The Effect of Mentoring Program and Gender

on Low-Income Students’ GPA

Aynur Aytekin
ETR 522-External Project
 Literature Review
• The low-income, urban school students are exposed to stressful events, safety and health risks more than others (Manswell
Butty, LaPoint, Thomas, & Thompson, 2001). Limited access to resources, lack of parental support, and poverty affect the
students’ ability negatively in their academic growth and social, emotional, and physical development (Nelson, McClintock, &
Perez -Ferguson, 2008).
• According to the researchers, positive, constructive relationships and mentoring help children to improve their academic
achievement, the establishment of healthier relationships with their peers, teachers, and family members, sense of safety,
self-confidence (Clawson, 1985; Flaxman, 1998; Smink, 1990)
• Riley (1998), found that mentorship programs, such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters increased the students’ GPA average by .37
points, and improved their attendance by 5%.
• Mentoring programs decrease the probability of at-risk behavior and improve academic achievement and promote problem-
solving skills, respectful behaviors, following directions, and staying on task (Beck, 1999; Shernoff, 2010).
• Research today on gender and education in elementary through high school settings reports that females perform to build
stronger connections with teachers, achieve higher grades, attain higher levels of education, and improve better
scholastically overall than males (Birch & Gary, 1998; Duckworth & Seligman, 2006; Silverman, 2003).
• American Association of University Women Education Foundation (AAUWEF), found that females have higher grades than
boys in all subject areas throughout the elementary, middle, and high school years.
• Although male students tend to have lower GPA compare to the female students, researches suggest that gender is an
inconsistent predictor of academic achievement (Bridgeman & Wendler, 1991).
Concept Young Scholars Program (CYSP)
Concept School Young Scholars program (CYSP), is a mentorship
program for middle and high school students that is designed to build
the relationships with the students, identify their interests, and help
the youth to achieve their goals, and become well-rounded citizens.
CYSP mentors meet with their mentee regularly throughout the year to
check their academic progress. They plan activities together such as in
town/out of town field trips, teambuilding activities, camps, voluntary
services, physical fitness activities.
Research Questions
• Do the student GPAs differ for CYSP students and non-
CYSP students?

• Do the student GPAs differ for males and females?

• Does the CYSP and gender interaction affect the

students’ GPA?
 Participants
School
Gender
Cumulative
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Belmont 184 5.2 5.2 5.2 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Cincinnati 78 2.2 2.2 7.3 Valid F 1798 50.4 50.4 50.4

ClevelandMiddle 140 3.9 3.9 11.3 M 1773 49.6 49.6 100.0
CMSA 248 6.9 6.9 18.2
Total 3571 100.0 100.0
ColumbusMiddle 495 13.9 13.9 32.1
DaytonDowntown 71 2.0 2.0 34.1
DaytonHigh 111 3.1 3.1 37.2 Grade
DenisonMiddle 105 2.9 2.9 40.1 Cumulative
GSAFyler 296 8.3 8.3 48.4
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
IMSANorth 159 4.5 4.5 52.8
Valid 6 1243 34.8 34.8 34.8
IMSAWest 163 4.6 4.6 57.4
7 1218 34.1 34.1 68.9
Lorain 155 4.3 4.3 61.7
McKinleyPark 189 5.3 5.3 67.0 8 1110 31.1 31.1 100.0
MilwaukeeMSA 87 2.4 2.4 69.5 Total 3571 100.0 100.0
MinnesotaMSA 124 3.5 3.5 72.9
MMSADequindre 188 5.3 5.3 78.2
NobleCleveland 154 4.3 4.3 82.5 CYSP
NobleColumbus 76 2.1 2.1 84.7 Cumulative
SouthwestChicago 183 5.1 5.1 89.8 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Springfield 120 3.4 3.4 93.1
Valid 0 2674 74.9 74.9 74.9
Toledo 136 3.8 3.8 96.9
1 897 25.1 25.1 100.0
Youngstown 109 3.1 3.1 100.0
Total 3571 100.0 100.0
Total 3571 100.0 100.0
Participants
Statistics Lunch
School Grade Gender Race Lunch ELL IDEA CYSP Cumulative
N Valid 3571 3571 3571 3571 3571 3571 3571 3571 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valid Free 3151 88.2 88.2 88.2
Paid 295 8.3 8.3 96.5
Reduced 125 3.5 3.5 100.0

Race Total 3571 100.0 100.0

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
ELL
Valid AfricanAmerican 2112 59.1 59.1 59.1
Cumulative
AmericanIndian 2 .1 .1 59.2 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Asian 55 1.5 1.5 60.7 Valid N 3161 88.5 88.5 88.5
Hispanic/Latino 742 20.8 20.8 81.5 Y 410 11.5 11.5 100.0

Multiracial 211 5.9 5.9 87.4 Total 3571 100.0 100.0

NativeHawaiian 2 .1 .1 87.5
Other 12 .3 .3 87.8
White 435 12.2 12.2 100.0 IDEA
Total 3571 100.0 100.0 Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid N 3157 88.4 88.4 88.4
Y 414 11.6 11.6 100.0
Total 3571 100.0 100.0
Checking The Assumptions; Homogeneity of Variances
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa,b
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
GPA Based on Mean 14.565 3 3567 .000
Based on Median 15.226 3 3567 .000
Levene’s test is statistically significant. (p < .05)
Based on Median and with 15.226 3 3534.224 .000
adjusted df
The assumption of equal variances is violated.
Based on trimmed mean 15.273 3 3567 .000
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across The violation of equal variances may have happened
groups.
a. Dependent variable: GPA
due to the large sample size and unequal group sizes.
b. Design: Intercept + CYSP + Gender + CYSP * Gender

(.74460)²
Descriptive Statistics Variance Ratio= = 1.39 < 2
Dependent Variable: GPA
(.63066)²
CYSP Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
0 F 2.8138 .75282 1267 (.75282)²
Variance Ratio= = 1.41 < 2
M 2.5319 .74460 1407 (.63433)²
Total 2.6655 .76149 2674
1 F 3.2467 .63433 531
M 3.1278 .63066 366
The variance ratios do not exceed 2.
Total 3.1982 .63518 897
Total F 2.9416 .74631 1798
M 2.6549 .76160 1773
Total 2.7993 .76735 3571
Checking The Assumptions; Normality of Residuals

Descriptives
Statistic Std. Error
Tests of Normality
Standardized Residual for Mean .0000 .01673
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
GPA 95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound -.0328
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Mean Upper Bound .0328
Standardized Residual for .047 3571 .000 .983 3571 .000
5% Trimmed Mean .0308
GPA
Median .0944
Variance .999 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Std. Deviation .99958
Minimum -3.29
Maximum 2.04
Range 5.33 The normality assumption has been met for the residuals.
Interquartile Range 1.45
Skewness -.429 .041
Kurtosis -.271 .082
Null Hypotheses and Method
H01: No main effect for CYSP on the GPA’s of the students,

H02 : No main effect for gender on the GPA’s of the students,

H03: No interaction effect of CYSP*Gender on the GPA’s of the students.

Method: Factorial ANOVA

Independent Variables;
• CYSP (0 or 1); Categorical,
• Gender (M or F); Categorical,
Dependent Variable;
• GPA (0-4.0); Continuous,
Results
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: GPA
Type III Sum of
Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 246.663a 3 82.221 158.065 .000
Intercept 22461.370 1 22461.370 43180.760 .000
CYSP 173.078 1 173.078 332.733 .000
Gender 26.275 1 26.275 50.512 .000
CYSP * Gender 4.341 1 4.341 8.345 .004
Error 1855.449 3567 .520
Total 30084.194 3571
Corrected Total 2102.112 3570
a. R Squared = .117 (Adjusted R Squared = .117)

• There is a significant main effect for CYSP on the

GPA’s of the students.
 CYSP: F (1,3567)=332.733, p < .05

173.078
• The effect size for CYSP is ƞ² = 2102.112

ƞ² = .08 (large effect)

Results Ctd.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: GPA
Type III Sum of
Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 246.663a 3 82.221 158.065 .000
Intercept 22461.370 1 22461.370 43180.760 .000
CYSP 173.078 1 173.078 332.733 .000
Gender 26.275 1 26.275 50.512 .000
CYSP * Gender 4.341 1 4.341 8.345 .004
Error 1855.449 3567 .520
Total 30084.194 3571
Corrected Total 2102.112 3570
a. R Squared = .117 (Adjusted R Squared = .117)

• There is a significant main effect for gender on

the GPA’s of the students.
 Gender: F(1,3567)=50.512, p < .05

26.275
• The effect size for gender is ƞ² = 2102.112

ƞ² = .01 (small effect)

Results Ctd.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: GPA
Type III Sum of
Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 246.663a 3 82.221 158.065 .000
Intercept 22461.370 1 22461.370 43180.760 .000
CYSP 173.078 1 173.078 332.733 .000
Gender 26.275 1 26.275 50.512 .000
CYSP * Gender 4.341 1 4.341 8.345 .004
Error 1855.449 3567 .520
Total 30084.194 3571
Corrected Total 2102.112 3570
a. R Squared = .117 (Adjusted R Squared = .117)

• There is a significant CYSP * gender interaction

effect on students’ GPA.
 F(1,3567)= 8.345, p =.004 (using alpha=.05)

4.341
• The effect size for CYSP*gender is ƞ² = 2102.112

ƞ² = .002 (small effect)

Results Ctd.

• Female students have higher GPA’s compare to

the males for non-CYSP students.

• Female CYSP students have higher GPA’s

compared to male CYSP students.

• Overall, the students in CYSP have higher GPA

averages than the non-CYSP students.

• The achievement gap is smaller for the students

who are in CYSP. The GPA difference is bigger for
non-CYSP students.
Discussion
• Based on the findings of this study, there is a significant difference between the CYSP students’ GPAs and non-CYSP
students GPAs.

• More research can be done to study the impact of the program on different grade levels throughout middle school and
high school years.

• There is a limited number of studies completed regarding the effectiveness of the mentorship programs. More studies
should include more specific topics to pinpoint which areas of the mentorship program are helpful to promote students’
academic success and personal development.

• To ensure that the mentorship programs are being implemented with fidelity, surveys can be done with the mentees,
parents, and mentors. This will help to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention.

• This study finds that the GPAs of the students differ by gender. Female students have significantly higher GPAs compared
to male students.

• More study can be done to identify how the achievement level differs in mathematics and reading in different grade
levels for females and males.

• Future research will provide more information about the potential reasons for driving the achievement gap between the
gender.
 References
American Association of University Women. Educational Foundation, & American Institutes for Research. (1998). Gender gaps: Where schools
still fail our children. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
Beck, E. L. (1999). Prevention and intervention programming: Lessons from an after-school program. The Urban Review, 31(1), 107-124.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the teacher–child relationship. Developmental psychology, 34(5), 934.
Bridgeman, B., & Wendler, C. (1991). Gender differences in predictors of college mathematics performance and in college mathematics course
grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 275.
Butty, J. A. L. M., LaPoint, V., Thomas, V. G., & Thompson, D. (2001). The changing face of after-school programs: Advocating talent
development for urban middle and high school students. NASSP Bulletin, 85(626), 22-34.
Clawson, J. G. (1985). Is mentoring necessary? Training & Development Journal.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test
scores. Journal of educational psychology, 98(1), 198.
Flaxman, E. (1988). Youth Mentoring: Programs and Practices. Urban Diversity Series No. 97.
Nelson, A., McClintock, C., Perez-Ferguson, A., Shawver, M. N., & Thompson, G. (2008, June). Storytelling narratives: Social bonding as key for
youth at risk. In Child & Youth Care Forum (Vol. 37, No. 3, p. 127). Springer US.
Riley, R. (1998). Goals 2000: Reforming education to improve student achievement. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
Shernoff, D. J. (2010). Engagement in after-school programs as a predictor of social competence and academic performance. American journal of
community psychology, 45(3-4), 325-337.
Silverman, I. W. (2003). Gender differences in delay of gratification: A meta-analysis. Sex roles, 49(9-10), 451-463.
Smink, J. (1990). Mentoring programs for at-risk youth: A dropout prevention research report.