidentiality only applies to the Project K student. Confidentiality does not apply to this relationship.
/5

26: Which of these statements would be most effective for the mentoring relationship? (please tick as many as appropriate) Having no involvement with the students family. Having the students family dictate the interaction. Discussing all issues and conversations between mentor and student with the students family. Working in a partnership with the students family. Allowing the student to solely decide about their familys involvement.
/5

27: Which of these are true? (please tick as many as appropriate) Reflection is a process. Reflection is a helpful way of connecting what you learn in training with the actual practice of mentoring. Reflection is the same for everybody. Reflection is a way to learn how to focus your skills. Reflection can be used to critically evaluate a situation.
/5

28: Which of these are true? (please tick as many as appropriate) Effective feedback is a way of offering constructive assistance. Effective feedback is taking into account the needs of the young person only. Effective feedback is specific rather than general. Effective feedback is simple, honest and straightforward. Effective feedback uses labels and judgements.
/5

113

How would you rate your confidence in your ability to:

(please circle the most appropriate) Poor Good 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Excellent 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

29: Empathise with young people. 30: Listen to young people. 31: Be patient with young people. 32: Be approachable to young people. 33: Show respect towards young people. 34: Resolve conflict with young people. 35: Help a young person access resources. 36: Provide a young person with support. 37: Monitor and manage your expectations of mentoring. 38: Interact with young people.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

39: Overall I think I have the knowledge to be an effective mentor. (please circle the most appropriate) 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

40: Overall I think I have the skills to be an effective mentor. (please circle the most appropriate) 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

41: Your Age: 42: Your Gender: 43: Your Ethnicity:

114

APPENDIX B: Project K student questionnaire: Mentor Code: ..

Do not write your name on the questionnaire. Please be honest, only the researchers will see your answers. We will not tell anyone else what you wrote, so your mentor, your parents and Project K will never know what you answered. Please rate your mentor on the scales provided from 0 it is not at all true to 6 it is very true. Date: / / .

1: My mentor is my friend. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

2: My mentor motivates me to do well. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

3: I hardly ever see my mentor. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

4: My mentor seems to understand what I am going through as a teenager. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

5: My mentor doesnt seem to want me to talk about my concerns. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

6: My mentor says that I have many strengths. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

7: My mentor focuses on my mistakes. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

115

8: My mentor has lots of good ideas about how to solve a problem. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

9: Sometimes my mentor gives me money to buy things. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

10: My mentor makes fun of me in ways I dont like. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

11: My mentor is fair to me. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

12: When something is bugging me, my mentor listens while I get it off my chest. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

13: Sometimes my mentor says I must do something, rather than letting me decide. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

14: I feel that I cant trust my mentor with sec rets because s/he would tell my parent/guardian. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

15: I wish my mentor understood more about my culture. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

16: My mentor is a good role model for me. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

116

17: My mentor and I discuss lots of things like our families, friends, sports activities and things in the news. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

18: My mentor says nasty things to me when I do something wrong. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

19: My mentor has helped me set my four goals: School goal, health/fitness goal and two other goals. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

20: My mentor and I have discussed why it is important to set goals. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

21: My mentor gives me honest praise when I have done well. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

22: My mentor and I have discussed boundaries (limits) for things like the contact we have, the language we use and the types of activities we do together. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

23: My mentor has discussed with me the issue of confidentiality. I know this means that they may have to tell someone if I am in danger of harm or if they need to for my best interests. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

24: My mentor has discussed with me and my family how my family can be involved in our mentoring partnership. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

25: My mentor has encouraged me to reflect on (or go over) things that I have been through. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
very true

117

26: My mentor gives me feedback on my progress, for example with my goals. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

When I am with my mentor I usually feel. (please circle on the scale how much you feel each emotion when you are with your mentor) Not at all A little bit Sometimes Quite a lot 0 1 2 3 27: Nervous 28: Happy 29:Annoyed 30: Bored 31: Lonely 32: Excited 33:Ashamed 34:Interested 35:Frustrated 36: Inspired 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

A lot 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

37: Overall, how would you rate your mentor? 0

Poor

3
good

6
excellent

38: Your Age: 39: Your Gender: 40: Your Ethnicity:

118

APPENDIX C: Trainer Questionnaire: Mentor Code:.

Do not write your name on the questionnaire. Please answer honestly, only the researchers will see what you write. Neither the mentor, nor Project K will ever know your responses. Please rate the mentor on the scales provided from 0 It is not at all true to 6 It is very true. Date: / / .

1: The mentor is supportive of others. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

2: The mentor has fun during activities. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

3: The mentor has an attitude of helping young people. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

4: The mentor is empathetic towards others. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

5: The mentor is respectful of others. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

6: The mentor participates in discussions about youth issues. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

7: The mentor communicates in an encouraging manner. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

8: The mentor uses active listening skills. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

119

9: In my opinion the mentor is a good role model for young people. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

10: The mentor is respectful of other cultures/cultural beliefs. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

11: The mentor shows an understanding of how to help their student set the goals required by Project K. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

12: The mentor displayed effective skills in the goal setting role play scenarios. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

13: The mentor shows understanding of the issues surrounding boundaries. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

14: The mentor displays an understanding of the confidentiality issues surrounding the mentoring partnership. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

15: The mentor displayed effective skills in the meeting the family role play scenarios. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

16: The mentor undertook reflection about their preparedness in becoming a mentor for a young person. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

17: The mentor has good ideas about feedback for young people. 0
Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

120

18: The mentor interacts well with others. 0

Not at all true

3
somewhat true

6
Very true

19: Overall, how would you rate the commitment of the mentor to mentoring a young person? 0
Poor

3
good

6
excellent

20: Overall, how would you rate the mentoring knowledge of the mentor? 0
Poor

3
good

6
excellent

21: Overall, how would you rate the mentoring skills of the mentor? 0
Poor

3
good

6
excellent

22: Your age: 23: Your gender: 24: Your ethnicity:

121

APPENDIX D: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation. Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr To: The (region) Project K Director. My name is Maree ONeill and I am a student at the University of Auckland. I am currently conducting research for my masters thesis in the Department of Psychology. I am being supervised by Dr Niki Harr. This research involves evaluating the Project K mentor training programme. We are investigating whether the Project K mentor training programme provides the mentors with the appropriate knowledge and skills to become a successful mentor. The evaluation is in two parts. Mentors who are in training will complete two questionnaires about their skills and knowledge as mentors. Mentor trainers will complete a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills each mentor has gained from the training programme. Mentors who have completed the training and are already paired with a student will also complete a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills they gained from the training programme. The students of these mentors will complete a questionnaire about their mentor and the whole mentoring experience. Your participation will help us further understand how to make Project K even more effective. Funding for this project will be provided by Project K. We would like to invite the mentors who will be training in (region) on (date) to participate in this research, as well as the trainer of the group. We would like to invite selected current mentors and the Project K students that the mentors are paired with to also participate at a later date. For the training-mentors this would take place at the beginning and again at the end of the training programme. For the trainers this would be at the end of the training programme. For the current mentors and students, the questionnaire could be conducted during mentor meetings or be posted out. These questionnaires would be to assess whether the training programme is providing mentors with the skills they need to become effective mentors for Project K students. Mentors, trainers, Project K students and their parents will all sign a consent form. The mentors will be made fully aware via an information sheet and verbally that their trainer or their student will be assessing the skills they have learnt from the training programme. However, no one will be able to identify the results obtained for any particular mentor, including the mentors themselves. This is to protect the anonymity of all parties and to help encourage honest responding. It must be stressed that the aim of this study is to evaluate the mentoring programme, not to identify the strengths and weaknesses of particular mentors. For the training and current mentors the questionnaires would take approximately 30 minutes. For the trainers it would take 5 minutes to fill in each questionnaire, and they will be asked to do one for each mentor. This is likely to take about 40 minutes. For the students the questionnaire would take 30 minutes maximum. For those not participating we will provide magazines to read whilst participants complete the questionnaires. No names will be written on the questionnaires however, the questionnaires will be coded with a number that corresponds with the participating mentor so we can

122

compare the four questionnaires together. When the trainer and student fill in the questionnaire about the mentor, the mentors name will be on a label attached to the questionnaire. This label will be removed by Maree ONeill and the mentors code number put on after they have handed in the questionnaire. Maree ONeill will retain a list of names and code numbers only until the data has been collected at which point this list will be destroyed. This list will not be available to anyone else at any time. Your region will, however, be named in the report of the results. The participation of the mentors, mentor trainers and the students is voluntary, therefore, whether or not anyone chooses to participate must not affect their standing in Project K, whether they are employed by Project K, a volunteer or a student. The data will be used for the purpose of this thesis but will also be made available to Project K in early 2006. We will send you a copy. The data collected will be stored indefinitely. You may withdraw the participation of the mentor training group, without giving a reason, up until data collection is completed on 31 st August 2005. Thank you very much for your time and help in making this research possible. If you have any concerns or queries or wish to know more please contact me (Maree ONeill) on maree_o@hotmail.com or 021 261 2192. Maree ONeill and Niki Harr can be contacted by mail at: Department of Psychology The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland Niki Harr can also be contacted by phone on 373 7599 ext. 88512. The Head of Department, who can be contacted at the same address is: Associate Professor Fred Seymour, ph. 373 7599 ext. 88514. For any queries regarding ethical concerns please contact: The Chair, The University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee, Office of the Vice Chancellor, Research Office, Level 2, Symonds Street, Auckland. Ph: 373 7599 ext. 87830.

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11/05/05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

123

CONSENT FORM
THIS CONSENT FORM WILL BE HELD FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS.

Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation. Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr To: The (region) Project K Director. I have been given and have understood an explanation of this research project. I understand that the participants will be mentors from the Project K mentor training programme beginning in (region) on (date) and their trainer. As well as current mentors and their assigned students at a later date. I understand the training mentors will be invited to complete two questionnaires, pre and post the training programme. I understand the programme trainer will be invited to complete a questionnaire on each of the mentors at the conclusion of the training programme. I understand that the current mentors will be invited to complete a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills they gained from their training. I understand that the students assigned to these current mentors will be invited to complete a questionnaire on their mentors skills and the whole mentoring experience. I understand that no one, including myself, Project K National Support Office, or the participating mentors themselves will be able to obtain results for any individual mentor. I understand that this means the mentors will not be able to obtain their own results. I understand the final report will be made available to Project K and that I will be sent a copy. I agree that all participation is voluntary, and give an assurance that the Project K status of staff, volunteers or students who are invited to participate will not be affected by whether or not they choose to do so. I have had an opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered. I understand that I may withdraw my agreement that the mentors and students be approached in the training programme without having to give a reason up until the data collection is completed on 31st August 2005. I understand that the data collected from this research will be stored indefinitely. I agree that the trainers and mentors in the Project K mentoring training programme starting in (region) on (date), and the selected current mentors and the students the mentors are paired with be approached and invited to take part in this research.

Signed: Name: (Please print clearly) Date:

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11/05/05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

124

APPENDIX E: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation. Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr To: Mentors in training. My name is Maree ONeill and I am a student at the University of Auckland. I am currently conducting research for my masters thesis in the Department of Psychology. I am being supervised by Dr Niki Harr, a senior lecturer in the department. This research involves evaluating the Project K mentor training programme. We are investigating whether the Project K mentor training programme provides the mentors with the appropriate knowledge and skills to become a mentor. The evaluation is in two parts. Mentors who are in training will complete two questionnaires about their skills and knowledge as mentors. Mentor trainers will complete a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills each mentor has gained from the training programme. Mentors who have completed the training and are already paired with a student will also complete a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills they gained from the training programme. The students of these mentors will complete a questionnaire about their mentor and the whole mentoring experience. Your participation will help us further understand how to make Project K even more effective. Funding for this project will be provided by Project K. Your Project K mentor training group has been selected for participation. We would like to invite you to take part in this study. You would be asked to fill out a questionnaire at the beginning of the training programme and then again at the completion. The trainer of the programme will also complete questionnaires on your mentoring skills at the completion of the training programme. This is in order to assess whether the training programme is providing mentors with the skills they need to become effective mentors for Project K students. You do not write your name on the questionnaires however, the questionnaires will be coded with a number that corresponds with your name so we can compare your four questionnaires together. When the trainer fills in the questionnaire about you your name will be on a label attached to the questionnaire. This label will be removed by Maree ONeill and your code number put on after they have handed in the questionnaire. Maree will retain a list of names and code numbers only until the data has been collected at which point the list will be destroyed. This list will not be available to anyone else at any time. Project K will not receive the results concerning particular mentors, only combined information for each region involved. Neither, you nor anyone else can obtain your individual results. If you do not wish to participate, you do not have to give a reason for this, it will have no impact on your involvement with Project K. For non-participating mentors we will provide magazines to read whilst participating mentors complete the questionnaires. You do not need to answer all the questions if you do not want to. It should take approximately 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire, a total of one hour of your time. We have permission from your Project K Director and your mentor trainer to approach your training group for participation. Separate consent will be gained from

125

the trainer. If you do not consent to participate, questionnaires will not be gathered from your trainer. The data will be used for the purpose of this thesis but will also be made available to Project K in early 2006. The results will be posted to your regional Project K Director. You may contact Maree or Niki (contact details below) to obtain a copy from February 2006 to May 2006. Maree will also keep a list of email addresses of participants who would like to be emailed the results. Please put your email address on the list if you would like to get the results this way. You may withdraw your participation and the data you have supplied, without having to give a reason, up until data collection is completed on 31st August 2005. The data collected will be stored indefinitely. Thank you very much for your time and help in making this research possible. If you have any concerns or queries or wish to know more please contact me (Maree ONeill) on maree_o@hotmail.com or 021 261 2192. Maree ONeill and Niki Harr can be contacted by mail at: Department of Psychology The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland Niki Harr can also be contacted by phone on 373 7599 ext. 88512. The Head of Department, who can be contacted at the same address is: Associate Professor Fred Seymour, ph. 373 7599 ext. 88514. For any queries regarding ethical concerns please contact: The Chair, The University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee, Office of the Vice Chancellor, Research Office, Level 2, Symonds Street, Auckland. Ph: 373 7599 ext. 87830.

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11/05/05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

126

CONSENT FORM
THIS CONSENT FORM WILL BE HELD FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS.

Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation. Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr To: Mentors in training. I have been given and have understood an explanation of this research project. I understand I will be asked to complete two questionnaires, pre and post the training programme. I understand that the mentor trainer will also rate my knowledge on the training programme information. I understand that the programme director has given permission for my training group to be approached to participate. I understand that the trainer of my training group has also given permission for me to be invited to participate. I understand that no one, including myself, Project K National Support Office, or my programme director will be able to obtain results for any individual mentor. I understand this means I cannot obtain my own results. I understand the final report will be made available to Project K and that I can access one from them or from the researchers. I have had an opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered. I understand I do not have to participate if I do not wish, and there will be no impact on my involvement with Project K. I understand that if I decline to participate that data will not be collected on me from my trainer. I can withdraw my participation and the data I supplied, without having to give a reason, up until data collection is completed on 31 st August 2005. I understand that the data collected from this research will be stored indefinitely.

I agree to take part in this research. Signed: Name: (please print clearly) Date:

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11/05/05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

127

APPENDIX F: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation. Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr To: Current Mentors. My name is Maree ONeill and I am a student at the Univers ity of Auckland. I am currently conducting research for my masters thesis in the Department of Psychology. I am being supervised by Dr Niki Harr, a senior lecturer in the department. This research involves evaluating the Project K mentor training programme. We are investigating whether the Project K mentor training programme provides the mentors with the appropriate knowledge and skills to become a mentor. The evaluation is in two parts. Mentors who are in training will complete two questionnaires about their skills and knowledge as mentors. Mentor trainers will complete a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills each mentor has gained from the training programme. Mentors who have completed the training and are already paired with a student will also complete a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills they gained from the training programme. The students of these mentors will complete a questionnaire about their mentor and the whole mentoring experience. Your participation will help us further understand how to make Project K even more effective. Funding for this project will be provided by Project K. You and your Project K student have been selected for participation because you have been paired for (number of months). We would like to invite you to take part in this study. You would be asked to fill out a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills you learnt from the mentor training you received. The student you are paired with will also complete questionnaires on your mentoring skills. This will take place during a designated time at their school. This is in order to assess whether the training programme is providing mentors with the skills they need to become effective mentors for Project K students. You do not write your name on the questionnaires however, the questionnaires will be coded with a number that corresponds with your name so we can compare your four questionnaires together. When the student fills in the questionnaire about you your name will be on a label attached to the questionnaire. This label will be removed by Maree ONeill and your code number put on after they have handed in the questionnaire. Maree will retain a list of names and code numbers only until the data has been collected at which point the list will be destroyed. This list will not be available to anyone else at any time. Project K will not receive the results concerning particular mentors, only combined information for each region involved. Neither, you nor anyone else can obtain your individual results. If you do not wish to participate, you do not have to give a reason for this, it will have no impact on your involvement with Project K. You do not complete the questionnaire if you do not wish to participate. Please return the answered/unanswered questionnaire and consent form in the envelope provided. You do not need to answer all the questions if you do not want to. It should take approximately 30 minutes. We have permission from your programme director to approach you for participation. Separate consent will be gained from your Project K

128

student, as well as their parents. If you do not consent to participate, a questionnaire will not be gathered from your Project K student. The data will be used for the purpose of this thesis but will also be made available to Project K in early 2006. The results will be posted to your Project K regional director. You may contact Maree or Niki (contact details below) to obtain a copy from February 2006 to May 2006. Maree will also keep a list of email addresses of participants who would like to be emailed the results. Please put your email address on the list if you would like to get the results this way. You may withdraw your participation and the data you have supplied, without having to give a reason, up until data collection is completed on 31st August 2005. The data collected will be stored indefinitely. Thank you very much for your time and help in making this research possible. If you have any concerns or queries or wish to know more please contact me (Maree ONeill) on maree_o@hotmail.com or 021 261 2192. Maree ONeill and Niki Harr can be contacted by mail at: Department of Psychology The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland Niki Harr can also be contacted by phone on 373 7599 ext. 88512. The Head of Department, who can be contacted at the same address is: Associate Professor Fred Seymour, ph. 373 7599 ext. 88514. For any queries regarding ethical concerns please contact: The Chair, The University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee, Office of the Vice Chancellor, Research Office, Level 2, Symonds Street, Auckland. Ph: 373 7599 ext. 87830.

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11.05.05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

129

CONSENT FORM
THIS CONSENT FORM WILL BE HELD FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS.

Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation. Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr To: Current Mentors. I have been given and have understood an explanation of this research project. I understand I will be asked to complete a questionnaire. I understand that the student assigned to me will be invited to complete a questionnaire on my skills as a mentor and on the whole mentoring experience. I understand that the programme director has given permission for my student and I to be approached to participate. I understand that no one, including myself, Project K National Support Office, or my programme co-ordinator will be able to obtain results for any individual mentor. I understand this means I cannot obtain my own results. I understand the final report will be made available to Project K and that I can access one from them or from the researchers. I have had an opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered. I understand I do not have to participate if I do not wish, and there will be no impact on my involvement with Project K. I understand that if I decline to participate that data will not be collected on me from my student. I can withdraw my participation and the data I supplied, without having to give a reason, up until data collection is completed on 31 st August 2005. I understand that the data collected from this research will be stored indefinitely.

I agree to take part in this research. Signed: Name: (please print clearly) Date:

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11.05.05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

130

APPENDIX G: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr To: Project K students. My name is Maree ONeill and I am a student at the University of Auckland. I am doing research for my masters thesis in the Department of Psychology. My supervisor is Dr Niki Harr. This research is looking at the mentoring part of Project K. We are interested in the training that mentors get and how well this works. Your mentor has agreed to be in our study. If you agree to take part, this will help us understand how well Project Ks mentoring works. This means Project K can make it work better if we find any problems. Project K is paying for the things needed to do this study, like photocopying. To take part you need to get your parent or guardian to sign a consent form saying you can. You will also need to sign a consent form. If you and your parents agree you can take part, you will be asked to fill in some questions about your mentors skills and how you are finding the mentoring part of Project K. You do not write your name on the questionnaire. All mentors have a code number. When you fill in the questions about your mentor, your mentors name will be on a label attached to the questionnaire. This label will be removed by Maree and the code number put on after you have handed in the questionnaire. Your mentor will never know how you rated him or her. No one else will ever know either. This includes you, your parents and all the people at Project K. Maree will keep a list of the mentors names and code numbers, but will destroy this when all the questionnaires have been handed in. If you dont want to be in the study, you dont have to give a reason for this. You also dont need to answer all the questions if you dont want to. No one at Project K minds whether or not you agree to be in the study. It wont make any difference to your mentor and your relationship with your mentor. It will take you about half an hour to fill in the questions. The results of our study will be written up in Marees thesis and will be posted to Project K. You can contact Maree or Niki (contact details below) to obtain a copy from February 2006 to May 2006. Maree will also keep a list of email addresses of people who would like to be emailed the results. Please put your email address on the list if you would like to get the results this way. Even after you have filled out the questionnaire if you decide you do not want your answers to be used in this study you can tell Maree or Niki and we will take out your answers, and you dont have to tell us why you dont want to be involved. You can do this up until we have collected all the answers from everyone on 31st August 2005. We put a few more details about the study in your parents information sheet that arent directly about what you would need to do. Please read that if you want to. We are also really happy to answer your questions. Thank you very much for your time and help. You can contact Maree on maree_o@hotmail.com or 021 261 2192.

131

Maree ONeill and Niki Harr can be contacted by mail at: Department of Psychology The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland Niki Harr can also be contacted by phone on 373 7599 ext. 88512. The Head of Department, who can be contacted at the same address is: Associate Professor Fred Seymour, ph. 373 7599 ext. 88514. For any queries regarding ethical concerns please contact: The Chair, The University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee, Office of the Vice Chancellor, Research Office, Level 2, Symonds Street, Auckland. Ph: 373 7599 ext. 87830.

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11.05.05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

132

CONSENT FORM
THIS CONSENT FORM WILL BE HELD FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS.

Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation. Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr

To: Project K students I have been given an information sheet and also been told about this study. I understood what I read and was told. I know that taking part in the study means filling in some questions about my mentor and how I am finding the mentoring part of Project K. I know I can only take part if my parent or guardian has signed the consent form and I have handed this in. I know that no one will ever know how I rated my mentor. This includes my mentor him or herself and my parents. I have had a chance to ask questions and get them answered. I know I dont have to take part if I dont want to and no one at Project K will mind. It wont make any difference to my relationship with my mentor if I am not in the study. I can have my answers remo ved from the study if I decide I dont want to be involved without having to say why, up until all the answers have been collected from everyone on 31st August 2005.

I agree to take part in this study.

Signed: Name: (please print clearly) Date:

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11.05.05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

133

APPENDIX H: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation. Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr To: Trainers. My name is Maree ONeill and I am a student at the University of Auckland. I am currently conducting research for my masters thesis in the Department of Psychology. I am being supervised by Dr Niki Harr, a senior lecturer in the department. This research involves evaluating the Project K mentor training programme. We are investigating whether the Project K mentor training programme provides the mentors with the appropriate knowledge and skills to become a mentor. The evaluation is in two parts. Mentors who are in training will complete two questionnaires about their skills and knowledge as mentors. Mentor trainers will complete a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills each mentor has gained from the training programme. Mentors who have completed the training and are already paired with a student will also complete a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills they gained from the training programme. The students of these mentors will complete a questionnaire about their mentor and the whole mentoring experience. Your participation will help us further understand how to make Project K even more effective. Funding for this project will be provided by Project K. Your mentor training programme has been selected for participation. We would like to ask your permission to invite the mentors in your training group to participate. We would also like to invite you to take part in this study. You will need to agree to both of these if your training group is to be involved. The mentors would complete a questionnaire at the beginning and again at the end of the training, assessing their knowledge and skills gained from the programme. You would be asked to fill out a questionnaire on each of your training mentors rating the skills they have learnt from the training programme. This would be to assess whether the training programme is providing mentors with the skills they need to become effective mentors for Project K students. No names will be written on the questionnaires however, the questionnaires will be coded with a number that corresponds with the participating mentor so we can compare the four questionnaires together. When you fill in a questionnaire it will have a label on it with the name of the mentor. This label will be removed and the code number written on after you have handed in the completed questionnaires. Maree ONeill will retain a list of names and code numbers only until the data has been collected at which point this list will be destroyed. The list will not be available to anyone else at any time. Results of individual mentors will not be made available to anyone including yourself, the mentors themselves and Project K. If you do not wish your training group to participate you do not have to give a reason for this and there will be no impact on your or the mentors Project K involvement. Mentors who do not wish to participate will be provided with magazines to read while participating mentors complete the questionnaires. We will provide you with the questionnaires to take home and complete on your mentors and return to the researchers. You do not need to answer all the questions if you do not want to. It

134

should take 5 minutes per questionnaire for each mentor, a total of one hour of your time. For the mentors the questionnaire should take approximately 30 minutes, a total of one hour. We have permission from the Project K director to approach your training group for participation. The data will be used for the purpose of this thesis but will also be made available to Project K in early 2006. The results will be posted to your regional Project K director. You may contact Maree or Niki (contact details below) to obtain a copy from February 2006 to May 2006. Maree will also keep a list of email addresses of participants who would like to be emailed the results. Please put your email address on the list if you would like to get the results this way. You may withdraw your participation and the data you have supplied, without having to give a reason, up until data collection is completed on 31 st August 2005. The data collected will be stored indefinitely.

Thank you very much for your time and help in making this research possible. If you have any concerns or queries or wish to know more please contact me (Maree ONeill) on maree_o@hotmail.com or 021 261 2192. Maree ONeill and Niki Harr can be contacted by mail at: Department of Psychology The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland Niki Harr can also be contacted by phone on 373 7599 ext. 88512. The Head of Department, who can be contacted at the same address is: Associate Professor Fred Seymour, ph. 373 7599 ext. 88514. For any queries regarding ethical concerns please contact: The Chair, The University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee, Office of the Vice Chancellor, Research Office, Level 2, Symonds Street, Auckland. Ph: 373 7599 ext. 87830.

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11/05/05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

135

CONSENT FORM
THIS CONSENT FORM WILL BE HELD FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS.

Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation. Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr To: Trainers I have been given and have understood an explanation of this research project. I understand that I will be asked to complete a questionnaire rating the knowledge and skills of the mentors in my training group. I understand that the mentors in my training group will complete two questionnaires about the knowledge a skills they have learnt. I understand that the programme director has given permission for me and my training group to be approached to participate. I give permission for the mentors in my training group to be approached to participate also. I understand that no one, including myself, Project K National Support Office, or the participating mentors themselves will be able to obtain results for any individual mentor. I understand the final report will be made available to Project K. I understand I can obtain a copy from the researchers. I have had an opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered. I understand I do not have to participate if I do not wish and it will not affect my involvement with Project K. I also understand that the mentors themselves do not have to participate if they choose not to, and give an assurance that this will not affect their standing with Project K in any way. I also understand I can withdraw my permission for myself and/or the mentors to participate, and the data supplied, without having to give a reason, up until the data collection is completed on 31st August 2005. I understand that the data collected from this research will be stored indefinitely.

I agree to take part in this research. I agree that the mentors in my training group be invited to participate. Signed: Name: (please print clearly) Date:

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11/05/05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

136

APPENDIX I: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr To: Parents of Project K students. My name is Maree ONeill and I am a student at the University of Auckland. I am currently conducting research for my masters thesis in the Department of Psychology. I am being supervised by Dr Niki Harr, a senior lecturer in the department. This research involves evaluating the Project K mentor training programme. We are investigating whether the Project K mentor training programme provides the mentors with the appropriate knowledge and skills to become a mentor. The evaluation is in two parts. Mentors who are in training will complete two questionnaires about their skills and knowledge as mentors. Mentor trainers will complete a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills each mentor has gained from the training programme. Mentors who have completed the training and are already paired with a student will also complete a questionnaire about the knowledge and skills they gained from the training programme. The students of these mentors will complete a questionnaire about their mentor and the whole mentoring experience. Your participation will help us further understand how to make Project K even more effective. Funding for this project will be provided by Project K. Your childs mentor is participating in this study and we would like to invite your child to take part in this study also. Your child would be asked to fill out a questionnaire about the skills of their Project K mentor and the whole mentoring experience. This would be to assess whether the training programme is providing mentors with the skills they need to become effective mentors for Project K students. Your child does not write their name on the questionnaire. The questionnaire will be coded with a number that corresponds with the participating mentor so we can compare the questionnaires together. When the students fill in the questionnaire about the mentor, the mentors name will be on a label attached to the questionnaire. This label will be removed by Maree ONeill and the code number put on after they have handed in the questionnaire. Maree ONeill will retain a list of names and code numbers only until the data has been collected at which point the list will be destroyed. The list will not be available to anyone else at any time. Results of individual mentors will not be made available to anyone including you or Project K National Support Office. Therefore, you cannot obtain the results of your childs mentor. If you do not wish your child to participate, you do not have to give a reason for this. It will have no impact on your childs Project K involvement. Permission will also be obtained from your child before they can participate. Your child does not need to answer all the questions if they do not want to. It should take a maximum of 30 minutes of your childs time. We have permission from the regional Project K director to approach the students of the participating mentors for participation. The data will be used for the purpose of this thesis but will also be made available to Project K in early 2006. The results will be posted to your regional Project K director.

137

You may contact Maree or Niki (contact details below) to obtain a copy from February 2006 to May 2006. Maree will also keep a list of email addresses of participants who would like to be emailed the results. Please get your child to put your email address on the list if you would like to get the results this way. You may withdraw your childs participation and the data they supply, without having to give a reason, up until data collection is completed on 31st August 2005. The data collected will be stored indefinitely. Thank you very much for your time and help in making this research possible. If you have any concerns or queries or wish to know more please contact me (Maree ONeill) on maree_o@hotmail.com or 021 261 2192. Maree ONeill and Niki Harr can be contacted by mail at: Department of Psychology The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland Niki Harr can also be contacted by phone on 373 7599 ext. 88512. The Head of Department, who can be contacted at the same address is: Associate Professor Fred Seymour, ph. 373 7599 ext. 88514. For any queries regarding ethical concerns please contact: The Chair, The University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee, Office of the Vice Chancellor, Research Office, Level 2, Symonds Street, Auckland. Ph: 373 7599 ext. 87830.

APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11.05.05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

138

CONSENT FORM
THIS CONSENT FORM WILL BE HELD FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS.

Project title: Mentor training: An evaluation. Researchers: Maree ONeill and Niki Harr To: Parents of Project K students. I have been given and have understood an explanation of this research project. I understand that I must give permission for my child to be invited to participate as my child is under 16 years old. I understand that my child must also give permission to participate in this study. I understand that my child will complete a questionnaire on his/her mentors skills and on the whole mentoring experience. I understand that the programme director has given permission for my child to be approached to participate. I understand that no one will be able to obtain the results for any individual mentor. I understand that this means mentors will not be able to obtain their own results, including my childs responses. I also understand this means I will not be able to obtain the results for my childs mentor. I understand the final report will be made available to Project K and I can get one from them or from the researchers. I have had an opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered. I understand I do not have to give my permission for my child to participate if I did not wish, and there will be no negative impact on my childs mentoring experience. I can withdraw my childs participation and the data they supplied, without having to give a reason, up until data collection is completed on 31st August 2005. I understand that the data collected from this research will be stored indefinitely.

I agree for my child . to take part in this research. (Students name) Signed: Name: (Please print clearly) Date:
APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE on 11.05.05 for a period of 3 Years, from 11/05/05 to 11/05/08 reference 2005/192

139

APPENDIX J: Training group instructions: Hi my name is Maree ONeill and I am doing my Masters thesis in Psychology. I am evaluating the Project K mentor training programme. I am investigating whether the training programme is actually providing mentors with the knowledge and skills to become successful mentors. It involves you completing a questionnaire twice once now at the beginning of the training programme and again at the end. This is to assess the knowledge and skills you have prior to the programme and then what you have learnt from the programme. We are not assessing your individual strengths or weaknesses but the training programme itself. So no one can obtain your individual answers not even Project K. Your trainer (name) will also complete a questionnaire on each of you at the end of the training programme. This is to gain another persons perspective on the knowledge and skills you have learnt from the training programme. Please read the information sheet, this is for you to take away with you and please read and sign the consent form and hand it back to me at the end. If you do not wish to participate, just hand back the unused consent form and questionnaire. There are magazines here for you to read while you are waiting. Attached to your questionnaire is a piece of paper please write your full name on the paper and leave it attached. I will remove it later. This is so I know who has taken part, so your trainer (name) can also complete a questionnaire on you. Also so that the three questionnaires based on you can be compared together. The questionnaire is knowledge based (based on what you learn in the training programme) therefore this first time when you complete the questionnaire it is highly likely that there will be parts of the questionnaire that you cannot answer this is absolutely fine and expected, just leave what you dont know blank, and answer what you can. It should only take about 30 minutes. Any questions? I will also hand around an email sheet, if you would like me to email you a copy of my final report print your name and email address on the paper. Thank you so much for participating.

140

APPENDIX K:

To Project K Student My name is Maree ONeill and I am conducting research for my masters thesis at the University of Auckland in conjunction with Project K. I am evaluating the Project K mentor training programme. This research is very useful for Project K in understanding if the programme that mentors go through to learn how to become a mentor is actually making them good mentors for students like you. Attached is an information sheet for you to read about this study and a consent form for you to sign. Also attached is an information sheet and consent form for your parent/guardian to sign. Please ask your parent/guardian to read the information and sign the consent form. You cannot take part in this study if you do not have your parent/guardians consent form returned. For you this study involves reading the information sheet, signing your consent form and completing the questionnaire about your mentor. (Your mentor will not see what you write). The questionnaire should only take about 20 minutes to complete. Please then put your parents consent form, your consent form and the questionnaire into the freepost envelope and post it (you dont have t o use a stamp, just put it in the post box). Attached to your questionnaire is a piece of paper, please put your name on it and leave this attached (I will remove it later). If you or your parents would like a copy of my final report via email please provide your name and email address on the email note provided. This study is voluntary, that is you dont have to take part if you dont want to. We would be very grateful if you could take the time to be involved; your mentor is also being asked to take part in this study. Please return this as soon as possible. My contact details are on the information sheets. Thank you very much Maree ONeill Dont forget to post: Your parents consent form Your consent form Your questionnaire Email note (if you want to get a copy of the final report) 141

To Project K Mentor, My name is Maree ONeill and I am conducting research for my masters thesis at the University of Auckland in conjunction with Project K. I am evaluating the Project K mentor training programme. This research is very useful for Project K in understanding if the mentor training programme is actually providing training mentors with the necessary knowledge and skills to be effective mentors for students. Attached is an information sheet for you to read about this study and a consent form for you to sign. For you this study involves reading the information sheet, signing your consent form and completing the questionnaire about the knowledge and skills you learnt from the training you received. (Project K does not see your responses). The questionnaire should only take about 30 minutes to complete. Please do not use a manual or notes from training to complete the questionnaire. If you do not know an answer just leave it blank. Attached to your questionnaire is a piece of paper please put your name on it and leave this attached (I will remove it later). If you would like a copy of my final report via email please provide your name and email address on the email note provided. This study is voluntary, that is you dont have to take part if you dont want to. We would be very grateful if you could take the time to be involved; your student will also be asked to take part in this study. Please post your consent form and questionnaire in the freepost envelope provided. Please return this as soon as possible. My contact details are on the information sheets. Thank you very much Maree ONeill Dont forget to post: Your consent form Your questionnaire Email note (if you would like a copy of the final report)

142

REFERENCE LIST

Acaster, D. (2000). Strategies for developing empathy in children: A teacher/parent guide to enhance positive and reduce negative behaviours. Blackburn, Australia: Empathy Play.

Allen, T.D., Day, R., Lentz, E. (2005). The role of interpersonal comfort in mentoring relationships, Journal of Career Development, 31(3), pp. 155-169.

Applied Research Ethics National Association (ARENA) (2005). The ARENA Mentoring Program. Retrieved October 25, 2005 from Applied Research Ethics National Association website: http://www.primr.org/membership/mentor.html

Ave, K., Evans, I., Hamerton, H., Melville, L., Moeke-Pickering, T., Robertson, N. (1999). The mentoring for children/Youth at risk demonstration project: Final evaluation report. Prepared for The Crime Prevention Unit and The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Barrett-Hayes, D.P. (1999). Coloring Outside the Lines: Portrait of a Mentor-Teacher. In C.A. Mullen and D.W. Lick (Eds). New Directions in Mentoring: Creating a culture of synergy, London: Falmer Press.

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. (2004). Big Brothers Big Sisters. Retrieved August 9, 2005, from Big Brothers Big Sisters of America website: http://www.bbbsa.org/site/pp.asp?c=iu]3]g02f&b=14576

Blum D.J., Jones L.A. (1993). Academic growth group and mentoring program for potential dropouts, School Counselor, 40(3), pp.207-217.

143

Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (2005). Mentors. Retrieved October 25, 2005 from GeorgiaGO.org website: http://www.georgiago.org/mentors.phtml Bouquillon, E.A., Sosik, J.J., Lee, D. (2005). Its only a phase: examining trust, identification and mentoring functions received across the mentoring phases, Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(2) August, pp. 239-258.

Brockett, R. G. (1991). Strategies and resources for improving the instructional process, Chapter 8, pp. 193-212. In M.W. Galbraith (Ed). Facilitating adult learning: A transactional process. Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.

Brookfield, S. (1991). Grounding teaching in learning, Chapter 2, pp. 33-56. In M.W. Galbraith (Ed). Facilitating adult learning: A transactional process. Florida: Krieger Publishing Company. Brown, M.S. (2005). I have a preschool buddy Exploring the role of high school students in facilitating the pre-academic skills and social development of preschool children, Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(4), pp. 221-227. Cameron-Jones M., OHara, P. (1995). Mentors perceptions of their roles with students in initial teacher training, Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(2), pp. 189-201.

Career Services (2004). Mentoring Guide, retrieved October 24, 2005, from Career Services website: http://www.jobsrv.eiu.edu/students/mentoring/mentoring%20guide.htm

144

Chao, G.T., Walz, P.M., Gardner, P.D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with non-mentored counterparts, Personnel Psychology, 45, pp. 619-636.

Coakes, S.J., Steed, L.G. (2001). SPSS: analysis without anguish: Version 10.0 for windows, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd.

Conflict Resolution Network (n.d.). Conflict is the Stuff of Life. Retrieved November 15, 2005 from Conflict Resolution Network website: http://www.crnhq.org/freecrkit.html

Cox, E. (2005). For better, for worse: the matching process in formal mentoring schemes, Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(3) Dec, pp. 403-414.

Cranwell-Ward, J., Bossons, P., & Gover, S. (2004). Mentoring: A Henley review of best practice, Hampshire, Palgrave MacMillan.

Cronan-Hillix, T., Gensheimer, L.K., Cronan-Hillix, W.A., Davidson, W.S. (1986). Students views of mentors in psychology graduate training, Teaching of Psychology, 13(3), pp. 123-127.

da Costa J.L., Klak R., Schinke R. (2000). Mentoring: Promoting inner city elementary school student literacy, New Orleans: Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document reproduction service no. ED 439439).

Darling, N. (2005). Mentoring Adolescents. In D.L. DuBois and M.J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 177-190). California: Sage Publications Ltd.

145

Darling, N., Hamilton, S., Toyokawa, T., Matsuda, S. (2002). Naturally occurring mentoring in Japan and the United States: Social roles and correlates, American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), pp. 245-271.

Davis, M.H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Colorado: Westview Press Inc.

de Anda, D. (2001). A qualitative evaluation of a mentor program for at-risk youth: The participants perspective, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 18 (2), pp. 97-117.

DeBord, K. (1989). Creative teaching: Simulations, Games, and role playing, Journal of Extension, 27 (2), found at www.joe.org/joe/1989Summer/tt1.html

Dennison, S. (2000). A win-win peer mentoring and tutoring program: A collaborative model, The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20(3), pp. 161-174.

Diversi, M., Mecham, C. (2005). Latino(a) students and Caucasian mentors in a rural after-school program: Towards empowering adult-youth relationships, Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), pp. 31-40.

DuBois D.L., Silverthorn N. (2005). Characteristics of Natural Mentoring Relationships and Adolescent Adjustment: Evidence from a National Study, The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(2), pp. 69-92.

DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review, American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), p. 157.

146

DuBois, D.L., Neville, H.A. (1997). Youth mentoring: Investigation of relationship characteristics and perceived benefits, Journal of Community Psychology, 25(3), pp. 227-234.

Dusseldorp Skills Forum (2000), Mentor Preparation. Retrieved August 28, 2005, from Dusseldorp Skills Forum website: http://www.dsf.org.au/resource/24/mentoringbenchmarks_2000_1.pdf Edwards, A.L. (1985). Experimental design in psychological research (5th Ed. ), New York: Harper & Row Publishers Inc.

Evans, I.M., Ave, K.T. (2000). Mentoring children and youth: Principles, issues, and policy implications for community programmes in New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 29(1), p. 41.

Fairfax Mentoring Partnership (n.d.). Mentor training: Essential Elements for a Successful Mentoring Relationship. Retrieved November 15, 2005 from Fairfax Mentoring Partnership website: http://www.mentorfairfax.org/Training/Mid/Essential_Mid.htm

Field, A., Hole, G. (2003). How to design and report experiments, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Frecknall, P., Luks, A. (1992). An evaluation of parental assessment of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program in New York city, Adolescence, 27(107), pp. 715-718.

147

Galbraith M.W. & Zelenak, B.S. (1991). Adult learning methods and techniques, chapter 5, pp. 103-134, In M.W. Galbraith (Ed.). Facilitating adult learning: A transactional process, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.

Ganser, T. (1999). Under their wing: Promises and pitfalls of mentoring, High School Magazine, 7(2), pp. 8-13. Goal setting (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2005, from St Marys College, Ipswich Website: http://www.smc.qld.edu.au/goals.htm

Grossman, J.B., Rhodes, J.E., (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships, American Journal of community Psychology, April, 30(2), pp. 199-220.

Hartley, R. (2004). Young people and mentoring: towards a national strategy, Retrieved from Big Brothers Big Sisters Australia, Dusseldorp Skills Forum and The Smith Family website: http://www.dsf.org.au/papers/iso/tsf_Mentor_May04_o.pdf

Hegstad, C.D., Wentling, R.M. (2004). The development and maintenance of exemplary formal mentoring program in fortune 500 companies, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(4), pp. 421-448. Hendry, L.B., Roberts, W., Glendinning, A., Coleman, J.C. (1992). Adolescent s perceptions of significant individuals in their lives, Journal of Adolescence, 15, pp. 255-270.

148

Holland, S.H. (1996). PROJECT 2000: An educational mentoring and academic support model for inner-city African American boys, The Journal of Negro Education, 65(3), pp. 315-322.

Hollingsworth, M.A., Fassinger, R.E. (2002). The role of faculty mentors in the research training of counselling psychology doctoral students, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(3), pp. 324-330.

Hon, J.E., Shorr, A. (1998). A helping hand: A practical blue print for establishing a successful mentoring program, American Secondary Education, 26(3), pp. 1823

Irving, S.E., Moore, D.W., Hamilton, R.J. (2003). Mentoring for high ability high school students, Education and training, 45(2), pp. 100-109.

Jackson, Y. (2002). Mentoring for delinquent children: an outcome study with young adolescent children, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31 (2), pp. 115-122.

Jekielek, S.M., Moore, K.A., Hair, E.C., Scarupa, H.J. (2002). Mentoring: A promising strategy for youth development, Child Trends: Research Brief , Feb, found at http://www.mentoring.ca.gov/pdf/MentoringBrief2002.pdf

Johnson, B., Howard, S., Dryden, J., McGuire, A. (1998). Promoting resiliency in children: Review of literature and research plan, pp. 165-180. In N. J. Taylor & A. B. Smith (Eds.). Enhancing childrens potential: Minimising risk and maximising resiliency. Proceedings of the Childrens issues centre Second child and family policy conference 2-4 July 1997, Dunedin. Dunedin: Childrens Issues Centre.

149

JPO Service Centre (n.d.). The mentor role- Introduction to the JPO mentoring programme, Retrieved May 19, 2005, from JPO service centre website: http://www.jposc.org/content/2_3_3.html

Karcher M.J., Lindwall J. (2003). Social interest, connectedness, and challenging experiences: What makes High school mentors persist?, Journal of Individual Psychology, 59 (3), pp. 293-315.

Karcher M.J., Nakkula M.J., Harris J. (2005). Developmental mentoring match characteristics: Correspondence between mentors and mentees assessments of relationship quality, The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(2), pp.93-110. Kirk, R.E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.), California: Wadsworth Inc.

Latham, G. (1990). The role of goal setting in human resource management, pp. 185216. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.). Performance evaluation, goal setting, and feedback. Connecticut: Jai Press Inc.

Lau, V.P. & Shaffer, M.A. (1999). Career success: The effects of personality. Career Development International, 4 (4), pp. 225-230.

Lee J., Cramond B. (1999). The positive effects of mentoring economically disadvantaged students, Professional School Counselling, 2(3), pp. 172-178.

Liang, B., Tracy, A.J., Taylor, C.A., Williams, L.M. (2002). Mentoring college-age women: A relational approach, American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), pp. 271-289.

150

Lin, N., Vaughn, J.C. & Ensel, W.M. (1981). Social resources and occupational status attainment. Social Forces, 59 (4), pp. 1163-1181.

LoSciuto, L., Rajala, A.K., Townsend, T.N., Taylor, A.S. (1996). An outcome evaluation of across ages: An intergenerational mentoring approach to drug prevention, Journal of Adolescent Research, 11(1), pp.116-129.

Lyons B.D., Oppler E.S, (2004). The effects of structural attributes and demographic characteristics on protg satisfaction in mentoring programs, Journal of Career Development, 30(3), pp. 215-229.

McLean, M. (2004). Does the curriculum matter in peer mentoring? From mentee to mentor in problem-based learning: a unique case study, Mentoring and Tutoring, 12(2) Aug, pp. 173-186.

McPartland, J.M., Nettles, S.M. (1991). Using community adults as advocates or mentors for at-risk middle school students: A two year evaluation of Project RAISE, American Journal of Education, 99, pp. 568-586.

McWhirter, J.J., McWhirter, B.T., McWhirter, A.M., McWhirter, E.H. (1995). Youth at risk: Another point of view, Journal of counselling and development, 73 (5), pp. 567-569.

Mental Help Net (n.d.) Psychological Self-help chapter 13: Helping Skills. Retrieved November 18, 2005 from Mental Help Net website: http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap13/chap13m.htm

151

Mentor Training (n.d.). Retrieved August 28, 2005, from Mentoring.org: Expanding the world of quality mentoring website: http://www.mentoring.org/program_staff/training/mentor_training.php

Moir, E. (2003). Launching the next generation of teachers through quality induction. New York: National commission on teaching and Americas futur e. (ERIC document reproduction service no. ED 479764)

Naila, K. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of womens empowerment, Development and Change, 30 (3), p. 435.

Noll V. (1997). Cross-age mentoring program for social skills development, School Counselor, 44(3), pp. 239-242.

Packard, B.WL., Walsh, L., Seidenberg, S. (2004). Will that be one mentor or two? A cross-sectional study of womens mentoring during college, Mentoring and Tutoring, 12 (1) April, pp. 71-85.

Pardini, E. (n.d.) Be a mentor program: training guide for volunteer mentors. Retrieved August 28, 2005, from Students in Business Inc. website: http://www.thevolunteercenter2.net/org

Parra, G.L, DuBois, D.L., Neville, H.A., Pugh-Lilly A.O. (2002). Mentoring relationships for youth: Investigation of a process-oriented model, Journal of Community Psychology, 30(4), pp. 367-388.

Philip, K., Hendry, L.B. (2000). Making sense of mentoring or mentoring making sense? Reflections on the mentoring process by adult mentors with young

152

people, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, pp. 211223.

Portwood S.G., Ayers P.M., Kinnison K.E., Waris R.G., Wise D.L. (2005). Youthfriends: Outcomes from a school-based mentoring program, The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(2), pp. 129-145.

Preston, D. (2003). The school class size debate: Does size matter? Education Forum no. 6, 2003 Briefing Papers. Retrieved from Education Forum website: http://www.educationforum.org.nz/documents/policy/briefing_no_6.pdf Project K (2004), Trainers Portfolio, Project K.

Project K (2005), Mentor Portfolio, Project K.

Public/Private Ventures (2002). Measuring the quality of mentor-youth relationships: a tool for mentoring programs, Retrieved November 14, 2005 from Public/Private Ventures website: www.nwrel.org/mentoring/pdf/packeight.pdf

Quality of Life Project (2003). Report on social connectedness quality of life project. Retrieved November 15 from Quality of Life Project website: http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Community_strength.pdf Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring todays youth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Rhodes J.E., Grossman J.B., Resch N.L. (2000). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents academic adjustment, Child Development, 71 (6), p. 1662.

153

Rhodes, J., Reddy, R., Roffman, J., Grossman, J.B. (2005). Promoting successful youth mentoring relationships: a preliminary screening questionnaire, The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(2), pp. 147-167.

Rhodes, J.B., Reddy, R., Grossman, J.B., Lee, J.M. (2002). Volunteer mentoring relationships with minority youth: An analysis of same-versus cross-race matches, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), pp. 2114-2133.

Rooney D. & Allard, S. (n.d.). Blinded by the light: Reflecting on Reflecting in Serving and learning. Retrieved November 14, 2005, from Maricopa website: www.mc.maricopa.edu/other/ engagement/2005Conf/Papers/Rooney.pdf

Royse, D. (1998). Mentoring high-risk minority youth: Evaluation of the Brothers Project, Adolescence, 33(129), pp. 145-158.

Schatz, E. (2000). Mentors: Matchmaking for young people, Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(2), pp. 67-88.

Schmidt, M.E., Marks, J.L., Derrico, L. (2004). What a difference mentoring makes: service learning and engagement for college students, Mentoring and Tutoring, 12(2) Aug, pp. 205-217.

Sipe, C. L. (2002) Mentoring programs for adolescents: a research summary, Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, pp. 251-260.

Slicker, E.K., Palmer, D.J. (1993). Mentoring at-risk high school students: Evaluation of a school-based program, School Counselor, 40(5), pp. 327-334.

154

Statistics New Zealand (2005). Economic standards of living, Retrieved November 14, 2005 from Statistics New Zealand website: www.stats.govt.nz

Stukas A. A., and Tanti, C. (2005). Recruiting and sustaining volunteer mentors. In D.L. DuBois and M.J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp.235250). California: Sage Publications Ltd.

Teaching New Zealand (n.d). Where teachers are needed the most, and what it takes to become one. Retrieved November 15, 2005 from Teaching New Zealand website: http://www.dol.govt.nz/pdfs/work-insight-issue3-ch7.pdf

Terry J. (1999). A community/school mentoring program for elementary students, Professional School Counseling, 2 (3), pp. 237-240.

The Ohio State University (n.d.). Importance of Reflection. Retrieved October 24, 2005 from The Ohio State University Student Affairs: Leadership and Service Programs at the Ohio Union website: http://www.ohiounion.com/25serv/service/reflection.asp

The University of Queensland Australia (2005). Mentoring. Retrieved November 16, 2005 from The University of Queensland Australia website: http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/mentoring/mentoring.asp

Thompson, L.A., Kelly-Vance, L. (2001). The impact of mentoring on academic achievement of at-risk youth, Children and Youth services review, 23(3), pp. 227-242.

United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (n.d.). Mentor Roles and Responsibilities. Retrieved October 28, 2005 from United States

155

Department of Health and Human Services website: http://internships.info.nih.gov/mentor.html

Velzquez, J. & Garin-Jones, M. (2003). Adultism and Cultural Competence. Retrieved November 15, 2005 from National Youth Rights Association website http://www.youthrights.org/adultismculture.shtml

Visser, M.J. (2004). Implementing peer support in schools: Using a theoretical framework in action research, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, pp. 436-454.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), pp. 1063-1070.

Weinberger, S.G. (2005). Developing a Mentoring Program. In D.L. DuBois and M.J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 220-234). California: Sage Publications Ltd.

Wilkins, P. (2000). Unconditional positive regard reconsidered. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 28 (1-1Feb), p.23.

Wynne, L. (n.d.) Mentoring Tutorial. Retrieved November 16, 2005 from School of Arizona: School of information resources and library science website: http://www.sir.arizona.edu/misc/students/1

Youth Empowerment Seminars (2005), Developing a positive self-image. Retrieved October 25, 2005 from Youth Empowerment Seminars website: http://www.yess.co.nz/Developingapositiveselfimage.html

156

Zimmerman, A., Bingenheimer, J.B., Notaro, P.C. (2002). Natural mentors and adolescent resiliency: A study with urban youth, American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), pp. 221-234.

157