Attitudinal Change Among University Student Tutors¹

Abstract

Attitudinal change among 323 university tutors of school children was examined in the areas of social responsibility, beliefs in intervention, and perceptions of the disadvantaged. Role theory and the contact hypothesis provided the theoretical base for predicting path models in which tutor traits, aspects of the tutoring situation, tutoring outcomes, and pretutoring attitudes were used to explain attitudes following 7 to 8 months of tutoring experience. Results showed somewhat improved attitudes toward the disadvantaged; however, social responsibility and attitudes toward intervention decreased slightly. Empirical path models for the latter 2 areas were nearly identical, and differed from that for attitudes toward the disadvantaged.

Individual and school factors affecting students’ participation and success in higher education

“…The school data comprised: school decile; school roll; school year level span (Y7-15 or Y9-15; note that normally secondary education ends at Y13, but the Ministry's classification allows up to 15 years of secondary schooling); the ratio of students in Year 13 and Year 9 (the Y13/Y9 ratio gives an indication of the attraction of the senior school); school gender type; school authority (ownership); the ethnic composition of students within the school; school location (by district); the proportion of CIE candidates; and the school's participation in any of the university's four outreach programmes (Salmond 2004). The four outreach programmes include (a) Mentoring and Tutoring Educational Scheme (MATES) programme: The New Zealand version of the Israeli Perach programme where university students mentor secondary school students (Fresko 1996(Fresko , 1997; (b) Tuakana: Academic support programmes for Māori and Pacific students ); (c) Dream Fono: A programmes to inspire Pacific students to attend The University of Auckland and enhance self confidence; and (d) MATHS: A support programme for underachieving students in low decile schools.…”

The impact of a peer-tutoring program on quality standards in higher education

“…Although such an approach has had a long-standing tradition in secondary schooling (e.g., Durán and Vidal 2004;Kuh 2009;Robinson et al 2005;Rohrbeck et al 2003;Tindall 1995;Topping and Ehly 1998), it has been occasionally applied at the university level for preventive purposes, as well. In this vein, several studies and reports (e.g., Benavent and Fossati 1990;Blowers et al 2003;Fernández et al 2003;Fresko 1997;Griffin and Griffin 1997;Griffiths et al 1995;Higgins 2004;Kuresman 2008;Lake 1999;Mynard and Almarzouqi 2006;Nestel and Kidd 2003;Quintrell and Westwood 1994;Topping 1996;Tuckman 2003;Warwick and Holton 2001;Xu et al 2001) show that, by trusting that students are in the best position to identify their own induction needs (Carter and McNeill 1998), these programs tend to achieve high levels of efficacy and efficiency in addressing diverse problems, such as academic failure, cognitive and metacognitive strategies deficit, and difficulties in social integration (Topping 1996(Topping , 2005. Little is known, however, about the effects of these programs upon the tutors, with the exception of some data on personal satisfaction, which, in general, achieves quite high scores (Topping 1996).…”