Students with Disabilities:
Mentoring for College Success
Jayne Fraley-Bugett-Director
Kathleen Camire, Graduate Assistant
Office of Disability Services for Students
Western Michigan University
Agenda: Making the Case for a Peer Mentor Program for
students with disabilities
• Introductions & Overview
• Review of Research
• Identifying the Need  Access vs. Success
• Peer vs. Non-Peer Mentoring
• Program Design
• Program Results
• Mentee Reflections
• Question & Comment Session
Unit name
Review of the Research:
Making the Case
• Astin’s (1996) research on student involvement & development:
•
“strongest single source of influence on cognitive and affective development is the
student’s peer group…has enormous potential for influencing virtually all
aspects…of educational and personal development”
• Brown, Takahashi, & Roberts’s (2010) analysis of mentor programs for students
with disabilities:
•
•
Student reflections trended toward mentoring as a “needed, valuable, and positive
component in the transition from high school.”
Analysis of current programs noted “usefulness of mentoring for academic, career,
and social skills; and the value of establishing long-term mentoring relationships”
• Gibson’s (2006) disability identity development model
• Passive awareness
Realization
Acceptance
Unit name
Identifying the Need
• Access vs. Success
• Recognized the need in multiple places:
• Incoming students with disabilities
•
•
•
•
•
Transition
Advocacy
Awareness & ownership
Academic success
Equity!
• Current students with disabilities
• Equity! Job opportunity, career skills
• Personal development
• Rewarding
• College/University staff
• Time: for office outreach, to contribute to campus initiatives, etc.
Unit name
Why Peers?
• Astin’s (1996) Student Involvement and Development: Peer Group
influence!
• Rapport and ability to relate: bond formed by similar experiences
• Role model: illustration of success with a disability!
Why not trained faculty or staff?
• Power dynamic
• Inability to relate
• Comfort  feeling of punitive or “requirement” rather than support
• Cost
Unit name
Design of the DSS Peer Mentor
Program
• Well-qualified mentors
• Intense, 3-day training
• Weekly curriculum
• One-on-one meetings
• Constant contact
• Mid-semester progress reports
•
Higher response rates
• Emphasis on campus involvement
•
Unit name
Campus connection
Program Results: FTIAC
2013-2014
Fall 2013
37% of Mentees were named to the Dean’s List for Fall 2013
Overall, 92% of all mentees had a GPA of at least a 2.5.
In comparison, 75% of the non-mentee DSS population achieved a GPA of
at least 2.5
Average FTIAC GPA
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
3.26
2.97
2.87
Mentees
Unit name
DSS
Population
WMU
Average GPA
Every institution’s favorite word:
Retention
From Fall 2013 to Fall 2014
• WMU’s overall FTIAC retention: 77.5%
• DSS Peer Mentor Program FTIAC retention: 89.3%
Unit name
Mentee Reflections:
What have been the most helpful parts of participating in
the program?
“Being able to relate to [mentor] about the stress of school and having a learning
disability.”
“[Mentor] has helped me talk about my disability with my professors and helped
me adjust to college life.”
“[Mentor] has helped me a lot with time management tools and finding way to
get involved on campus and finding ways to get help with things I'm struggling
with in my class, such as finding tutors”.
Unit name
Questions?
Comments?
Unit name
Contact Info
Jayne Fraley-Burgett
Western Michigan University
[email protected]
(269) 387-2120
References
Astin, A. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal of College
Student Development, 40(5), 587-597.
Brown, S. E., Takahashi, K., & Roberts, K. D. (2010). Mentoring individuals with disabilities in
postsecondary education: A review of the literature. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 23(10), 98-110.
Gibson, J. (2006). Disability and clinical competency: An introduction. The California Psychologist, 39
(6), 6-10.
Unit name