Evaluation of the Peer Guide Scheme December 2005

Evaluation of the Peer Guide Scheme April 2008

Introduction

This year as well as undertaking a survey of Peer Guides and First Year students one was sent to the School Peer Guide Co-ordinators. All three surveys were undertaken electronically and were available bilingually. The student questionnaires offered a prize draw of £30 to try to increase the response rate and as previously, the one to First Years was accompanied by a Student Services questionnaire relating Welcome Week and Induction.

Results of Surveys

Both the surveys of students a better response rate than last year with 15% of First Years responding and 34% of Peer Guidesdoing so. The co-ordinator survey had a response rate of 31%. Out of these figures some people did not complete the whole survey so any figures quoted here relate to the numbers who answered that particular question. Student respondents were still predominantly female and aged 18 – 24 and all academic schools were represented.

The First Year students thought most of the Peer Guides showed positive qualities rating them as friendly (84%) and helpful (70%), however, 11% did said the Peer Guides had not shown any of the listed qualities.Similarly, the hard work of the Peer Guides was acknowledged with 73% of First Year respondents thinking the Peer Guides in their academic schools had been active and helpful and 72% rated that help as good or very good. This is also seen in the co-ordinators’ responses who found the Peer Guides willing helpers. The table below indicates the relevant percentage responses.

The co-ordinator survey also indicated that in some academic areas a low number of Peer Guides had impinged on their ability to provide some activities or forms of help while others seemed unaware of the success or otherwise of what had been arranged.

Further questions relating to serious problems indicate that 17% of Peer Guides were supporting students who they felt had serious problems whilst only 4% of First Years said they had discussed serious issues with their Peer Guides. Additional comments from both surveys indicate that generally the Peer Guides signposted the new students to sources of information and/or help, gave friendly advice and were someone to lean on.

25% of First Years said they had considered withdrawing from university although only 1 said s/he had discussed this with his/her Peer Guide. However, 20% of Peer Guidessaid they were working with First Years considering leaving and that 78% of those students did stay in Bangor. On both surveys the main reason given for considering withdrawal was homesickness and / or problems settling in. Only one school co-ordinator was aware of Peer Guides helping students with particular problems and/or thinking of withdrawing.

Of the First Year 24% were still in touch with their Peer Guidesat the time of the survey although the replies from Peer Guides put this figure much higher at 51%. Of the rest, 48% they had stopped Peer Guiding after the first week of teaching. Again there was a large difference with64% of First Years no longer in contact with their Peer Guides indicating they had not seen them since the beginning of teaching and a further 13% said they had never met them. However, many First Years commented on having been adopted by other Peer Guides and 17% said they had received help from Peer Guides not in their academic school.

Peer Guides were generally willing to help at Open Days with 67% who had already helped centrally or in the academic school or had agreed to help at forthcoming events. 21% had not helped due to other commitments and 12% said they had not been asked to help. All those who had already helped at Open Days had talked to prospective students of whom 94% had shown interest in the scheme. This is also seen in the Co-ordinator surveys where

63% said that Peer Guides had helped at Open Days.

47% of First Years said they knew of the scheme before choosing Bangor and 57% of those (27% of total responses) had met Peer Guides at Open Days. Of those who knew about the scheme before hand, 38% (18% of total responses) said that it had been important or very important in their decision to choose Bangor.

Most of the Peer Guides were positive about the training. 84% rated the training as good or very good while only 3% considered it poor or very poor; 96% felt it gave them an accurate description of the role and 98% felt it equipped them to deal with the situations they faced as a Peer Guide. Additional comments wanted training to be more interactive, to stress that not all students want a Peer Guide and that common sense is important as not every eventuality can be covered. There was a further suggestion that training should be more related to individual academic schools. There were also 2 suggestions that there should be training for School Peer Guide Co-ordinators.

Peer Guides were asked about the support they received. Of those who had reason to contact the Central Peer Guide Co-ordinator 94% were pleased, finding her helpful, knowledgeable, organised, and accessible with time to deal with the issue. School Co-ordinators were also rated at 94% on the same criteria while 89% considered the schools were supportive in helping them work effectively.

Of those who stated their motivation for being a Peer Guide, 78% cited altruistic motives with the majority wishing to help others, to help the academic school, give back to a system that had helped them or to try to improve the system for the benefit of others. The other main reasons given were socialising (12%) and personal development / CV building (7%).Regardless of their motivation the Peer Guides recognised the benefits to themselves in the form of developing employability skills, particularly communication skills (92%) and increased confidence (77%) with only3% of respondents felling they had not gained skills from the experience.

The co-ordinators’ survey asked about the underlying processes and 82% had been able to recruit sufficient Peer Gudies for their needs while 89% had downloaded the accommodation details needed for the Halls Meet & Greet successfully.

All the questionnaires ended with the opportunity to make general comments andsuggestions and many respondents took the chance to do so. The majority of the 69 comments received from the First Yearswere good. Of these,69% gave it unqualified praise or were generally positive but qualified it with suggestions for improvement. The comments predominantly concentrated on the friendliness and usefulness of the Peer Guides in helping them settle in and find their way around. Those who suggested improvements recognised the usefulness of the scheme but felt they had been unlucky in their allocated Peer Guide or thought the scheme was less active in their academic school than in others. The most significant number of negative comments was the 13% who had been disappointed in not having a Peer Guide or only having minimal or poor contact with their Peer Guide. A further 6% thought events had been poorly organised while 4% called for more Peer Guides. 3% asked for more consideration for those not in the typical student situation of being 18 and living in Halls. Other suggestions included Peer Guides being more mature, to offer support beyond Welcome Week and to offer different activities rather than just drinking ones.

The greatest number of the Peer Guides’ comments was the 34% who called for improved organisation and communication relating to Welcome Week. These centred on more and / or earlier information about general arrangements; earlier information about and allocation of the incoming students so they could be contacted prior to their arrival in Bangor; Peer Guide meetings within the school – including the chance to feedback experience to the school co-ordinator; more events or contact time within the academic school. In addition, 10% wanted changes to the allocation of new students to Peer Guides, which were subdivided into those who wanted allocation by Halls or those who wanted allocation by Degree. 10% wanted changes to the activities, including cross school activities and Halls activities, options other than going to the pub and activities beyond Welcome Week. 7% commented on the financial implications of Peer Guiding and wanted some form of reward in the form of refreshments while working, printers credits, petrol claims for those asked to use their cars and payment for those who return to Bangor early and take on the extra responsibility of organising Welcome Week. A further 7% commented on the T shirts with some wanting different colours for different schools, while others thought the different colours worn by some schools detracted from the scheme.

Individual comments that do not fit into these categoriesincluded the need to ensure only committed students were accepted onto the scheme, to recruit greater numbers, more recognition for the diversity of student profile, open day information, a Fresher/Peer Guide area of the website to ease contact prior to arrival, and a Peer Guide newsletter.

The co-ordinators’ comments re-iterated comments made earlier and related to the hard work of the majority of the Peer Guides and to the problems of recruitment.

Apart from the feedback on the surveys there has been informal feedback received through conversations with students and staff. Most of this re-iterates the points made by the above responses and much of it is recognises the very good work the Peer Guides do and there have been specific examples of good practice by named Peer Guides. However, there has been some concern over the level of commitment of some Peer Guides,and the over emphasis on alcohol during Welcome Week. While this is acknowledged it has also been commented that when no-alcohol events have been arranged they have not been well attended.

Conclusions

Figures of 73% rating the Peer Guides as good or very good alongside the 69% of praiseworthy comments show the Peer Guides give valuable and much appreciated help to new students.While much of this help is quite general, significant numbers are working with students who find it more difficult to settle due to problems or who think of withdrawing. Direct comparison of percentage responses between Peer Guides and First Year Students seem to show a discrepancy between the amount of support this is not necessarily the case. For example, while 17% of Peer Guides have supported new students with serious problems, extrapolation of the figure across all Peer Guides would give a figure of 75 new students being supported; in comparison,4% of new students being helped with serious issues would give a figure of80. Also, extrapolation of the numbers would give a figure of 88 Peer Guides working with students thinking of leaving of whom69 have stayed in Bangor.While Peer Guides are not wholly responsible for those students remaining in Bangor, they do contribute to it.

Furthermore, Peer Guides actively support recruitment to the institution, with the majority of those asked to help at Open Days working very positively with prospective students and their families. That combined with the information about the schemes in promotional literature raises awareness of the scheme and a significant number of incoming students considered it had been important in their decision to choose Bangor.

The scheme is generally praised although a small but significant number (13%) of new students felt let down by the scheme. Steps are already being taken to try to address some of the issues in that Peer Guide training retains an emphasis on sensible drinking and there is also strong encouragement for Peer Guides to think inclusively if helping to plan events and for them to be proactive in maintaining contact with the academic school to ensure they have the information they need to effective in their role. It could also be useful if the academic schools undertook some type of evaluation of the Peer Guide activities and support which could be used to inform the planning for the following year.

Recruitment is obviously an issue in that First Years and Peer Guides both want to eliminate those volunteers who are not fully committed to the scheme. However the recruitment of Peer Guides is a major issue for School Peer Guide Co-ordinators, some of whom are unable to recruit enough for to meet the needs of the incoming students. Recruitment might benefit from a new approach and the Central Peer Guide Co-ordinator should investigate this.

Some comments received were contradictory of other comments indicating the impossibility of pleasing everyone. For example some wanted the allocation of Peer Guides to be done on the basis of Halls while others wanted it on the basis of degree course. Similarly some wanted everyone to wear the same colour T shirts while others wanted each academic school to have a different colour.

A new area of comment not seen previously appeared this year and this was the Peer Guides who were concerned about the costs and / or lack of remuneration. There was only one direct payment and that was the consideration of payment for those who return early and take a leading role, working more closely with the school co-ordinator. However, there were also comments received about general recognition of their work by the provision of refreshments whilst on duty or to be given printer credits. There was one specific call to be able to claim expenses where someone had been allocated students further out of Bangor on the basis of having a car. Again, this is an issue that needs consideration as it does seem reasonable that someone is allowed to claim expenses incurred but to introduce payments for Peer Guiding could undermine the success of the scheme, particularly if decisions as to whether students were paid or not varied from one academic school to another.

Comparing the responses with previous years shows a slight downward trend for general support but this is balanced by a slight upward trend in more specific support. The shift in responses was in the main 5% or less. Overall the results were similar to previously with the scheme continuing to be beneficial to the experience of the incoming students, the skills development of the Peer Guides and to the institution in terms of recruitment and retention of students.