Building Connections and Relationships at School: Youth Reflect on Mentoring Their Younger Peers

Abstract

Most peer mentoring studies have focused on outcomes for mentees. This investigation examines seventh- and eighth-grade youth mentors’ roles in providing support and companionship to younger peer mentees. Group concept mapping (GCM) explored youth mentors’ reflections on the connections and relationships made through a peer mentoring program, 2 to 4 years after participating in the program. Results showed three key concepts: (a) Communication Skills, (b) Relationships With Mentees, and (c) Connections With School and Staff. Mentors noted their improved communication skills with mentees and improved interpersonal relations with fellow mentors and school staff. Implications and future research are discussed.

Keywords

mentoring attachment peer relationships positive youth development social support

Introduction

Participation in school-based mentoring relationships can enhance students’ affiliation to social spaces, including both school and home, as well as to individual sources of support, such as teachers and caregivers (Karcher, 2005, 2014). By bringing older and younger students together, peer mentoring programs can enhance both students’ prosocial development and social support within a supervised context (Karcher, 2005). The Wiz Kidz (Coyne-Foresi, 2015) program is a weekly structured and strengths-based elementary school peer mentoring program that supports leadership development for seventh- and eighth-grade youth mentors (12–14 years of age) and companionship for younger mentees. The current study investigated former youth mentors’ reflections of the relationships and connections made with school staff, peers, and the school itself as a result of mentoring their younger peers through the program; data were collected from youth mentors 2 to 4 years after participation in the program. The Wiz Kidz program encourages student connection and belonging to school, and to perceive school as a place of safety; this investigation was examined through a students’ relationship to school and school staff lens (Pianta, 1992). Group concept mapping (GCM) was used as methodology that honors the youth mentor participants as stakeholders in the program and of whom provide crucial perspectives on the experience of mentoring their younger peers.

Most school mentoring research examines adult mentors matched with youth mentees or high school-aged youth mentors matched with child mentees (Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, & Rhodes, 2012). Adults who served as mentors to youth mentees reported improved beliefs and attitudes toward youth (Camino & Zeldin, 2002; Zeldin, 2002) as well as improved relationships with youth (Zeldin, Christens, & Powers, 2013). Little data is available regarding youth mentors matched with child mentees from within the same school setting (Karcher, 2014; Portwood & Ayers, 2005). Thus, this study examined the experiences of former elementary school-aged youth mentors. Although not equipped with the same breadth of life experience and maturity as older mentors, elementary school-aged youth mentors are more accessible to their younger peers and can serve as natural role models who can positively influence mentee academic attitudes (Chan et al., 2013), self-esteem, prosocial behaviors (Coyne-Foresi, 2015; Chan et al., 2013), and school attendance (Coyne-Foresi, 2015; Grossman et al., 2012). In addition, most peer mentoring literature focuses solely on the outcomes for mentees (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011; Tolan, Henry, Schoeny, Lovegrove, & Nichols, 2014). For example, Curran and Wexler’s (2017) systematic review of school-based programming found only two peer-reviewed articles assessing the positive outcomes for youth in a mentoring role to their younger peers. However, youth serving as mentors also reported larger gains in school-related connectedness and self-esteem compared with their peers, suggesting that peer mentoring programs can promote positive development in both mentees and mentors (Karcher, 2008).

Using an attachment focus (Bowlby, 1988), with attention to the relationships and connections made within the school (Pianta, 1992), this study investigated the experiences of former youth mentors who participated in an elementary school-level peer mentoring program. Eleven youth between 15 and 17 years of age were asked to reflect on their past mentoring experiences in the Wiz Kidz peer mentoring program when they served as peer mentors when between 12 and 14 years of age. GCM is described as a youth-friendly methodology (Dare & Nowicki, 2015) and was utilized to illustrate specific relationships and connections former youth mentors made thorough mentoring their younger peers.

Fostering Connectedness to School

As children and youth navigate pathways to their futures through the choices and decisions they make, it is imperative they receive the support and guidance from the caring adults who contribute to their upbringing (Noam, Malti, & Karcher, 2013). Luthar’s (2006) review of the last 50 years of resilience research found that resilience grows from relationships, specifically through meeting basic needs and developing positive connections with others. Connectedness promotes a sense of comfort, ease, and belongingness that is experienced through active involvement with individuals, groups, or institutions, such as that of school (Hagerty, Lynch Sauer, Patusky, & Bouwsema, 1993). Research on student connection to school and staff (Karcher, 2005; Pianta, 1992) is considered an extension of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988).

Fostering connectedness to peers

In the broadest sense, attachment and connection with peers lends to protective factors for humans as a social species (Bowlby, 1988). Bowlby (1988) and Ainsworth’s (1989) work on attachment theory supports the need to belong as innate and responsible for shaping one’s emotional and cognitive need for regular social contact to feel connected to others (Bandura, 1982). A meta-analytic review on peer relations found that secure early attachments with peers fostered continued skills in other peer friendships and played a profound role in children’s future peer competence (Groh et al., 2014). In terms of providing guidance, peers often lack the judgment and maturity of adults (Kobak, Herres, & Laurenceau, 2012); however, the provision of these relationships within a supervised context, such as that of a structured peer mentoring program, can encourage prosocial development among peers. Furthermore, such positive relational affiliations can translate to improved social abilities among the broader school environment (Garcia-Reid, 2007; Wang & Eccles, 2013). Mentoring can be used as a vehicle to school connectedness by providing students with social bonding opportunities and a sense of belonging, while developing connectedness to self and others (Karcher, 2005).

Fostering connectedness to school staff

Beyond family members, teachers and school staff are most frequently identified as mentors by youth (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005) and identified as contributors to their school engagement (Garcia-Reid, 2007). Fittingly, the school environment provides students a natural mentoring relationship with teachers and staff whose increased availability and supervision can serve as a secure base (Luthar, 2006; Portwood & Ayers, 2005) to support children’s social needs and engagement in learning (Pianta, 1999). For example, a longitudinal study found that having a nonparental mentor was positively associated with later psychological well-being, relationship satisfaction, educational attainment, and job satisfaction in adulthood (Miranda-Chan, Fruiht, Dubon, & Wray-Lake, 2016). Pianta (1992, 1999) shifted the scope of children’s attachment relationships to include other adults, such as teachers, as influential supports for children’s social development, especially for those with inadequate relationship histories. For example, students’ perceptions of their teachers’ leadership, friendliness, and understanding was correlated with students’ perceptions of their own behavioral and emotional wellness (Poulou, 2015). Similarly, students’ perceived social and emotional support from educators as well as provision of autonomy within the classroom contributed to students’ feelings of competence to engage elsewhere within the school (Guthrie, Wigfield, & VonSecker, 2000; Wang & Eccles, 2013). Conversely, students’ perceptions of their teachers’ behaviors of uncertainty, dissatisfaction, reprimanding, and strict behaviors were associated with students’ emotional and behavioral difficulties (Poulou, 2015). Students who do not experience feelings of belonging within their school environments were more likely to develop poorer attitudes toward school and demonstrate adjustment problems compared with other students (Garcia-Reid, 2007; Martin & Dowson, 2009; Poulou, 2015). It is apparent that students’ perceptions of educators’ support can contribute to varying developmental trajectories, ranging from associations with prosocial youth who demonstrate positive connections with their schools to that of a more isolated path where messages from adults are rejected (Smith, 2012).

For children and youth who do not have such a supportive figure, engagement strategies that support access to resources to foster their development of competence and improved attachment relationships can be useful. Such school-based strategies that provide leadership opportunities for youth, including the implementation of peer mentoring programs, can foster youth’s adaptational systems of success and mastery that can translate to improved self-confidence and self-efficacy (Garcia-Reid, 2007; Masten & Reed, 2002).

School-Based Peer Mentoring

With limited research on youth/child mentoring matches, there are special programming considerations for younger populations. For example, DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, and Cooper’s (2002) meta-analysis on the effectiveness of 55 youth mentoring programs found that participation yielded smaller effects compared with programs with adult mentors, but the outcomes were enhanced when best practices (i.e., length of involvement, contact frequency, mentor screening, mentor training, structured activities, supervision) were utilized and strong match relationships were formed (DuBois et al., 2002). Other peer mentoring research that showed program participation helped prevent the expected declines in connectedness that commonly occurs over a school year in both mentees and mentors (Coyne-Foresi, 2015; Karcher, 2011). To illustrate, Karcher (2011) explained that students’ level of connectedness to school generally declines as the school year progresses, with the highest levels of perceived connectedness experienced at the beginning of the school year. More broadly, with as many as half of students having reported feeling disconnected from their teachers at the high school level (Klem & Connell, 2004), early implementation of positive school programming interventions may be useful in buffering this normative decline in youth’s connectedness to school observed over time (Karcher, 2008).

Below is a description of the Wiz Kidz in-school elementary peer mentoring program which was of this study’s focus. The program was chosen for its emphasis of support and learning for both mentors and mentees.

The Wiz Kidz Program

The Wiz Kidz (Coyne-Foresi, 2015) in-school elementary peer mentoring program fosters students’ sense of responsibility and encourages their sense of belongingness to the mentoring group and extended school institution. The program meets weekly for 34 weeks under the supervision of a school counselor who provides supportive and strengths-identifying activities and reflections. School counselors are frequently responsible for facilitating student social-emotional and leadership programming within schools along with their additional roles addressing school mental health issues, crisis situations, parenting and family issues, and conflict resolution through advocacy and individual, family, and group counseling. Furthermore, the school counselor serves as a caring adult role model during the provision of structured leadership experiences for youth mentors, and engagement and social support for younger mentees.

In the fall of the new school year, interested seventh- and eighth-grade youth mentor-volunteers are provided with 2 hours training prior to being matched with a mentee. Training explores themes of mentee engagement and challenges in the mentoring relationship. Mentors follow a manual that features case scenarios and exercises on communication skills, engagement strategies, and confidentiality. Second- and third-grade student mentees are selected by the school counselor program facilitator in collaboration with school staff as those who would benefit from one-on-one attention in a supportive group setting. The youth mentors are matched with the younger mentees within the first few sessions based on facilitator’s observation of compatibility. Wiz Kidz sessions begin with the mentoring partners eating lunch together or in small groups, followed by a guided activity that focuses on relationship-building and collaboration for the mentoring partners selected from team-building literature for children (e.g., Badegruber, 2005). The sessions end with a whole-group activity that requires strategy and cooperation, such as an obstacle course or a relay race. Beyond the program’s structured opportunities for discussion and play, the school counselor offers mentors and mentees direction regarding concerns in the match relationships. The school counselor also provides 15-minute weekly group supervision meetings with mentors to discuss concerns and to offer solutions and support.

The Wiz Kidz program is facilitated in schools with students from middle-income to government-supported housing and included students who have experienced child apprehension, parental substance use, and family or community violence. The goals of the Wiz Kidz program are to foster student engagement and connectedness to school for both the mentors and mentees, as well as to broaden social skill development, teach problem solving skills, and build empathic relationships. The program fosters students’ connection to their schools and to the supportive staff within them and encourages students to participate as active members of their schools and to view the school as a place of safety in times of need.

Group Concept Mapping (GCM)

This study utilized GCM as its methodology and provided former mentors a role in generating and interpreting the data. GCM uses “. . . the open contribution of participant stakeholders’ ideas on a specific issue, organizes the ideas, and portrays them in pictures or maps that are readily understood” (Kane & Trochim, 2007, p. 2). The goal of GCM is to gather a sampling of ideas rather than a representative sampling of persons (Kane & Trochim, 2007, p. 36). This mixed methods design captures the complexities of lived experience and intersects the strengths of both the exploratory nature of qualitative investigation with generalizable quantitative methods (Andrew & Halcomb, 2006). Furthermore, GCM’s visual display of the quantitative analysis of qualitative data shows the group’s thoughts and how the ideas are related to each other (Kane & Trochim, 2007).

The six-step GCM model includes (a) preparing for concept mapping, (b) generating the ideas, (c) structuring the statements, (d) concept mapping analysis, (e) interpreting the maps, and (f) utilization (Kane & Trochim, 2007). Preparing for GCM requires establishing a focus for the study and identifying and planning for stakeholder participation. Stakeholders’ thoughts and ideas are generated through individual interviews or group brainstorming sessions. Next, the unique statements are extracted from the interviews or group sessions and returned to the stakeholders to be sorted, categorized, and rated by importance. Concept mapping analysis involves the input of data to the Concept System Global MAX (Concept Systems Incorporated, 2017) software for multidimensional scaling and subsequent cluster analysis processing. The researchers interpret the maps and consider the conceptual themes of the clusters and statistical fit. Finally, utilization signifies the use of data to inform future programming (Kane & Trochim, 2007, p. 9).

The presence of children and youth in participatory research approaches have traditionally been uncommon, although in many cases they were poised to benefit the most from the results and future planning (Vaughn, Wagner, & Jacquez, 2013); however, involving youth in research is now a growing trend (Langhout & Thomas, 2010; Ozer, 2017). Involving young people in research is beneficial for children and youth to communicate their social needs to adults (Ozer, 2017) who have been challenged to consider children’s and youth’s knowledge and expertise in new ways (Langhout & Thomas, 2010). Pivoting on the experiences of program stakeholders as valuable sources of information, GCM involves children and youth in data analysis. GCM is a methodology used to preserve and highlight the youth voice in communicating their experiences (Dare & Nowicki, 2015). In addition, the GCM methodology recognizes the competence and insights of children and youth as stakeholders and respects their roles in the social programming of which they are involved. For example, Nowicki, Brown, and Stepien (2014) utilized GCM in their investigation of social exclusion among fifth- and sixth-grade students. Children participated in interviews regarding their views on why their peers with intellectual or learning disabilities experienced social exclusion at school. The unique statements extracted from the individual interviews were combined and returned to the students for their interpretation. Results identified perceptions of differences, such as negative perceptions of physical characteristics and behaviors, to explain the social exclusion of children with intellectual or learning disabilities. Students provided insightful and meaningful contributions to understanding their experiences. This study supported children’s capacities to participate in the GCM process (Nowicki et al., 2014). Another study by Ewan, McLinden, Biro, DeJonckheere, and Vaughn (2016) utilized GCM in their investigation to identify and develop strategies around adolescent health concerns. Results identified a range of health concerns provided by the adolescents and family stakeholders. Of most importance, the authors emphasized the facilitation of stakeholder-driven ideas on a given topic and the use of GCM to generate discussion regarding interventions surrounding the topic (Ewan et al., 2016). These studies supported research approaches that involve children and youth who will ultimately benefit from the findings (Vaughn et al., 2013).

Considered an extension of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988), students’ connections to their schools and educators (Pianta, 1992) serve as a protective factor in students’ social development (Bowlby, 1988). School-based programming, such as peer mentoring programs, can provide students with social support and leadership experiences (Garcia-Reid, 2007; Masten & Reed, 2002) to further students’ interpersonal skills and relationship development with others at school (Karcher, 2005; Smith, 2012). As the extant research primarily focuses on positive outcomes for peer mentoring program mentees (DuBois et al., 2011; Tolan et al., 2014), this research redirects attention to the mentoring experiences of youth serving as mentors to their younger peers, 2 to 4 years after program participation. Former youth mentors were asked of the associations or connections to school, teachers, and friends experienced during participation in the Wiz Kidz peer mentoring program. The purpose of this study was to provide an investigation of former youth mentors’ reflections of the connections and relationships made through the program and examined through an attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) framework. GCM methodology was used to involve the youth as program stakeholders in generating and interpreting the collective data. Providing youth mentors a platform for their program reflections was essential to understanding their experience.

Current Study

Contributing to research investigating youth peer mentoring, this study provides a unique investigation of former youth mentors’ reflections on the connections and relationships made from their participation in the Wiz Kidz (Coyne-Foresi, 2015) program. Examined through an attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) lens, with an emphasis on students’ connections to the school and to relationships within the school (Pianta, 1992), the research question asks, what associations or connections to school, teachers, and friends did former youth mentors experience during their participation in the Wiz Kidz program? GCM’s mixed methods design was utilized as a tool to capture and highlight the youth mentors’ individual ideas and subsequent interpretation of the group’s collective thoughts. GCM was favored over more traditional mixed methods designs as it returns the individual participants’ interview data to the group for further interpretation. In other words, individual participants were provided the opportunity to consider and evaluate the ideas contributed by other group members who participated in the same program. The mentor participants were stakeholders in the Wiz Kidz program and were asked to share their experiences of relationships and connections made through mentoring their younger peers.

Method

Participants

Five Wiz Kidz programs involving 95 student mentors (n = 48) and mentees (n = 47) were facilitated at two urban elementary schools in Ontario, Canada, between 2013 and 2017. The program was conducted in two schools with ethnically diverse populations and general socioeconomic statuses ranging from government-supported to low/average. Three mentor cohorts (n = 28) that participated through the full 34-week program duration were invited to participate. Two cohorts were not included in this study; one cohort ended early due to low participant attendance and another cohort started late following the death of a school staff member. Eleven former mentors agreed to participate in the current study. Participants were eight female and three male student mentors in the 10th and 11th grades and attended one of eight high schools in Ontario. The average age of participants was 15.9 years (SD = 0.83), with ages ranging from 15 to 17 years. Three participants had been Wiz Kidz mentors over two consecutive school years. Participants provided data 2 to 4 years after their participation as Wiz Kidz program mentors during their seventh- and eighth-grade years.

Materials

The former Wiz Kidz youth mentors participated in an interview about the connections and relationships made through the program. Interviews included responses to two focus questions, one of which centered on former mentors’ connection to school and school staff (Pianta, (1992) and is the focus of this paper. The second question was not relevant to the current study and is discussed elsewhere (Coyne-Foresi, Nowicki, & Dare, 2018). Use of a focal question assists in providing direction for the concept mapping conceptualization and is often worded to give the specific instruction to the participants (Kane & Trochim, 2007, pp. 9–10). As GCM is based on one general and broad question to avoid leading participants in a particular direction (Kane & Trochim, 2007), the question was, “When you think about what happened for you in the Wiz Kidz program, how would you describe the relationships and connections you made at school, at home, or in the community, or elsewhere?” The focal question is often restated as a prompt to satisfy the requirements if the initiative (Kane & Trochim, 2007, p. 10); the prompt used to elicit more information in the current study asked, “Can you tell me more about that?” The audio-recorded interviews were processed to text via Trint (Version 3.1.19, 2017), a cloud-based transcription program, and were reviewed for accuracy.

Participants were provided with an envelope containing a set of the 77 statements, printed on cardstock, that had been selected by the researchers and extracted from the interviews. Participants were instructed to sort the statements into piles in any way that made sense to them and provide a descriptive label for each pile’s theme. Clarification was made that each statement could not be put into its own pile nor could all statements be put into one pile. Included in the contents of the envelope was a sheet of paper with a list of all of the extracted statements from the focal question where participants rated the perceived importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where a value of 1 = not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important, and 5 = extremely important.

Procedure

Following approval by the university’s institutional review board, the researcher applied to conduct research through the former youth mentors’ school boards’ research departments. Upon approval from the school boards’ institutional review boards, the researcher, also the Wiz Kidz program facilitator, provided the research departments a list of the student names (n = 28) sought for study participation. The school boards’ research departments determined which schools the students attended and forwarded the Recruitment Letter, Letter of Information and Parent Consent Form, and Assent Form to each school’s principal for distribution to the former youth mentor participants. Youth were required to contact the research team by email or by texting if they were interested in participating. Twelve former youth mentors contacted the researcher via email or text and communicated their interest in participating in the study. One student who communicated interest in participating later declined to be in the study. Parental consent was obtained for all participants (n = 11), as all were under 18 years of age. Five parents provided their consent for their children to participate through direct email with the researcher, two parents provided through direct phone contact with the researcher, two parents provided their consent via text message directly to the researcher, and two signed parental consent forms that had been scanned then emailed to the researcher by the participants’ principals.

The interview phase

The 11 participants each participated in an independent interview. Interviews averaged 7 minutes 43 seconds (SD = 2 minutes 56 seconds). Three interviews were conducted over the lunch hour at the students’ school, with the remainder (n = 8) conducted over the phone during evening hours. The eight students cited busyness as their rationale for requesting their interviews over the phone. Each interview participant received a $10 gift certificate following their interview.

Data preparation

Interview transcripts were entered into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office 365 ProPlus, 2016) where each statement constituted an idea and was placed in its own cell. All of the statements that answered the focal question (n = 104) were arranged into a list. Two researchers independently reviewed the list for individual statement meaning and redundancy. Sixty-five statements were initially agreed upon. Of the 39 statements not agreed upon, discrepancies were resolved by reviewing the list again for redundancy. This process resulted in 77 unique interview statements (Table 1). The unique statements were extracted verbatim, or as close to verbatim as possible, from the interviews (Kane & Trochim, 2007).

Table 1.

Statements for Each Cluster, Importance Ratings, and Statement Bridging Indices.

Statement		Importance rating ( $\bar{X}$ )	Bridging value
Cluster 1: Communication skills		3.60	0.18
21	Being in the program helped me listen to people better, listen to their opinions, and understand what they’re trying to say.	4.45	0.02
44	I can communicate with kids and adults better because it’s given me background on how to talk to both age groups.	4.27	0.02
39	The program made me realize that I’m not the only person and that there are a lot of people that need help.	4.18	0.17
40	I try to help others and give them somebody to talk to if they need it.	4.18	0.27
48	I now take into consideration who I’m talking to and how they’ll understand better what’s going on.	3.91	0.02
77	The skills I learned from the program actually helped me get my job.	3.91	0.13
1	I made relationships in the group.	3.91	0.31
43	I learned a different mindset to understand how to connect with people.	3.82	0.04
69	I feel like I’m more open since the program, and now am more outgoing.	3.82	0.05
3	It was a new experience talking to people I normally wouldn’t have talked to.	3.81	0.19
56	The program has helped me in high school in trying to befriend some of my teachers and being able to talk to them about things.	3.73	0.08
16	Being in the program has helped with my connections.	3.73	0.27
41	I grew closer to some of my friends.	3.64	0.33
35	I learned about age gaps and that sometimes it doesn’t matter, you can still be friends with the mentees.	3.55	0.15
58	The program has helped me become aware that not everyone will have the same attitude toward things as I do.	3.45	0.02
46	The program has helped me in giving direction and giving clear instructions on how to do the activities we did together.	3.45	0.05
45	Kids are very enthusiastic about things, and that has helped me become enthusiastic about things too.	3.36	0.11
6	You could find similarities between you and other people.	3.36	0.31
47	I had to explain things in a different way so the mentees could understand.	3.36	0.48
75	I became more responsible with how I dealt with my situation at home with my parents and siblings especially because we fought a lot.	3.27	0.15
36	The program helped mentors bond together.	3.27	0.43
8	All your stress was let go and you could talk about anything.	3.18	0.16
51	The mentoring experience made it easier for me to work in a group.	3.18	0.25
65	Kids used to scare me but having a mentee was cool and opened my eyes to know they’re not that bad.	3.09	0.20
53	I’ve learned how to take a step back to consider how my younger family member is feeling.	2.91	0.16
52	I’ve realized that my younger family members process information differently.	2.91	0.17
Cluster 2: Relationships with mentees		3.51	0.24
2	I made friends with the mentees.	4.18	0.06
22	I had a strong relationship with my mentee.	4.09	0.04
38	We all worked together for a purpose, like the time the gym floor was lava and we had to figure out how to cross using only mats.	4.09	0.72
60	After I came back to my elementary school one day, it was really impactful when my mentee saw me, broke down crying, and hugged me saying that he/she never thought he/she’d see me again.	4.00	0.23
4	The program was welcoming.	4.00	0.35
31	My mentee was really excited to be in the program, and I was excited to be there with them.	3.82	0.03
73	It’s nice being able to see the mentees years later, see how they’ve been doing, what they’ve been up to, how they’ve changed in their lives, and how they’ve overcome obstacles that they were facing.	3.82	0.16
13	My mentee and I would talk if he/she was having trouble with friends.	3.82	0.20
15	The former mentees are comfortable around me when I volunteer at the elementary school because we used to spend time together in the program.	3.82	0.45
42	The program was fun.	3.73	0.50
7	Everyone was genuinely kind to each other.	3.72	0.18
33	I felt like my mentee’s parents weren’t really there for him/her, he/she just wanted me to be there for him/her.	3.55	0.19
32	I feel like a good person and am happy to see my mentee when I return to my elementary school.	3.55	0.19
9	You could spend time with other people.	3.55	0.22
10	My mentee was shy at first, and near the end was open with me.	3.55	0.22
72	Some of the children that were in the program who live in my community constantly talk to me, asking me what to do or how to handle situations they’re in.	3.45	0.26
23	My mentee would run from his/her class to give me a hug or wave to me.	3.36	0.09
61	Realizing I made an impact in my mentee was cool.	3.36	0.13
37	We knew we were role models to the mentees.	3.36	0.15
11	My mentee was comfortable with me, we would goof around and be silly.	3.34	0.03
66	Whenever I would see the other mentors at recess, we would always have that one connection through the program.	3.18	0.35
24	When I return to my elementary school, my mentee remembers me and is so excited to see me.	3.09	0.12
17	My mentee and I would talk about the games in the program.	2.82	0.06
59	Sometimes my mentee didn’t want to come to the program and sometimes refused to talk to me which was difficult.	2.81	0.64
25	I would talk about the program with the other mentors.	2.45	0.63
12	My mentee and I made a handshake between the two of us.	2.36	0.00
Cluster 3: Connections with school and staff		3.12	0.40
5	You could express yourself in your own way.	3.82	0.29
68	If you respect school staff, they will respect you back and it’s cool seeing that side of them.	3.73	0.26
26	My role as a mentor made me look more mature and involved in the school to school staff.	3.73	0.26
74	The relationship between the facilitator and I changed a lot because after joining it opened the door to talk more about anything that I had going on in my life.	3.73	0.31
62	The staff thought of me still as a mentor and I thought that was kind of cool.	3.72	0.24
20	The vice principal thought the program was a good thing and was glad that there were people helping others in the building.	3.64	0.23
54	The program gave me more respect for the school staff that deals with younger children.	3.64	0.25
55	Because of the experience, I got to talk with the teachers and facilitator one-on-one and gain a better understanding for the professional relationships between teachers and students.	3.64	0.30
34	I connected with the facilitator and got to know him/her better, otherwise I wouldn’t have talked to him/her in the first place.	3.55	0.33
76	The year after the program, I got a job in my community as a junior leader in an after-school program.	3.45	0.48
63	I came from a different school, so being in the program made me feel more welcome in the school environment and made me feel really at home.	3.45	0.50
28	I loved my elementary school and loved being involved with it.	3.45	0.58
70	All the teachers knew that I was responsible.	3.18	0.22
27	I like that school staff viewed me differently when I was a mentor.	3.18	0.22
71	If the school needed someone to help with the younger kids, they were always asking me.	3.18	0.26
19	School staff were interested in the program and want to hear more about it.	3.09	0.16
67	I was really scared of teachers, but after the program I saw that they are just there to help you.	3.00	0.50
64	Before the program, I was not a big fan of talking to other people.	2.90	0.42
14	I return to my elementary school to assist with the school show.	2.64	0.33
57	I remember being frustrated with my mentee’s quirks and didn’t know how to make a connection with her, and have learned that everyone learns differently.	2.63	0.75
30	My parents were really interested to know if the mentees were okay and if my friends were okay.	2.45	0.39
49	I looked to the other mentors for help because of my lack of experience with younger children.	2.36	1.00
29	My parents would ask me about the program and about my mentee.	2.09	0.44
50	Some mentors had more experience than I did.	2.00	0.92
18	School staff didn’t expect me to be in the program.	1.64	0.24

Note. Bolded values indicate averages of the respective cluster’s content.

The sorting and rating phase

The researcher coordinated a date with principals to meet as many interview participants as possible for the sorting and rating activity, where students arranged the unique statements obtained through the interview process. All interviewees (n = 11) participated in the GCM sorting and rating activity. The participants worked independently with up to three people in a room at a time to complete the sorting and rating task for this paper’s focal question as well as the second question; the participants could not see each other’s work. The sorting and rating task for this paper’s focal question took between 25 to 40 minutes ( $\bar{X}$ = 32.7 minutes, SD = 5.6 minutes). Seven mentors completed the sorting and rating activity during their lunch break; three mentors who lived in the same neighborhood, but attended different schools, met a member of the research team at a local coffee shop to complete the sorting and rating procedures. Due to distance, one participant was mailed the sorting and rating package, and she sent her data to the researcher as a phone text image. For each sorting and rating activity participant received a $10 gift certificate as compensation.

Results

Multidimensional Scaling

Following the sorting and rating activities, statements were entered into and analyzed with Concept Systems Incorporated (Version 233.21, 2017) software. A multidimensional scaling data point map showed the sorted statements along X-Y coordinates displaying each statement’s location and spatial relationship with the others. A stress value was calculated to show how well the point map fit the data (Nowicki & Brown, 2015). This value ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 represents an excellent fit and 1 represents a poor fit (Dare & Nowicki, 2015; Nowicki & Brown, 2015). The stress value was 0.2948, which fell within the acceptable range of 0.205 and 0.365 indicative of sufficient goodness of fit (Kane & Trochim, 2007, p. 98).

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

To ensure the statements are clustered with conceptually related statements, a hierarchical cluster analysis is conducted where boundary lines around the clusters differ between iterations but the points on the map do not change (Nowicki & Brown, 2015). In GCM, a bridging value is calculated for each statement and cluster (Kane & Trochim, 2007). Bridging indices range from 0 to 1, where values near 0 indicate that the statements have been sorted in piles with nearby statements on the map (Kane & Trochim, 2007). Conversely, statements with values near 1 indicate that the statements have been sorted with statements further apart on the map (Dare & Nowicki, 2015; Nowicki & Brown, 2015) and represent statements that may have been difficult to sort (Kane & Trochim, 2007). These indices explain both the conceptual meaning and relation of each idea across areas of the map (Kane & Trochim, 2007). Furthermore, the bridging indices are used to determine the best-fitting cluster model.

Selecting the number of clusters for the final map is a key decision in GCM (Kane & Trochim, 2007). While there is no rule to selecting the appropriate number of clusters, consideration is taken to achieve a balance between detail, reflected by many clusters, and the bigger picture, reflected by few clusters (Kane & Trochim, 2007). In some cases, it is useful to invite a focus group of participants to aid in the selection of clusters; however, the review and interpretation of cluster decision-making can be confusing and burdensome for younger participants (Kane & Trochim, 2007). It is more typical for the researcher to select the final cluster solution in consultation with others from the project planning group and based on the analysis output (Kane & Trochim, 2007). Three researchers independently reviewed a range of models between two and 10 clusters and determined that the three-cluster map resulted in the simplest model that retained distinct concepts with acceptable bridging values. The three-cluster model reflected a small number of categories representative of the study’s purpose investigating the themes surrounding former mentors’ connections and relationships made through mentoring their younger peers. Furthermore, the three-cluster model’s acceptable stress value indicates good statistical fit (see Figure 1). Cluster labels were determined by examining the statements in the clusters and with consideration of labels produced by the participants as well as the researchers’ independent interpretations of the map; labels suggested by participants may be retained or edited for clarity (Kane & Trochim, 2007). The three key concepts were (a) Communication Skills ( $\bar{X}$ bridging index = 0.18; 26 statements), (b) Relationships With Mentees ( $\bar{X}$ bridging index = 0.24; 26 statements), and (c) Connections With School and Staff ( $\bar{X}$ bridging index = 0.40; 25 statements).

Figure 1.

Concept map for the three-cluster solution showing spatial relationship between 77 generated statements.

Concept Mapping Summaries

Average bridging values for individual statements ranged between 0 and 1.00. Table 1 shows the statements grouped by cluster and indices. A mean importance rating was calculated for each statement, and mean cluster ratings were created by averaging the statements contained in each cluster. Importance ratings for statements ranged from 1.64 to 4.45 (see Table 1). Notably, nine of the 77 (11%) statements were rated as highly important (≥4.00) by participants. The statements with the highest mean ratings (≥4.00) were found in two of the three clusters. The importance ratings for clusters ranged between 3.12 and 3.60, indicating that all clusters were rated by participants as important.

Cluster 1: Communication skills

This cluster contained 26 statements and was sorted with the highest degree of consistency ( $\bar{X}$ bridging index = 0.18). Participants rated this cluster as most important overall ( $\bar{X}$ = 3.60, SD = 0.42), with average statement importance ratings ranging from 2.91 to 4.45. This cluster contained the most statements (n = 7) with low bridging values (≤ 0.05) in the data set (Statements 21, 43, 44, 46, 48, 58, and 69), signifying the statements as the best indicators of the cluster’s content. Statement 21 had the highest average importance rating in the data set (4.45) and focused on the importance of listening: “Being in the program helped me listen to people better, listen to their opinions, and understand what they’re trying to say.” The second-highest rated statement (4.27) in the data set was also found in this cluster: Statement 44, “I can communicate with kids and adults better because it’s given me background on how to talk to both age groups.” These statements reflected former mentors’ improved skills in communication with others in both expressive and receptive respects. An additional theme represented the cluster’s content included talking to younger people and an awareness of mentees’ level of understanding (Statement 46, “The program has helped me in giving direction and giving clear instructions on how to do the activities we did together,” and Statement 48, “I now take into consideration who I’m talking to and how they’ll understand better what’s going on”).

Statements reflected former mentors’ perceptions of communicating and engaging with their mentees and others. Statements showed students’ understanding of differing perspectives of others (Statements 39, 48, 53, and 58), specifically when conveying information to younger people and having to speak to their developmental level of understanding (Statements 46, 47, 48, and 52). For example, Statement 58 reported, “The program has helped me become aware that not everyone will have the same attitude towards things as I do” and Statement 47 noted, “I had to explain things in a different way so the mentees could understand.”

Other statements reflected specifically on the relationships made with others in the group (Statements 1, 6, 16, 36, 41, and 43). For example, Statement 6, “You could find similarities between you and other people,” and Statement 36, “The program helped mentors bond together.” Some relationships were formed for mentors simply due to exposure to students they had not conversed with before (Statements 3, 35, and 45). For example, Statement 3, “It was a new experience talking to people I normally wouldn’t have talked to,” and Statement 35, “I learned about age gaps and that sometimes it doesn’t matter, you can still be friends with the mentees.” Two statements described relating to others at school and home: Statement 56 reported the program’s influence on students’ improved relations with high school staff (“The program has helped me in high school in trying to befriend some of my teachers and being able to talk to them about things”), and Statement 75 reflected on students’ role with family (“I became more responsible with how I dealt with my situation at home with my parents and siblings especially because we fought a lot.”) Themes in this cluster reported improved communication skills and relationships made within the group, particularly with younger students.

Cluster 2: Relationships with mentees

This cluster contained 26 statements with average importance ratings ranging from 2.36 to 4.18 and contained a high cluster importance rating ( $\bar{X}$ = 3.51, SD = 0.48). The participants sorted the statements in this cluster with a relatively high level of consistency ( $\bar{X}$ bridging index = 0.24). This cluster had four statements with low bridging values of 0.05 or less (Statements 11, 12, 22, and 31). Statement 22 reflected a relational theme with mentees: “I had a strong relationship with my mentee.” Statement 31 reflected the mentor/mentee match (“My mentee was really excited to be in the program, and I was excited to be there with them”), and Statements 11 and 12 reported mentor-perceived comfort within the match (“My mentee was comfortable with me, we would goof around and be silly” and “My mentee and I made a handshake between the two of us,” respectively.)

This cluster noted former mentors’ experiences working with and relating to their younger mentees. Participants reflected on the friendships (Statements 2, 11, 22, and 31) and connections (Statements 10, 12, and 23) developed with mentees; Statement 2 reported, “I made friends with the mentees,” and Statement 23 added, “My mentee would run from her class to give me a hug or wave to me.” Reflecting on their experiences, former mentors reported on their experiences encountering their mentees again months and years following their program involvement (Statements 15, 24, 32, 60, 72, and 73). For example, Statement 24 reported, “When I return to my elementary school, my mentee remembers me and is so excited to see me,” and Statement 73, “It’s nice being able to see the mentees years later, see how they’ve been doing, what they’ve been up to, how they’ve changed in their lives, and how they’ve overcome obstacles that they were facing.” In addition, former mentors noted their unique connection to each other through their affiliation with the program (Statements 25 and 66); Statement 66 reported, “Whenever I would see the other mentors at recess, we would always have that one connection through the program.”

Reflective of their social responsibilities in the program, Statement 13 noted the mentors’ role in providing guidance (“My mentee and I would talk if he or she was having trouble with friends”), Statement 33 referred to providing mentee support (“I felt like my mentee’s parents weren’t really there for him or her, he or she just wanted me to be there for him or her”), and Statement 38 reflected working together as a larger group (“We all worked together for a purpose, like the time the gym floor was lava and we had to figure out how to cross using only mats.”) Participants also reported their awareness of the influence they had on their mentees: “We knew we were role models to the mentees,” and “Realizing I made an impact in my mentee was cool” (Statements 37 and 61, respectively). Statement 59 highlighted a challenge experienced mentoring younger peers (“Sometimes my mentee didn’t want to come to the program and sometimes refused to talk to me which was difficult.”) This cluster reported on mentors’ awareness of their role model status and social responsibilities to the mentees.

Cluster 3: Connections with school and staff

This cluster contained 25 statements, ranging in importance from 1.64 to 3.82, and had a moderate importance rating ( $\bar{X}$ = 3.12, SD = 0.62). Statement 18, “School staff didn’t expect me to be in the program” received the lowest mean importance rating in the data set (1.64). The participants sorted the statements in this cluster with a moderate degree of consistency ( $\bar{X}$ bridging index = 0.40). This cluster contained the sole statement in the data set with a 1.00 bridging value (Statement 49, “I looked to the other mentors for help because of my lack of experience with younger children”), signifying that it was perhaps a difficult statement to sort (Kane & Trochim, 2007). In addition, Statement 50 (“Some mentors had more experience than I did”) and Statement 57 (“I remember being frustrated with my mentee’s quirks and didn’t know how to make a connection with her, and have learned that everyone learns differently”) also had high bridging values (0.92 and 0.75, respectively) indicative of each one’s difficultly to sort.

This cluster’s overall theme reflected former mentors’ perceptions of school and school staff. Participants noted the relational connections they had with the school staff (Statements 55 and 67) and the program facilitator (Statements 34 and 74) as a result of participation. For example, Statement 55, “Because of the experience, I got to talk with the teachers and facilitator one-on-one and gain a better understanding for the professional relationships between teachers and students” and Statement 74, “The relationship between the facilitator and I changed a lot because after joining it opened the door to talk more about anything going on in my life.” In addition, Statements 54 and 68 reflected former mentors’ comments on their improved respect for school staff and their professional responsibilities in the school (“The program gave me more respect for the school staff that deals with younger children,” and “If you respect school staff, they will respect you back and it’s cool seeing that side of them,” respectively).

Former mentors discussed how their participation in the program influenced how they believed they projected themselves to school staff (Statements 18, 26, 27, 62, 70, and 71). For example, Statement 26 reported, “My role as a mentor made me look more mature and involved in the school to school staff,” and Statement 62 added, “The staff thought of me still as a mentor and I thought that was kind of cool.” Other themes reflected in this cluster included participants’ involvement in school (Statements 14, 28, and 63), and community (Statement 76); Statement 14 reported, “I return to my elementary school to assist with the school show,” and Statement 76 furthered, “The year after the program, I got a job in my community as a junior leader in an after-school program.” Former mentors also recalled staff (Statements 19 and 20) and parent (Statements 29 and 30) interest in the program. For example, Statement 20 reported, “The vice principal thought the program was a good thing and was glad that there were people helping others in the building,” and Statement 29 said, “My parents would ask me about the program and about my mentee.” This cluster reported mentors’ relationships with school staff and mentors’ appreciation of the responsibilities staff have within the school. In addition, mentors described their experiences when they returned to their elementary school months and years following program participation.

Cluster map summary

Responses to the GCM focus question produced 77 unique statements with results best displayed in a three-cluster map with clusters labeled, (a) Communication Skills, (b) Relationships With Mentees, and (c) Connections With School and Staff. The low stress value provides evidence that the former youth mentors perceived the connections they made through the Wiz Kidz program in a relatively consistent way.

Discussion

This investigation contributed to research on the outcomes of youth serving as mentors to their younger peers (Grossman et al., 2012; Karcher, 2014; Portwood & Ayers, 2005). The purpose of this study was to investigate the reflections of former elementary school youth who served as Wiz Kidz (Coyne-Foresi, 2015) program peer mentors during their seventh- and eighth-grade years. This project highlights the connections and relationships that the mentors made to school and school staff through the mentoring program. This study’s GCM methodology provided youth mentors the opportunity to discuss, interpret, and make meaning of the collective data provided. The focus question asked former mentors about the associations and connections to school, teachers, and friends experienced during their participation in the Wiz Kidz program.

Participants’ awareness of the influence they had on mentees was a central theme observed through this investigation. From the moment they volunteered for their roles, the facilitator communicated the expectation of mentors’ responsibility and maturity within the school. The Wiz Kidz program encouraged mentors to model appropriate behavioral conduct, including showing commitment to their studies. Mentors demonstrated these prosocial skills and exercised their leadership roles to encourage the same in the mentees. For example, some mentors were regularly called on by school staff to assist with school assemblies or school safety initiatives; this group of students included the three mentors who participated in the Wiz Kidz program for two consecutive years. Two of these three mentors were involved in other leadership programming at school, namely student council. These students may have had a greater interest in school programming initiatives or perhaps benefited from their social roles within the school. These outcomes are consistent with research that supported peer mentoring as an opportunity for youth to model their identity development (Karcher, 2008) and internalize their social roles (Rhodes, 2002).

Frequent contact with other mentors and mentees in the program may have fostered the mentors’ experience of group affiliation. This affiliation closely paralleled research findings that linked participation in group programming with students’ broader sense of belonging to school (Karcher, Holcomb, & Zambrano, 2008). Furthermore, this belonging and connection with school supports a host of protective factors for students, including social and academic benefits (Karcher et al., 2008) and school staff and peer support (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). This study revealed former mentors’ comfort, and arguably continued connection, with their elementary school months and years after graduating, as evidenced by their return to visit staff and students or assist with school functions, such as school plays. Participants commented on the friendships and connections made with their mentees. Mentor/mentee relationships expanded beyond the Wiz Kidz group to the greater school context, where both age groups engaged in the hallways or at recess, and in the community. It is queried if such exchanges would have occurred among the two groups if the program did not exist.

Former youth mentors also revealed improved interpersonal relations with school staff and the program facilitator as a result of their participation. These concepts closely align with the Wiz Kidz program goals to view staff as a source of support in times of need and is fostered by the natural mentoring relationship staff have with students (Portwood & Ayers, 2005). Research on students’ connection to school and staff (Karcher, 2005; Pianta, (1992) can be considered an extension of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988). Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) is explained as one’s experience of improved feelings of connection and belonging to a person or group as a result of regular social contact with others (Ainsworth, 1989; Bandura, 1982). The current investigation highlights the roles of educators as supportive figures to the students in their classes and to students within the broader school. Identified as natural mentors outside of the home (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005; Luthar, 2006; Portwood & Ayers, 2005), educators may provide additional avenues of social support to students who require it. The positive influence educators can have on their students’ sense of safety and social well-being can reach beyond the classroom walls; educators are encouraged to seek social programming interventions to engage and support students outside of the classroom.

These improved staff/student relations may have been encouraged through increased exposure to staff; however, more research in this area is required. It could be argued that participation in school-based group programming can provide a platform for improved relational development with school staff outside of the classroom, an opportunity not otherwise afforded at school. Furthermore, it is important that social programming support be implemented early in the school year and as soon as developmentally appropriate for youth. Early opportunities for students to develop connections and relationships with school staff can serve as a buffer from the normative decline in connectedness experienced for students over time (Karcher, 2008, 2011) Interestingly, participants had low regard for how they believed school staff perceived their suitability for the mentoring role. Participants may have had confidence in their ability to guide their younger peers without concern for what they believed school staff thought of them. If this is the case, it is imperative that the Wiz Kidz program mentor recruitment process remains volunteer-based and is not influenced by the recommendations of school staff. This research also identified difficulties experienced by mentors within the program, such as experiences of frustration with mentees and struggling to engage mentees in program activities.

Use of GCM provided a platform for the collective thoughts of former youth mentors’ reflections on the skills and lessons learned in the program. When mentors were presented with the unique responses to the focus question, they became aware of how their peers had responded. The statements provided by mentors may have resonated with their peers, and perhaps could have provided new concepts to consider when reflecting on the connections and relationships made through mentoring. Former youth mentors reported their awareness of their role model status demonstrated for their mentees and were observed to internalize their social roles as leaders within their school. The group affiliation experienced by mentors supported their social connections within the school and friendships with fellow mentors and younger mentees.

Limitations

Some limitations to this study are noted. First, the study had a small sample size. Although the sample size was sufficient for the methodology used (Kane & Trochim, 2007), its generalizability is limited. This study included mentors from one peer mentoring program; the data may look different if more students were included and/or other programs were investigated. Second, this study may have sampling bias. It is possible that the youth mentors who volunteered their participation in the study viewed the program more favorably than other mentors. For example, the three participants who served in a mentoring role over two consecutive years may have perceived the program more positively than other mentors. Third, because the researcher was also the Wiz Kidz program facilitator, the researcher’s dual role may have influenced the participants. Although steps were taken to reduce coercion in recruitment, namely students were required to contact the researcher if they were interested in participating, this cannot be guaranteed as the researcher was known to the participants. Conversely, it is possible that former youth mentors chose not to participate in the study knowing the researcher’s dual role.

Future Directions and Implications for Educational Practice

Participation in peer mentoring programs can provide youth mentors with opportunities to explore their leadership abilities through their role model status to younger mentees (Chan et al., 2013). Programs with a relational focus can encourage mentors to explore both expressive and receptive communication skills required to effectively converse with different generations of people, from young mentees to older school staff. In addition, opportunities to build relationships with school staff can serve as a source of support for students in times of need (Pianta, 1992). Educators’ demonstration of leadership and caring while serving as program facilitators will further support students’ emotional and behavioral regulation (Poulou, 2015) and also encourage students’ feelings of belonging within a group context (Martin & Dowson, 2009; Poulou, 2015). With a foundational relationship secured through program affiliation, students may be more inclined to approach the school counselor facilitators for assistance with problems they are having. More broadly, participation in programs run by school staff may improve students’ likelihood of seeking support simply through increased exposure to staff.

Another school staff–related implication is the program mentor selection process. As evidenced in this study, mentor recruitment may be best continued through a volunteer-based approach. Mentors assigned low importance to the notion that they required the support of school staff to put their names forth to mentor their younger peers. Instead, mentors believed in their capacities to serve as role models to mentees, regardless of how they believed their teachers perceived them. When provided the opportunity, it appeared that mentors with poor reputations and challenging histories found success in developing their leadership skills through their mentoring roles. Participants’ beliefs of how they were perceived by school staff is another area of future research.

GCM is an effective research tool with adult participants (Kane & Trochim, 2007), with more recent evidence showing support for involving children and youth in the interview, sorting, and rating phases of GCM (Nowicki et al., 2014; Dare & Nowicki, 2015; Ewan et al., 2016). Utilizing a small focus group of participants to assist in selecting the clusters can be useful to preserve the participants’ interpretations of the results; however, the examination of different cluster solutions can be a confusing and onerous task for children and youth participants (Kane & Trochim, 2007). Thus, during the GCM analysis phase, it is typical for the researcher to select the final cluster solution based on the analysis output and in collaboration with others from the project planning group (Kane & Trochim, 2007). The choice to involve younger participants in the cluster selection process is made at the researcher’s discretion and based on participants’ understanding of the GCM process and cluster selection task. Future studies are encouraged to utilize younger participants in the cluster selection process and examine the levels of understanding among children and youth in completing the task.

Researchers are encouraged to gather a better understanding of students’ experiences mentoring their younger peers, as well as the mentor-perceived successes and challenges that accompany the role. Future research may investigate frustrations experienced by mentors when trying to engage their mentees. With respect to moving the research forward, future studies may provide school counselor facilitators a platform to report data associated with programs they run, as many are not connected to agencies that report on mentoring activities (Karcher, 2014).

Conclusion

This study examined former youth mentors’ reflections on the connections and relationship made through mentoring their younger peers. Examined through a student–school staff attachment relationship (Pianta, 1992) lens, the Wiz Kidz program encourages a connection to school staff, and the school itself, for students to identify with, feel a sense of belonging, and receive support in times of need. Use of GCM in this investigation aided in emphasizing youth mentors’ insights into their experiences. Former youth mentors discussed themes of perceived improvements in communicating with younger students, as well as their awareness of their influential role model status. Mentors also discussed their experience of group affiliation and improved interpersonal relations made with mentees, fellow mentors, and school staff as a result of participation. This study supports a growing body of research that highlights the relational gains experienced by youth who serve as mentors to their younger peers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Melissa Coyne-Foresi

Author Biographies

Melissa Coyne-Foresi is a PhD candidate in the School and Applied Child Psychology program at Western University. Her research interests include facilitating student engagement through peer mentoring programs as a means of fostering students’ empathy, leadership, and confidence.

Elizabeth Nowicki is an associate professor at the Faculty of Education at Western University. Her current research focuses on children’s understanding of social interactions at school, implicit and explicit attitudes about ability and gender, and children’s views on social inclusion and exclusion.

References

Ainsworth

M. D. S.

(1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-716.

Andrew

Halcomb

E. J.

(2006). Mixed methods research is an effective method of enquiry for community health research. Contemporary Nurse, 23, 145-153.

Badegruber

(2005). 101 life skills games for children: Learning, growing, getting along (ages 6-12). Alameda, CA: Hunter House.

Bandura

(1982). The psychology of chance encounters and life paths. American Psychologist, 37, 747-755.

Bowlby

(1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Camino

Zeldin

(2002). From periphery to center: Pathways for youth civic engagement in the day-to-day life of communities. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 213-220.

Chan

C. S.

Rhodes

J. E.

Howard

W. J.

Lowe

S. R.

Schwartz

S. E. O.

Herrera

(2013). Pathways of influence in school-based mentoring: The mediating role of parents and teacher relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 129-142. doi:10.1016/j.jsp2012.10.001

Concept Systems Incorporated. (2017). Concept System Global MAX (2017.079.13) [web-based computer program]. Retrieved from https://conceptsystemsglobal.com/index.php

Coyne-Foresi

(2015). Wiz Kidz: Fostering school connectedness through an in-school student mentoring program. Professional School Counseling, 19(1), 68-79. doi:10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.68

10.

Coyne-Foresi

Nowicki

Dare

(2018). Youth mentorship: Exploring long-term benefits for mentors through group concept mapping. Unpublished manuscript, Faculty of Education, Western University, London, Canada.

11.

Curran

Wexler

(2017). School-based positive youth development: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of School Health, 87, 71-80.

12.

Dare

Nowicki

E. A.

(2015). Conceptualizing concurrent enrollment: Why high-achieving students go for it. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 249-264.

13.

DuBois

D. L.

Holloway

B. E.

Valentine

J. C.

Cooper

(2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157-198. doi:10.1023/A:1014628810714

14.

DuBois

D. L.

Portillo

Rhodes

J. E.

Silverthorn

Valentine

J. C.

(2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 57-91. doi:10.1177/1529100611414806

15.

DuBois

D. L.

Silverthorn

(2005). Characteristics of natural mentoring relationships and adolescent adjustment: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 69-92.

16.

Ewan

L. A.

McLinden

Biro

DeJonckheere

Vaughn

L. M.

(2016). Mapping the views of adolescent health stakeholders. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58, 24-32. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.020

17.

Garcia-Reid

(2007). Examining social capital as a mechanism for improving school engagement among low income Hispanic girls. Youth & Society, 39, 164-181. doi:10.1177/0044118X07303263

18.

Groh

A. M.

Fearon

R. P.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

Steele

R. D.

Roisman

G. I.

(2014). The significance of attachment security for children’s social competence with peers: A meta-analytic study. Attachment & Human Development, 16, 103-136. doi:10.1080/14616734.2014.883636

19.

Grossman

J. B.

Chan

C. S.

Schwartz

S. E. O.

Rhodes

J. E.

(2012). The test of time in school-based mentoring: The role of relationship duration and re-matching on academic outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 43-54. doi:10.1007/s10464-011-9435-0

20.

Guthrie

J. T.

Wigfield

VonSecker

(2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 331-341. doi:10.I037//0022-Q663.92.2.331

21.

Hagerty

B. M.

Lynch Sauer

Patusky

Bouwsema

(1993). An emerging theory of human relatedness. IMAGE: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 25, 291-296.

22.

Kane

Trochim

W. M. K.

(2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Karcher

M. J.

(2005). The effects of school-based developmental mentoring and high school mentors’ attendance on their younger mentees’ self-esteem, social skills, and connectedness. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 65-78. doi:10.1002/pits.20025

24.

Karcher

M. J.

(2008). The cross-age mentoring program: A developmental intervention for promoting students’ connectedness across grade levels. Professional School Counseling, 12, 137-143. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.137

25.

Karcher

M. J.

(2011). The Hemingway: Measure of adolescent connectedness. Retrieved from http://adolescentconnectedness.com/media/HemingwayManual2012.pdf

26.

Karcher

M. J.

(2014). Cross-age peer mentoring. In DuBois

D. L.

Karcher

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 233-257). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

27.

Karcher

M. J.

Holcomb

Zambrano

(2008). Measuring and evaluating adolescent connectedness. In Coleman

H. L. K.

Yeh

(Eds.), Handbook of school counseling (pp. 651-672). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

28.

Klem

A. M.

Connell

J. P.

(2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262-273.

29.

Kobak

Herres

Laurenceau

J.-P.

(2012). Teacher-student interactions and attachment states of mind as predictors of early romantic involvement and risky sexual behaviors. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 289-303. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672282

30.

Langhout

R. D.

Thomas

(2010). Imagining participatory action research in collaboration with children: An introduction. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 60-66. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9321-1

31.

Luthar

S. S.

(2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In Cicchetti

Cohen

D. J.

(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 739-795). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

32.

Martin

A. J.

Dowson

(2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 79, 327-365. doi:10.3102/0034654308325583

33.

Masten

A. S.

Reed

M. J.

(2002). Resilience in development. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74-88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

34.

Microsoft Office. (2016). Excel [Computer software]. Redmond, WA: Author.

35.

Miranda-Chan

Fruiht

Dubon

Wray-Lake

(2016). The functions and longitudinal outcomes of adolescents’ naturally occurring mentorships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57, 47-59. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12031

36.

Noam

G. G.

Malti

Karcher

M. J.

(2013). Mentoring relationship in developmental perspective. In DuBois

D. L.

Karcher

M. J.

(Eds.), The handbook of youth mentoring (2nd ed., pp. 99-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

37.

Nowicki

E.A.

Brown

(2015). The social exclusion of schoolmates with learning and intellectual disabilities: A concept mapping approach. SAGE Research Methods Cases. doi: 10.4135/978144627305014556084

38.

Nowicki

E. A.

Brown

Stepien

(2014). Children’s thoughts on the social exclusion of peers with intellectual or learning difficulties. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities Research, 58, 346–357. doi: 10.1111/jir.12019

39.

Ozer

E. J.

(2017). Youth-led participatory action research: Overview and potential for enhancing adolescent development. Child Development Perspectives, 11, 173-177. doi:10.1111/cdep.12228

40.

Pianta

R. C.

(1992). New directions for child development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

41.

Pianta

R. C.

(1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

42.

Portwood

S. G.

Ayers

P. M.

(2005). Schools. In DuBois

D. L.

Karcher

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 336-347). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

43.

Poulou

(2015). Teacher-student relationships, social and emotional skills, and emotional and behavioural difficulties. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 4(1), 84-108. doi: 10.4471/ijep.2015.04

44.

Rhodes

J. E.

(2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

45.

Sabol

T. J.

Pianta

R. C.

(2012). Recent trends in research on teacher-child relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 213-231. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672262

46.

Smith

J. D.

(2012, Summer). Improving school climate to reduce bullying. Education Canada, 52(3), 39-42. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/improving-school-climate-reduce-bullying

47.

Tolan

P. H.

Henry

D. B.

Schoeny

M. S.

Lovegrove

Nichols

(2014). Mentoring programs to affect delinquency and associated outcomes of youth at risk: A comprehensive meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 179-206. doi:10.1007/s11292-013-9181-4

48.

Trint. (2017). Trint (web-based computer program). London, England: IDEALondon. Available from https://trint.com

49.

Vaughn

L. M.

Wagner

Jacquez

(2013). A review of community-based participatory research in child health. MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/child Nursing, 38, 48-53.

50.

Wang

M. T.

Eccles

J. S.

(2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12-23. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.002

51.

Zeldin

(2002). Sense of community and adult beliefs towards adolescents and youth policy in urban neighborhoods and small cities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(5), 331–342.

52.

Zeldin

Christens

B. D.

Powers

J. L.

(2013). The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 385-397. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9558-y