In an increasingly competitive world, many universities have tried to improve academic performance, retention, and graduation rates by introducing online education or mentoring. Although researchers have explored university mentoring using qualitative methods, few have addressed the quantitative connection between student mentoring and academic performance. Four separate regression analyses using ordinary least squares (OLS) methodology for the continuous outcome variable SAP and binary logistic methodology for the binary outcome variable OTP, were performed on 19,869 responses to a survey. Positive linear relationships were found between both predictor variables and SAP. A positive relationship was found between satisfaction with the university and OTP; however, satisfaction with mentoring was not a predictor of OTP. The results of this study provided information based on quantitative analysis about the relationship between student satisfaction and student academic performance outcomes.
TopIntroduction: Background Of The Study
Learning institutions at all levels, through the implementation of support services such as mentoring programs, may enable positive performance outcomes, influence perceptions, maximize retention, and improve graduation rates.
Tinto (1987) wrote extensively about student success, the impact of learning communities on student performance, and retention. Tinto’s model of institutional departure focuses on reasons students dropped out of school. Tinto also linked academic difficulties to students who were unable to resolve educational and professional goals, and the failure to interact intellectually and socially in the environment of the institution. Tinto’s model stated that in order to help students avoid dropping out of college, students needed to be integrated into the world of academia by interacting with faculty, learning about the institution’s academic systems, participating in activities and services, and developing social relationships (Tinto,1987).
Components of effective retention programs at institutions include a commitment to all students and the ability to put the welfare of the students ahead of other institutional goals. As part of their commitment to the education of all students, educational organizations should be dedicated to the development of supportive social and educational communities in which all students are integrated as members. Through the implementation of support services such as mentoring, learning institutions could enable positive student experiences and perceptions and influence academic performance outcomes.
Well-designed mentoring programs may encourage student empowerment, self-efficacy, focus, accountability, superior academic performance, and collaboration. An effective mentoring program may provide the opportunity to improve student academic performance and increase graduation rates.
Mentoring often is holistic, which is focused on individual performance (Clutterbuck, 2008). However, Clutterbuck said that an effective mentor may encourage an individual to develop and refine skills as well as apply new knowledge. In relation to the mentoring program at the university in this study (hereinafter referred to as Study Site University, or SSU to maintain anonymity), mentoring provided directive or nondirective guidance, assistance according to the mentee’s needs, and advice. Both mentees and the mentors set realistic goals for achieving specific performance objectives, and together they addressed personal and professional issues the mentee may have been experiencing. As mentees continued to advance academically, a sense of commitment, loyalty, and persistence developed, enabling mentees to finish their degrees. Mentors considered mentees’ best interests and created an environment of possibilities so that mentees reached peak performance outcomes. An organization achieves mentoring effectiveness when mentoring practices are integrated within the strategies and scope of the organization’s systems and structures.
Given the fact, more universities have developed online education, and the Internet has become the leading resource for distance learning and the leading method for educational delivery (Shimazu, 2005). Since 2011, more than 250 accredited universities have provided online education, including Arizona State University, Grand Canyon University, Purdue University, the University of Phoenix, and Walden University (Lao & Gonzales, 2005). Universities have responded to adult student learners’ needs for flexibility and growth by continuing to improve the technology, curriculum, and programs being offered through online education (Lao & Gonzales, 2005).
Ali and Elfessi (2004) showed that online learning may be as effective as learning in a face-to-face classroom setting. Therefore, universities may want to implement certain provisions to support students and may need to redefine the role and function of online instructors. Given advances in technology, modalities of learning, and educational as well as economic resources, universities must meet the needs of online students by providing quality courses and programs and by restructuring the training and responsibilities of instructors.