Reading Matters is a registered
charity that uses a volunteer-based intervention to support
pupils aged 11 to 16 who are underachieving in literacy.
Identified pupils receive one-to-one reading support
during school hours from trained volunteers from the local
community. As well as having poor skills, many demonstrate
a very poor attitude to reading, regarding it as something
they have to do for school rather than something they would
ever do for enjoyment. The programme is designed to address
pupils' motivation, confidence and attitude to reading,
as well as support their literacy development.
In October 2004, a research team from the School of Educational
and Professional Training at Leeds Metropolitan University
began a three-year evaluation of the short and long-term
benefits of pupils' involvement in the programme. In this
report, they describe their initial findings from 15 schools
across Bradford, Leeds and Wakefield.
The team found that, among participating pupils, the programme
succeeded in changing attitudes to reading. Before the programme,
many had suggested that reading was something that was meant
to take place in school, and "was thus defined by the
sorts of approaches to reading that operate within the class
setting". Following their participation in Reading
Matters, they stated that the reading they undertook during
the programme was different and rewarding.
The reports says, "Most importantly, the research indicated
that the approach taken to making reading different, with
a broader definition of what counted as reading, was a key
factor in motivating participants and getting them to engage
in learning." The researchers conclude that the role
of the volunteer "was key in encouraging even the most
determined 'non-reader'. The enthusiasm and passion they
communicated seemed to re-engage these discouraged learners
- perhaps by exposing them to other types of text and reading
material in general." Furthermore, "the research
indicated that the relaxed, non-threatening environment
that Reading Matters [volunteers] established through their
approach positively contributed towards pupils' feeling
of being supported in their learning."
Tan, J.E.C., Thompson, C. and Hall, K, (2005) Evaluation
of Reading Matters: summary report, year 1 - research
briefing. Leeds Metropolitan University. The research team
can be contacted at j.tan@leedsmet.ac.uk.
For more information on Reading Matters visit www.readingmatters.org.uk.
Earlier
evaluations of Reading Matters (formerly Reading Matters
for Life)
Reviews of research - especially 'systematic
reviews' - are increasingly a method of choice in evidence
based policy and practice, and are often conducted in response
to the desire to know 'what works?'. However, providing
an answer to this deceptively simple question is never straightforward
and frequently impossible. Take mentoring as an example:
- It is everywhere - from the prison to the board room,
from the maternity ward to the hospice.
- Mentoring programmes differ widely in their aims,
target groups and methods, and they are often intertwined
with other initiatives.
- The literature on mentoring in all its forms is huge.
Drawing general 'does it work' lessons from
this mass of vastly different approaches and experiences
is virtually impossible, and attempts to aggregate findings
from widely differing studies, or to 'pool net effects'
may produce misleading results. However, this does not mean
that we cannot learn from the past.
Commonsense suggests that, rather than trying
to cover everything, it is better to focus on a particular
aspect of the topic - in this case, what makes for a good
(or bad) mentoring relationship, especially in the difficult
area of 'engagement mentoring' of disaffected young people.
Even so, the reviewer will still be faced with a daunting
pile of diverse evidence to untangle. Take, for example,
what the literature has to say about the varieties of mentoring
relationship.
The volume of evidence on other key issues
- such as how the partners in a mentoring relationship might
differ from each other - is similarly large and complex.
How can the reviewer make sense of the mentoring relationship
when it exists in so many different applications, and is
composed of so many different human interactions?
What does the review tell us about engagement
mentoring? Policy makers often think about issues in terms
of models:
1. At the one-to-one level (the left-hand
column of arrows) mentoring succeeds best at befriending,
and is progressively less effective at direction-setting,
coaching and advocacy.
2. The successful mentoring relationship is not a simple
one. The downward lightning symbols on the left reflect
the fact that the on-going problems facing disaffected young
people can be expected to disrupt the mentoring relationship.
This needs to be buttressed by further waves of trust-,
resilience- and confidence-building to repair the damage
and then move on (the second left-hand column of arrows).
3. To succeed in its higher objectives of direction-setting,
coaching and advocacy, mentoring needs to look outwards
to the resources of family and peers, youth workers, the
education system etc. (the horizontal arrows). It is very
rare for a single mentor to encompass all the functions
in the left-most column of arrows. 4. Mentees' involvement
with this subsidiary set of bodies is also likely to be
marked by episodes of conflict and back-sliding (the right-hand
lightning arrows), followed by further waves of peace-making,
fence-mending and so on.
The report concludes with several recommendations,
which include:
1. Do not expect quick results from mentoring
programmes for disaffected youth. They can produce good
results but the process is a long and halting one, and their
potential to succeed with the most antagonistic 'hard cases'
is likely to be limited.
2. Do not underestimate the usefulness of volunteer or other
'non-professional' mentors who can do little more than befriend
their mentees. While they cannot deliver higher grade functions
such as direction-setting, coaching and advocacy, they help
to create the essential ground conditions for further improvement.
3. Do not expect mentoring to succeed on its own. If disaffected
young people are to be 'rescued', other organisations need
to be involved in mentoring programmes in order to deliver
the higher grade functions. These bodies, in turn, need
to understand that most disaffected young people will 'relapse'
from time to time, however committed they are to improvement.
Ultimate success will depend on all parties working together
to make peace, mend fences and move on.
Pawson, R. (2004). Mentoring relationships:
an explanatory review, ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based
Policy and Practice: Working Paper 21. University of Leeds:
Department of Sociology and Social Policy.
Download the full report (Pdf) from: www.evidencenetwork.org/Documents/wp21.pdf
The results of Dr Shiner's research into 10
Mentoring Plus programmes run by Crime Concern - involving
370 12 to 19-year-olds at risk of social exclusion - makes
him guardedly optimistic about the value of mentoring. The
research found that the proportion of participants in education,
training and work increased from 49 to 63% during the programme.
There was no change among a similar 'high risk' group of
young people who had been referred to the programme but
did not take part. There was no evidence that mentoring
had any effect on improving family relationships or self-esteem,
or on reducing crime and drug and alcohol use, even though
the general aims of the programme were to target such problems.
Dr Shiner believes that planners must have more realistic
goals and should tailor projects more carefully to achieve
the desired results. The LSE study also found that the difficulties
of engaging with disaffected young people in the Mentoring
Plus scheme were exacerbated by insecure funding, fixed-term
employment for project workers and high staff turnover.
It warns that potentially positive work with young people
could be undermined by such uncertainties.
A picture is certainly emerging of what works
and what does not. US research suggests several key features
in successful mentoring, including monitoring of programmes,
screening and training of prospective mentors, structured
activities, parental involvement and long-lasting contact
between mentors and mantes. Not surprisingly, young people
who have high-quality relationships with their mentors enjoy
the greatest benefit. The eclectic nature of mentors' identities
was also re-echoed by Mr Milligan recently. 'Reading champions,
fathers, brothers, mentors are encouraging boys to put down
the TV remote control and read', he said.
Whatever the arguments, the main message seems
to be that the Government needs to be more down-to-earth
in its expectations. Dr Shiner said: 'State money is being
poured into combating disaffection but we continue to see
rising crime and illiteracy. We need to be realistic about
any sort of intervention, particularly if it is based on
the involvement of volunteers.'
Shiner, M., Young, T., Newburn, T. and Groben,
S. (2004). Mentoring disaffected young people: An evaluation
of Mentoring Plus. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Download this report at www.jrf.org.uk
This qualitative study from Aberdeen University
conducted on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation investigated
the impact of mentoring on young people in three settings:
a housing project, an education project and a befriending
scheme. This study found that most young people reported
greater confidence, increased skills and development in
a number of ways. Mentors also reported satisfaction, seeing
mentoring as a chance to work with rather than on young
people. Mentors were particularly valued by young people
when they shared or were willing to discuss similar backgrounds
and experiences. A few young people had also been inspired
to become mentors or to work with young people themselves.
Overall, mentoring was particularly beneficial when it was
helping young people to come to terms with difficult family
relationships, and the authors concluded that mentoring
can be a useful part of interventions. To be most effective,
the range of mentoring approaches needs to be suited to
the individual's circumstances.
Philip, K., King, C. and Shucksmith, J. (2004).
Sharing a laugh? A qualitative study of mentoring interventions
with young people. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Download this report at www.rjf.org.uk
This report reviews US and UK literature on
the impact of mentoring on young people. It outlines some
of the key features that have been identified to make mentoring
schemes successful, including matching of mentors and mentees,
parental support an frequency of contact. It also highlights
some of the features that may hinder successful mentoring,
including untrained mentors and conflict of roles.
Overall, this report highlights the gaps in
this area of research. Evidence on mentoring and its impact
on young people is predominantly based on US research. Very
few studies have been carried out in the UK. Consequently,
'There is a very poor evidence base in the UK,' said John
Hall, author of the report. 'Claims are made for the impact
of mentoring but there is as yet little evidence to substantiate
them.' According to Dr Hall, even the large-scale studies
carried out in the United States indicate only a limited
influence in specific areas. US mentoring has had its biggest
successes with young people who have difficult or high-risk
behaviour, and the best results have been achieved in education
and employment. But researchers in the US have also questioned
the overall impact of mentoring programmes.
The most thorough research review carried
out there - for the National Institute of Justice, Washington
- found that community-based mentoring schemes could only
be described as 'promising'. The researchers concluded that
there was too little information to justify support from
policy-makers. 'The priority is for more research, not more
unevaluated programmes,' the study said.
Hall, J.C. (2003). Mentoring and young people:
A literature review. Glasgow: The SCRE Centre, University
of Glasgow.
Download this report at www.scre.ac.uk
This evaluation of the Scottish Enterprise
e-mentoring study shows that the programme is an effective
way of connecting secondary school pupils with adult mentors
working in Scotland's key economic sectors. The programme
aims to:
- link learning at school with skills for the world
of work
- motivate pupils to succeed in school and life
- help develop pupil's ICT skills and encourage the
use of computer technology in situations other than
the computing class
- improve companies' understanding of schools and allow
input into education from industry
- offer companies an effective and satisfying corporate
citizenship project and provide a personal development
opportunity for employees
Pupils are linked electronically to individual
mentors and correspondence is limited to a weekly email
in supervised class time. Company mentors have a week in
which to respond to their mentees.
For further information on this programme
click here
The evidence of the impact and outcomes of
mentoring in this Nfer report is based on the evaluation
of the National Mentoring Network's bursary programme 1999-2000,
which was carried out by the Nfer. This report shows that
having a mentor significantly increased mentees' self-image
scores and 'knowledge of the future' scores, but had no
effect on mentees' enthusiasm for learning. More specifically,
mentees believed that they were more confident talking to
people they do not know, better at organising their own
work (a belief that was corroborated by school coordinators)
and were better at thinking and acting for themselves. Since
having a mentor, mentees also believed that they know what
qualifications they needed for the future and how to go
about getting such qualifications. Although mentees did
not show greater enthusiasm for learning, mentoring had
a positive effect on the achievement in English, literacy
and communication skills. Overall, this report concludes
that mentoring can make a valuable contribution to young
people's development and education.
Golden, S. (2000). The impact and outcomes
of mentoring. Slough: Nfer.
80px.gif)
