An Examination of First-Year Seminar Peer Leaders’ Experiences
Deborah N. Smith, Ph.D., & Karen Boettler, M.A., Kennesaw State University
Acclimating and engaging first-year students, especially those in their first semester, is a top priority in higher education. One common approach employed to help first-year students connect to their universities is to use peer leaders or mentors. Peer leaders or mentors can be found in a variety of campus settings ranging from residence halls to classrooms. At Kennesaw State University (KSU), a peer leading program (PLP) in which peer leaders were embedded in First-Year Seminars (FYS) existed for many years. The program was a collaborative venture between student affairs professionals in a student leadership development department and faculty in an academic department devoted to first-year students and students in transition.
Program Description
The primary purpose of the PLP was to help new students get connected to campus through intentional interactions with experienced peers (peer leaders). Through their program involvement the peer leaders were expected to improve/develop the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) (2015) domains of (a) knowledge acquisition, construction, integration and application; (b) cognitive complexity; (c) intrapersonal/interpersonal development; (e) practical competence.
Prospective peer leaders were recruited in ways ranging from faculty recommendations to posting on social media accounts. Interested students who met basic eligibility requirements filled out an online application, had recommendations submitted on their behalf, and participated in interviews conducted by the PLP staff. Once selected, students had to successfully complete the required peer leader training.
Peer leaders’ responsibilities included (a) attending FYS classes to offer their perspectives, facilitate activities, and observe the first-year students for potential concerns; (b) conducting one-on-one meetings with the first-year students and then following-up; (c) sending their students periodic updates about campus opportunities; (d) attending peer leader meetings and ongoing trainings; (e) meeting with their faculty partner on a regular basis. Peer leaders were unpaid and did not act as teaching assistants.
Primary faculty responsibilities included (a) meeting regularly with their peer leader(s) to help the students develop their leadership skills, make plans for upcoming classes, and give them timely and constructive feedback; (b) integrating the peer leader into class discussions; (c) communicating with the PLP manager as needed.
At the end of each semester, both first-year students and faculty evaluated their peer leader. Evaluations were highly positive with first-year students noting their appreciation for the help and guidance they received from their peer leader. The affirming evaluations align with the literature which well documents the positive impact peer leaders have for the student population being served (Shook & Keup, 2012).
The Issues
Other than Hamid’s (2001) seminal work, the literature is less robust in reporting outcomes for the peer leaders themselves, specifically within the context of leading in a FYS. In our PLP, program staff used a few measures to determine whether or not the peer leaders were achieving the learning and development outcomes associated with the aforementioned CAS (2015) competencies. Examples included staff observation of the peer leaders and the use of a pre/post-test which measured peer leader campus resource awareness. Peer leaders who wished to return for a second year of service were also required to reflect on their previous experience in a presentation and interview. What was missing, however, was a formalized, assessment plan that included both direct and indirect measures of learning.
Furthermore, program staff and FYS faculty anecdotally heard the PLP had helped peer leaders stay connected to the university. Some peer leaders shared they felt less engaged at their university than they did their first year, particularly those who had been involved in first-year high-impact programs such as specialized learning communities. The students’ comments confirm research findings that second year students often report feeling left out or generally ignored once they become sophomores (Provencher & Kasser, 2019; Young, Schreiner, & McIntosh, 2015). Wanting to learn more about the impact of being a peer leader, a decision was made to create a formal assessment plan to provide peer leaders with a means to reflect on their experiences.
Assessment
At the end of the semester peer leaders were invited to complete a questionnaire containing demographic and open-ended questions. Peer leaders were asked (a) to share how (if at all) being a peer leader impacted their experience at the university; (b) about the challenges and benefits of being a peer leader; and (c) to include other comments and suggestions about the PLP and their personal experiences. Thirteen students completed the questionnaire.
Common benefits reported by the peer leaders included (a) increased self-confidence; (b) improved problem-solving and communication skills; (c) a sense of satisfaction derived from helping others; (d) becoming knowledgeable about the university; (e) making new friends; (f) feeling connected and a part of a community; (g) an appreciation for relationships developed with the faculty member and program staff; (h) exposure to new people and different perspectives.
Challenges some of the peer leaders faced included (a) students, and sometimes the professor, treating them like a teaching assistant; (b) not connecting with students; (c) scheduling challenges associated with conducting multiple one-on-one meetings; (d) not knowing how to mentor students who were not interested in the class, unmotivated, or who didn’t want to become involved at the university.
The overarching theme which emerged from the data was being a FYS peer leader was a positive experience that strengthened students’ engagement with the university. As one student put it:
“Getting involved in peer leading gave me the ability to find where I belong at KSU and made me want to stay, as opposed to transferring and running the risk of not being able to find a place where I truly fit elsewhere... I believe, had it not been for this program, I would have been the student that went to class and then back to my dorm. I have a made a lot of like-minded friends and strong connections due to this program.”
Implications
Peer leaders are often second-year students who, as noted previously, have transition issues different than those of first-year students (Provencher & Kasser, 2019; Schreiner, 2015). Based on the assessment findings, we believe it is essential that PLPs emphasize connectedness, particularly between the peer mentors and staff/faculty. We also think it is important that program facilitators be intentional in providing mentors opportunities for the kinds of reflective practices Harmon (2006) noted were effective in helping peer mentors grow. Prior to offering future versions of PLPs, we would like to conduct a focus group in which we discuss the assessment findings with the peer leaders.
Suggestions
For those interested in developing a PLP like the one described in this article, the following suggestions are offered. First, ask for faculty volunteers instead of assigning a peer leader to all faculty who teach a particular course. Faculty who are successful in the role are highly student-centered and have the willingness and time to mentor. Second, have candid conversations with interested faculty, and perhaps department chairs, about the time commitment involved. Faculty who agree to work with peer leaders should be able to count that work towards their annual workload expectations in the areas of service or mentoring. Third, help faculty identify ways to meaningfully integrate peer leaders into the classroom rather than use them as teaching assistants. Fourth, provide training and strategies on how faculty and peer leaders can help first-year students with challenges and difficulties but also protect those students’ privacy. Fifth, occasionally check-in with faculty members and peer leaders to intervene and help trouble-shoot if they need assistance in making their collaboration successful. Sixth, consider ways to incorporate peer-leaders into fully online courses. The faculty co-author of this article involved two peer leaders in an online FYS and found that not only were the students enrolled in the course more engaged than in previous online sections she taught, but the peer leaders themselves reported feeling more connected, valuable, and useful. As academia continues to grapple with our post-pandemic identity, and the appropriate balance of online vs. in person courses and other activities, expanding peer leading into online spaces makes sense.
Practitioners and faculty are encouraged to investigate opportunities for peer leaders to be placed in courses besides FYS, such as general education or other foundational courses that are likely to be populated with first-year students. The student leadership development department which jointly led our PLP, has been holding ongoing conversations with various departments and units interested in developing peer leading programs. Most units are interested in focusing student support programs on academic success, but some are also interested in building co-curricular PLPs that enhance student belongingness. For example, a PLP currently housed in our university’s Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs office, has begun incorporating training to more holistically develop both the program’s Learning Assistants (peer leaders), as well as the students they serve.
There are other ways that peer leaders can be of service to first-year students. KSU peer leaders have been creating entertaining, informational videos about succeeding in college which they then share via social media. The peer leaders have also made themselves available to meet individually with first-year students.
Finally, in order for a joint student-affairs/academic affairs program to be viable, it needs to be formally institutionalized rather than merely reliant on the goodwill of and relationships developed between specific individuals.
Conclusion
Many of our peer leaders reported feeling adrift prior to their involvement in the PLP. The excitement of being a first-year student had concluded and they had not yet declared or were fully immersed in a major. The PLP gave them a place to belong and a sense of purpose. Programs that provide connectedness and enhance students’ sense of engagement with their college are vitally important, particularly as students return to their campuses following a period of pandemic-induced isolation.
References
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (2015). CAS learning and development outcomes. https://www.cas.edu/student-learning--development-outcomes.html
Hamid, S.L. (Ed.). (May 2001). Peer leadership: A primer on program essentials. The First-Year Experience Monograph Series No. 32. National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. University of South Carolina, Columbia. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED453477
Harmon, B. V. (2006). A qualitative study of the learning processes and outcomes associated with students who serve as peer mentors. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 18(2), 53-82. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/fyesit/fyesit/2006/00000018/00000002/art00003
Provencher, A. & Kasser, R. (2019). High-Impact practices and sophomore retention: Examining the effects of selection bias. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 21(2), 221-24. DOI: 10.1177/1521025117697728
Shook, J. L, & Keup, J. R. (2012). The benefits of peer leader programs: An overview from the literature. New Directions for Higher Education, 157, 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20002
Young, D.G., Schreiner, L.A., McIntosh, E.J. (Nov. 2015). Investigating sophomore student success: The National Survey of Sophomore-Year Initiatives and the Sophomore Experiences Survey, 2014. Research Reports on College Transitions No. 6. National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. University of South Carolina, Columbia. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED560964